|
Actscelerate.com Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Message |
Author |
Re: Porpoise... |
Porpoise Driven Neptune |
Yo Dude wrote: | To my recollection, I was not laughing at your logic. I was laughing in that you called MY logic into question.
I do agree that Jesus can be both, say, the sacrifice and the High Priest. We understand and agree on that.
But the difference in the Bride is a bit different I think because the Bible indicates CLEARLY that the New Jerusalem is the bride (wife of the Lamb). Now, that doesn't mean we aren't the Bride--we might indeed be. BUT, let's just be clear that there is not CLEAR scripture that we are.
The ONLY clear scripture we have as to just who the bride is...well, it says that the New Jerusalem is.
Now, it could mean by that the INHABITANTS are the Bride, I don't know. But in any case, we are forced to extrapolate...and we have to be careful on building on that, unless we have a word from God. |
OK, you'll have to start laughing again - because I can't follow your logic at all.
Your analogy about Jesus being the High Priest & the sacrifice is irrelevant because it is confusing typology with parables. The idea of the church being the wedding guests is not typology.
You have neglected to answer my 2 points again. So I'll try a third time. Maybe if we take them one at a time you will find it less confusing.
Are you arguing that if a metaphor is used to denote one thing (ie The Bride to denote the New Jerusalem) in one passage of Scripture then that same metaphor cannot be used to denote something else in another part of Scripture? Your previous posts indicate that you believe that if the metaphor of the Bride is applied to the New Jerusalem then it is impossible for it to be applied elsewhere to the Church. Can you please confirm or deny this. |
Acts-celerater Posts: 969 4/3/06 10:34 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Re: Porpoise... |
Full Tilt Whitey |
Yo Dude wrote: | To my recollection, I was not laughing at your logic. I was laughing in that you called MY logic into question.
I do agree that Jesus can be both, say, the sacrifice and the High Priest. We understand and agree on that.
But the difference in the Bride is a bit different I think because the Bible indicates CLEARLY that the New Jerusalem is the bride (wife of the Lamb). Now, that doesn't mean we aren't the Bride--we might indeed be. BUT, let's just be clear that there is not CLEAR scripture that we are.
The ONLY clear scripture we have as to just who the bride is...well, it says that the New Jerusalem is.
Now, it could mean by that the INHABITANTS are the Bride, I don't know. But in any case, we are forced to extrapolate...and we have to be careful on building on that, unless we have a word from God. |
So all we need is someone to come up with a new scripture to clear this up. Yo Dude, get out your scroll and start writing! |
Friendly Face Posts: 359 4/3/06 11:56 am
|
|
| |
|
Re: We are NOT the Bride of Christ... |
curly |
There is no Scripture to prove the marriage is right after the rapture. Read Rev.19: 1-16. It is right before the second coming when Jesus comes back to earth. Not after the rapture! Church of God preachers have always preached the marriage supper of the Lamb would take place right after the rapture, but it isn't so. It will take place in Rev. chapter 19 not in chapters 4 and 5 of Rev. |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1754 4/3/06 4:55 pm
|
|
| |
|
So Jesus is going to marry walls of Jasper? |
BlessedinMsTn |
I mean come on, if your saying the New Jerusalem is the Bride then your saying that Christ is in love with his own streets of Gold and gates of pearl..... Surely any logical thinking proves to us that when Paul was referring to presenting US as a chaste virgin who has already been betrothed to Jesus Christ . . . . .he was talking of people and not a city . .
When John the Revelator saw ten thousand times ten thousand saints returning with him and ministering unto him, that's what a bride does . . . .the streets of Gold will not be ministering to Christ, we will and then we will rule with him as Kings and Priest over the New Creation _________________ www.thevaughnfamily.org
The Remnant are Returning. Foundations are being Restored. All Breaches are being Repaired. The Body of Christ is Rising! |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6126 4/3/06 6:51 pm
|
|
| |
|
Re: We are NOT the Bride of Christ... |
TheoloJohn |
In view of the highly symbolic nature of The Revelation of St. John, I think it is at least a plausible explanation to say that the New Jerusalem is a metaphorical or figurative expression that actually refers to the glorified church of Jesus Christ (all the redeemed). Note that in this same passage, it says "the tabernacle of God is among men," and yet just a few verses later it says that there is no need for a temple (or tabernacle) in the city. Further, since John's Gospel reveals that Christ "tabernacled" among us (Jn 1:14) in becoming flesh, it seems most consistent with the rest of Scripture to say that "the tabernacle of God is among men" refers to CHRIST.
Also, since Jesus refers to himself as "the bridegroom" it would seem quite difficult to imagine how we could have a bridegroom without a bride.
My 2.5c (adjusted for inflation) _________________ "Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006 |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2160 4/3/06 7:10 pm
|
|
| |
|
Porpoise... |
Yo Dude |
No, I am not saying that the same metaphor cannot be used in multiple ways.
And I realize that COULD be the case with the New Jerusalem...but I think it wrong to make such a leap to the place that we are naming churches after such a leap.
It would be tantamount to me starting the OSAS Church...or the Pre-Trib Church.
Quite simply, when it's not clear in scripture, and we have no revelation, then let's stick with what we KNOW.
Love. |
Acts-dicted Posts: 8625 4/5/06 6:38 am
|
|
| |
|
Yo Dude ... |
Porpoise Driven Neptune |
Thanks. Glad we cleared that up. |
Acts-celerater Posts: 969 4/5/06 7:05 am
|
|
| |
|
Re: Porpoise... |
Full Tilt Whitey |
Yo Dude wrote: | No, I am not saying that the same metaphor cannot be used in multiple ways.
And I realize that COULD be the case with the New Jerusalem...but I think it wrong to make such a leap to the place that we are naming churches after such a leap.
It would be tantamount to me starting the OSAS Church...or the Pre-Trib Church.
Quite simply, when it's not clear in scripture, and we have no revelation, then let's stick with what we KNOW.
Love. |
Yo Dude, your position for the last several months, maybe longer, has been: Quite simply, when it's not clear in scripture, and we have no revelation, then get a revelation and claim that it's a new scripture. |
Friendly Face Posts: 359 4/6/06 10:05 am
|
|
| |
|
THE TRANSFORMED SOUL IS THE BRIDE OF CHRIST. |
happytobeback |
The soul being transformed by the renewing of the ,soul, is the Bride of Christ.
For God so loved the world that He gave his only SON, that the world might be saved. _________________ Richard W. Kennedy
Explainer of the Word |
Friendly Face Posts: 160 6/28/07 3:17 pm
|
|
| |
|
Re: Wardline... |
onetruegod |
[quote="Yo Dude"]My point is to KEEP "we are the bride" from becoming, like the faulty pre-trib rapture position, part of the accepted theology/doctrine of the church.
If it is not clear that we are the bride, then we should not build churches, doctrine, or whatever around it.
And if you don't like what I'm having to say, well, I can only say that you are welcome to avoid my posts, my brother (but I hope you won't!).
As for disagreeing with my positions...let's see....
You do NOT believe that God is still speaking to us as He did the early church?
Because one of my doctrinal positions is that He is still speaking to His church--whether we want to acknowledge it as scripture-class or not, a true word from God is just the same as it was then.
Love.[/quote]
You keep speaking of your doctrine - but isn't doctrine man-made? Doctrines are as many as there are churches. God isn't a doctrine or a denomination. That is all man-made. |
Friendly Face Posts: 106 7/30/07 11:49 pm
|
|
| |
|
The Bride of Chris is the Transformed Soul |
happytobeback |
John 3:16- For God soul loved the world( not the globe, not the land, but the soul) he gave His only begotten Son. He gave His Son as the groom and the soul was the bride. _________________ Richard W. Kennedy
Explainer of the Word |
Friendly Face Posts: 160 9/4/07 1:58 pm
|
|
| |
|
happytobeback....................... |
onetruegod |
Forgive me for my ignorance here, but doesn't John 3:16 state the following:
John 3:16-36 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
He so loved the world, not soul loved the world. How can you make that an argument or topic for discussion? Am I missing something here? I am not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to get a full understanding of what you are claiming. |
Friendly Face Posts: 106 9/6/07 9:47 am
|
|
| |
|
|
|