THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[Marilyn C]

What does God's teach about those that cannot take a joke?

Where do you claim God is going to move Heaven to???

Revelation 21:1-27
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true

I`m not the one saying God is moving heaven.

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, good point. However, there are different inheritances.

Israel to rule over the nation on the earth. (1 Kings 2: 45)
The OT saints to be in the New Jerusalem. (Heb. 11: 16)
The Body of Christ to be on the Lord`s own throne in the highest. (Rev. 3: 21 4: 2 - 6 Eph. 1: 20 - 22)

I was discussing Doug's claim that Peter preached one Gospel, but Paul another Gospel.
I don't accept that claim.

 

[Marilyn C]

I was discussing Doug's claim that Peter preached one Gospel, but Paul another Gospel.
I don't accept that claim.

Thank you for explaining that. I would put it like this,

Peter and the other 11 apostles received revelation from the Lord, and then when Christ ascended to the Father and was made Head of the Body, we read that He gave Paul further revelation of His purposes.

 

[GracePeace]

Thank you for explaining that. I would put it like this,

Peter and the other 11 apostles received revelation from the Lord, and then when Christ ascended to the Father and was made Head of the Body, we read that He gave Paul further revelation of His purposes.

Are you saying you agree with Doug?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I`m not the one saying God is moving heaven.

However you are the one ignoring Revelation 21:1-27, and I'm not the one saying God is going to move Heaven - the Lord is saying that in His Word.

I was discussing Doug's claim that Peter preached one Gospel, but Paul another Gospel.
I don't accept that claim.

Good for you man, it's definitely a false claim.

we read that He gave Paul further revelation of His purposes.

And the Lord also gave revelation to the other biblical writers as they are all equally as important.

 

[Marilyn C]

Are you saying you agree with Doug?

Somethings I agree with Doug. We agree that Israel is the bride. However, I wouldn`t express that Paul has a different gospel, (good news) I would rather say he was given further revelation.

 

[Marilyn C]

However you are the one ignoring Revelation 21:1-27, and I'm not the one saying God is going to move Heaven - the Lord is saying that in His Word.






Good for you man, it's definitely a false claim.






And the Lord also gave revelation to the other biblical writers as they are all equally as important.

I don`t seem to have those scriptures in my Bible, BBJ. Can you point them out to me please where heaven come to earth?

As it is the Holy Spirit writing His word then no one gets any glory.

 

[GracePeace]

Somethings I agree with Doug. We agree that Israel is the bride. However, I wouldn`t express that Paul has a different gospel, (good news) I would rather say he was given further revelation.

OK
1. My recent response to Doug, which you responded to, was about my disagreement with him on his view that Peter and Paul preached different Gospels, and that the result was Peter's audience became "the remnant of Israel", whereas Paul's audience became "the body of Christ"--I hold that all believers are in the body of Christ.
2. I would disagree that the Church is not the Bride : Christ is the antitype to Adam. and Adam's bride was his own body, and, so, Christ's own body, the Church, is His bride.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Can you point them out to me please where heaven come to earth?

Revelation 21:1-27
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true

 

[GracePeace]

Somethings I agree with Doug. We agree that Israel is the bride. However, I wouldn`t express that Paul has a different gospel, (good news) I would rather say he was given further revelation.

OK
1. My recent response to Doug, which you responded to, was about my disagreement with him on his view that Peter and Paul preached different Gospels, and that the result was Peter's audience became "the remnant of Israel", whereas Paul's audience became "the body of Christ"--I hold that all believers are in the body of Christ.
2. I would disagree that the Church is not the Bride : Christ is the antitype to Adam. and Adam's bride was his own body, and, so, Christ's own body, the Church, is His bride.

Think of what you are saying : Jesus says "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it", speaking of Peter, making Peter a member of the Church, yet you want to define Peter as a member of the bride, because he is of the remnant of Israel, but simultaneously deny that the Church is the bride!!!

@Doug this is for you too.

 

[Jay Ross]

This verse has been referenced in a number of threads.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

After checking my Interlinear, it is my view that the translation of this verse does not actually match the Greek text at all.

I would suggest that the following paraphrasing more closely matches the Greek text: -

Now I saw a renewed/refreshed heaven and a renewed/refreshed earth/land, for the first heaven and the first earth/land had passed/moved away. Also, there was no more sea.​

But I am sure that there will be other members that will want to justify the verse as it has been translated in the various translations: -

​

New International Version​

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.​

​

New Living Translation​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.​

​

English Standard Version​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.​

​

Berean Standard Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.​

​

Berean Literal Bible​

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.​

​

King James Bible​

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.​

​

New King James Version​

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.​

​

New American Standard Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

NASB 1995​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

NASB 1977​

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

Legacy Standard Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

Amplified Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away (vanished), and there is no longer any sea.​

Simply just believing our favourite translations without verifying the translation's contextual accuracy is always fraught with problems in our understanding of the texts.

 

[GracePeace]

@Doug Are you a "Black Hebrew Israelite"?

 

[GracePeace]

We are talking about why it would be sinful for Peter to eat with Gentiles Numbers says nothing about not eating with Gentiles.......could be a tradition but not in the law

Numbers 23
9“As I see him from the top of the rocks,
And I look at him from the hills;
Behold, a people who dwells apart,
And will not be reckoned among the nations [Gentiles].

1. The text says Israel will dwell alone and not be numbered with the Gentiles.
2. Therefore, they found fault with both his going to the Gentiles' home, and with eating with them.
3. Peter was told to eat unclean food, and, then, he ate with Gentiles. This is because if the food laws are not observed "carefully", they are not observed at all. There are laws on the plates and utensils, the pots, the stove, the home, etc, that he would have to be careful to follow, which, going to a Gentile's home, he wouldn't have been able to have been careful to follow.

No, it was not a "tradition"--Jesus had taught His disciples very well not to fear the traditions of the elders, describing them as "vain worship", "doctrines of men", whereby they broke God's Law, so Peter would not, now, say "The traditions of the elders say it is unlawful for Jews to eat with Gentiles", but, as I said, the text clearly states that Israel will not be numbered among the Gentiles, but dwells alone.

The Laws the Jews followed did not only come from the Sinai Covenant, but were gleaned from the entirety of the Torah (first five books).
Paul, for instance, says "you know our tradition when we were with you that whoever did not work did not eat"--that is Genesis 3, where it says, "by the sweat of your brow you shall eat food".

Again and again, you know nothing at all about the things of which you speak, so you need to tread lightly so that you don't mislead people. Quit being insane.

 

[Lizbeth]

Good thoughts there. Just a question - Where do you read of the Body of Christ in the city?

Sister, it is the church which is bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh because she was taken out of Him. The heavenly city is not an earthly city with literal buildings and shops and literal streets. It is made up of His people, His body....the concept of a city is only a picture of the gathering together of God's people.

In case it helps, when Gentiles come to faith in Christ/Messiah we join the Israel of God, we become part of their twelve tribes and belong to them. (Just like any Gentile who immigrated to Israel after the flesh in ancient times would have settled among one of the twelve tribes and become part of it and of Israel.) We need to think in spiritual terms.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Have you ever looked up at the universal heavens? Well, how is all that going to fit on this speck of dirt?

The dimensions are given.
Why would that be if it were not so?

 

[Lizbeth]

There is an earthly Zion and a heavenly one.

Yes, but earthly Zion/Jerusalem is temporal as all things earthly are temporal. Sadly, it will be burned up at the return of Christ, along with the rest of this world, in accordance with 2Peter 3. The flood of Noah's time gives us a picture....only those earthly inhabitants who get on board the "ark" (in Christ) will be spared the wrath of God.

 

[rebuilder 454]

@Doug Are you a "Black Hebrew Israelite"?

His doctrine is hyperpalline doctrine.
We used to have one of those type of guys in our men's Bible study and he also bucked up at any notion that Jesus has a bride.
He started kissing his own arm in the Bible study.
He said to us "Do you see how perverted that is? Jesus loving on his own body?"
I shake my head in disbelief at that doctrine.
I totally believe that hyper pauline doctrine is a Antichrist spirit.
They minimize Jesus and they exalt Paul

 

[Lizbeth]

Israel to rule over the nation on the earth. (1 Kings 2: 45)

What if temporal Israel were to rule over the temporal nations of this temporal earth for a little while (in accordance with a false messiah ruling from a temporal brick and mortar Temple)....which I believe is a possibility.....what eternal good would it do them? Each unbelieving Jewish soul is still going to die at the end of this short little life and face God's judgment. And would the nations of the world enjoy being ruled over by a foreign power? Sister..........the flesh profits NOTHING. We really need to get hold of that truth.

 

[Lizbeth]

Somethings I agree with Doug. We agree that Israel is the bride. However, I wouldn`t express that Paul has a different gospel, (good news) I would rather say he was given further revelation.

Yes, it's the one and same gospel for Jew and Gentile, but Paul had more revelation at first, that the Gentiles could be included in the gospel just the same as the Jews.

 

[rebuilder 454]

This verse has been referenced in a number of threads.



After checking my Interlinear, it is my view that the translation of this verse does not actually match the Greek text at all.

I would suggest that the following paraphrasing more closely matches the Greek text: -

Now I saw a renewed/refreshed heaven and a renewed/refreshed earth/land, for the first heaven and the first earth/land had passed/moved away. Also, there was no more sea.​

But I am sure that there will be other members that will want to justify the verse as it has been translated in the various translations: -

​

New International Version​

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.​

​

New Living Translation​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.​

​

English Standard Version​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.​

​

Berean Standard Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.​

​

Berean Literal Bible​

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.​

​

King James Bible​

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.​

​

New King James Version​

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.​

​

New American Standard Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

NASB 1995​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

NASB 1977​

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

Legacy Standard Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.​

​

Amplified Bible​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away (vanished), and there is no longer any sea.​

Simply just believing our favourite translations without verifying the translation's contextual accuracy is always fraught with problems in our understanding of the texts.

Nope nope nope.
I looked it up.
The interlinear DOES NOT agree with you.

Also, here is a copy & paste from Bible hub;

Biblical Scope of “Newness”
The adjective translated “new” (Strong’s Greek 2537) appears forty-two times across the New Testament, proclaiming God’s decisive in-breaking to transform creation, covenant, humanity, worship, and destiny. The term emphasizes quality more than chronology: what God brings is not merely recent but radically different, fresh, and unprecedented, yet perfectly consistent with His earlier revelation.