The Bride of Christ

[steaver]

Steaver here is your opening statement. Here you say every saved individual is going to make up the bride of Christ.

Then you agreed with me that not every saved individual is going to make up the bride of Christ. I'm confused. Do you believe that every saved individuals makes up the bride of Christ or not?

It is a fair question. Terms like "saved" and "christian" or "born again" are all used rather loosely.

When you said "saved" I assumed you meant from Adam right through till the end. "Saved" is not really an OT term, it was introduced in the NT as one who has been born of God through Jesus Christ AFTER the ressurrection. "Born again" was never used or heard of in the OT.

So with that said, let me say it this way. All of those "born of God" post ressurrection are those who are called the bride of Christ. Those saints who died and went to paradise pre-ressurrection are not the bride of Christ, these are guest. Those "saved" through the Tribulation are neither guest nor the bride yet they will enjoy the kingdom.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

(Jump)...Yes and I told you exactly what I "know" that to be true, because other Scripture contradicts what you are saying. Therefore those are the only two options availabe.

There is a third opition, but you could not possibly be mistaken!

The problem is that you are misinterpreting "types" and building bridges without scripture holding those bridges up. They are held up only by Jump's pov because Jump has created the bridge solely in his mind and I would add only because some other poor soul put this stuff in your head to begin with. There is no way you sat down one day and saw this pov on your own study. Someone filled you with this, someone who has rejected sound doctrine and they too was filled with it from another. I asked my brother who was the first one to teach this strange doctrine and he never could tell me. Do you know whence it came from? Nee is as far back as I know of.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

Well let's just let at the text Cutter and see if that is true.

13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Okay here is the text. Jesus is telling someone to enter through the narrow gate. So who was the audience of this text? It was the disciples. So Jesus is telling the disciples to enter through the narrow gate that leads to life, so even though they were saved (they were disciples - can't be a disciple without being saved) they still had to enter through the narrow gate tht leads to life.

Many will enter through the gate that leads to desruction. It doesn't say anywhere in that text that this is reference to all people. And the fact that the disciples (saved people) are still in need of entering there is no way that this contextually can be talking about everlasting life. The disciples already had that and didn't need to enter into anything to get something they already had.


I think that is a logical statement. However that is not contextually what this text is talking about. So while your statement is true you can't apply it to this text.


This is a true statement as well, because Christian means Christ-like in behavior. So Christians are not on the broad way that is very true. However not all saved people are Christians. You need just read this board for a few days and you can see that not all saved people behave in a Christ-like manner.


This is a statement that is also written to "saved" individuals. Wonder why "saved" people would need to be "saved" by the name of Jesus Christ?

If all of Israel was saved, and Jesus came not to preach eternal life but instead came to preach the kingdom, why were they excluded from the kingdom?

Nobody behaves in a Christ like manner 100% of the time, therefore there are NO saved Christians. (according to your bizarre theology)

 

[steaver]

I have you four references. I didn't know that I needed to give you specific chapters and verses? Genesis 2 is where you can read about Adam and Eve and it's somewhere in the middle where you can read about Isaac meeting Rebekah and taking her as his wife. Probably in the mid 20s (chapter 25-26 maybe) and then Ruth and Orpah are in the first part of the book of Ruth.

But can you direct one to the scriptural bridge that declares these references are speaking of what you claim they are? Or is that something the student must extract from the air somewhere?

Show us the detail in these passages that supports your position. You can't just make a general statement about them and declare one has been shown.

I already went through this "typing" in the "Does God know you" thread with James and Hope. They could not give one scripture that types a born of God child as a goat. YET, you guys go on about your way teaching that Matt 25's goats are the born of God. Why? How can anyone penetrate such stubborness? Even when clearly refuted you will not budge. And you guys say...."I am willing to change if you show me I am wrong". This is false, you have been shown that goats are never typed as those who have faith in our God. Yet, no change.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

If all of Israel was saved, and Jesus came not to preach eternal life but instead came to preach the kingdom, why were they excluded from the kingdom?

Nobody behaves in a Christ like manner 100% of the time, therefore there are NO saved Christians. (according to your bizarre theology)

Amen sister!

But don't let them confuse you. The kingdom of God/Heaven is already here spiritually in us believers. The physical kingdom, (what will be seen set up on earth at Jesus' return) , is to come and we will be there in it as His bride. Jesus did come preaching the kingdom and that kingdom includes eternal life. It is here, it is to come as well (two different manifestations of one kingdom) .

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Eliyahu]

I already went through this "typing" in the "Does God know you" thread with James and Hope. They could not give one scripture that types a born of God child as a goat. YET, you guys go on about your way teaching that Matt 25's goats are the born of God. Why? How can anyone penetrate such stubborness? Even when clearly refuted you will not budge. And you guys say...."I am willing to change if you show me I am wrong". This is false, you have been shown that goats are never typed as those who have faith in our God. Yet, no change.

God Bless! :thumbs:

I have no doubt that the goats in Mt 25 are the fake Christians. They look like sheep but different.

It is time for us to discern between Sheep and Goats, not between Sheep and Wolves.

 

[Eliyahu]

Steaver,

Agreeing with the most of the previous statements by you on OP, the followings may remain uncertain.

Now, in addition to the initial clothing, she has granted to her (still all of grace) fine linen, clean and white. It is identified as the righteous acts (Gr is plural, dikaiomata) of the saints. How has she obtained these? It is inescapable that the judgment seat of Christ has already been held in order to grant rewards to the saints for fathful service to Christ (cf. 2Cor 5:10). What a recognition day that will be!

9. But another important element of every wedding is the guest, so John is instructed to indicate Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. These are the friends of the Bridegroom (cf. Jn 3:29); the guest are seen in another figure as the virgins, the companions of the bride (cf. Ps 45:9, 14). They are probably all Old Testament saints. All others than the church are the guests at the marriage supper.

For example, who are the friends of the Groom?
Who are the guests for the Wedding Party?
Bridegroom is Jesus Christ, then who will form the Bride, though we know she is the Church.
Then will all the Christian believers become the Bride?
Or only the 144,000 will be the Bride, and the rest will be the guests and friends?
Rev 14 doesn't seem to show us all the Believers are the Bride.
These are questionable and I am still in the meditation about it.

 

[J. Jump]

The NT is written to believers so that they may understand their salvation

If you don't understand salvation then you aren't saved. How hard is it to understand that the Lamb of God died and shed His blood in your place. Seems simple enough to me.

It doesn't take 27 books to explain that simple Truth.

 

[J. Jump]

I think they reek of truth. And you don't like it.

I love Truth. And when you have spoken it I have said as much. But you mix a lot of error in with your Truth. And no I don't like that.

 

[J. Jump]

All of those "born of God" post ressurrection are those who are called the bride of Christ.

Thanks for your clarification. However Scripture disagrees with this Scripture. I've given four examples and could go on and on that says this is not so.

By the way do you have any OT types that say all "born of God" are going to be the bride of Christ, or is this something you "only" find in the NT?

 

[J. Jump]

There is a third opition, but you could not possibly be mistaken!

Oh no I could be mistaken and I don't have any problem admitting that. I had to drop a number of teachings I grew up with that were shown to be Scripturally incorrect. So admitting that I am wrong or have made a mistake is very simple for me to do.

The problem is that you are misinterpreting "types" and building bridges without scripture holding those bridges up.

Well as usual you make a statement with nothing to back it up. So I'm just supposed to believe you why? Please show me "how" I am misinterpreting the "types." Saying so doesn't make it so.

They are held up only by Jump's pov because Jump has created the bridge solely in his mind and I would add only because some other poor soul put this stuff in your head to begin with.

Again I need more than your opinion.

There is no way you sat down one day and saw this pov on your own study.

No actually it's not. I have been studying these things for about two years now. Although there have been others that have in fact to this conclusion just studying the Scriptures.

Do you know whence it came from? Nee is as far back as I know of.

How far do you want to go back? Jesus preached it. Paul, Peter, John. It was written about in the OT, but I don't think many of them had a very good grasp on the situation. That's why it was called a mystery for so long.

 

[J. Jump]

If all of Israel was saved,

Well they were. They had to be, because the message was a spiritual message and one that spiritually dead people couldn't even understand much less accept. However we know that Israel should have understood this message, especially the "teachers" in Israel. Just another proof that they were saved.

Jesus came not to preach eternal life but instead came to preach the kingdom, why were they excluded from the kingdom?

Well He did preach eternal life. And as has been shown to you many times in the past your view and the view of 21st century Christendom regarding "eternal" is skewed.

Israel was excluded from the Kingdom because the nation didn't accept the national offer. However there was a remnant as always that did accept the Truth and they will be a part of the kingdom of the heavens. But it was a national offer.

Nobody behaves in a Christ like manner 100% of the time, therefore there are NO saved Christians. (according to your bizarre theology)

And here is where you make one of your biggest mistakes Amy. No one is talking about absolute perfection. Of course no one behaves in a Christ-like manner 100% of the time. One just need read this board for a fews days to see evidence of this unfortunate Truth.

However, because God knows that we are still imperfect and that our sin nature has not been competely done away with He has given us and Advocate, Whose blood still remains on the mercy seat. And while we can not be 100% perfect we can be blameless. And that's all we are asked to be.

Elizabeth and Zachariah were said to be blameless when it came to the law. Does that mean they were perfect? Of course not. But when they broke the law they made amends according to the law.

Paul said the same of himself.

We still have rules to live by. And if we run outside the lines we can confess and He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us. And when we avail ourselves of the blood of Christ then we are blameless. However if we do not confess and we do not avail ourselves of the blood of Christ then we are not blameless. We are guilty as charged.

You can see this truth in the footwashing ceremony where it says we have all received our complete bath. But we continue to get contaminated with the world and are in need of periodic cleansing. And Jesus said if we do not allow Him to wash us then we will have not part "with" Him. Notice it doesn't say "in" Him, it says "with" Him.

This is taken from the OT type of the priests getting a complete washing before entering into the priesthood. It was never repeated (another example of why once saved always saved is true by the way), but they had to wash at the laver before they could enter the Holy of Holies.

Again this doctrine is taught from the beginning of Scripture until the end. And that is one of the biggest problems with church tradition is that you can't find any teaching in the OT in type. And so what folks have done is say well you can't teach doctrine from types. That excuses them of having to find "their" doctrine in the whole council of God.

 

[J. Jump]

Show us the detail in these passages that supports your position. You can't just make a general statement about them and declare one has been shown.

Steaver why do you want detail. You folks crack me up. You are bound and determined that we are wrong, yet you folks CONSTANTLY ask for more and more and more and more. And when we don't give you enough you ask for more detail just so you can so I don't believe it.

Why do you want me to waste me time laying something out in great detail when you aren't even willing to believe it in the first place. And if you aren't going to believe the overall picture what in the world makes you think adding detail is going to help?

You all really do crack me up.

But let me just give you one bit of detail just so you can't accuse me of anything. And this will be enough to show you that your view is not based in Scripture.

Adam is a type of Christ. Adam is the first man and Christ is the second man. A lot of people don't even know why God has a wife (Israel - although unfaithful at this moment) and why Christ will one day have a wife.

The answer lies in Adam. Mankind was originally created to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1). And God said let "them" have dominion. It was to be Adam and his wife (helpmate) that ruled over the earth.

That's why Christ has to have a wife, because rulership over the earth from man's perspective has to be in a husband-wife relationship. I don't know why God set it up that way, but that's the way He did.

Now who is going to be Christ's bride. Well we can find at least a portion of that answer again in Adam. Who was Adam's wife? Eve.

Adam was put to sleep (type of death) and Eve was taken from his body. Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. So Eve was formed from Adam's body. Now was Eve made up of "all" of Adam's body or just a "portion" of Adam's body? That's right a "portion."

The type is partial and therefore the entire body of Christ can not make up the bride of Christ, because it would destroy the type. Adam's wife was made up of a portion of his body and Christ's wife will be made up of a portion of His body.

Now I know that doesn't give the "whole" picture as type-anti-types aren't designed to do that in one place. That why we are to build line upon line and precept upon precept. Here a little and there a little.

But that is enough to show folks that not every "saved" individual is going to make up the bride of Christ. It's only going to be a portion of His body. And it will be a small portion as the rib is a small porition of the whole. Which this Truth is supported in the NT.

Gotta run.

 

[Amy.G]

JJump:

Why do you want me to waste me time laying something out in great detail when you aren't even willing to believe it in the first place. And if you aren't going to believe the overall picture what in the world makes you think adding detail is going to help?

Then why do you waste our time constantly defending your position with your innumerable posts when you already know we aren't going to believe this bizarre teaching?

 

[Cutter]

Well let's just let at the text Cutter and see if that is true.

13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Okay here is the text. Jesus is telling someone to enter through the narrow gate. So who was the audience of this text?

The audience has been everyone that has ever read or heard the Word of God!!!
I can't believe you want to limit the scope of the Word to only those that heard it when it was originally delivered. Wise up and see the big picture. God's view! It's crystal clear and uncomplicated, unlike much theology today, including yours Mr. Jump.

 

[J. Jump]

Then why do you waste our time constantly defending your position with your innumerable posts when you already know we aren't going to believe this bizarre teaching?

So once again you can't answer the question I posed so you have to try to take the attention off of yourself and put it back on someone else. Why ask for what you don't want?

I answer because I don't want to give you grounds to accuse me, but you all do it anyway falsely. So I guess it really doens't matter whether I answer your questions are not.

But I love how you try to turn everything away from yourself and onto someone else. You are quickly learning the tricks of the debate trade Amy. But that's not a good thing by the way!

 

[J. Jump]

The audience has been everyone that has ever read or heard the Word of God!!!

That is true after it was written down. However part of correct Biblical interpretation is audience. You can't necessarily apply promises made to Israel to the Church today. The church is not a replacement for Israel although some incorrectly teach that.

Audience is a big key to context.

I can't believe you want to limit the scope of the Word to only those that heard it when it was originally delivered.

Again that is part of proper interpretation. Not "everything" in Scripture applies to you.

Wise up and see the big picture. God's view!

I'm not sure that is wise council coming from someone that just told me that we are to basically ignore the intended audience of a text. Even people that don't agree with me theologically are going to tell you you can't ingore the audience in Biblical interpretation. That's pretty elementary. Context rules Biblical interpretation and audience is a part of context.

It's crystal clear and uncomplicated, unlike much theology today, including yours Mr. Jump.

Obviously that's not a true statement or everyone would believe the same thing. And it is "cyrstal clear" that everyone does not. Man gets in the way all too often.

However when man removes himself from the picture then yes God's Truth is crystal clear and uncomplicated unlike much of Christendom's theology today.

By the way do you have any Scriptural proof that the folks Jesus preached to were spiritually dead?

 

[Cutter]

By the way do you have any Scriptural proof that the folks Jesus preached to were spiritually dead?

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay I read over the material and it is just as I suspected. It is commentary supporting your OP that every saved individual makes up the bride of Christ. Therefore what I said in the beginning still holds true. The OT types of Adam and Eve, Isaac and Rebekah and Ruth and Orpah tell us this isn't true.

And the NT text of the broad way and the narrow way tell us this isn't true.

Being a part of the bride of Christ is equated to life in the age to come. It has to do with His coming kingdom.

You preach TWO Gospels and so your doctrine is wrong.

Christ said in Matt 24 "THIS GOSPEL of the kingdom shall be PREACHED in all the world and THEN shall the end come".

And His Word ALSO teaches "there is only ONE GOSPEL" Gal 1:6-11.

You keep trying to invent "another gospel". One where hell is really purgatory for 1000 years for the saints to pay for their own venial sins the go to heaven.

You keep trying to invent the idea of "saved but not a part of the body of Christ or bride of Christ or saint or ..."

Your second gospel is not taught in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.

Sorry Cutter, but nothing in that text says or even implies that the folks that Jesus preached to in the gospels are spiritually dead. Care to try again?