What Sins Are Christians Capable Of?

[DHK]

The whole body of Christ will be taken back to heaven, but the whole body will not become part of the bride. You comparing apples and oranges. You started talking about the bride then you start talking about the rapture.

That is because the entire bride is raptured.

Christ will come back and He will take the entire body as you say, but that doesn't prove the point that every member of the body becomes the bride.

Where is your evidence that it doesn't? He is coming for His bride.

If what you say is true that destroys several OT types including Adam and Eve.

Do you create your doctrine from OT allegories or from the truth of the statements of the NT. There are plenty of stories to allegorize in the Old Testament. I read about a couple that got married because of a preachers allegorization of walking around the walls of Jericho seven times. He walked around his girl friend seven times; then they decided to marry. You can make the Bible say anything you want through allegorization. Make up your own doctrine.

The doctrine that you quoted, about Eve being the bride, comes straight from Roman Catholicism.

Eve which typifies the bride of Christ came out of the body of Adam, who is a type of Christ. Now was Eve all the body of Adam or was she a part of Adam's body?

What Catholic commentaries have you been reading recently? Are you implying that Christ was married, or that you have been paying too much attention to movies such as Da'Vinci's Inquest which denies the deity of Christ and also seeks to put Christ as a married man. Either way you seem to be very confused on this point.

She was a part of Adam's body. So will the bride that comes out of the body of Christ be the entire body of Christ or a part of the body of Christ? She will be a part of the body of Christ.

The OT saints will stand by and be a friend of the bride. Eve was a believer. She lived in the OT. In that respect she was no different than any one else. You are stuck on RCC theology and too much allegorization. Just accept the Bible as it is--literal-historical interpretation.

She will be the part of the body that is obedient to His commandments, who dies to self, who walks in the Spirit, who does not become a slave to sin, who finishes the race, who crucifies the flesh, who overcomes the world, who overcomes the flesh, who overcomes Satan, who is said to be a good and faithful servant, etc., etc., etc.

Why not try proving this fanciful story through the Scripture instead of just posting it as a fairytale.

Unfortunately not all Christians do what it is necessary to array themselves in white raiment, becuase they don't have any righteous acts.

I am clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, not because of any works that I have done, but because I am saved. I have been covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ who shed His blood on my behalf. My sins have been put under his blood, never to be remembered again. They are buried in the depths of the deepest sea, cast behind the Lord's back, never again to be remembered. He again says: As far as the east is from the west, so far have I removed your sin from you.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
I am clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I don't need any other kind of righteousness.
DHK

 

[Rex77]

J Jump quote
----------------------------------------
Christians over the last I don't know how many years have gotten away from the idea that we will be given our due, whether good or bad at the judgment seat of Christ. The 21st century Christian views "reward" as something that is only positive, and the only negative thing a Christian can face is a loss of a positive reward.

However that is far from the Biblical concept. We will get exactly what we are due according to the works we have performed during this lifetime whether good or bad.
---------------------------------------

Speaking of saved

1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

When all the wood, hay, and stubble, are burnt we will still have praise of God.
not because we deserve it but because of his mercy.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The oil is representative of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit does not come and go, since it does not 'visit us' as it did in Old Testament times, but takes up residence until at what time we are called to Glory; the five foolish were not saved.

It amazes me that you see this, that the oil is representative of the Holy Spirit, yet you make the following quote:

They took no oil because they had no oil to begin with.

They all 10 had had lamps with oil in them, but 5 of them were wise and took additional oil in their vessels.

They all slumbered and slept, and when the bridegroom appeared, they were called to go out and meet him.

Then, all the virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.

Then, the foolish virgins said, "Give us some of your oil! Our lamps are going out!"

If they had no oil, their lamps could not have been lit in the first place in order to be going out!

Scriptures mean exactly what they say. They don't mean, "Well, the foolish virgins really didn't have any oil, although it says here they have some."

 

[Hope of Glory]

Let's see, Adam's bride was taken out of his body. It was not all of his body, just part of it.

Jesus is the second Adam. We are all part of the body of Christ. So, it seems obvious to some that his bride won't be taken out of his body, but it will be all of his body.

Apparently, the Holy Spirit didn't know how to make accurate pictures and types, according to some.

Personally, I think the Holy Spirit used exactly the words he meant to use, and I think those words are accurate.

 

[ituttut]

Quote:
Is not Christ in His "kingdom"? Is not Christ in His "kingdom" in the "kingdom of God?


Well that's one of those things that gets tricky with the fact that God is one God, but yet Three persons.

A good analogy you make as we do not fully understand, but are to take the wisdom given to Paul by Christ Jesus, as he shows by scripture understanding (within our understanding) of marriage and the Holy Trinity.

Is Christ in His "kingdom?" Technically the answer is yes, because Christ is God. However that's not the way Scripture lays things out. All that is created is God's kingdom, but when mentioned in Scripture it has to do mostly with a portion of the kingdom of God, namely the earth, which is a portion of God's kingdom.

Agree when taking the "whole" approach appears disingenuous with thought of portions. We agree from where we may be standing. As Christ looks down He sees Satan kicked out of the third heaven to the second heaven, being the "prince of the air". He'll be thrown from that position, hopefully very soon. Satan is a Prince and does not own the estate he is now in or that which waits.

God is God over it all, but He has placed rulers to manage it for Him if you will. Lucifer was given charge over the earth in the beginning, but fell. Therefore the earth needed a new ruler. So God created the man and the woman to rule together, but before they took the scepter Satan caused them to disqualify themselves.

Agree with your position here, other than the "man and the woman to rule together". As we reason we approach semasiology unintentionally for what I see expressed is equal power. The man and the woman are glued together, but only the "head" can control. She exists for he exists, just as we cannot exist without Christ. The woman is to help rule under the direction of the man, never being above him, but to work in concert with him.

God then promised Abraham an earthly seed and a heavenly seed as it dealt with the government of the earth. Israel was promised the earthly portion of the kingdom and will one day realize this ruler as the wife of Jehovah and they were offered the heavenly portion of the kingdom, but rejected that. Christ proved Himself in regard to Satan's test and proved Himself to be worthy to redeem that which Adam had lost which included the earth and the reign over it. Now Adam didn't actually rule, but he lost his right to rule.

Good insight, and perhaps you see as I see that God is a God of division. He is "upfront" with us for in the first verse, at the beginning, He divides. We see it in the third verse as well, and on it goes, but He will bring all together in One again.

So now Christ is gathering together faithful Christians who will become His bride and together they will rule in the stead of Satan in the heavenly sphere of the kingdom and the Christians are Abrahams spiritual seed.

We agree except for the object of His affection. It is His Church, and not His Bride. The Bride is of the earth, and the Church of the heavenly. We must go to the beginning to see the marriage Paul speaks of. It is "created", just as was Adam and Eve to begin with….At the beginning, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him",Genesis 5:1. Then to verse 2, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." The man first, and then His woman. Christ first and then His Church.

But of importance too we must know when the "Church" started. As for the "mysteries" we turn to Paul. In Ephesians we find the "Church" (the Body of Christ) was chosen in Christ before Adam was created, and before a foundation of the world was formed (Eph.1:4). It is at the Cross the marriage of His Son to His Church. In Genesis, Adam without Eve, and then "their name is Adam. Alone He came to the Cross, and "their name is the Body of Jesus Christ Church. No, the Bride of prophecy is Israel of the Earth. We are the "children of the Church of God.
God speaks of The Body of Christ we meet at the Cross. Genesis above is Adam without Eve, and then "their" name is Adam. Jesus was alone when He came to the Cross With Out the church, and there emerged as the One Body Church of Jesus Christ (the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved).

The more familiar we get with Paul, the more intimate we get with Christ. Paul doesn't equate Bride and Church, but Body and Church. Jesus loved the Church enough to give Himself for it. He went to sleep and broke forth this most "beautiful" thing we call the Body of Christ Church .

 

[ituttut]

To J. Jump
There is no such phrase in the Bible as the "bride of Christ", except in the minds of man with their great wisdom. Who is telling you the "bride of Christ" is in scripture. They are wrong, unless you can show that scripture.

Well the word Trinity isn't in the Bible either and neither is rapture, but you believe in both of those right? Now maybe the bride of Christ is not word for word mentioned, but the concept is definitely there, and I would argue that it is mentioned although it is said to be the bride of the Lamb, but Who is the Lamb-Christ. So the bride of Christ is an okay term to use.

ituttut: But we have scripture that describes the Trinity, and we have scripture that describe the rapture, but you have no scripture that describes the "bride of Christ". Now is the time for you show your scripture. Mere words do not suffice.

I think you are one that says the bride of the Lamb is Israel, and please correct me if I'm wrong on that. But Israel can not be the bride of the Lamb, because Israel is the bride of the Father as established in the OT.

Yes it is I that brings you proof of truth by scripture that you cannot see. I think you are the one that speaks very highly of "types". Any ideas on Hosea? Your argument is without knowledge of the nation Israel. Did you know the custom of Israel considered a betrothed woman to be married and the wife of the man before consummation?

 

[ituttut]

[/color]

It is Christ Jesus that rules, not us. He is the Head, but man continues to believe they can change this.



Exactly. I apologize because I didn't make that clear in my post. But the bride of Christ will rule under Christ. Of course man is not going to supercede Christ. Check out the parable of the talent and the pounds. Faithful, overcoming Christians will be put in charge of various things in the coming reign of Christ. We will rule under His authority.

That's why it is so important that we be found faithful, becuase the unfaithful Christian will not participate in this aspect with Christ.

We have just proved the "Bride" to be Israel, and He will dwell with Her in His Holy City.

I like that which you say applies to we in the Body of Christ Church, we that joined His Church at the Cross. We will be like Him, not yet knowing what we will be or do.

 

[ituttut]

[/font][/color]

As said before, wish I could express myself better, but it took Him 30 or so years to get through to me; however I'm a slow learner. Peter tells us it is very difficult to understand Paul, but to be in the Body of Christ we are to understand what Christ revealed to Paul. In the New Testament as presented in our Bibles, there are three (3) different gospels that is presented, and they are progressively presented to certain people, with specific wording, two with works, and one without. We are to understand when God is talking to us, and when He is not. Paul from His foundation on Christ says this is of the utmost importance,and Peter from His foundation on Jesus Christ tells his people it is of the utmost importance. Christ told His people while He was on earth He was talking to them only, and they had better pay attention as to what was written to them.


All I can say is until we understand the difference of justification by faith, and through faith, some of what God had hidden is still hidden to many. I urge you once more to read Hebrews 11, and believe what you read. From Adam on, until Damascus Road all were justified while they lived by faith. None are as they live saved through faith. Do we believe the Bible or what we have been taught by man? My Christian friend we are to understand our salvation, and we today cannot be saved by the gospel as presented in Acts 2, for that is by faith salvation for those of "works". That is the "great commission" gospel for the Jew and proselytes.

The "first great commission" is found in Matthew 10:1-22, and also Luke 9 and 10. The "second great commission" is found in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and Luke 24. Peter agrees with Mark 16 for the Jew. Put them all together and you have the "second great commission". This is the gospel Peter preached in Acts2:29-47. Is the way you are saved? Isn't this the Catholic belief? Peter is speaking only to the nation of Israel, and those Israelites that are not there, are "far off". Anybody you know have "gifts"? Shouldn't we make all things "common" as the "cults" do, and "Communists" countries want to do? What Temple could we go to, and wouldn't the "animal rights groups" get legislation to prohibit our blood sacrifices? This is not the Christian faith that Christ gave to us.

We today are saved under the gospel of the "grace commission" of Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved, by the Grace of God "through" the faith of Jesus Christ who did every work for us. We are not to believe any other gospel, other than that Christ revealed to Paul - Galatians 1:8.



All are saved by God's grace through faith apart from works. All the righteous by faith shall live.

We in the Body of Christ are held in earnest while we live, and those before weren't. They were saved under a different gospel, than the gospel of Paul. It is just so simple if we can only believe Paul's gospel. I find help

There has never been a different salvation for the OT and then in the NT under Paul. God has never accepted man's works as their way to Him. He ALWAYS rejects man's works when it comes to eternal salvation. So that would be another contradiction to say the OT folks were saved by their works and then NT folks are not.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to communicate, but that's what it seems to me.
[/quote]You are correct for that is not what I'm saying, works saved them. I don't say, but scripture says works were demand bv God from Adam until He no longer demanded works by the hand of man. Do you find scripture says anything else? If so, then we can be saved by someone else other than our Lord Jesus Christ. Where is this God man that preceded and spilled His blood on the Cross, reconciling the world unto Himself. Is there another Damascus Road we have all missed to activate this salvation through faith understanding?
I know people get tired of seeing scripture from the Apostle to the Gentile, without trying to mix in scripture addressed to Israel, mixing the two gospels. We are warned in the OT not to mix Old cloth (church) with the New (church) cloth; or new wine (gospel)into old bottles (churches): else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine (gospel)into new bottles (churches), and both are preserved.

 

[ituttut]

Amen in part. You are saved as YOU live by what God tells you, and not by what He told David, Moses or anyone else not in the "dispensation" you are saved in. God demanded they be saved as He told them, in the "dispensation" they lived in, and they believed Him. God told them If you Do this, then I will do That. They had to be circumcised to set them apart. We don't. God would have killed Moses if Zipporah hadn't circumcised her son. God has to see the "blood". Is that what He tells us today to enter what He promised only His own, that you will "obey the ordinances of the Law; You will make blood sacrifice of animals to cover your sins until at the end you will be saved through the faith of one that will come, of whom you do not know His name that you must know."


Again eternal salvation is a one-time event and yes God has told people different things to believe throughout history, but salvation comes when they believe.

But what are they told to believe. It wasn't in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? God the Word told Jacob to mind his own business, for no man knows my name, and will not until I shed my blood for you. Until that time I'll bless you, and that will be sufficient as you continue to believe in me and make your blood sacrifices. We have to know what we are to believe as we live.

God looked at the nation of Israel through the blood of the sacrifices they made, which satisfied Him pointing to the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world and pointing forward to the actual day that His Son would be literally crucified.

Amen, but He never explained to them this information we now know. Romans 5:9, "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." No works Now for we know we are justified by His blood, and we in His Body will not go through the great tribulation. There are just so many things we would have never known had Christ not love His Church so much.

Today the blood of animals will not cover sin, because the ultimate Sacrifice has been given through Jesus Christ as all must come through His blood.

So we pretty much agree there.

I agree enthusiastically in full faith, for there is no other way today. Amen, Christian friend.

 

[ituttut]

We can't use "types" to prove certain things. We need "scripture", and that's what we need here.


Who says that we can't use types to prove certain things? The Bible certainly doesn't say that. The bottom line is if you find a NT teaching then you will find an OT type or shadow of it. If you don't find it in the OT then you are misunderstanding the NT.

Are you serious? Are you saying nothing was hidden at all by God?

The OT gives us what is coming in the NT and the NT further explains what was given in the OT. You can't take one without the other becuase they are perfectly harmonious.

You can say with a straight face you found the "rapture", the "Body Church", our "sleep", our "one spiritual baptism and circumcision" without hands, and other untold things? Are we reading the same Bible that contains the Word of God?

Quote:
stance causes contradiction


A lot of people have said that, but they have failed to show any. And in actuality this view of Scripture eliminates all the contradictions that man has placed on Scripture with their traditional teachings.

You just contradicted above. Please show scripture from the OT (which you rarely do) showing the Jew can now come as the Gentile. From the OT find where the Gentile can now be in the "inner court" of the Temple.

Quote:
Is the following contradictory? "What must we do to be saved asks the Jew? Peter says You Mr. Jew must "repent of your sins, and You must be water baptized for the remission of your sins". Haven't you stated all are saved the same way? If so then you must eliminate any writings of Paul, the book of Acts, and also John's books which God allowed him to write to support and reinforce the authenticity of Paul's Epistles, just as Peter does earlier.


First of all that wasn't the question that they asked in Acts 2. What must I do to be saved wasn't asked until Acts 16.

Need to have your eyes checked J.J. My post says WE, and not I.

Peter was preaching to a group of people that were already eternally saved. That wasn't a messge of eternal salvation, it was a message of the kingdom, which was being reoffered to the nation of Israel at that time.
[/quote]You contradict at almost every turn. Why did they ask the question. They didn't know what to do until Peter told them what to do. Show the scripture were they were eternally saved when they asked the question. All Israel was not then, and is not now saved.

Quote:
All God wants us to do is believe Him when He speaks to us while we live.


Exactly. God has told different groups of people different things to believe throughout history, but it is still grace through faith. It's just that the faith has been different for different dispensations as you say. That part we agree on.

Another contradiction. Show scripture before Damascus Road that this knowledge was shown.

Types are Scripture. People refuse to use types becuase they don't like some of the teachings they would have to accept.

I've never said I don't believe in types. We just can't make everything in sight a type.

Like not all Christians make up the bride of Christ, but only those that are faithful and overcoming. Well Christians don't like to hear that so they say you can't prove this with types. But not only is this Truth found in types in is further explained in the NT.

Again it is Jesus that overcame, and not us. Why don't you believe this truth.

Jesus said that Moses wrote of Him and that all the prophets and the Psalms are about Him. Bascially all OT history is laid out in a typical fashion to help our understanding.

But you speak of "prophecy", of which we today in our salvation are not.

To deny the teachings of the types and shadows leaves us with an OT that is not much more than an Israeli history book.

It is by that history that we know they will be in the future. I believe many of the types and shadows, but we can't find one around every corner we look. The Bridegroom is coming back for His Bride, His Wife.

But if we will allow God to open our spiritual eyes then we can really see His Word come alive in the OT. It's truly amazing!

More amazing is the "secret" we are told, for I a Gentile through the stumble of His people, will now be made to be "like" Him.

 

[ituttut]

[/color]

In verse 8 he asks we remember according to his gospel Christ from the seed of David was raised. We are to remember how we will be judged which is shown in Romans 2:16. "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." When we read his prayer in Ephesians we find our understanding comes by "spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him. Ephesians 1:16-17, "Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him."

In other words we today are dependent on our Lord Christ Jesus in heaven, for some things He said while on earth do not pertain to us. He told us while He was here He did not come for any but His own. Do we believe Him or not? He tells Paul to make it more plain to us in II Corinthians 5:16-17, " Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." If we cannot accept this saying, can we accept our Lord Christ?



It seems as though you have gotten the idea that I don't think we have to rely on Jesus Christ today and that is not true. Jesus Christ is our everything!!

AMEN, and blessings to you.

And yes we become new creations. We are no longer Jews or Gentiles, no longer male or female, but we are part of the one new man in Christ. That has to do with the message of the Kingdom and how Gentiles can entertain the offer that Israel rejected and how Jews can still participate even though the offer of the Kingdom has been taken away from that nation.

Israel was never preached the gospel of the Cross of coming through the blood. We look for the Rapture of those in the Body Church, and not going through the tribulation period to enter into "Kingdom that was at hand".

 

[J. Jump]

They took no oil because they had no oil to begin with.

SFIC that is an assumption you are placing on the text. It doesn't seem very foolish to me that they wouldn't take any oil if they didn't have any oil. That's not foolishness that's just bad circumstances.

Now the text could have told us they didn't have any oil and therefore they were foolish becuase they didn't buy some before they left, but that's not what the text says.

The text says they are foolish becuase they took off with no oil not because they didn't have any, but because they were foolish thinking that wouldn't need any more than what was in their lamps to begin with.

 

[J. Jump]

Your take on Rebekah and the servant is allegorization not supported in scripture. It's just how you read your theory into it.

No it is not allegorization that is not supported by Scripture. The story of Adam and Eve supports it. Revelation 3 supports it and there are others. But if you don't believe those two Scriptures what's going to make you believe if I show you 15 other Scriptures that back it up?

This is what you and people like you say, because what it foreshadows makes you uncomfortable or you just plain don't like it. The plain simple truth is we have to accept all the Bible whether it makes us uncomfortable or whether we like what it says or not.

You are equating the physical body of Adam with the church and there is no scriptural support for this.

Yes there is. It's called being a type. A type is a physical reality that points to something else.

Nor is there any for equating Eve with the church. This is eisegesis, not exegesis.

And that's your opinion. So I'm just supposed to stop believing this because Marcia says so? Sorry doesn't work that way. So who gets to decide what is a type and what isn't a type? The Bible says Adam is a type of Christ.

We only call something a type or antitype when the Bible makes it clear.

How much more clear can this teaching be? It's all over the Bible.

It is clear that Adam was an antitype because the Bible calls Jesus the second Adam.

Adam is the type and Christ is the anti-type.

But the Bible does not give Eve as an antitype or type of the church, nor the physical body of Adam to be equated with the body of Christ.

If Adam is a type then all the things about Adam that correspond to Christ are type-antitype.

Here's more evidence that what I am saying is true. Eve was already in Adam when God created Adam, so it's impossible to talk about one without the other in the first place.

So how did Eve get out of Adam? Well Adam was put into a deep sleep (which is a picture of Christ's death). Christ had to die so that His bride could be brought forth.

Who is faithful, JJump? All of us fail in being faithful, which is maybe why Jesus asked if he would find faith on earth when he came back.

Marcia I didn't say perfect I said faithful. There is a difference. Faithful means that you are dying to self and walking in the Spirit and when you mess up you are confessing your sin as per I John 1:9.

Paul said as to the Law he was blameless. Do you think that means Paul was saying he was sinless? Of course not, but he kept the law as best he could and when he messed up he made the appropriate sacrifice. He was blameless, not perfect.

We are to be faithful, and that doesn't mean perfect.

We are transformed into the image of Christ by the HS; we are made pure and fit by the blood of Christ and by the HS.

No we can be transformed into the image of Christ by the Holy Spirit if we will let Him. But we can quench the Spirit and we can grieve the Spirit. If a person is unwilling the Holy Spirit will not force Himself upon that person. It is a cooperation and that takes two. And the only person that can hinder that process is us.

 

[J. Jump]

That is because the entire bride is raptured.

Yes the entire bride is raptured, because the bride is contained within the body.

Where is your evidence that it doesn't? He is coming for His bride.

Go back and read my posts regarding Adam/Eve - Christ/bride, Isaac-Rebekah, Revelation 3 and you see the Bible's evidence, not mine.

He's coming for the church, and the bride is contained within the church.

Do you create your doctrine from OT allegories or from the truth of the statements of the NT.

All doctrine found in the NT can be found in type or shadow in the OT. The OT contains the starting of the teaching and the NT gives further explanation to the teaching. You can not take one without the other, becuase they are one revelation.

There are plenty of stories to allegorize in the Old Testament. I read about a couple that got married because of a preachers allegorization of walking around the walls of Jericho seven times. He walked around his girl friend seven times; then they decided to marry. You can make the Bible say anything you want through allegorization. Make up your own doctrine.

Certainly you can as it sounds like this couple did. But the NT doesn't support what that couple did. If you find something in the OT and can not support it with the NT then it is false and vice versa. The bride only being part of the body is supported in both the Old and the New, making it valid.

The doctrine that you quoted, about Eve being the bride, comes straight from Roman Catholicism.

I'm not sure what they believe, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then :applause:

What Catholic commentaries have you been reading recently?

None, which ones have you been reading? I don't read many commentaries per se. I do have a number of pastor/teachers that I read through their material, so I guess you could call that commentary material.

Are you implying that Christ was married, or that you have been paying too much attention to movies such as Da'Vinci's Inquest which denies the deity of Christ and also seeks to put Christ as a married man. Either way you seem to be very confused on this point.

Your joking right? No Christ was never married, but one day He will be. I will not respond to the other nonsense.

The OT saints will stand by and be a friend of the bride. Eve was a believer. She lived in the OT. In that respect she was no different than any one else. You are stuck on RCC theology and too much allegorization. Just accept the Bible as it is--literal-historical interpretation.

Again I'm not familiar with RCC teaching, so I can't respond to what you say. As to the literal-historical interpretation I have never once denied that. There is a literal-historical interpretation, but there are also spiritual truths to be gained in all of the OT. Christ said so Himself. He said if you would have believed Moses you would believe Me, because Moses wrote about Me.

So if Moses wrote about Christ, and Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, then we can see Christ in all the first five books of the Bible. That means we have to search for the types and the anti-types if we are going to see Christ, because Christ is not in the literal-historical interpretation, with a couple of exceptions.

When God killed the animal and clothed Adam and Eve with the skins, you're going to tell me you don't see Christ is that type? Death and shed blood to take care of sin.

I could go on and on.

Why not try proving this fanciful story through the Scripture instead of just posting it as a fairytale.

Do you not call Genesis Scripture? Go back and re-read some of my previous posts where I have laid it out in Scripture. Do you not call Revelation Scripture?

I am clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, not because of any works that I have done, but because I am saved.

That is absolutely correct for eternal salvation. On this point we agree completely. Eternal salvation has nothing to do with our works!!!

I have been covered with the righteousness of Jesus Christ who shed His blood on my behalf.

Again for eternal purposes that is absolutely correct.

My sins have been put under his blood, never to be remembered again. They are buried in the depths of the deepest sea, cast behind the Lord's back, never again to be remembered. He again says: As far as the east is from the west, so far have I removed your sin from you.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
I am clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I don't need any other kind of righteousness.

You have a number of things that are unBiblical in this statement. First not ALL your sins were dealt with at the cross. I John 1:9 says we have to continue to confess our sins. Now if you don't you don't lose your eternal salvation, because that is an impossibility. If you don't confess your sins you loose your opportunity to become part of the bride, because you would be unfaithful.

You didn't finish the Scripture when you said now therefore there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus. The last part of that says who are walking in the Spirit. So guess what....if you are not walking in the Spirit then condemnation is headed your direction and my direction if I fail to walk in the Spirit as a continual practice.

Not all Christians walk in the Spirit.

As far as not needing any other righteousness that is just not what the Bible teaches. Revelation three says we do. Revelation 19 says the garment that Revelation three speaks of comes from the righteous acts of the saints.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

It amazes me that you see this, that the oil is representative of the Holy Spirit, yet you make the following quote:



They all 10 had had lamps with oil in them, but 5 of them were wise and took additional oil in their vessels.

The Bible does not say the wise virgins took additional oil, only that 'but the wise virgins took oil in their lamps'.

They all slumbered and slept, and when the bridegroom appeared, they were called to go out and meet him.

Then, all the virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.

They all trimmed their lamps in preparation to light them.

Then, the foolish virgins said, "Give us some of your oil! Our lamps are going out!"

The KJV explains that the foolish virgins cried out, 'Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out.' They had to have been out already in order to trim the wick.

If they had no oil, their lamps could not have been lit in the first place in order to be going out!

The Bible does not say the lamps were lit in the first place. They all awoke and trimmed their lamps. A wise person tries not to waste oil, but rather only burns the oil when needed. Again, one trims a wick when the wick is not burning.

Scriptures mean exactly what they say. They don't mean, "Well, the foolish virgins really didn't have any oil, although it says here they have some."

Nowhere does it say the foolish virgins had oil. It says the wise took oil in their vessels, and their lamps. The wise took lamps, and they took oil. Trimming a lamp not only consists of making the wick a proper length, but can also apply to filling the lamp with the oil to burn.

Since it was night time and the virgins were sleeping, they had no need for the lamps to be lit. But, they were called out by the Bridegroom. They had to light the lamps and go out to meet Him.

 

[J. Jump]

Now is the time for you show your scripture. Mere words do not suffice.

Well this thread has taken off into this topic, so just follow along with what is being said and you'll see Scripture evidence. However, you might have to go back a page from where you find your posts.

We starting to get all of the place in here

We have just proved the "Bride" to be Israel, and He will dwell with Her in His Holy City.

Not at all. Israel is the wife of the Father and therefore can not be the bride of Christ. You can see this in the story of Ruth were the near kinsman redeemer and Boaz are at the city gate talking about redeeming the land and Ruth (which typifies the bride of Christ).

The nearer kinsman redeemer (Father) couldn't redeem it because he was already married (to Israel).

Scripture does not support Israel as the bride of Christ, because Israel is already married.

were saved under a different gospel

Nope...everyone is saved by grace through faith apart from works. It's just the faith part is different for different dispensations. God told Israel that the blood of animals would suffice. But God tells us that the Blood of Christ is the only thing that will suffice now.

It's still grace through faith for Israel of old.

There has never been a different salvation for the OT and then in the NT under Paul. God has never accepted man's works as their way to Him. He ALWAYS rejects man's works when it comes to eternal salvation. So that would be another contradiction to say the OT folks were saved by their works and then NT folks are not.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to communicate, but that's what it seems to me.

Yeah I have never claimed that salvation is of works for anyone. It's all grace through faith.

But what are they told to believe. It wasn't in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Right...I think you are misreading what I have been typing. Abraham was saved because he believed God in regard to the promise of a seed. That was his grace through faith.

 

[J. Jump]

Are you serious? Are you saying nothing was hidden at all by God?

There are a number of things that God has chosen not to reveal to us. But everything that has been revealed in His Words to us are no longer a mystery. Everything is open to be seen and understood. We have the Spirit that will lead us into ALL truth if we will allow Him

You can say with a straight face you found the "rapture", the "Body Church", our "sleep", our "one spiritual baptism and circumcision" without hands, and other untold things? Are we reading the same Bible that contains the Word of God?

If you can't find it in the OT it won't be in the NT and vice versa.

You just contradicted above. Please show scripture from the OT (which you rarely do) showing the Jew can now come as the Gentile. From the OT find where the Gentile can now be in the "inner court" of the Temple.

Ituttut I don't have the time to lay out every single truth. If you would like me to point you to some resource material where people have already done that I would be more than happy to.

Need to have your eyes checked J.J. My post says WE, and not I.

I/We it doesn't matter. There question was not the same question that was asked in Acts 16:30. They weren't asking about eternal salvation.

You contradict at almost every turn. Why did they ask the question.

The question they asked was how do they right the wrong of killing their King. How do they get their King back to set up the kingdom.

Show the scripture were they were eternally saved when they asked the question. All Israel was not then, and is not now saved.

So tell me when did God stop looking at these people through the blood of the animals. Because we both agreed that's what "saved" Israel, but now you are saying that it didn't.

These were people that were already covered under the blood of the animals, so they did not have to come through the actual blood of Christ, because their salvation event had already occurred. God never brings that message back to the forefront once it is settled.

These were saved people.

Another contradiction. Show scripture before Damascus Road that this knowledge was shown.

That exact language was not used, but just becuase that exact langauge is not used doesn't mean that's not what happened. If you are saying that anyone is saved outside of God's grace you are terribly mistaken.

The faith is what differed not God's grace.

I've never said I don't believe in types. We just can't make everything in sight a type.

And I never said everything in sight is a type.

Again it is Jesus that overcame, and not us. Why don't you believe this truth.

Jesus did overcome and we are to overcome just like He did. Revelation 2-3. Why don't you believe this truth?

But you speak of "prophecy", of which we today in our salvation are not.

Huh? I'm not even sure what you are talking about now

It is by that history that we know they will be in the future. I believe many of the types and shadows, but we can't find one around every corner we look. The Bridegroom is coming back for His Bride, His Wife.

Again I have never said anything to the contrary. However you say that Israel is the bride of Christ, but it isn't Israel that will be raptured it is the church. It isn't Israel that will stand at the JSOC during the tribulation it is the church. So it is the faithful of the church that will make up the bride of Christ, not Israel. Israel is Christ's brother, not His wife.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

This group IS saved, because works are in view. Eternal salvation does not come by works. When works are judged eternal salvation will not be in view. Eternal salvation is determined prior to any judgment seat appearance before Christ.

Do a study on the word aionios which is the Greek word translated everlasting or eternal. It is a Greek adjective that describes the Greek noun aion which means age. This word should be translated age-lasting unless it is specifically dealing with Deity, which we know has no beginning nor end.

Christians over the last I don't know how many years have gotten away from the idea that we will be given our due, whether good or bad at the judgment seat of Christ. The 21st century Christian views "reward" as something that is only positive, and the only negative thing a Christian can face is a loss of a positive reward.

However that is far from the Biblical concept. We will get exactly what we are due according to the works we have performed during this lifetime whether good or bad.

Your interpretation does not override a clear statement by the Lord Jesus. When He sends those on His left to everlasting punishment they go to everlasting punishment. Period. That is what is clearly said in MA 25. Are you defining everlasting punishment as heaven? I believe I'll choose God's Heaven over yours.

 

[J. Jump]

Your interpretation does not override a clear statement by the Lord Jesus. When He sends those on His left to everlasting punishment they go to everlasting punishment. Period. That is what is clearly said in MA 25. Are you defining everlasting punishment as heaven? I believe I'll choose God's Heaven over yours.

StraightandNarrow I don't think you even read my post. Do a word study on aionios. In this context it means age-lasting not forever. Those that are found to be unfaithful Christians will receive punishment for the coming age (loss of their soul). And that is in perfect keeping with the statement that Christ makes here in this passage.

Everlasting punishment as heaven is an oxymoron and is something that I have never stated. You continue to put words in my mouth. I never even hinted at that.

By the way if you'll choose God's heaven can you show me Scripture that says that's where you will reside for eternity?

 

[Hope of Glory]

The Bible does not say the wise virgins took additional oil, only that 'but the wise virgins took oil in their lamps'.

Even the KJV says they did: Matthew 25:4: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

They took oil in their vessels along with their lamps. This is the only place in the NT that this word is used, but there's a similar word in Matthew 13:48, which says, "Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." They took an extra supply in these vessels besides the oil in the dish on top of the staff.

These are two separate prepositional phrases. "In their vessels" and "with their lamps".

The KJV explains that the foolish virgins cried out, 'Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out.' They had to have been out already in order to trim the wick.

Well, you are correct that the KJV says "they are gone out", but it's a present, passive, indicative. It's currently happening. "Are going out." It's linear action, not punctiliar. This is action that is in progress as they see the flame flickering just as the bridegroom arrived.

The Bible does not say the lamps were lit in the first place. They all awoke and trimmed their lamps. A wise person tries not to waste oil, but rather only burns the oil when needed. Again, one trims a wick when the wick is not burning.

How is a flame going to be going out if it's not lit?

Nowhere does it say the foolish virgins had oil. It says the wise took oil in their vessels, and their lamps. The wise took lamps, and they took oil. Trimming a lamp not only consists of making the wick a proper length, but can also apply to filling the lamp with the oil to burn.

You are quite correct when you say the wise took oil in their vessels as well as in their lamps. You are also correct about what trimming a wick means.

But, you seem to be missing the concept in order for a lamp to be going out (or even to have gone out), there had to have been oil in them in the first place, or they could neither be going out, nor could they have gone out.

Since it was night time and the virgins were sleeping, they had no need for the lamps to be lit. But, they were called out by the Bridegroom. They had to light the lamps and go out to meet Him.

Yes. And the lamps of the foolish virgins were going out. They had not properly prepared.

But, they had oil.