[MC1171611]

Yes, I'm familiar with Bro. Knox. *says no more*

Rev. 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

(emphasis mine)

Again, this is typology, and one would have to actually see the New Jerusalem to understand exactly what John is talking about here, though I think that it might have to do with the beauty and majesty of the adorning of the city itself.

Also, the New Jerusalem is the home of the Bride of Christ, the Church, so viewing the City would in effect be viewing the Bride; the City is a picture of the Church.

The Lamb's Bride is always the Church.

[Kiwi Christian]

Originally Posted by chette777

Rev.9, 10 I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, by and according to the context of these scriptures the Bride is a City, not Church Age Saints.

In the context God is likening the Lamb's wife to New Jerusalem, He is not literally saying that NewJ is the wife of Jesus Christ, and if you read it that way you just breed more confusion. Again, it's typology. In the Bible, women are likened to cities, and vice versa, we see this also in Rev 17 with the woman who rides the beast being Babylon, that great city.

Other examples are evident:

Jeremiah 49:24 Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail. 25 How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy! 26 Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Originally Posted by chette777

If you get a chance read some of James Knox stuff if you think I have deviated from main line Christian theology you will really love his stuff. he is a despensationalist but doesn't agreee with any of Ruckmans stuff or others for that matter. But he is true to sticking with the KJV.

I this the James Knox of the Bible Baptist Church of Deland, Florida? What do YOU think of Dr Ruckman?

Originally Posted by chette777

Remember mainline Christians theology is made by scholars

I don't equate Bible believing (that's what I posted) theology with mainline Christian theology. I have the interpreter of scripture within me and don't rely on scholars to tell me what the plain word of God says, even though I often read what other faithful men of God teach (2 Timothy 2:2).

[chette777]

Good job KIWI and the rest. I am not doing anything but making observations I am not trying to confuse anyone or cause debates just opened up some thinking on these verses.

I love Ruckman and his books But I love God's word even more. I think James Knox is from Deland FL, yes. He like Ruckman have some unique ideas and opinions of certain text, But he never touched the Lamb's book of life in 21:27 in his New Testament Survey. I would like more coments on the books. do you have any? read them again and post back.

I agree typologies are used. and I agree that women are liken to cities. but they are not literal women. so the city is a city the bride is a typology but maynot be church age saints though they may live in the new Jerusalem.

[pbiwolski]

Being that my favorite city is the topic of discussion, I can't help but post an outline that I preached about 1 1/2 years ago. Feel free to use it if you care to, just put your own "meat" on these bones!

I. A Great City 21:10, 12, 15-16
II. A Glorious City 21:11, 23
III. A Glistening (or glittering, or glimmering) City 21:19-20 (result of glory + stones, etc.)
IV. A Golden City 21:18, 21
V. A Gated City 21:12-13, 21
VI. A Guarded City 21:12, 27 - good chance to preach Lake of fire vs. New Jerusalem

I found the prep. and study for this sermon a facinating one. The questions it brought up and the scripture it led to were a tremendous blessing to me personally. It really forced me to meditate upon the words of the Book and attempt to envision that city! One of these days..."this world is not my home..."

[chette777]

Amen PBI Amen!

[chette777]

You Know Guys, I went back through the Book of Revelation. and it would seem, (which would mean we need to re-evaluate our thoughts of the Church) that the church goes back into a mystery form during the tribulation and 1,000 year kingdom. if we would look at Revelation in that manner we would see that most of the things spoken of involve only Israel and unsaved mankind all the way unto chapter 22.

it would also mean we would have to abandon some preconceived Ideas of things we now claim are the church in Rev. 20-22. such as the Bride, especially the church itself was never called a bride just that individuals were said by Paul that He Paul espoused them as a chase virgin. not that they were a bride or espoused literally.

definitely we see that the book of life at the great white throne judgment is not the same as the Lambs book of life to enter a city

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by chette777

You Know Guys, I went back through the Book of Revelation. and it would seem, (which would mean we need to re-evaluate our thoughts of the Church) that the church goes back into a mystery form during the tribulation and 1,000 year kingdom. if we would look at Revelation in that manner we would see that most of the things spoken of involve only Israel and unsaved mankind all the way unto chapter 22.

it would also mean we would have to abandon some preconceived Ideas of things we now claim are the church in Rev. 20-22. such as the Bride, especially the church itself was never called a bride just that individuals were said by Paul that He Paul espoused them as a chase virgin. not that they were a bride or espoused literally.

definitely we see that the book of life at the great white throne judgment is not the same as the Lambs book of life to enter a city

No, I don't think the Church goes into a mystery form. I mean, it is clear that chapters 1-3 of Revelation contain the word "church" but after that the word is nonexistant. Therefore we have to compare Scripture with Scripture to understand where the Church is (perhaps Ephesians 1:10 can shed some light on this). To me, I have absolutely no doubts that we are the Bride of Christ. I honestly have never met a Bible believing Christian who claimed otherwise.

Anywho, I'm nearly halfway through the Bible, now that I've purposed to read the Book 4 times through a year. When I get through Revelation I plan to do some sort of exhaustive study of it. Perhaps I'll find something that can shed light on this. Then again I doubt I'll figure out anything new that faithful Bible believers haven't figured out before. Also, I have an aversion for people who claim to have some sort of new private interpretation prophetic Scriptures.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

[Kiwi Christian]

Originally Posted by chette777

You Know Guys, I went back through the Book of Revelation. and it would seem, (which would mean we need to re-evaluate our thoughts of the Church) that the church goes back into a mystery form during the tribulation and 1,000 year kingdom. if we would look at Revelation in that manner we would see that most of the things spoken of involve only Israel and unsaved mankind all the way unto chapter 22.

it would also mean we would have to abandon some preconceived Ideas of things we now claim are the church in Rev. 20-22. such as the Bride, especially the church itself was never called a bride just that individuals were said by Paul that He Paul espoused them as a chase virgin. not that they were a bride or espoused literally.

You are actually quite serious about this aren't you, I see you've even removed your signature which said something like "waiting for my Bridegroom"?

Brother, you can re-evaluate or abandon whatever beliefs YOU may have in regards to the doctrine of the church being the bride of Jesus Christ, but I won't have a bean of it. I don't rely on "preconceived ideas" here, I rely on comparing scripture with scripture which clearly teaches that the church is currently espoused to Christ as a chaste virgin, to be married to Him and become His wife at a future time:

John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Revelation 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. 9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

It's apparent to me that you can't get your head around the typology of New Jerusalem being the bride of Christ in Revelation 21, but why reject the other scriptures that, when compared, plainly prove that it is representative of the church, who is the bride to be of Jesus Christ?

[stephanos]

Not only that, but Christ said:

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:2-3 KJV)

It's not the place that Christ is after, it's the occupant. Christ didn't say He was going to prepare a place for Himself, but for us. Christ wants us to be where He is, just like any faithful husband who desires to have his wife be where he is.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[chette777]

First of all Rev 1-3 may have the words church and churches but heathens have churches ( Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.) and Israel is known as a church ( Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:). And we are called a church (1Cor 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:) so you need to figure out which church is which, and to which it is used in Revelation?

Second, John 3:29 is John the Baptist speaking about Jesus for Israel and the 12 Disciples he must decrease and Christ must increase. the context is of him being the Messiah, the bridegroom of Israel. again it teaches nothing (for there is no body of Christ yet) of the body of Christ being a bride to the Lamb. (out of context)

2Corthians Paul is talking about his espousal of the Corinthians (at that time) NOT you and I, (keep the context) to Christ AS A CHASTE VIRGIN. those Corinthians were a carnal bunch of men that Paul was correcting He used those terms to get them to endear their relationship with the Lord. He was in no way teaching the body of Christ is the bride of the lamb.

Eph 5:25 again is he (Jesus) is the head of the church (not the groom of the church). . . like a husband is a head of his wife (not the churchis the Bride of the Lamb, again you used the scripture out of context). He was wanting them to see that they were under authority and that wives needed to submit to it. the point of the teaching is that we are joined to Christ as one as a husband and wife are one and therefore submission to authority was needful. but it is out of context for trying to prove the church is the BRIDE of Rev 22.

I beleive these are known as Hyperbolic Expressions or even other form of figures of speech. Now he is a litereal head as a husband is a literal head. but the context does not speak of the church as a BRIDE.

Rev 22 the Bride is a city beckoning those from the 1000 year kingdom to come and enter. You and I might be in that city when it comes but we are not the city. for the City is the Lamb's bride. our need is to see which it is a literal city or a literal Bride? A city of course. who get to enter in those whose names are found in the Lambs book of life?

did you know that Paul never referred to Christ as the Lamb or a lamb? Nor does he ever use the term Bride in reference to the Church of God or the Body of Christ. Now that is fact and it is light by which we may see clearly if we are to rightly divide the word of truth.

now to say that I feel ths church goes back into mystery form would not be far from truth. As it is never mentioned again after the rapture, No one is added to the Body of Christ at any time after the Rapture, there is not mention of what is going on with the body of Christ during that time and even John when he records some things that seem closely related to the church like wedding supper of the lamb in Rev but Christ taught about this as well before there was church of God. Matt 22:1-14 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen and also in Luke 14:15-24. The point is the wedding feast is of Israel and during the tributlation and kingdom transition. But theologians make out to be the church of God and not Israel. they brought that over from the RC roots of replacing Israel with the RC church, and then the reformers brought it with them making it the whole body of Christ

But most important. I never said I abandoned any DOCTRINE of the church. I just raised questions to look at the words, and cross referenced them and discovered that Paul never once called the church a bride, and that the Bride of REV 22 is not the body of Christ as taught by many today. those my friend are pure facts not presumptions. not only that you can join all sorts of scriptures out of context to make it teach anything you want, the JW's and other cults do that. and Kiwi your jumbling of scriptures out of context is just that a creation of the doctrine that the body of Christ is the bride of Rev 22.

Stephanos, John14 could also be a picture of any righteous family member or a righteous freind to want his family and friends living where he is, not just a husband and wife. the context of John is friendship with the 12 disciples that he goes to prepare a place for them when Jesus gave them this promise. My place is already in Christ and that can never change. for Israel needs a place prepared we have our place already. Again what a lot of theologians have done is exchange the promises of Israel and made them promises for the church. we were never given any promises of lands or cities. but we have been made completely righteous through the cross of Christ and we will be gathered unto him never more to leave him.

Don't get my post wrong I am not claiming (Stephanos) to "HAVE SOME NEW PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, please don't put your words into my post, that is disrespectful. I am not arguing about doctrine I was just bringing up talking points. would you rather I move this post to general discussions or something? the churches of the Middle Ages brought a lot of Roman Catholic doctrines into the Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, Wesleyan and other churches. some of which has been hard for people to abandon. It is just like Baptist who say they come from the direct line from John the Baptist. it was just a created claim to counter the RC claim it came directly from Peter. (there is a "St John the Baptist church" here RC of course.)

We are mandated to Study, and rightly divide the word of truth. raising questions about rightly dividing the BRIDE from the Body of Christ is not wrong but necessary. I am not making any claims to change current doctrine just to re-examine what we have been taught and get the correct scriptures in line with scriptures? just as I am doing in another post about OT saints looking forward and NT saints looking backwards to the cross. if it's true lets get clear scripture inline with it. if it can not be reconciled with scripture to scripture then we need to make changes if necessary

So my brothers KIWI and Stephanos, Give me some grace and I will you like.