The Biblical significance of roads

[robinriley]

Then who or what is the bride of the Lamb?
If we are made one with Christ, in what way is this if not by what is laid out in Scripture as being the way two become one?
Also, the mystery is in the relation to the Church and Christ, which was not revealed in the OT, which is why it's called a mystery. It is revealed, in part, because it relates to us.

I suppose I need to hear your interpretation of Eph 5 in layman's terms, because I seem to be misunderstanding your rendering of the Greek. Thus far, I just don't understand how you are differentiating the Church from wife, even with your translation changes. Try and give a paraphrase, if you will.

Perhaps I am simply not understanding the evidence presented.

(LT)
Also, the mystery is in the relation to the Church and Christ, which was not revealed in the OT,
which is why it's called a mystery. It is revealed, in part, because it relates to us.

(Robin)
Wasn't Israel, in the OT, figuratively in a marriage relationship with God ...
The "mystery" or secret, revealed here, is indeed the ecclesia's being a part of Christ's body, not a wife ...
This is something new, from God via Paul to us, a new revelation about our relation with Christ.

The word is better translated "Lambkin" ... and you wont find any scripture that says "bride of Christ,"
but a number of verses that talk to the body of Christ. Christ - Lambkin, what's the difference, there the same right?
No, these are both titles, official titles, which indicate different functions ... and becase they are different words,
it would be a mistake for us to morph or cobble together such a non-scriptural phrase "bride of Christ"

So if the bride of the Lambin means one thing, and the body of Christ means another ... then we're talking about
two different entities ... the faithful of Israel, as the bride (of the Lambkin), and the faithful today, as the body (of Christ).

(LT)
I suppose I need to hear your interpretation of Eph 5 in layman's terms ...

(Robin)
Dont think I'm able to explain it any better ... these verses (plus those in the next chapter) are addressing, for the most part,
social relationships, practical edifications; and it's only here, that Paul interjects his "oh by the way" revelation about the church today. Husbands cannot be exhorted to love their wives, on the grounds that that the ecclesia occupies this relation to Christ ... for the very reason that the faithful in Israel have no part in the blessings of the ecclesia today, so they are figured as the wife or bride of the Lambkin, not of Christ. Hence the argument (quote) of Eden is introduced, showing that husband and wife become one flesh. Christ and the ecclesia are one body. Hence the husband is exhorted to love his wife as ... as his own body, for it is thus ... thus that Christ loves the ecclesia.

(LT)
...because I seem to be misunderstanding your rendering of the Greek.
Thus far, I just don't understand how you are differentiating the Church from wife, even with your translation changes.

(Robin)
Interesting ... what exactly do you mean by my translation changes? Are you, then, talking about the additional words
found in verse 5:30 ... these aren't my translation changes, they are just a recognition of those words found in the Byzantine source texts (see below)

out {1537 PREP} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of a flesh {4561 N-GSF} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM} and {2532 CONJ} out {1537 PREP} of the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of bones {3747 N-GPN} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}


(LT)
Thus far, I just don't understand how you are differentiating the Church from wife ...

(Robin)
Well, I guess that makes us even, because I've no idea how anyone can confuse the ecclesia, today,
with the figure of a wife or bride ... we are the body of Christ ... now, that's perfectly clear, but
figuring us as a wife, bride is not something that our apostle Paul does, ever does.

But then, one might ask, what about the wedding ceremony, and the virgins and their lamps
that the gospels talk to?

Remember puppies under the table; remember that Jesus did not want His deciples to go outside of Israel;
remember that Paul was given a differnt gospel, than Peter, that Paul was sent to the nations ... distinctions
need to be made, here. Peter is not our apostle, nor is James (nor was he even an apostle, for that matter),
Paul is our ... we, the nations ... our apostle, and his is a different good news, addressed at a different ecclesia.

I'm silly, right ... well, that's for sure, and I'm neither a teacher, nor preacher, nor herald ... so if I expalin this
foolishly ...you're right! Actually, I hate talking about doctrine, it only causes dissension, especially when
someone who isn't a teacher talks about it ... My love of the scriptures, is mainly about the words, themselves;
that's more than enough to keep me busy and happy, and close to God ...

So go ahead, be a "wife of Christ" is you want;
just know this,
those ...words ... aren't found in the scriptures.
So if for no other reason, perhaps you should rethink what you currently think you know ...









***

5:30* Deletions (9)

αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ
א[SUP]2[/SUP] D F G (K τοῦ σώματος for τῶν ὀστέων) L P Ψ 075 0278 0285[SUP]vid[/SUP] 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424* 436 451 459 614 (629[SUP]vid[/SUP] omit τῶν) 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739[SUP]c[/SUP] 1852 1877 (1912 omit first αὐτοῦ) 1962 1984 2127 2200 2492 2495 Byz Lect (l[SUP]147[/SUP] καὶ ἐκ τῆς) (l[SUP]1154[/SUP] omit καὶ) it[SUP]ar[/SUP] it[SUP]b[/SUP] it[SUP]c[/SUP] it[SUP]d[/SUP] it[SUP]dem[/SUP] it[SUP]e[/SUP] it[SUP]f[/SUP] it[SUP]g[/SUP] it[SUP]mon[/SUP] it[SUP]o[/SUP] it[SUP]x[/SUP] it[SUP]z[/SUP] vg (syr[SUP]p[/SUP]) syr[SUP]h[/SUP] arm geo slav Irenaeus[SUP]gr[/SUP] Irenaeus[SUP]lat[/SUP] Ambrosiaster Victorinus-Rome Ambrose Chrysostom Pelagius Theodore[SUP]lat[/SUP] Theodoret John-Damascus ς ND Dio

autou ek tEs sarkos autou kai ek tOn osteOn autou
of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}
out {1537 PREP} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of a flesh {4561 N-GSF} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM} and {2532 CONJ} out {1537 PREP} of the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of bones {3747 N-GPN} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}

*autou
of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}

αὐτοῦ
p[SUP]46[/SUP] א* A B 048 6 33 81 424[SUP]c[/SUP] 1739* 1881 2464 l[SUP]422[/SUP] it[SUP]s[/SUP] vg[SUP]ms[/SUP] cop[SUP]sa[/SUP] cop[SUP]bo[/SUP] eth Methodius Origen[SUP]lat[/SUP] Jerome Augustine[SUP]vid[/SUP] Ps-Jerome Euthalius WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM

 

[LT]

(LT)
Also, the mystery is in the relation to the Church and Christ, which was not revealed in the OT,
which is why it's called a mystery. It is revealed, in part, because it relates to us.

(Robin)
Wasn't Israel, in the OT, figuratively in a marriage relationship with God ...
The "mystery" or secret, revealed here, is indeed the ecclesia's being a part of Christ's body, not a wife ...
This is something new, from God via Paul to us, a new revelation about our relation with Christ.

The word is better translated "Lambkin" ... and you wont find any scripture that says "bride of Christ,"
but a number of verses that talk to the body of Christ. Christ - Lambkin, what's the difference, there the same right?
No, these are both titles, official titles, which indicate different functions ... and becase they are different words,
it would be a mistake for us to morph or cobble together such a non-scriptural phrase "bride of Christ"

So if the bride of the Lambin means one thing, and the body of Christ means another ... then we're talking about
two different entities ... the faithful of Israel, as the bride (of the Lambkin), and the faithful today, as the body (of Christ).

(LT)
I suppose I need to hear your interpretation of Eph 5 in layman's terms ...

(Robin)
Dont think I'm able to explain it any better ... these verses (plus those in the next chapter) are addressing, for the most part,
social relationships, practical edifications; and it's only here, that Paul interjects his "oh by the way" revelation about the church today. Husbands cannot be exhorted to love their wives, on the grounds that that the ecclesia occupies this relation to Christ ... for the very reason that the faithful in Israel have no part in the blessings of the ecclesia today, so they are figured as the wife or bride of the Lambkin, not of Christ. Hence the argument (quote) of Eden is introduced, showing that husband and wife become one flesh. Christ and the ecclesia are one body. Hence the husband is exhorted to love his wife as ... as his own body, for it is thus ... thus that Christ loves the ecclesia.

(LT)
...because I seem to be misunderstanding your rendering of the Greek.
Thus far, I just don't understand how you are differentiating the Church from wife, even with your translation changes.

(Robin)
Interesting ... what exactly do you mean by my translation changes? Are you, then, talking about the additional words
found in verse 5:30 ... these aren't my translation changes, they are just a recognition of those words found in the Byzantine source texts (see below)

out {1537 PREP} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of a flesh {4561 N-GSF} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM} and {2532 CONJ} out {1537 PREP} of the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of bones {3747 N-GPN} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}


(LT)
Thus far, I just don't understand how you are differentiating the Church from wife ...

(Robin)
Well, I guess that makes us even, because I've no idea how anyone can confuse the ecclesia, today,
with the figure of a wife or bride ... we are the body of Christ ... now, that's perfectly clear, but
figuring us as a wife, bride is not something that our apostle Paul does, ever does.

But then, one might ask, what about the wedding ceremony, and the virgins and their lamps
that the gospels talk to?

Remember puppies under the table; remember that Jesus did not want His deciples to go outside of Israel;
remember that Paul was given a differnt gospel, than Peter, that Paul was sent to the nations ... distinctions
need to be made, here. Peter is not our apostle, nor is James (nor was he even an apostle, for that matter),
Paul is our ... we, the nations ... our apostle, and his is a different good news, addressed at a different ecclesia.

I'm silly, right ... well, that's for sure, and I'm neither a teacher, nor preacher, nor herald ... so if I expalin this
foolishly ...you're right! Actually, I hate talking about doctrine, it only causes dissension, especially when
someone who isn't a teacher talks about it ... My love of the scriptures, is mainly about the words, themselves;
that's more than enough to keep me busy and happy, and close to God ...

So go ahead, be a "wife of Christ" is you want;
just know this,
those ...words ... aren't found in the scriptures.
So if for no other reason, perhaps you should rethink what you currently think you know ...









***

5:30* Deletions (9)

αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ
א[SUP]2[/SUP] D F G (K τοῦ σώματος for τῶν ὀστέων) L P Ψ 075 0278 0285[SUP]vid[/SUP] 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424* 436 451 459 614 (629[SUP]vid[/SUP] omit τῶν) 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739[SUP]c[/SUP] 1852 1877 (1912 omit first αὐτοῦ) 1962 1984 2127 2200 2492 2495 Byz Lect (l[SUP]147[/SUP] καὶ ἐκ τῆς) (l[SUP]1154[/SUP] omit καὶ) it[SUP]ar[/SUP] it[SUP]b[/SUP] it[SUP]c[/SUP] it[SUP]d[/SUP] it[SUP]dem[/SUP] it[SUP]e[/SUP] it[SUP]f[/SUP] it[SUP]g[/SUP] it[SUP]mon[/SUP] it[SUP]o[/SUP] it[SUP]x[/SUP] it[SUP]z[/SUP] vg (syr[SUP]p[/SUP]) syr[SUP]h[/SUP] arm geo slav Irenaeus[SUP]gr[/SUP] Irenaeus[SUP]lat[/SUP] Ambrosiaster Victorinus-Rome Ambrose Chrysostom Pelagius Theodore[SUP]lat[/SUP] Theodoret John-Damascus ς ND Dio

autou ek tEs sarkos autou kai ek tOn osteOn autou
of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}
out {1537 PREP} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of a flesh {4561 N-GSF} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM} and {2532 CONJ} out {1537 PREP} of the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of bones {3747 N-GPN} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}

*autou
of same [One] {0846 P-GSM}

αὐτοῦ
p[SUP]46[/SUP] א* A B 048 6 33 81 424[SUP]c[/SUP] 1739* 1881 2464 l[SUP]422[/SUP] it[SUP]s[/SUP] vg[SUP]ms[/SUP] cop[SUP]sa[/SUP] cop[SUP]bo[/SUP] eth Methodius Origen[SUP]lat[/SUP] Jerome Augustine[SUP]vid[/SUP] Ps-Jerome Euthalius WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM

Who then is the bride of the Lamb? I simply don't yet see what you see, or understand it's implications.

 

[robinriley]

Who then is the bride of the Lamb? I simply don't yet see what you see, or understand it's implications.

(Robin)
It's obvious that I'm not a teacher, because I think that I did tell you ...

But what I see, here, in verse 5:31 are the most curious words, words that I dont see other translations putting much effort into conveying to the reader ... ἀντὶ τούτου.. anti toutou... instead of this [thing]:

Instead of what ... instead of the relationship discribed in the quote; instead of this well known OT relationship. So then, what is this different relationship that Paul is referring to? That's the "implication;" that this alternate relationship is, now, some secret being revealed.

You don't have to agree with me, and my understanding of this ... didn't expect that ... but how, then, might you account for this verse's odd phrasing ... "instead of this" ...


***
5:31* ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καὶ προσκολληθήσεται
πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.

anti toutou kataleipsei anthrOpos ton patera autou kai tEn mEtera kai proskollEthEsetai
pros tEn gunaika autou kai esontai hoi duo eis sarka mian

instead of this [thing]: OT Quote

 

[LT]

(Robin)
It's obvious that I'm not a teacher, because I think that I did tell you ...

But what I see, here, in verse 5:31 are the most curious words, words that I dont see other translations putting much effort into conveying to the reader ... ἀντὶ τούτου.. anti toutou... instead of this [thing]:

Instead of what ... instead of the relationship discribed in the quote; instead of this well known OT relationship. So then, what is this different relationship that Paul is referring to? That's the "implication;" that this alternate relationship is, now, some secret being revealed.

You don't have to agree with me, and my understanding of this ... didn't expect that ... but how, then, might you account for this verse's odd phrasing ... "instead of this" ...


***
5:31* ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καὶ προσκολληθήσεται
πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.

anti toutou kataleipsei anthrOpos ton patera autou kai tEn mEtera kai proskollEthEsetai
pros tEn gunaika autou kai esontai hoi duo eis sarka mian

instead of this [thing]: OT Quote

"Instead of this" is actually part of the Septuagint OT quote. (Anti isn't as rigid in Greek as it is in English. As a preposition, it can mean because or against, depending on context.)

My attempt at understanding your point is this:
The Bride of the Lamb is Israel, not the Church.

Am I close?

 

[LT]

I have no real doctrinal attachments to the Church being the Bride, so I am open to a view change,
but I still neither see what you see in this passage, nor understand what significance it has for you.
I am not wise, and so you may have to simplify things for me.

I like the image of the Church being the Bride, because it seems to fit with the image us being clothed in white, but also, I see this as a metaphor not literal, just as Israel was not literally God's wife in the OT.
So basically, I am open to another interpretation, but I do need to understand the interpretation in order to verify it with the Word.

 

[robinriley]

a

"Instead of this" is actually part of the Septuagint OT quote. (Anti isn't as rigid in Greek as it is in English. As a preposition, it can mean because or against, depending on context.)

(Robin)
Thanks for sticking with me, I appreciate the discussion ...
Inteesting, what you say about the quote (Gen 2:24), so I checked it out using "The Apostolic Bible Polyglot,"
and find that the first word there is... 1752[SUP] GK1915[/SUP] heneken in-account PREP
not ...NOT... the preposition ... 0473[SUP] GK0505[/SUP] anti (4) instead PREP as found in the Greek, Ephesian verse.

Granted, "in-account" is my own preference, so let's read it as how it's more commonly read ... "because" ...
Now "because of this" makes good sense in Gen 2:24, following what was said earlier, so let's go with the Polyglot.
In Ephesians, we don't have this, we have "anti" or "instead" ... as Paul uses it in four other verses. So was Paul just
being sloppy in his quoting this verse from Genesis, inadvertently using the another word, or did he do so on purpose ...
for a specific purpose? Especially, since he appears to have most accurately quoted the rest of the verse, without variation.

As for the Greek word "anti" not being rigid ... this is partially true, in that it does vary in application/flavor ... generally
meaning "of over against; in the presence of; in lieu of; spoken metaphorically either in a hostile sense, meaning against, or by way of comparison, where it implies something of equivalent value, and denotes substitution, exchange, or requital ...
However ... however, I've yet to find it used to mean ..."because" ...

Four out of five of my favorite literal translations (Young, ALT, Rotherham, CLNT) start out the quote in Ephesians with
the word ..."for" ... but they than have to editorially add the additional word "[cause]" ("for this [cause]"), which tells
me that they want it to read, as if the actual OT word "because" was present ... sort of cheating, in other words!

The Dabhar actually reads it as "instead" ("instead of this, a man will") ... which is the more accurate reading; however,
the Dabhar can do this more easily, than say Youngs, because the Dabhar doesn't include the omitted preceading words
found in the Byzantine ("out of the flesh of Same, and out of the bones of Same"); that is, if we were to quote the
OT verse using "because," the sentence would make good sense:

"we be of the body of Same (out of the flesh of Same, and out of the bones of Same),
because of this a man will leave his father"

However, if Paul very carefully used the word "anti" (in it's more rigid use than you'd have it) ...
if Paul very carefully used the word "anti" in the customary and proper sense of "instead,"
then the sentence not only makes good sense, but also serves to draw attention to the secret.
That is, the new secret (not the old well know OT facts) concerning the figurative idea that we,
the body of Christ ecclesia, are even more close to Christ, than a man and wife in sexual embrace.

"we be of the body of Same (out of the flesh of Same!! and out of the bones of Same!!),
instead of this [thing] ... instead of this old well know OT fact that, a man will leave his father ..."

And then Paul even goes on to say ... in a most peculiar way ... that is,
"for the Anointed and for the ecclesia I say this ... this great secret"

 

[robinriley]

"
My attempt at understanding your point is this:
The Bride of the Lamb is Israel, not the Church.

Am I close?

(Robin)
Yes ... that's how I understand it.

Two gsopels, one on the earth, for believing Israel, and
another in the heaven, for believers of Paul's gospel of grace.

 

[robinriley]

I have no real doctrinal attachments to the Church being the Bride, so I am open to a view change,
but I still neither see what you see in this passage, nor understand what significance it has for you.
I am not wise, and so you may have to simplify things for me.

I like the image of the Church being the Bride, because it seems to fit with the image us being clothed in white, but also, I see this as a metaphor not literal, just as Israel was not literally God's wife in the OT.
So basically, I am open to another interpretation, but I do need to understand the interpretation in order to verify it with the Word.

(Robin)
I'm sure you're wiser than you let on ... I know that I'm more "simple" than I let on!

(LT)
I like the image of the Church being the Bride, because it seens to fit the image of us being clothed in white ...

(Robin)
Well, there is an ecclesia (church) that is the bride ...just not us.
Clothed in white as a metaphor ... interesting ... why not literal?

(LT)
I am open to another interpretation,
but I do need to understand the interpretation in order to verify it with the Word.

(Robin)
Ummmmm ... if nothing else, I can now better see how a person's beliefs
sway the way one reads certain verses, even when one is very diligently attempting
to avoid just that, by translating the verses one single word at a time ...... guilty.

Can you verify this with the Word ... Ummmmm? Well, I dont know, I believe you can,
but then, I think that's up to God. I, for instance, have believed many false things in the
past, and was sure that I could verify them from scriptures ... and then God opened my
eyes, and sure enough, I could use scriptures to verify that I'd been wrong ... God doesn't
seem to work at matters in the straight line that we'd like Him to, He always seems to go
about things in ways that a man wouldn't have done.

So what can you verify, without having to adopt or forgo any doctrinal attachments?

... that Paul is our apostle; that Paul says that the gosple he heralds is uniquely his.
... that Paul definitely talks about the church (ecclesia) as being the body of Christ
[granted, we have an apparent difference, here, in this verse, but can you find another, in Paul's letters?]
... there's no verse that says "the bride of Christ" ... even though such a saying is commonly accepted to be "scripture"
... that the figure about our being flesh and bone out of His flesh and bone, is a different figure than one of marriage
It seems to me (one man's opinion) that if one could verify these things, first, then other things might start to look different ...


I think I'm terrible at doctrine ... I really only wanted to talk, here, about the word "anti"
but the whole topic moved on me, best that I stick to the simple things, one word at a time