BRIDE OF CHRIST, REFERS TO BOTH O.T. SAINTS AND N.T. SAINTS

[VCO]

Thank you, but still some major translations of the Bible like NKJV, NIV, ASV including he WEB has "church of the firstborn" which literally Christ being the firstborn is in harmony with the scriptural teaching of Colosians 1:18

Colosians 1:18 And he is the head ofthe body, thechurch: who is thebeginning, thefirstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Christ is the firstborn, so that the general assembly are the OT. saints as the word "assembly" were almost used in the OT especially of Israel.

Thanks

I pointed out CHURCH is and OBVIOUS MISTRANSLATION, and the Translators admitted in the 1611 KJV Preface that the team used Earlier Translations with known errors in translation, to produce a better Version of the English Bible correcting the known errors, and that is the origin of the 1611 KJV. Where I come from that is NOT a TRANSLATION from the original Languages, it is a Paraphrase. THEY MISSED ONE, hence the KJV paraphrase is not perfect.

The actual Word is ASSEMBLY, and that means a gathering of Religious people, and GOD said, Exodus 4:22 (NASB)
[SUP]22 [/SUP]"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.

To me, I see that as Clear Evidence that the Assembly of HIS PEOPLE at the time of PHAROAH are being called HIS firstborn.

Joshua 8:35 (ESV)
[SUP]35 [/SUP] There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.
Exodus 12:16 (ESV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] On the first day you shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly. No work shall be done on those days. But what everyone needs to eat, that alone may be prepared by you.

The term church of the firstborn may mean the assembly of those whose inheritance rights are already won (since under the OT Law the "firstborn" was the primary heir. They have already gone on to the heavenly regions where the angels are.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty.

Isaiah 61:7 (NIV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Instead of their shame my people will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inheritance; and so they will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be theirs.

Genesis 17:7-8 (HCSB)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] I will keep My covenant between Me and you, and your future offspring throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant to be your God and the ⌊God⌋ of your offspring after you.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] And to you and your future offspring I will give the land where you are residing—all the land of Canaan—as an eternal possession, and I will be their God.”

Psalm 136:21-22 (YLT)
[SUP]21 [/SUP] And He gave their land for inheritance, For to the age is His kindness.


[SUP]22 [/SUP] An inheritance to Israel His servant, For to the age is His kindness.

 

[John146]

I pointed out CHURCH is and OBVIOUS MISTRANSLATION, and the Translators admitted in the 1611 KJV Preface that the team used Earlier Translations with known errors in translation, to produce a better Version of the English Bible correcting the known errors, and that is the origin of the 1611 KJV. Where I come from that is NOT a TRANSLATION from the original Languages, it is a Paraphrase. THEY MISSED ONE, hence the KJV paraphrase is not perfect.

Scripturally speaking, the true church of the Lord’s redeemed people is a building, and Jesus Christ is a corner stone and a foundation. It is a spiritual building made up of God’s people. “Ye are God’s building...I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon...For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:9-11. “Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house...Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:5-6. The words “assembly” and “congregation” lose the meaning and connection to a spiritual house or temple made up of living stones.


Let’s take a look at the history of the English word “church” as found in our English Bibles. In 1380 John Wycliffe began translating the Scriptures into the English language. This is a full 2 Centuries before the 16th century Mr. Abram told us about.

Matthew 16:18 King James Holy Bible - “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Wycliffe Bible 1385 - “And Y seie to thee, that thou art Petre, and on this stoon Y schal bilde my CHIRCHE, and the yatis of helle schulen not haue miyt ayens it.”

In fact, Wycliffe’s bible has the words “chirche, chirches, and chirchis” some 111 times in the New Testament. So much for not existing in the English language till the 16th century.

I see you like to use the YLT, NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB...do you trust any of those versions to hold the pure words of God? Aren't any of those versions trustworthy? Using different versions just let's me know that you like to be the final authority of what God has said.

 

[VCO]

Thanks, but I know very well the trinity. There is such a thing as three in one.

1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

I"m guessing this verse is not even in your Bible.

NOW LOOK AT IT IN YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION:

1 John 5:8 (YLT)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] and three are who are testifying in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

1 John 5:6-8 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:6-8 (HCSB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.

1 John 5:6-8 (NRSV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] There are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

1 John 5:6-8 (ASV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.


Shall I show you all of them? As I told you before, the KJV translation team, admitted they were trying to make the even OLDER Versions, with known errors, updated into the English Language of King James day. Once AGAIN, they admitted the KJV was paraphrase of Older English Versions. What you are looking at is yet another mistranslation that they failed to pick up on. HERE, look at it for yourself:

You really NEED to READ the Original Preface of the 1611 KJV, they admitted that they paraphrased lots of it from earlier English Versions. I think you will find you have put the KJV on WAY TOO HIGH ON A PEDISTAL. Here, I have pulled some excerpts out for you:


The Translators To The Reader

Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, . . .
. . .
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? . . . so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. . .
. . .
Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. . . . he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jewes his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventie, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace. . . .
. . .
(and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greeke Translations of the old Testament. . . .
. . .
There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, . . . Now the Church of Rome . . . Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. . . .
. . .
And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. . . .
. . .
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. . . .
. . .
to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place. . . .
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. . . .
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { The very same thing you do to MODERN Translations. } For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? . . .
. . .
But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us: But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. . . . { That makes it a PARAPHRASE and not an actual Translation from the original languages. }

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

 

[John146]

NOW LOOK AT IT IN YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION:

1 John 5:8 (YLT)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] and three are who are testifying in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

1 John 5:6-8 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:6-8 (HCSB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.

1 John 5:6-8 (NRSV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] There are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

1 John 5:6-8 (ASV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.


Shall I show you all of them? As I told you before, the KJV translation team, admitted they were trying to make the even OLDER Versions, with known errors, updated into the English Language of King James day. Once AGAIN, they admitted the KJV was paraphrase of Older English Versions. What you are looking at is yet another mistranslation that they failed to pick up on. HERE, look at it for yourself:

You really NEED to READ the Original Preface of the 1611 KJV, they admitted that they paraphrased lots of it from earlier English Versions. I think you will find you have put the KJV on WAY TOO HIGH ON A PEDISTAL. Here, I have pulled some excerpts out for you:


The Translators To The Reader

Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, . . .
. . .
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? . . . so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. . .
. . .
Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. . . . he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jewes his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventie, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace. . . .
. . .
(and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greeke Translations of the old Testament. . . .
. . .
There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, . . . Now the Church of Rome . . . Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. . . .
. . .
And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. . . .
. . .
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. . . .
. . .
to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place. . . .
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. . . .
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { The very same thing you do to MODERN Translations. } For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? . . .
. . .
But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us: But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. . . . { That makes it a PARAPHRASE and not an actual Translation from the original languages. }

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

Any version you trust 100%? Do we have the word of God?

 

[fredoheaven]

Here also citation in the NT that the firstborn may also refers to Christ which is a more accurate idea in my opinion since in Hebrews 12:24, speaks of Jesus speaketh better things that of Abel (OT saint). If this firstborn refers to the OT saints who are enrolled in heaven as the NASB says therefore this contradict the teachings that OT saints who went to Paradise as the abode of the dead OT saints until Christ brought them to heaven (Luke 23:43).

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Colosians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

God bless

Ya, the NASB blurs my attention when it used the word "enrolled" instead of "written". When I enrolled myself in the university for my degree course, yes I did register and "went" to the the same school and learned and studied. I am not supposed to stay at home to finished my course. Likewise, I was once enrolled into a web seminar for a Bible Study and lt "went" this way: I clicked the site and did registered. That's it! So when "enrolled" you go there. Confusing is the dead OT saints didn't go there right away but to Paradise, as John 146 explain, it's location was placed in Abraham's bosom 'till Christ "translated" them to heaven...

Thank you

 

[fredoheaven]

I pointed out CHURCH is and OBVIOUS MISTRANSLATION, and the Translators admitted in the 1611 KJV Preface that the team used Earlier Translations with known errors in translation, to produce a better Version of the English Bible correcting the known errors, and that is the origin of the 1611 KJV. Where I come from that is NOT a TRANSLATION from the original Languages, it is a Paraphrase. THEY MISSED ONE, hence the KJV paraphrase is not perfect.

Are you 100% sure of this information you posted? Hence the KJV you said has already corrected the "known errors" then the product (KJV) is already purified and basically no more errors. That's the king's men did.

 

[fredoheaven]

Unfortunately, the lengthy introduction from the Translator to the Reader of 1611 KJV is not "given by the inspiration of God". Do I have to worry about that? Personally, no of course.

 

[miknik5]

How many foundations?
One or many?
If CHRIST is the FOUNDATION...then I guess everyone has to be built upon THAT FOUNDATION if they belong in THE HOUSE.

Correct?

Since HE is THE SON.
And since HE is THE SON, HE is as a SON over HIS FATHER'S HOUSE and faithful in all HIS FATHER'S POSSESSIONS.

Isn't that why anyone who listens to THE FATHER and learns from HIM will come to THE SON?
Isn't that why the FATHER has given those who belong to HIM to THE SON?

 

[pottersclay]

Would not the old testament saints be already with God after Jesus descended and released the captives that were in Abrahams bosom?
They were the ones that believed in the coming of messiah? Just a thought.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

Israel was of the olive tree/vine concept of upper branches all sharing the same root. By their unbelief, most were pruned off their branches, like a vineyard husbandman would have to do to keep the vine healthy, removing dead/diseased parts. The bad part is cut back to a lively section of branch, then a healthy known fruit producing twig can be grafted on.

Another way God wants us to think of our relationship with Him is as a single body with many parts, the head likened to be representing Jesus. So the body we would belong in is declared to have the very mind of Christ. Seeing we now know there are trillions of living cells in a human body, with each cell being like a very complex industrial center having countless electric and chemical processes, so those God has drawn to himself should behave as one single body, each part thankful for the other parts.

There is no straightforward Bible teaching that the body of Christ (assembly, congregation, church, temple of the Holy Spirit, etc.) is a literal bride for Jesus, Dogmatic zealots have taken many verses out of context for centuries, then recombining them conveniently to produce that concept of out relationship to God.

One of Jesus' favorite ways of explaining it is through use of the "sheepcote/sheepfold" analogy. Let's keep in mind the problem of relating a beautiful human bride being presented to Jesus, that supposed bride also described as a makeshift pen of branches, thorny vines, and probably a covered hut to house the guardian shepherd, in the minds of the hearers of those lessons. The ground inside the pen is a thick mat of phosphate rock formed by decaying sheep dung. If a shepherd could find a cave in the winter, he would lead his sheep inside.

Shepherds who knew each other would readily share available space with others in one pen or cave, or for common safety would congregated to where multiple sheepfolds were clustered. That way most could sleep blocking sheepfold entrances, while a few took turns staying awake on watch.

The concept of some sheep not being of another fold is how Jesus taught the Gentiles were spiritually grafted into the true vine, branches vacated by once eligible Jews, Even so could an ancient shepherd acquire ownership of another sheepfold of another shepherd's sheep, making the two sheepfolds one in ownership. His first sheep might have been inherited, the new sheep bought from an owner, guarded by a shepherd, often a teenage boy or young man who would possibly become a servant to the new owner.

There is one body, one household of faith, put together by Jesus with parts the Father gave and still gives him.

He looks at this body with wonder and great love like a man beholding his wonderful bride. However, there is no clear teaching of Jesus marrying his apostles. He said he wouldn't call them servants, but from that point in time his friends, never his bride. My left thumb is not my right thumb, but both as of one household of life, each thumb of one fold.

The apostle John was shown heaven in his vision. He saw the indescribably beautiful city called "New Jerusalem", that city presented to Jesus like a human bride presented by her father to a bridegroom. She typically wore the family treasure of fine linen, gold and jewels, some given by friends, to be presented as the best possible family gift to the household of the bridegroom. That's why that vision elaborated over gold and other precious things. The finally assembled body of Christ will inhabit that wonderful city with Jesus, all in one great sheepfold, our Shepherd Jesus the Son of God, with us his "co-heirs".

 

[pottersclay]

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

Israel was of the olive tree/vine concept of upper branches all sharing the same root. By their unbelief, most were pruned off their branches, like a vineyard husbandman would have to do to keep the vine healthy, removing dead/diseased parts. The bad part is cut back to a lively section of branch, then a healthy known fruit producing twig can be grafted on.

Another way God wants us to think of our relationship with Him is as a single body with many parts, the head likened to be representing Jesus. So the body we would belong in is declared to have the very mind of Christ. Seeing we now know there are trillions of living cells in a human body, with each cell being like a very complex industrial center having countless electric and chemical processes, so those God has drawn to himself should behave as one single body, each part thankful for the other parts.

There is no straightforward Bible teaching that the body of Christ (assembly, congregation, church, temple of the Holy Spirit, etc.) is a literal bride for Jesus, Dogmatic zealots have taken many verses out of context for centuries, then recombining them conveniently to produce that concept of out relationship to God.

One of Jesus' favorite ways of explaining it is through use of the "sheepcote/sheepfold" analogy. Let's keep in mind the problem of relating a beautiful human bride being presented to Jesus, that supposed bride also described as a makeshift pen of branches, thorny vines, and probably a covered hut to house the guardian shepherd, in the minds of the hearers of those lessons. The ground inside the pen is a thick mat of phosphate rock formed by decaying sheep dung. If a shepherd could find a cave in the winter, he would lead his sheep inside.

Shepherds who knew each other would readily share available space with others in one pen or cave, or for common safety would congregated to where multiple sheepfolds were clustered. That way most could sleep blocking sheepfold entrances, while a few took turns staying awake on watch.

The concept of some sheep not being of another fold is how Jesus taught the Gentiles were spiritually grafted into the true vine, branches vacated by once eligible Jews, Even so could an ancient shepherd acquire ownership of another sheepfold of another shepherd's sheep, making the two sheepfolds one in ownership. His first sheep might have been inherited, the new sheep bought from an owner, guarded by a shepherd, often a teenage boy or young man who would possibly become a servant to the new owner.

There is one body, one household of faith, put together by Jesus with parts the Father gave and still gives him.

He looks at this body with wonder and great love like a man beholding his wonderful bride. However, there is no clear teaching of Jesus marrying his apostles. He said he wouldn't call them servants, but from that point in time his friends, never his bride. My left thumb is not my right thumb, but both as of one household of life, each thumb of one fold.

The apostle John was shown heaven in his vision. He saw the indescribably beautiful city called "New Jerusalem", that city presented to Jesus like a human bride presented by her father to a bridegroom. She typically wore the family treasure of fine linen, gold and jewels, some given by friends, to be presented as the best possible family gift to the household of the bridegroom. That's why that vision elaborated over gold and other precious things. The finally assembled body of Christ will inhabit that wonderful city with Jesus, all in one great sheepfold, our Shepherd Jesus the Son of God, with us his "co-heirs".

Sir I may not understand your post as it is written, but for the moment I would have to disagree with all of it. Would you show scripture were God divorced Israel, also the new testament scriptures are full of the in site of the bride of Christ.

 

[garee]

Would not the old testament saints be already with God after Jesus descended and released the captives that were in Abrahams bosom?
They were the ones that believed in the coming of messiah? Just a thought.

Yes the old testament saints like us today walked (understood him not seen) by Christ's faith, (the purifier) not of their own selves.

This is the hearing of God's word as the exclusive source of faith.it is that in which by and through he freely gives us his understanding , and not of our own selves.

The Old testament saint on the other side of the first century refomation had the gospel by which God gave them faith preached to them beforehand . Its the gospel Abel heard mixing it what he did hear with faith(the unseen) and believed God as to the end of the salvation of his soul..

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

It in that verse (1 Peter1:11) it represents the faith of Christ, the faith of God, when it testified of the upcoming place Christ had prepared for them called many mansions. This is when Christ had finished preparing that place with His death. The veil was rent signalling the refomation had begun, their grave were opened and they entered the new Jerusalem as that which will come down from heaven on the last day, prepared as his eternal bride. Again in respect to the promised place of many mansions.The glory had come.there was nothing that could hold them back anymore.

This is the first resurrection. The same place of many mansions we enter in today when we do depart from here.Now that Christ has finished demonstrating the work.

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.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. Joh 14:1-3


They like us having the Holy Spirit of Christ by which God anoints men from heaven .The scripture inform us; if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God ,than neither do they belong to Him.

I think the problem is when men for one reason or other try and but some kind of difference or division between an outward Jew who corrupted flesh is no deferent that than the corrupted flesh of a gentile. But in that way you end up with two gospels, two brides . One in respect to the outward flesh of a Jew and the other in respect to the outward flesh of a gentile. . Even when we know it is not about the corrupted flesh of any man refereed to as bodies of death .

Christ does all the work of purifying the new hearts he give us when we do receive the Holy Spirit, The one qualifier for entering heaven

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, "purifying their hearts by faith".Act 15:8

 

[garee]

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

I see that a little differently today.

That divorce was in respect to the unbelieving Jew (no faith of God ) called the forward generation, the generation of Adam , natural uncovered man.

It would be the same today as a unbelieving Christian, no faith generated by God’s eternal will towards them. He could not divorce those he was drawing. He does not begin the good work of salvation in us and then change His mind about having mercy to finish it.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.oh 6:44-45

By grace, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit of the Messiah had favor on Abel, one of the members as saints, that makes up the bride of Christ, the church .

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. Gen 4:4

This was before he established the name Israel, to be used in the same way as the new name he called us Christian.

There are no cradle born Christians (outwardly of the flesh ) just as there are no cradle born Jews outward of the flesh as his bride . If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God then neither do they belong to Christ, our husband .

 

[VCO]

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

. . .

Now you do know we recognize that as MORMON Theology. So tell us are you a Mormon?

 

[VCO]

There was a time in Israel's history when Jehovah God stood in with them as like a human husband to a human wife, the time came for God to end that relationship through divorce of Israel. The prophets made it clear the next and final relationship would have to come through the Messiah.

. . .

Chapter and Verse Please. I do not find any such verse, but I find these:



Malachi 3:6 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] "For I, the LORD, do not change;
therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Isaiah 62:5 (ASV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Psalm 79:5 (GW)
[SUP]5 [/SUP] How long, O LORD? Will you remain angry forever? Will your fury continue to burn like fire?

Psalm 103:8-10 (NIV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever;
[SUP]10 [/SUP] he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.

Jeremiah 3:12 (HCSB)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Go, proclaim these words to the north, and say: Return, unfaithful Israel. ⌊This is⌋ the LORD’s declaration. I will not look on you with anger, for I am unfailing in My love. ⌊This is⌋ the LORD’s declaration. I will not be angry forever.

 

[VCO]

The location of paradise was Abraham's bosom before Christ translated it to heaven. It's current position is the third heaven.

I guess no one told ever told you where the expression of "Abraham's bosom" comes from. It comes from an old world (mid-east and European) custom. Which is the custom of very close friends walking arm in arm. Here are picture of men walking in each others bosom. IT WAS and STILL IS the most respectable way to show love for your closest of friends. You are reading into that verse about Abraham's bosom, something that really is not there.

 

[Ahwatukee]

The location of paradise was Abraham's bosom before Christ translated it to heaven. It's current position is the third heaven.

Hello John,

I agree with you in that the place within the earth, being where Abraham, Lazarus and the rest of the OT saints were, was a place of paradise. We know this because Abraham said to the following to the rich man:

"remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony."

As I am sure that you already know this, the place where Abraham and Lazarus were was within the heart of the earth in Sheol/Hades in that area that was separated by a great chasm from those who were in torment in flame on the other side.

What the verse actually says is that the angels came and took Lazarus to Abraham's side, Abraham being in Sheol/Hades in that place of paradise. Some time after Christ's resurrection those OT saints were taken to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord, which is where believers now go at the time of death. In contrast, when the unrighteous die their spirits/souls depart from the body and go into the same place where the rich man went and still is. At the end of the thousand years, the spirits/souls of the unrighteous dead will be released from hades and will resurrect and will stand before God at the great white throne judgment (Rev.20:11-15). The word "paradise" is not unique to heaven, as Eden was also a place of paradise as well as that place in Sheol/Hades.

 

[garee]

Chapter and Verse Please. I do not find any such verse, but I find these:



Malachi 3:6 (NASB)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] "For I, the LORD, do not change;
therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Isaiah 62:5 (ASV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Psalm 79:5 (GW)
[SUP]5 [/SUP] How long, O LORD? Will you remain angry forever? Will your fury continue to burn like fire?

Psalm 103:8-10 (NIV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever;
[SUP]10 [/SUP] he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.

Jeremiah 3:12 (HCSB)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Go, proclaim these words to the north, and say: Return, unfaithful Israel. ⌊This is⌋ the LORD’s declaration. I will not look on you with anger, for I am unfailing in My love. ⌊This is⌋ the LORD’s declaration. I will not be angry forever.

I would agree with your Isiah 62 offering in so much that our husband Christ marries a virgin.So shall thy sons as Christ's our husband's bride as new creatures that are neither male or female nor Jew or gentile. That new creature will celebrate the wedding supper in her new incorruptible body.

Paul who is figured as one of the mother of us as the bride of Christ as all Christians are is said to suffered as in birth pains until Christ is formed when speaking with Timothy he calls him a chaste virgin ..

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

2Corinthians 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.

 

[VCO]

Any version you trust 100%? Do we have the word of God?

When I study, I open up, my WORDsearch 10, I have twelve versions of the Bible open, and yes KJV is one of the Twelve. I know and understand that GOD does NOT contradict Himself, SORRY MORMONS, the Bible has NO CONTRADICTIONS, when it is interpreted correctly. I know when I look at a verse in twelve versions and only ONE meaning fits all twelve Translations, then THAT, has to be the proper interpretation.

I trust ACTUALLY TRANSLATIONS, that interpreted from the original languages, over and above Paraphases, which only improve upon the wording outdated versions of the Same Language. The KJV is probably the BEST of the Paraphrases, but it is NOT AN ACTUAL TRANSLATION. The 1611 Committee SAID SO.

In the Past I have had KJV ONLY peolpe try to tell me that the KJV is the ONLY divinely inspired Word of God, but that is NOT what the Original 1611 Committee said in their Preface about their own work.

QUOTE:
. . . wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. . . .
END QUOTE

Now I can only imagine, how hard the older Versions of the English Bible were to understand, because I struggle to understand English of King James day in 1611. The Language itself had changed, and therefore it became necessary to revise the Language in th English Bibles, and again, and again. I still think the KJV is the best Paraphrase, but it is not a Translation from the Original Languages. They used Older English Bibles and the Latin Bible to improve the archaic English wording of the older English Versions.

So what are my personal Favorite Versions of the Bible? New American Standard is SECOND, and Holman's Christian Standard is FIRST. Yes I use the NKJV a lot, but it would be Fifth if I was to list them all in order.

 

[VCO]

Are you 100% sure of this information you posted? Hence the KJV you said has already corrected the "known errors" then the product (KJV) is already purified and basically no more errors. That's the king's men did.

YES they were trying to correct known errors, but they did not translate again from the original Language manuscripts, they used all the older English Bibles, and the Latin Bible that was held in high esteem at that TIME. So how many unknown errors remained in the Updated KJV paraphrase?

HENCE WHEN MODERN ACTUAL TRANSLATIONS came along using the OLDEST original language manuscripts, they find those manuscripts did not say:

1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) first published in 1611
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Instead they found the oldest original language manuscripts wording it:

1 John 5:7-8 (YLT) published in 1862
[SUP]7 [/SUP] because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these--the three--are one;
[SUP]8 [/SUP] and three are who are testifying in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

REMEMBER, the words in italics are NOT IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE MANUSCRIPTS, they were added by the Translation Team at some point, to try to explain what they thought HE was referring to, as if men inserting their opinions improves what GOD HAS SAID. I suspect one of those English Bibles OLDER than the KJV, originally inserted that phrase above in blue, and the KJV Team, copied it without checking the Original Language Manuscripts.

NOW when we jump forward to one of the NEWEST ACTUAL TRANSLATIONS we find that ALL GOD SAID IS:

1 John 5:7-8 (HCSB) Holman's Christian Standard Bible published in 2004
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that testify:
[SUP]8 [/SUP] the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.