- Topic
Everyone here knows our intereptation for this verse. As everyone only says we are wrong no one cares to give an explanation. That's very cowardly, this is a debate, Joshua(not attacking the person but method) likes to say, study it yourself, but that defeats the purpose of debating.
emil wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
Good going Emil, so then if we as saints are the Jerusalem, why does Paul refer to us as his mother in Gal? It wouldn't make sense to just say it is the church because the church is the saints. So I am Pauls Mother?
The Jerusalem refers to the church as a body of people as well as a place. Paul refers to the church as his mother. You again include yourself in "us" which I find amusing. You are not part of that church. You are part of another church that worships a goddess. What Paul is refering to in 4:26 can only be understood if you can shed your mother god notion for a while and understand Gal as a whole instead of using isolated verses. Moreover, as Disturbed has already pasted the writings of ASH in his book on the New Jerusalem, it should be clear to you from the writing of your own god. He himslef has defined it as a place and not as a woman.
Speaking of Paul's reference to mother, I guess most of us are familiar with how we call our country our motherland. Rare exceptions are Nazi Germany where it was called fatherland.
Nice one, Emil. Very nice.
fromtheotherside wrote:
So if we are the bride in Rev 22:17 then we are the Jerusalem, in Rev 21:9. Please explain. I do not see how you can say that the bride who is Jerusalem is us the saints (collectively) . Also in stead of getting to this later, if we are Jerusalem in Rev21:9, Why does Paul call his 'mother' in Gal 4:26? Please explain both Rev 21:9 and Gal 4:26 and how those verses are the saints, and the chruch of God is wrong.
FTOS, you've already gotten a lot of good responses, but here's mine for good measure. ๐
The WMSCOG itself talks about how in the Bible sometimes different things are referred to by the same metaphor (ex. – Jesus is the Lamb, and Christians are called lambs).
There are also times when one thing is referred to in different places by different metaphors (ex. – Jesus is a rock and a door; the Church is a body and a building). Do you ask, "Which is it? Is Jesus a rock or is He a door?" or "Which is it? Is the church a body or is it a building?" I hope that you understand each metaphor with its own purpose for comparison.
So it shouldn't be too hard for you to understand that in one place the Bible uses the metaphor of a mother or city for the Church, and in another place it uses the metaphor of a bride for the Church.
Great point, Genny.
It is amusing that you think I was talking about a building. I needn't say more because Genny has given you a fitting reply. The Church is not only at the time of Paul but also in the end days. Jesus said the powers of hell will not prevail against it. The church does not become a babylon or a man made temple on your say so. You guys have already tried hard to copy/paste the SDA claims of the antichrist, Dan 2, Dan 7. Genny has totally destroyed the 666 interpretation with history, Irenaeus has given a far more logical interpretation of Dan 2 and I have proved how Dan 7 does not support your interpretation. There is nothing left of your claim but your empty words.
It is even more amusing that you think Rev 21 is about a woman when the description is clearly about a place. It matters not one iota for me what anyone thinks the New Jerusalem coming down in Rev 21 is. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. My faith does not hinge on the interpretation of rev 21. However, your entire faith is hanging on just the interpretation that Rev 21 is about ZGJ. And how many cubits wide is she?
fromtheotherside wrote:
This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand right Genny, Rev is not about the time of Paul, but about the end days and what is to happen in heaven, which at that time, there will be no "church" but only God and us.
By the way, FTOS, when I mentioned the metaphor of the Church being a building, I was thinking of Ephesians 2:19-22, not Rev. 21.
I'm thinking maybe you and I have a different definition of "the Church". I define the Church as the body of born again people who have faith in and give allegiance to Jesus Christ. What does the "Church" mean to you? We aren't going to understand each other if we are using the same word to talk about different things.
fromtheotherside wrote:
You right Emil, now you get it. Rev 21 is talking about where the water of life flows from, that means where salvation can be obtained, and that is not where you are at. Rev 21 does not apply to you because you don't have the water of life. I like how you understand now. Yes Rev 21 is important to us, God's people because without knowing where the water of life is coming from we can recieve it. So now you get.
OK I get it. You guys believe that salvation comes from understanding where the water of life flows from in Rev 21. Then you believe it is talking about ZGJ and you think you are saved? Wow.
And because I don't bother to embrace your interpretation of Rev, you say I don't believe in the bible.
There are the 4 Gospels. There are the number of letters. All those tell us how we should live. There is Jesus telling us to keep His commands. You guys can't even specify what are Jesus' commands.
The author of Rev wrote a Gospel and 3 letters. They are in plain language. Nothing is hidden. Yet you choose to ignore those works which even specify how to recognize the anti-christ and instead accept an incredible (from someone who lacks credibility) interpretation of an apocalyptic work. And your entire salvation depends on the belief that interpretation is correct. What amazing gulibility.
FTOS I have a question for you. When are the events of Rev 21 supposed to happen? Is it in the end time? Is it 1000 years after the end? Has it already happened?
Still waiting for an answer on Emil’s question regarding the events of Rev 21
I'm bumping this up with a scripture verse. I would like to see what FTOS and friends have to say about this one. I am just putting it in here without comment.
Jn 7:37-39 says:
37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
The last time I checked the Spirit and the bride says come. ๐ I can see how Wmscog got this all twisted. Les fous!
emil wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
You right Emil, now you get it. Rev 21 is talking about where the water of life flows from, that means where salvation can be obtained, and that is not where you are at. Rev 21 does not apply to you because you don't have the water of life. I like how you understand now. Yes Rev 21 is important to us, God's people because without knowing where the water of life is coming from we can recieve it. So now you get.
OK I get it. You guys believe that salvation comes from understanding where the water of life flows from in Rev 21. Then you believe it is talking about ZGJ and you think you are saved? Wow.
Surprise, surprise FTOS. Jesus is saying you are wrong. By light years.
1) Rev 22:17 (NKJV Bible) – "And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!". the word bride is not in capital B, so it cant possibly mean that the bride is talking about God.
2) Rev 22:17 (Amplified Bible) – "The [Holy] Spirit and the bride (the church, the true Christians) say, Come!". The Amplified bible is even more direct to state that the bride is refering to the church.
3) Rev 22:17 – WMSCOG arguement is that the bride cant be the church cause we cant give the gift of the water of life / the living water because we are not God. Well to know deeper in the context of Rev 22:17, one need to study deeply about the end times and the rapture. One needs to know where are we standing in God's current timeline. It is absolutely possible and biblical that the bride are talking about the church because during the 2nd Coming of Christ, it is not the end of the world. We believers will be taken with Christ in our resurrected/eternal body to Heaven. What happens to non-believers who are not dead? they will still be living on earth and it is the start of Satan 1000 year reign. And after the 1000 years is up, the Spirit and the bride (all the true chrisitians or fellow saints who are already in heaven) will return to earth and say Come! and those who used to be non-believers, if they give their hearts to Christ within the 1000 years, they will still be saved.
4) The bible clearly states that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. So its already not true if you got to believe in the Heavenly Mother to recieve salvation.
5) Gen 1:26-27 (Amplified Bible) – "God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image… The Us and Ours refers to the Trinity God.
6) Trinity always refers to the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. If God the Mother exist and is true like what WMSCOG claims, the bible would be very very clear on that.
7) Gen 1:27 – What about male and female He created them? Note that how did God created male/Adam? The bible says God created Adam out of the dusts of the ground & He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Eve was created out of Adam's rib. There is a significant there and there is a certain reposibility being placed on Man.
8) As mentioned earlier, Man was created first. Without Adam, there would not be Eve. Just as Christ is with the bride (church), without Christ, the church would not have life.
9) The claim that WMSCOG, which was started only in 1964 in Korea, is right with their doctrine. One is saying what all the bible teachers, theologians, pastors, missionaries, man and leader of God teaches from the early church and the days of Apostle Paul till now, probably 2000years of teachings, is false. That is really an audacious statement to make!
Additions to the Bible within the amplified version are not Scripture and capitalization is conjecture by translators koine is all one case
I agree with you that additions to the bible within the amplified version are not part of the original scripture. It does not mean that we should take it likely either. There has to be sufficient studies and certainty from theologians and bible scholars for them to include this additions to the bible to help us or at least layman like me to understand the bible better.
Capitalization in the NKJV bible has always been consistant through out that it refers to God. In this case, the word "bride" which is a metaphor of a living being or a group of living beings is not Caps, it speaks volume. Btw, the NKJV version is the closest translated english bible to the original hebrew one, if we are talking about accuracy of translation.
So while we should not take it to the extreme of totally reliant on these little details, we should also not totally ignore and say it isnt important. take it with balance.
@jnj723…you bring about a good point mentioning that the "bride" in rev 22:17 isnt capitalized. It's the same in the NIV version, which is most popularly used within WMSCOG. I always noticed that. I questioned it when I was a new member and they blew it off like they do everything.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.