- 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.
fromtheotherside
offline
Member
Disturbed wrote:
@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.
The more I read your replies, I just … wow…. just, speechless, can I drop kick your head just once? Please, just once. I won’t kick that hard.
Of course you can TRY to drop kick my head! What’s your address so I can show up to give you ample opportunity
FTOS is such an awesome example of why no one should join or stay in this church. I guess they want all of us former members who are exposing their crap to just sit in the corner and be quiet. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! You can make all the threats you want. You guys have my address. Bring it!
144000 wrote:
Genny,
We believe that Zion will be rebuilt in the last days, because the bible excplicitely mentions that part. Thus, it is impossible for any pre-existing church to be true, let alone be the bride, because such a church has not made herself ready yet.
But lets say that a pre-existing church will BECOME ready and transform into the true church.
Well, that doesn't make sense with the parable of the wedding banquet, because the saints are not the bridegroom's wife, they are the attendants of the bridegroom in the context of the wedding parable: "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them"
If the church or the saints were the bride then Christ would have said "The wife of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as she is with the bridegroom" So we must not confuse the context. The bride is not the saints, and the bride is not a church.
Also Jerusalem descends from heaven to the earth, not the other way around. No, a literal church is not going to crash into earth.
Also It is not a man-made church erected on earth either.
Also if you want to insist the interpretation to be a man made church, you must first see the appearance of God who rebuilds it even then.
Also we believe Daniel testifies about the riegn of the beast up until the french revolution "dethroning" and "arrest" of the Pope. So any church founded before that time is straight out of the question, as are any churches which emulate the changed set times and laws of the beast after this time.
So if you want to tell me, in these last days, that you are in church, and the church is the bride, then your church had better be a new one, God must have appeared to build it, and it cannot follow any of the beast's teachings. If I were to keep an open mind.
But I have seen the prophecy come to pass thanks to the grace of God, and God who is Jesus came with his New Name and did show us his bride. So all the open-minded thinking in the world can't compare to denying the actual fulfillment.
There are more but if this is not enough for you than seek more answers at Zion with group leaders and a Pastor.
144000, I remember you specifically said "why the bride cannot be a pre-existing church, or church members, in the context of that particular story" which means we are focusing on only the bride as presented in Revelation.
The only point I see you brought up from this passage in Revelation is the part I underlined. All the rest are from different parts of the Bible. Let's stay focused, shall we?
From the underlined part, then, would you like to add #4?
The wmscog says the bride can't be the church in Revelation because:
4. Jerusalem descends from heaven to the earth. If it were a literal church, it would crash into the earth.
Do you have any other reasons or any corrections? Remember we are looking at the particular context of Revelation.
1004 wrote:
Emil, it's rude to attack people personally. Making personal comments, does not help your case. Fromtheotherside has explained your verse well, and you have not. He made it plain and simple but you refuse to look at his post.
Emil says: "Scripture goes on to clarify that the living water is the Holy Spirit" You keep answer and contradicting your own interpretation and you don't even see it, even though Ftos made it clear to you. Please go and look it over and try to get away from your own set mind because that is what is blocking you from understanding.
What explanation has he given? He has tried putting words in my mouth. Obviously he is unable to comprehend. Here, take a look at John 7:38 again
38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.
Rivers of living water will flow from within whom? Sad that FTOS is not the only one with limited comprehension. He can't even improve it when he uses another handle.
Thanks for mentioning John 7:38 again, Emil.
So, FTOS, if living water flows from within the person who believes in Jesus, are they the source of the living water?
So 144000, I didn't hear back from you yet. Is this list complete and accurate yet?
The wmscog says the bride cannot be the church in Revelations because:
1. In a wedding there are the groom, the bride, and the guests. The church can't be both the bride and the guests at the wedding in Revelation. If Christians are the guests, then the church cannot be the bride too.
2. The bride comes down from heaven. The church is on earth. The church cannot come down from heaven if it is still on earth.
3. The bride gives the water of life. Since God is the source of the water of life, then the bride must be God. The church cannot give the water of life, only God.
4. Jerusalem descends from heaven to the earth. If it were a literal church, it would crash into the earth.
I'd also like to hear from FTOS regarding John 7:38. If living water flows from within the person who believes in Jesus, is the person the source of the living water?
fromtheotherside wrote:
Yes thanks Emil, but unfortunatly you miss the point and you have purposely left out an important part of that verse even though you posted it before, which I already mentioned but let me repeat myself because you are slow to learn, in verse 39 "By this he meant the Spirit,whom those who believed in him were later to receive" They are to recieve the Spirit which is the source of the living water. We know the Spirit is God. That is why in Rev 22 it says the Spirit and the Bride are saying come, they speak together. So why don't you heed their call Emil?
fromtheotherside wrote:
Actually this is a very good verse to back up the truth. Living water can only flow from God, Not a building or even men unless they recieve the Spirit( but the spirit which is God is the source not the man) Therefore the two sources of the water of LIfe is the Spirit and the Bride! And as you have proven Emil, the source can only be God. Thanks for this verse! Surprise surprise! lolz, Emil you're a comedian
Thanks for posting that again, FTOS. "Living water can only flow from God." And verse 39 which tells us that Jesus meant the Holy Spirit, who is God. I wanted to make sure you got that.
Therefore, when the verse says that living water flows from the believer, it does not mean the believer is God. Likewise, when the verse says that living water flows from Jerusalem, it does not mean that Jerusalem is God.
When you read John 7:38-39 you can also interpret it to mean that the Holy Spirit is the Living Water, not just that the Holy Spirit is the source of the living water.
Verse 39 is very clear that The living water IS the Holy Spirit. God is the source and the Holy Spirit is the living water which flows out from every believer.
That is the flow diagram that John illustrates in Jn 7:37-39 is this: The Holy Spirit emanates from God, flows through and emerges out of the believer.
@FTOS…yes you read clearly! I said “bring it”. You wanna drop kick my head ya’ll know where to find me. You guys have my picture and my address. Come on, show me what you got! I love being threatened on this site and the other threats you guys have made. Just making my evidence against WMSCOG all the more stronger. God Bless You 🙂
FTOS why did you lie about being an American when you joined
Prove the bride is the source
fromtheotherside wrote:
The source, is, same thing. don't get technical. Unfortunatly you have not disproved the bride being God, and you have not proved that the bride is the saints, the bride is in heaven and she comes down, unfortunatly you are on this earth and you will not come down from heaven.
Ok, but did you get the point. I'll say it again in case you missed it.
When the verse says that living water flows from the believer, it does not mean the believer is God. Likewise, when the verse says that living water flows from Jerusalem, it does not mean that Jerusalem is God.
Now about disproving the bride being God or proving the bride being the saints. I need to know whether I'm starting from the right point. I need to understand your objections to the bride being the saints. That's why I asked you to clarify if I had gotten those four points right and if I had missed any. As soon as you verify that for me, we can begin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.