- Topic
While the WMSCOG has their own spin on what the Passover means and how it should be celebrated here's an interesting and possibly a more realistic way of viewing the passover. After the Passover meal Jesus did something that was really out of the normal way of doing things. He took the bread and used it to symbolize his body which would be broken for us. Then he took the cup of redemption and used it to symbolize his blood that would be shed for us. What we have lost over the years is something that the Jews of that time would have understood very well. Jesus actually proposed to his followers (the Church) with this act. When the followers drank from the cup they sealed a blood covenant with their future spouse. Let me explain. In Jesus time when a young man wished to marry there was certain things that he had to do. The young man prepared a Ketubah, or marriage contract (or covenant) which he presented to the intended bride and her father. Included in this was the " Bride Price ", which was appropriate in that society to compensate the young woman's parents for the cost of raising her, as well as being an expression of his love for her. If this contract was accepted by the future brides father then the young man proceeded to the next step. To see if the proposal was accepted, the young man would pour a cup of wine for his beloved and wait to see if she drank it. This cup represents a blood covenant. If she drank the cup she would have accepted the proposal and they would be betrothed. The young man would then give gifts to his beloved, and then take his leave. The young woman would have to wait for him to return and collect her. Do you not see the truth or the correlation yet? I'll go on. Before leaving the young man would announce, " I am going to prepare a place for you ", and "I will return for you when it is ready". The usual practice was for the young man to return to his father's house and build a honeymoon room there. He was not allowed to skimp on the work and had to get his father's approval before he could consider it ready for his bride. If asked the date of his wedding he would have to reply, "Only my father knows."
Jesus offered the "Bride Price" for us. We, the Church, accepted his offer and accept his offer everytime we drink from the cup representing his blood. He paid the price and gave us the gift of eternal life amoung others. After his resurrection he stated, " I am going to prepare a place for you ", and "I will return for you when it is ready". He then went to his fathers house and began preparing a place for his bride. The place is New Jerusalem where the saints will reside as the Bible says it. By the way, Ahnsahnghong said it as well. And who knows when Jesus is going to come back for us? Jesus told us, "Only my father knows." Jesus proposed to his bride in the evening after the Passover feast. We are his bride and it is proven by Jesus own actions and words. Anyone who comes preaching another doctrine other than the one taught to you by Jesus and the Apostles is a false prophet and a liar. Jesus paid the price for us and even Ahnsahnghong believed that and preached it till his death. This god the mother who's living in South Korea is a living, breathing, false prophet and liar as is anyone who is spreading these lies and deceiving Gods children. Accept Jesus the Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and he will reside in you and you in him. This is what the Bible teaches us. He's already paid the "Bride Price" for us, all we have to do is accept him.
loocpoc wrote:
To me.. He had dinner… He broke the rule of unleavened bread if he ate bread with his disciples….Sometimes I think some of my meals are my last.
Only if he ate leavened bread. Unleavened bread is still bread.
loocpoc wrote:
To me.. He had dinner… He broke the rule of unleavened bread if he ate bread with his disciples….Sometimes I think some of my meals are my last.
Only if he ate leavened bread. Unleavened bread is still bread.
The only problem I have with comparin Jesus's actions to Pharisee tradition is Jesus did not follow Pharise tradition. Modern Judaism (and even not so modern) is derived from Phariseeism so it is hard to know what is truly Israelite tradition and what came from them.
Another problem I have always had with the Church being a literal bride of Christ is, it would be polygamous and incestuous and in some places homosexual all violations of God's law (polygamy is a little less clear though when it comes to the law). It also would be contradictory for him to call us Children of the bridechamber and the bride herself both.
The only problem I have with comparin Jesus's actions to Pharisee tradition is Jesus did not follow Pharise tradition. Modern Judaism (and even not so modern) is derived from Phariseeism so it is hard to know what is truly Israelite tradition and what came from them.
Another problem I have always had with the Church being a literal bride of Christ is, it would be polygamous and incestuous and in some places homosexual all violations of God's law (polygamy is a little less clear though when it comes to the law). It also would be contradictory for him to call us Children of the bridechamber and the bride herself both.
maybe the Gospel writter assumed we could figure it out due to the fact it was called Passover in the account already.
maybe the Gospel writter assumed we could figure it out due to the fact it was called Passover in the account already.
loocpoc wrote:
Polygamy is allowed. Solomon had 700 wives. Adultery in the case is the fact the woman had to be married to another man and then married or had relations with another man. Not in today's rules where a person sleeps outside the convent of marriage and that is adultery.
As far as Phariseeism goes, with no Temple or current Konahim, how can we do anything by the law? In 67 we should of destroyed the Dome Of The Rock and rebuilt the Temple. Moshe Dayan relinquished control back to the Ishmaelite Waquif….
Polygamy is addressed in the NT sort of in a way people debate.
I do not believe you can keep the law without the Temple or at least a tabernacle (seeing as the law never says temple per say) with the Holy place holy of holies and all the articles and the ark of the covenant (that's the hard one) but I was addressing Marriage convention.
loocpoc wrote:
Polygamy is allowed. Solomon had 700 wives. Adultery in the case is the fact the woman had to be married to another man and then married or had relations with another man. Not in today's rules where a person sleeps outside the convent of marriage and that is adultery.
As far as Phariseeism goes, with no Temple or current Konahim, how can we do anything by the law? In 67 we should of destroyed the Dome Of The Rock and rebuilt the Temple. Moshe Dayan relinquished control back to the Ishmaelite Waquif….
Polygamy is addressed in the NT sort of in a way people debate.
I do not believe you can keep the law without the Temple or at least a tabernacle (seeing as the law never says temple per say) with the Holy place holy of holies and all the articles and the ark of the covenant (that's the hard one) but I was addressing Marriage convention.
Being the "bride of Christ" is symbolic, a way to describe the relationship between God and the church/believers.
The Israelites were called children of God (Deut. 14:1), but when referring to Israel as a whole, God called Himself their husband (Jer. 3:14).
Christians also are individually called children of God (Rom. 8:14), but also collectively as the church they are referred to as a bride (2 Cor. 11:2).
The church is also described as a body and as a building. It's symbollism and metaphor to help us understand.
Being the "bride of Christ" is symbolic, a way to describe the relationship between God and the church/believers.
The Israelites were called children of God (Deut. 14:1), but when referring to Israel as a whole, God called Himself their husband (Jer. 3:14).
Christians also are individually called children of God (Rom. 8:14), but also collectively as the church they are referred to as a bride (2 Cor. 11:2).
The church is also described as a body and as a building. It's symbollism and metaphor to help us understand.
I suppose that could make sense so long as there is no claim of literal marraige or brideship like many make it out to be other than several discrepencies I can see (God the Mother or not) Revelation 22:17 seems redundent if we are the church on top of contradictory. Along with the idea of us coming down from Heaven to earth when Jesus spent all His time preaching about Heaven why would we come back here?
I suppose that could make sense so long as there is no claim of literal marraige or brideship like many make it out to be other than several discrepencies I can see (God the Mother or not) Revelation 22:17 seems redundent if we are the church on top of contradictory. Along with the idea of us coming down from Heaven to earth when Jesus spent all His time preaching about Heaven why would we come back here?
Two become one is about sex
Two become one is about sex
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.