CKG,

There is no way you can historically locate ALL those churches today. We can assume that Paul did establish churches in that area but that is it.

Biblestudent,

Many do not rightly divide the book of Revelation. You have done a good job explaining it us all. I agree with your study of Rev 2-3 100%. But after awhile these who are ever learning but never come to the truth all they want to do is argue. Just shake the dust off your feet and move on to the next thread.

Some have come in as of late and just want to Bible Box.

*cough* It takes one to know one!

Your signature "Waiting for my Bridegroom" remember.

Chette, why is it that you don't display more grace to those of us who still believe this doctrine, considering that you only recently changed your mind on it?

KiwiC,

At least I can change my Doctrinal stand when Scriptures show the truth. Instead of arguing all the time. I have learned and move on to a higher understanding of God and his word. while you stuck with your sarcastic coughs, and circle logic that basis itself on the wind tossed waters of unsound doctrines of mens knowledge.

Good day to you

I love you too, brother.

#1
I was referring to the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, written by the Apostle John. I forgot that the "Johanine epistles" refer to 1, 2, and 3 John.

Doctrinal Interpretation vs. Devotional Application
1 John 1:7 and 1 John 1:9 teaches CONDITIONAL cleansing with the blood of Christ:
1. "IF we walk in the light...we have fellowship with His Son...and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us"
2. "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful...to forgive..."
Doctrinally, this conditional salvation fits the Tribulation period and does not fit the Age of Grace. Of course it can have application to the Christian in the Age of Grace, only if you SPIRITUALIZE the "IF's".

#2
"Over-dividing" is just as wrong as "not dividing".
1. I did not say John wrote Revelation to Israel, for John was told to write it to the seven churches where are in Asia "on the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10). What I was saying is that John couldn't and didn't write about the Body of Christ because that mystery was given to another apostle not one of the Twelve.
2. If John is not “the Apostle to the Jews”, where or when was he ever an "Apostle to the Church" or an "Apostle to the Gentiles"?
If "apostle" means "sent", and if "circumcision" means "Jews", then John is(without a doubt one of the Twelve Apostles to the Jews):

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostlesare these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Let's not take this question for granted: "Who is your apostle? John or Paul?"
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

I have NEVER seen in Scripture that the TWELVE were ever sent to the Church. Yes, there are "church apostles" (1 Cor., Eph) and Paul is the LEADING apostle, but the TWELVE were never sent to the ONE BODY.

#3 "Espoused", "chaste virign", "married", and "wife" are associated with the "bride", but "bride" - Scripturally speaking - is never associated with the Body of Christ.
What if Paul never callled the Church "a bride"? Then you got a problem, for John has repeatedly called Israel the "bride"
1. John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
In the book of John, ISRAEL occurs over and over and CHURCH occurs not one time. Context, please!
2. Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Is the Church a "city"? Please dont' disregard this question. The Body of Christ is not present in the book of Revelation. The "SEVEN churches" is not "ONE body". They are seven LOCAL churches in ASIA: 7 vs. 1;
LOCAL = ASIA (only);

Now, has anyone ever notice that to say, "The seven churches is 'doctrinally' a 'spiritual' history of the church is not only a contradiction but is SPIRITUALIZING?:confused:

LITERALLY, the seven churches which are in Asia on the Lord's day are seven churches which are in Asia on the Lord's day.
Laodicea is LITERALLY a place and one has to SPIRITUALIZE it in order to make it a time period.
Each of the seven churches have one "angel" over them, and an angel is not a group of "church fathers", "protestant reformers", or "missionaries".


#3 So there are two marriages in the Millennium?? I see only one in the Millennium, and it's only for the son. You have to produce a verse to teach other wise.
Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, ("a marriage", sing.; "for his son" only)

Comparing Scripture with Scripture, there is only ONE Bridegroom and that is the Son. Isn't the Jehovah of the OT the Jesus of the NT? (Do we need to run another set of Scripture to prove that?)

Isaiah 62:5 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.

John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Brother Kiwi, sorry for my long posts; but at least you see why (as Brother Chette) I had to change my position back then.

On this issue, it certainly not that easy to disregard my Elemental Theology, Christian Theology, and Systematic Theolgy, as well as Cambron, Evans, Willmington, Scofield, Bancroft, Schafer, Larkin, Ruckman (my greatly admired KJB preacher), etc. I am also very much aware of the extremes of Bullinger, Welch, Baker, Stam, and others.

Now, opening my KJB, I see once and for all the King James Bible's BUILT-IN DEFINITION and SELF-INTERPRETATION of its OWN WORDS.

What Paul was talking about in Romans ("married"), 2 Corinthians ("virign"), and Ephesians ("wife") is the Body of Christ (Eph 5:30-32).

What John the Apostle was writing about (and John the Baptist is preaching about) when he talks about the bride and the bridegroom is literally:

ISRAEL
John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

THE HOLY CITY, NEW JERUSALEM
Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

No need to apologise brother, you've done a splendid job of showing your position. I have read through every one of your posts and meditated on them.

Thanks, brother!

Proverbs 27:5, 6 Open rebuke [is] better than secret love. Faithful [are] the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy [are] deceitful.

I love you too Matt.

Excellent work BibleStudent A+,

For additional info on apostles to the church see Romans 16 for Paul has listed a few men and a woman there as Apostles as well.

Thanks, Bro. Chette! I didn't know you were "grading" my thesis. I wish you were my Bible school teacher; none ever gave me an A+ in my Bible school years!:D

That's my position and I don't have anything to add to it. Anyone who wants to believe they are part of the Catering Party At The Wedding Of the Lamb is fine with me, it's not going to earn one more reward or cause the loss thereof. It's when a group of people band together and cloister themselves off as being better than other Christians, which is the experience I had with Bride Churches, is where I speak out. My post-Church Of Christ experiences were with Name It Claim It Pentecostals who said I didn't have the "full" gospel and then a Bride Church where I offered to help and was a knothole in a pew. I'll sit here with you, brother, and be content with my Partial Gospel and being a member of the Groom.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

You keep using this verse to support your position that Israel the Bride, but it's an incomplete statement by itself. Notice the comma after the word son. You need to complete the sentence to get the complete teaching of the parable.

Matthew 22:2 explains the LITERAL "kingdom of heaven" using the parable (FIGURATIVE) of a "king which made a marriage for his son".

The meaning of the whole parable is "the kingdom of heaven". Every fundamental Bible scholar believes the "kingdom of heaven" is the Millennial reign of Christ. That means, the Millennium is LIKE a marriage.

Furthermore, not once the word "church", "body", or "head" show up here.
What I read as written is: "kingdom of heaven", "king", "son", "marriage", and "servants".

I think it's either Scofield or Larkin who said Christ is not "King of the Church" but "Head of the Church".

The Body of Christ (Church) has a Head; the nation (Israel) has a King.

I don't have time yet to go deeper into this or to consult commentaries, but reading it as written, here is what I can say about what it's saying:

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

Interpretation: God offered the kingdom ("marriage") to Israel but "they would not".

4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Interpretation: "The kingdom of heaven" was at hand ("all things are ready"), but Israel killed the prophets and the apostles; so God "burned up their city" (fulfilled in A.D. 70?)

8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Interpretation:
During the Gospels and Acts period, the "wedding" (kingdom) "is ready" (is at hand), but "they which are bidden" (Jews during that period) "were not worthy".
In the Tribulation period, the gospel of "the kingdom of heaven" will once again be proclaimed. At the second coming, both "good and bad" will be present. (Compare this with Matthew 25, "sheep and goats" -judgment of the nations, as well as Matthew 13 parables where angels were sent to gather the "tares and the wheat", the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one).
At the Second Coming (which starts the "wedding", the Millennium), those who have no "wedding garment" ("righteousness of the saints", Rev. 19) will be gathered by the angels ("servants", Mat. 13, 22) and cast into the lake of fire. This fits Revelation 19 and 20.

Quit putting words in my mouth because I'm sick of it. I never said that the words "church" "head" or "body" were in the passage. Now if you would read the passage, it's talking about guests, not a bride. I already wrote an entire post on Matthew 22 and 25, and I don't feel like repeating myself. They teach that Jews of the Tribulation are going to be guests, so if Israel is the bride, then some of Israel is getting left out. The word bride doesn't show up in either passage, which is what you keep making a big fuss about, so why are you even using these passages to support your position?

Those unprofitable servents are at the wedding, so they can't be the sheeps and goats because Jesus Christ doesn't come back to earth with His angels to sit on the throne of His glory until after the wedding is done.

Brother Kevin,
God uses figures of speech as he sees fit.

In Matthew 22:2, the "kingdom of heaven" is likened to a "marriage".
In Matthew 25:1, the "kingdom of heaven" is likened unto "ten virgins".
In Matthew 25:14, the "kingdom of heaven" is likened to "a man traveling".
In Matthew 13:14, the "kingdom of heaven" is likened to "a man which sowed".
In Matthew 13:31, the "kingdom of heaven" is likened to "a mustard seed".
And so on.

Let me ask you Brother Kevin.
Is the kingdom a marriage, ten virgins, a traveling man, a sower, or a seed?

Here is your problem. You took the figure of a wedding and try to make a doctrine out of it. Israel are "guests" so they can't be the "bride"? May I volunteer to be a pianist of the marriage of the Lamb?

Now, how about the other figures? If the kingdom is like a traveling man, don't tell me you have to make Gentiles the driver, Israel the tourists,

Doctrine first, brother, and let the figure fit into it. Take note that each figure adds, as well as repeats, different details. Context will determine the meaning.

DOCTRINE: God offering the kingdom of heaven to Israel
FIGURE that tells about different DETAILS: marriage, ten virgins, sower, traveling man, etc.

(By the way, the parable of the TEN virgins fit the judgment of the nations (GENTILES) at the Second Coming. TEN is the number of Gentiles.)

I believe that those words have a specific meaning behind, and that you can search the scriptures and find something that has to do with those words and it would be exactly that which He was talking about. The marriage and the virgins are as clear as crystal unless you're trying to shove them into the Millennium, which they aren't in the Millennium. The virgins are the Tribulation Jews, and the marriage happens just before the Second Advent before the Millennium kingdom gets set up.

Mat 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

This is a specific warning to Tribulation Jews, so why would it be to the Gentiles in the Millennium? The context is the the Tribulation because they're waiting for the bridegroom to go to a wedding feast (Luke 12:35-38). It has nothing to do with Gentiles.

:amen:
I don't believe you. I believe Matthew.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

Are you telling me that Millennium is not "kingdom of heaven"?

I know what you're talking about: marriage of the church in heaven before the second coming. I have held that years ago and have repeatedly read Bancroft, Scofield, Larkin, and Ruckman on that issue.

You know what's the problem? The Bible says the "kingdom" is the "marriage".

Theological system vs. PLAIN SCRIPTURE

I don't have to force the Millennium into Matthew 22 and Matthew 25 for it is what it says: "kingdom of heaven". On the other hand, you are trying "to shove" the church into this parable, which is not.

I've read that point-of-view, but notice the NUMBER: "TEN". Ten is a GENTILE number.

Compare that with "TWELVE" (Rev. 21; Mat. 10; Rev. 12), which is ISRAEL.

They are at the beginning of the "marriage" ("kindom of heaven"), but they were cast out into the lake of fire. The Second Coming is BEFORE the wedding, after the bad ones are cast out.

Matthew 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Remember Kevin, if Israel had accepted their Messiah they would have been ushered into the kingdom. but they didn't, so now some of those Gospel passages will deal with what will take place in future Kingdom and some during the Tribulation some transits the trib and the kingdom.

Col 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Tit 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

1Co 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

Anybody ever see a drunk man, in his home or the parking lot of a bar, standing there alone, punching at imaginary enemies? I think that's what this thread has become and that we should wind it up and move on to more fruit bearing topics. That's just my opinion, you all do what you want to.

Grace and peace

Tony

Just for clarification to Kiwi, Kevin lahat,

the teaching (doctrine) is that the Bride of Revelation 21 is the Body of Christ of the church age. I and Biblestudent have been clear and have showed you that it indeed cannot be by rightly dividing, and using the Modus Operandus (oh no Latin HEE HEE) for establishing a Church age doctrine. We may be like a wife seeing Christ is our head, we may be as a virgin and espoused to Christ. but these verses do not support that the Body of Christ is the Bride of Revelation 21.

plain and simple