[chette777]

you guys are stretching. find some clear verse any where in Paul's Writings where Paul refers to the Body of Christ as the Bride of Christ. so we can have a clear doctrine of the Body of Christ as the bride of Christ today. which is not the same as the Lamb's bride either. no Bride in any of Paul's writings, No Lamb in any of his teachings. all wife references in Paul's writings have to do with unity with Christ or submission to Christ. But don't teach that the Body of Christ is the Bride of Christ.

you think you have supporting verses but you have no base verse to put your supporting verses on.

It is like this. First find Paul's teaching then as you read the other books if they agree with Paul then it is a doctrine for the church. you have to have a coat hanger (base doctrine) to hang your coat on (supporting doctrine) it doesn't work any other way.

you guys are forcing your words Bride into Paul's teachings to support the traditional doctrine of men..

Kiwi in the case of Adam marring his body (which is physical) he is the only man to do that. for only Eve was taken from him. concerning Jesus you were not taken from his side you were joined to him, you were baptized into his body no out of his body. so trying to use fuzzy logic wont work to support the doctrine of The Bride of Christ. as far as I know the Bible does not use Eve as a type of church the closest you could get is 2Cor11:3 however it is about unity not the the body of Christ is the Body of Christ.

Stephan,

George uses similar words in his post concerning the subtly of men toward some poster. But you don't call him on it. You read it as condescending because you interpret my confidence as something other than it is.