[Retrotia]

Will,
I appreciate some of what you claim but I have to disagree with you on the bride.
The Bride at the wedding feast of the Lamb is THE CHURCH. I can appreciate Jerusalem & the New Jerusalem to come & the story of the Passover. But Revelation 22:17-The Spirit and the bride say,"Come!"... Now, since when does a city speak?

[Will144]

That's why I said that the City is not the Bride. In other words, it's a parable, if you read again what I wrote carefully, you'll
See that the Last Eve is supposed to show up in the last days, a life giving spirit. She is Mother God:) She's referred to as a city
Because she will fulfuill the prophecy of the 144,000 (Rev 14). Spiritual children, not physical. We have to know Mother God, in order
To entere the everlasting kingdom.

This is a revelation that was going to take place in the future. The Church was established when this revelation was given to John.
According to Gal 4:26 "But the Jerusalem that is above is free and she is our Mother"

The Bride is not the church. A building cannot give you the water of life only the Spirit (Father God) and the Bride (Mother God, The New Jerusalem).
Think about it. Why do we call God Father? Why not just, God? Everything God mad was so that on the last day we cannot have an excuse. Even plants
Have a male and female. Even batteries. Positive and Negative.


Rom 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

This is what Jesus said:

Mat 13:35

"So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
"I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."


That means there is something hidden in the creation of the world.

Gen 1:26





27:So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

So according to the bible, God created man in God's own image.
But how many images came out? 2 images came out. Male & Female


The word ELOHIM is plural for God. In the hebrew bible, God is referred to as ELOHIM
Which is plural for God.


Some may argue God was speaking to the angels in the creation but the Angels had no power of creation. Some may say he was talking to the church, but obviously the church didn't exist. Other says he was talking to us but as we now, we were being created back then.

[Retrotia]

Hmm,
Did you ever hear the expression"why have an Ishmael when you can have an Isaac?" Bc Isaac was the real deal. BC God made His covenant with Isaac. So, I see, the free man is in Isaac & the New Jerusalem?(Genesis 17:18) Ok, but where does the "mother" you mentioned come from? This is about the return of Jesus, I don't use the word"mother". Perhap you use gender thing but since God is written as the Father & Jesus the Son- I use "Him"
I see your point about the mother being the New Jerusalem in Galatians, but it doesn't hold much weight when describing the bride. The church of believers is the bride. Sorry if it sounded like a building!
Babylon- mother of the great prostitute in Revelation-- or the phrase mother nature--that's all that really stands out to me.
Here's a reference that supports' the bride 'meaning:The Bride of Christ

[Will144]

Hmm,
Did you ever hear the expression"why have an Ishmael when you can have an Isaac?" Bc Isaac was the real deal. BC God made His covenant with Isaac. So, I see, the free man is in Isaac & the New Jerusalem?(Genesis 17:18) Ok, but where does the "mother" you mentioned come from? This is about the return of Jesus, I don't use the word"mother". Perhap you use gender thing but since God is written as the Father & Jesus the Son- I use "Him"
I see your point about the mother being the New Jerusalem in Galatians, but it doesn't hold much weight when describing the bride. The church of believers is the bride. Sorry if it sounded like a building!
Babylon- mother of the great prostitute in Revelation-- or the phrase mother nature--that's all that really stands out to me.
Here's a reference that supports' the bride 'meaning:The Bride of Christ

God made his covenant with Sarah to be more specific. Because she was the free woman. Sarah represents Jerusalem, our Mother. The church cannot be the bride. A building cannot give you eternal life. Only the free woman can bare free children. That's why two covenants were made. Free woman bore Isaac, the free son whom inherited all of Abram's possesions. Hagar was the slave woman, whom delivers slaves. Old Covenant and New Covenant. New Covenant is the Passover, Jesus said "And I will raise him up at the last day" WHy the last day? Because obviously the bride, Jerusalem, our Mother shows up in the last days to give us eternal life.

[Morganite]

Hmm,
Did you ever hear the expression"why have an Ishmael when you can have an Isaac?" Bc Isaac was the real deal. BC God made His covenant with Isaac. So, I see, the free man is in Isaac & the New Jerusalem?(Genesis 17:18) Ok, but where does the "mother" you mentioned come from? This is about the return of Jesus, I don't use the word"mother". Perhap you use gender thing but since God is written as the Father & Jesus the Son- I use "Him"
I see your point about the mother being the New Jerusalem in Galatians, but it doesn't hold much weight when describing the bride. The church of believers is the bride. Sorry if it sounded like a building!
Babylon- mother of the great prostitute in Revelation-- or the phrase mother nature--that's all that really stands out to me.
Here's a reference that supports' the bride 'meaning:The Bride of Christ

This may not be the answer you seek, but Jews at Elephantine believed that God had a wife/consort whom they called (if memory serves me well) their mother in heaven, or some such.

M:)

[Morganite]

God made his covenant with Sarah to be more specific. Because she was the free woman. Sarah represents Jerusalem, our Mother. The church cannot be the bride. a building cannot give you eternal life. Only the free woman can bare free children. That's why two covenants were made. Free woman bore Isaac, the free son whom inherited all of Abram's possesions. Hagar was the slave woman, whom delivers slaves. Old Covenant and New Covenant. New Covenant is the Passover, Jesus said "And I will raise him up at the last day" WHy the last day? Because obviously the bride, Jerusalem, our Mother shows up in the last days to give us eternal life.

The Christian Church is not a building, and no one thinks it is. In the times of ancient Israel yahveh says, "You are married to me, o Israel" indicating the bride-bridegroom relationship between God and his people.

With the apparent rejection of mashiach by the preponderance of Israelitish peoples, it is assumed that the disciples of Jesus mashiach became the new people of God with whom he established a new covenant or testament.

Therefore, citing them, the New People of God in the ecclesia of mashiach, corporately as the bride of Christ, re-establishes the covenant relationship with them in exactly the same way as it was in the time of the former or Old Covenant or Testament.

Romans chapters 9 to 11 is Paul's vindication of God's apparent getting it wrong by assuming that the chosen people would welcome his Son as the long-promised and eagerly awaited mashiach.

Have you explained how pesach is become the New Covenant? If so, then I am sorry I missed it.

M:)RGANITE

[Morganite]

Well, yes, inconsistent. Jesus plainlly said there is a broad way that leads to destruction and many travel on it, and that there is a narrow path that leads to heaven but few find it. This is not unity.

The ideal according to the Bible is:

One Lord,
One Faith,
One Baptism.


If that is not a scriptural prescription for unity, then there is none. However, it is not the only plea for unity. Actually, it is more a directive than a plea. Paul writes to the church at Corinth condeming the fact that there were serious schisms among them; some boasting that they were of Paul, others that they were of Apollos, others of Cephas, and still others of Christ; which led Paul to ask sharply, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?"

There were endless strifes as well as divisions among them, which caused Paul to denounce them as carnally minded. They were so disunified that they were in the habit of going to law one with another, and that before the world, in violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They desecrated the ordinances of the Lord's Supper by their drunkenness, for which they were sharply reproved by the Apostle. They ate and drank unworthily, "not discerning the Lord's body; for which cause many were sickly among them, and many slept" (that is, died).

There were heresies also among them, some denying the resurrection of the dead, while others did not possess the knowledge of God, which the Apostle declared was their shame. This sharp letter of reproof made the Corinthian saints sorry after a godly fashion, that brought them to a partial repentance, but even in the second epistle, from which we learn of their partial repentance, the Apostle could still charge that there were many in the Church who had not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they had committed.

From this second letter, we also learn that there were many in the church at large who corrupted the word of God, and that there were those in the ministry, who were "false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ."

This is the unity that should mark the congregations of the church of Christ. Where it is absent, God is displeased. Now this is a different matter than those who are on thr broad path, for these are they who will say they are on the strait and narrow way, but unless they are unified they are found walking after some other master. How then can anyone say there is no call for unity among Christians in the Bible?

Vagrant interpretations that lean too far into allegory are capable of leading people astray much more quick than any other means, and we should avoid stretching and torturing the scriptures to make them say what we imagine is right even when it contradicts what is written. God made his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as individual covenants.

But in the time of Moses he made his covenant with the whole people of Israel, not with an individual, and it is clear from the scripture that the New Covenant was with a whole people and not wirh a woman alone.



M:)

[Will144]

Have you explained how pesach is become the New Covenant? If so, then I am sorry I missed it.

M:)RGANITE

Don't be sorry


Mat 26:17-19

N the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

18He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.' " 19So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. "

What did Jesus want to celebrate? He said Passover three times.


Mat 26:26-28

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus fulfilled the O.T. passover by celebrating it with bread and wine. It is celebrated once a year only. The 14th day of the 1st Month according to the Sacred Calendar. This is the New Covenant for the forgiveness of sins. Not communion or euchrist, or Lord's Supper, Jesus called it Passover

John 6:53

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh (passover bread) of the Son of Man and drink his blood (Passover Wine), you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

As you can see, Jesus celebrated the Passover with his desciples. Let's see if it's important or not to celebrate the Passover


Luke 22:15
"And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer

Before he suffered he "eagerly" wanted to celebrate the Passover. Not communion, or anything else, Jesus called it Passover.

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."


That is the New Covenant. But if you notice, Jesus said "and I will raise him up at the last day" In order for us to be raised up and go to heaven, we must celebrate the Passover.

[Alpha_Male81]

According to the Bible it will happen when the world is one new world order, after 7 years of ruling and so on. I think it may happen like that, truly I do, we have seen two men close to achieving world domination, Napoleon and Hitler.

[Morganite]

According to the Bible it will happen when the world is one new world order, after 7 years of ruling and so on. I think it may happen like that, truly I do, we have seen two men close to achieving world domination, Napolean and Hitler.

How close were each of them to world domination country by country?

[galveston]

The ideal according to the Bible is:

One Lord,
One Faith,
One Baptism.


If that is not a scriptural prescription for unity, then there is none. However, it is not the only plea for unity. Actually, it is more a directive than a plea. Paul writes to the church at Corinth condeming the fact that there were serious schisms among them; some boasting that they were of Paul, others that they were of Apollos, others of Cephas, and still others of Christ; which led Paul to ask sharply, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?"

There were endless strifes as well as divisions among them, which caused Paul to denounce them as carnally minded. They were so disunified that they were in the habit of going to law one with another, and that before the world, in violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They desecrated the ordinances of the Lord's Supper by their drunkenness, for which they were sharply reproved by the Apostle. They ate and drank unworthily, "not discerning the Lord's body; for which cause many were sickly among them, and many slept" (that is, died).

There were heresies also among them, some denying the resurrection of the dead, while others did not possess the knowledge of God, which the Apostle declared was their shame. This sharp letter of reproof made the Corinthian saints sorry after a godly fashion, that brought them to a partial repentance, but even in the second epistle, from which we learn of their partial repentance, the Apostle could still charge that there were many in the Church who had not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they had committed.

From this second letter, we also learn that there were many in the church at large who corrupted the word of God, and that there were those in the ministry, who were "false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ."

This is the unity that should mark the congregations of the church of Christ. Where it is absent, God is displeased. Now this is a different matter than those who are on thr broad path, for these are they who will say they are on the strait and narrow way, but unless they are unified they are found walking after some other master. How then can anyone say there is no call for unity among Christians in the Bible?

Vagrant interpretations that lean too far into allegory are capable of leading people astray much quicker than any other means, and we should avoid stretching and torturing the scriptures to make them say what we imagine is right even when it contradicts what is written. God made his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as individual covenants.

But in the time of Moses he made his covenant with the whole people of Israel, not with an individual, and it is clear from the scripture that the New Covenant was with a whole people and not wirh a woman alone.



M:)

We seem to be talking about different things. All that you say is true within the Church, but there are a lot of people reading these posts who are in no way connected with the Church. There is no way the Church and unbelievers can achieve unity unless one or the other gives up what they believe. I think you have misunderstood me.

[galveston]

A question for Will144: Are you arguing for keeping one or more points of the Law?

[galveston]

According to the Bible it will happen when the world is one new world order, after 7 years of ruling and so on. I think it may happen like that, truly I do, we have seen two men close to achieving world domination, Napolean and Hitler.

Actually, it appears that Antichrist will never achieve world domination. His rule will be marked by war, and there are nations mentioned in the Middle East that will not be subject to him. BUT, in those areas where he does rule, it will be totalitarian.

[Morganite]

We seem to be talking about different things. All that you say is true within the Church, but there are a lot of people reading these posts who are in no way connected with the Church. There is no way the Church and unbelievers can achieve unity unless one or the other gives up what they believe. I think you have misunderstood me.

If I have misunderstood you, then I am sorry. I do not intend to do so.

I cannot accept that any but those inside the community of Christians can affect Christian unity/disunity. That matter is in God's mind and our hands, and wars will cease when men refuse to fight.

Christ's ideal is unity within His church, not unity with those outside the church. Can we achieve Christians unity and come to one Lord, one faith, and one baptism? I will say that my question is really this:

"Does the will exist within the whole of Christianity to do what Jesus and God want and come together, bury our differences, and do what is right, or is all Christendom committed to divisiveness, separation, and ungodly internecine war?"

If we are not unified, are we, then, really Christ's? Why do we call Jesus "Lord" but do not do what he commands?

M:)RGANITE

[Morganite]

A question for Will144: Are you arguing for keeping one or more points of the Law?

Aha! The question of Judaizing Christianity. Perhaps a shade of Seventh Day Adventism, or Messianic Jews, or Jews for Jesus, or some such cult. All these Judaizing groups militate against the spirit and word of the NT.

By Law, you mean the Mosaic ritual Law and not the law of the gospel of Jesus? If you love me keep my commandments (the Law of the gospel of Jesus Christ)...

Perhaps I am mistaken, huh?

[Retrotia]

Yes, maybe something to do with Levitical or Mosaic law, which cannot pertain to Christians because of the new covenant. (See Galatians 3) Will, it is close to heresy to apply your statements from a Christian perspective.
The Mosaic Law in Leviticus was given to Moses specifically for the Jewish people. There is a big difference between the Mosaic law (written by Moses hand, given to the Jews) and the Ten Commandments which are for everyone ( they were written by God, on tablets of stone, kept in the ark of the covenant). I don't have to keep the law of Moses but Jesus Christ enables me to not steal, not to fornicate, not to murder etc. (which are the ten commandments)... Yet the Ten commandments were summed up by Jesus as "Love God" and "love your neighbor".

[ordinaryguy]

There is a big difference between the Mosaic law (written by Moses hand, given to the Jews) and the Ten Commandments which are for everyone ( they were written by God, on tablets of stone, kept in the ark of the covenant). I dont have to keep the law of Moses but Jesus Christ enables me to not steal, not to fornicate, not to murder etc. (which are the ten commandments)...

What about "the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God"? That's in the Ten Commandments, yet few Christians observe it. Jesus certainly didn't change it. It wasn't discarded by Christians until many years later, in an attempt to appeal to sun-worshipping Romans.

[Retrotia]

What about "the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God"? That's in the Ten Commandments, yet few Christians observe it. Jesus certainly didn't change it. It wasn't discarded by Christians until many years later, in an attempt to appeal to sun-worshipping Romans.

Are you the grinch who stole Christmas and missed all the JOY?
See this article . I thought we observed on Sunday because the Lord rose on a Sunday. I am partly correct.
"for the joy of the Lord is your Strength"(Ne 8:10)
Why do Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday?

[ordinaryguy]

Are you the grinch who stole Christmas and missed all the JOY?!
See this article . I thought we observed on Sunday bc the Lord rose on a Sunday. I am partly correct.
"for the joy of the Lord is your Strength"(Ne 8:10)
Why do Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday?

It's OK with me if you want to pick which of the ten commandments to obey. The link you provided says that Christians aren't bound by ANY of the Old Testament laws, including the Ten Commandments, but that's not what you said in your post. It just seems to me that if you believe that there is an important difference between the Ten Commandments and the other Mosaic laws, you'd want to obey ALL of them. There are plenty of rationalizations for why Christians keep Sunday, but none of them have any scriptural basis, as far as I can tell. As a historical matter, the practice started quite awhile after Jesus' time.

[Retrotia]

It's OK with me if you want to pick and choose which of the ten commandments to obey. The link you provided says that Christians aren't bound by ANY of the Old Testament laws, including the Ten Commandments, but that's not what you said in your post. It just seems to me that if you believe that there is an important difference between the Ten Commandments and the other Mosaic laws, you'd want to obey ALL of them. There are plenty of rationalizations for why Christians keep Sunday, but none of them have any scriptural basis, as far as I can tell. As a historical matter, the practice started quite awhile after Jesus' time.

And it's OK with me if you are a seventh-day adventist. And I guess you didn't read the highlighted area about why we don't practice the Old Law either. BTW, are you very familiar with scripture? Because they do have scriptural basis.
But as far as history goes- the Apostles broke bread on the 1st day of the week.
See the refute page:



Constantine's decree: "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed." (Constantine, March 7, 321. Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. In Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1)

Answer: Constantine did not change the Sabbath to Sunday, he merely created the first "Sunday closure law" because Christians had been worshipping on the first day of the week since apostolic times.

Sabbatarians can't get their story straight! Who changed the Sabbath? Is it the pope, Constantine or some Christians in Rome?

* First they say the Pope changed the Sabbath. Then, when that proves false, they claim Constantine changed it! Then when that is proven wrong they now say that "Christians in Rome" changed the Sabbath to Sunday
* There is nothing here to say that Constantine changed anything. Constantine is making a civil decree that because Christians were already meeting on Sunday, as they were doing since the time of the Apostles, that Christians should not work on Sunday. Read it again!
* Today, it is not a sin to work on any day of the week! But it is a sin to not partake of the communion and give every first day of the week! Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2; Heb 10:24-25

Three wrong guesses, you’re out!

The so called "inspired prophet" Ellen White originally claimed the Pope started "Sunday worship" White later changed her mind and said the Emperor Constantine introduced "Sunday worship" in 325 AD. Today, Adventists blame the interaction of Sunday worship on Christians in 135 AD and not the Pope or Constantine!



Guess #1: the Pope introduced Sunday worship.

The Roman Catholic Pope DID NOT change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as Sabbath keepers falsely teach. Yes Catholics do claim they changed the Sabbath, but they also claim that Peter was the first pope! Sabbath Keepers reject the Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope, so they are in grave error for accepting the Catholic claim that the pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday!



Guess #2: It was Constantine in 325 AD.

Constantine (325 AD) DID NOT change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as Sabbath keepers falsely teach. Christians never kept the Sabbath from the apostolic age (33 AD) through the time of Constantine (325AD). Constantine merely made the first "Sunday closure law", since it had already been the day Christians worship for 300 years!



Today’s guess #3: Christians in 135 AD.

The historical claims of Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, refuted. Bacchiocchi is likely the top Seventh-day Adventist historian in the world. His search for the origin of "first day worship" has led him to reject the traditional position of his church, and his founding prophet, Ellen G. White who claimed "Sunday keeping" began with Constantine in 325 AD. His view, which is increasingly being adopted by the Seventh-day Adventist church, is that Christians in 135 AD were first to worship on the first day of the week.



The truth: Apostles in 33 AD introduced Sunday worship.

In addition to Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2, click here for irrefutable historical proof!