Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
Scripture tells us that the New Jerusalem is a city that comes down out of heaven. Nowhere does it say it is "floating" and neither are we told explicity that it is a people. The church being the bride is a view that requires an esoteric interpretation of scripture.
If you don't have an issue with the physical body of a man ascending into heaven and then coming down the same way (Acts 1:11), I don't see why you would have such an issue with a physical structure descending out of heaven as well.
As far as the dragon is concerned, scripture does not make a claim that Satan = a literal dragon so it's only reasonable to assume the Lord is speaking to John in allegory by ascribing certain traits and characteristics of dragons to Satan himself because that's what we see through scripture when Satan is characterized. For example, Jesus described Satan as "lightning falling from heaven" or when Peter says that "the devil prowls around like a roaring lion...ect". Is Satan then a literal Lion or a lightning bolt or can we safely assume from the consistent patterns throughout scripture that these are figures of speech whenever Satan is mentioned?
As far as cities go, there are no places in scripture where a city is anything other than a city so it's reasonable to assume when scripture describes the physical characteristics of a city that it's describing an actual city and not allegorically pointing to anything or anyone else.
|
Even the measurements of this so-called literal city are symbolic. The number 12 is featured throughout. If someone said that their car was 12 foot high and 12 foot long and 12 foot wide, and the wheels were 6 foot in diameter would we believe them? Probably not. We would probably assume that the car is symbolic. Similarly, the dimensions and construction of the New Jerusalem are too fanciful to be believed as literal. The dimensions are symbolic, the stones and materials are symbolic, everything about this thing is symbolic. It's too symbolic to be practical.
Also consider the practicality of such a city. God creates a new earth, with no more pain, death or evil things, yet he makes his people live in a huge jewelry box. And the height is 1400 miles and extends into space. Space starts at 62 miles above the Earth. So 95% of this city is in space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
Sure, it's a fact that there were churches in each city in Revelation however it is neither a scriptural or historical fact that there was only one location where believers met in each city. One location, one city is not fact.
Early Christians met in houses, not enormous multi-million dollar tax exempt facilities. It's not practical to assume the entire church in a city as big as Rome all met at Priscilla and Aquilla's home.
Here is a clip from an article titled "Earliest days of the Roman Christian Church";
What we do know is that Christianity had become a major presence in the city of Rome by the late 40s A.D. Like most Christians in the ancient world, the Roman Christians were not collected into a single congregation. Instead, small groups of Christ-followers gathered regularly in house churches to worship, fellowship, and study the Scriptures together.
As an example, Paul mentioned a specific house church that was led by married converts to Christ named Priscilla and Aquilla (see Romans 16:3-5).
In addition, there were as many as 50,000 Jews living in Rome during Paul's day. Many of these also became Christians and joined the church. Like Jewish converts from other cities, they likely met together in the synagogues throughout Rome alongside other Jews, in addition to gathering separately in houses.
Now if you really want to get technical and follow scripture on locality, the first and only church at the time proceeding Jesus' resurrection was in Jerusalem.
So then, are we all now supposed to gather in the city of Jerusalem rather then being spread out into cities all across the globe? Pretty impractical if you think about it, right? This is the same as expecting all Christians to meet in one place in cities as massive as Rome. It's just not practical.
|
Indeed, Lee and Nee taught one church per city, not one location per city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S
You still have not answered where the idea that the bride of Christ = the church comes from in scripture.
|
2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for
I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Romans 7:4 ...
that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead,
Wikipedia has a an article devoted to the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Christ
Sometimes, the Bride is implied by calling Jesus a Bridegroom. For over 1500 years, the Church was identified as the bride betrothed to Christ. However, there are instances of the interpretation of the usage varying from church to church. Most believe that it always refers to the church.
I have never come across an interpretation which says that the Bride of Christ is a physical city.