[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

There is nothing "fanciful" about a city that is 1400 miles in all directions. It would obviously be considered a big city by our standards but obviously not by God's. If you consider that all of God's people throughout all of combined history will be dwelling there you'd need a pretty large city, don't you think? God created the earth and the earth is uniform, is it not? Why then would God's holy city also not be uniform?

Indeed, Lee and Nee taught one church per city, not one location per city.

Which is still not biblical. In what way does the bible teach that a city's boundaries have the authority to separate churches? Were the literal boundaries of Rome, Ephesus, Smyrna, ect. inherently divisive in nature?

With this mentality I'd imagine if the LC were around in early Christianity, instead of calling denominations evil, they'd probably end up calling cities evil....oh wait....

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.

Preceding this statement, Paul says;

"I hope you will bear with a little of my foolishness..."

This here makes it clear Paul is using hyperbole and is not meaning for this to be taken literally or as doctrine.

Romans 7:4 ...that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead

There is only one translation that I'm aware of that uses the english word "marries" here in Romans 7:4 and it is the KJV. This makes sense because the context in which the the word is used would be that of the old english language.

The word "marries" it is not used in the sense of marriage like that of a bride and a bridegroom. Instead, this word as the KJV renders it is used in the sense of being united.

The Greek word that KJV translates from is "ginomai" and it is a word that does not in any way connote a marraige between a man and women, husband and wife, ect. The Greek word used for "marriage" or "married" in a matrimonial sense in scripture is "gameo" or "gamos".

[b]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.

Maybe this is because you've been sheltered by the LC for so long.

I understand that not only the LC but also other segments of Christianity hold the view that the bride = the church. But even if a majority holds something to be true does not automatically make it true.

Many also hold to the view that the New Jerusalem is "the bride" as per Revelation 21:2.

Scripture teaches that Christian's are the "body" of Christ and not the bride. Common sense would tell you that Christ "marrying" himself is a strange concept indeed. In fact, what this doctrine does is feminize the church.

Scripture teaches us that God is masculine in nature as is Christ, it follows that the church being Christ's body would also be considered masculine.

This is not about anything feminine as being inferior, but it is about secretly introducing heretical gnostic elements into Christian doctrine unbeknownst to most people. Scripture does warn us that Satan is crafty and subtle...

In Gnosticism, many gnostics held to teachings based on the traditions of "Sophia", the supposed feminine aspect of God.

In short, within Gnosticism there was a belief that we are all spiritual beings composed of masculine and feminine energy. In order to be made whole and freed from ignorance (enlightenment), one would have to unite the masculine along with the feminine energies in a sort of "holy spiritual matrimony". This is the mentality where the outward androgynous customs of ancient pagan cultures and elements seen in our modern culture stem from.

This is really the roots of where the teaching of the church being the bride come from. The imagery of the female aspect of Christ (the bride or church) becoming united and married to the masculine aspect of Christ (the bridegroom or the head) is a gnostic teaching and is unbiblical.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The church being the bride, esoteric interpretation or not, is a very old, 1500 year old view in Christianity. Many many people believe it, and even some bible versions have deliberately inserted words to enforce the idea.

Gnosticism within Christianity is even older than that.