[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I disagree that the burden of proof remains on me. This is because in Christianity the most commonly accepted interpretation of the bride of Christ is the Church, and your view is an uncommon interpretation.

Normally the most commonly accepted view is the one that must be disproven. So really the burden of proof is on you to be able to provide enough evidence to reject this idea that the Bride of Christ is the Church. Do you have any book or scholar or author you can refer me to for further reading?

The view of the bride of Christ = the church is not a concept that has ever been proven to begin with. Nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say "church = bride". It's a view based on subjective interpretation so there is nothing there to disprove.

Scripture does however plainly make the claims that "New Jerusalem = holy city" and "new Jerusalem = adorned bride"

Those that think that this city John is describing is anything other than a city and that the bride is being likened to anything other than an actual city have the burden to prove otherwise.

BTW, if you do your research you'll find the roots of this teaching trace back to gnosticism and then later adopted and made mainstream through Catholicism.

Here is an excerpt from a teaching on the catholic catechism from Vatican.va website;

"789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ."

This is Sophian gnosticism ^^^

From biblehub I can easily quote bible scholars who say that the bride is the people, not the physical structure:.........

I'm here having a discussion with you, I'm not looking for a scholar's view. Jesus and the apostles were unlearned men yet they understood scripture where as the educated Pharisees that opposed them did not. What makes a scholar's or PhD's views more important than yours?

The great difficulty with the bride = city interpretation is that it means Christ is "marrying" a physical structure and as "friends of the bridegroom" we get to watch Christ marry a building. Who or what is in this building that Christ is marrying and why would Christ love a mere building when He died for people?

You're taking the analogy of marriage as literal matrimony and making an argument that of course looks silly presented in that way.

If I do that same and go with the view that Christ is marrying those that consist of the church. With you being a male, you don't find it strange that you are being married to another male?

We can then be safe in saying that the marriage language in scripture refers to a joining or unifying rather than human matrimony.

If viewed this way Christ joining himself to his inheritance, or his kingdom on earth, doesn't seem strange at all.

Again, Jesus himself does not refer to us as the bride but friends of the bridegroom in Mark 2:19;


"And Jesus said unto them, Can the friends of the bridegroom fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast."

My understanding of the terms Babylon and Jerusalem is that it refers to the people inside them, and their condition, not the physical structure which contains them. Nothing makes much sense if we only talk about the physical structures and not the people in them.

Yes God's people will eventually be part of that city when it is established on earth.

You're allowed to have you're own views, Evangelical. Just know, I'm not here to convince you or anybody else of anything. That's not my place. ByHisMercy asked if I could have this discussion and you provided the challenge to make that happen. You gave the view you've been taught and I provided mine. I'll leave it at that.




.