the bride of Christ

[Guest Butero]

@ Shiloh, I would be more than happy to go line by line through the entire book of Romans in a thread and discuss what I believe it means as opposed to your beliefs.  I enjoy going through books of the Bible like that to see how others view things, but you haven't done that.  You gave a general overview of what you think the first chapters of Romans are talking about.  If you wish to do that, I am open to starting a new thread on Romans.  I know we aren't supposed to be teachers, but I am not suggesting I would do that.  I am suggesting we go through the entire book section by section and let everyone discuss how they interpret it.  If you want to do that, I am ok with it. 

 

@ Inchrist, there are many Christian who are not Trinitarian that believe in the deity of Christ.  Do you believe Jesus is God?  I agree you don't have to be Trinitarian to be saved, though I am Trinitarian, but you do have to believe Jesus Christ is God.  If you don't believe that, you are in the same company with a lot of other religions that accept Christ as a great man and a Prophet, but not who he said he is. 

[Guest Butero]

I don't want to derail this thread, so I am not writing this post to get into a long discussion on the deity of Christ, but only to make an observation.  I have seen a disturbing trend of late.  We had several people come in here, most who are gone now, who are teaching that Jesus Christ is our Savior, but not God.  Am I mistaken, or doesn't that disqualify you from being considered a believer based on the Worthy Boards doctrinal stance?  Wouldn't that mean you are an unbeliever or at best a Seeker?  I am not speaking of the doctrine of the trinity.  I know some think that God appeared to us in the form of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and that they are all Jehovah, God the Father.  While I am fully Trinitarian, those people are not denying the deity of Christ.  To deny the trinity in order to deny Christ being God is not the same thing.  Maybe we could start a thread on whether or not you can be a Christian and reject the deity of Christ, but that would seem to be more of a discussion you would have in the Outer Court. 

[Openly Curious]

Hi Openly Curious,

There seems to have been a misunderstanding. I first said that the word covenant & testament were different. You agreed that this was so with the English meaning. You then brought in the Greek word `diatheke` meaning contract, covenant & testament. I then went on to show how God`s word does show the difference.

1. A Covenant without an inheritance / testament. (Jonathan & David. 1 Sam. 23: 17 & 18)

2. A Covenant with an inheritance / testament. (The everlasting covenant. Heb. 13: 20)

That is why I went into detail about this (everlasting) covenant with the inheritance / testament. So now we need to look at why the Greek uses the same word - `diatheke,` for covenant & testament. I will quote from Patrick Fairbairn in Fairbairn`s Bible Encyclopedia.

`..in a passage, Heb. 9: 15 – 18 ....this new covenant, or covenant of promise, is presented in the light of a testament, or disposition of goods on the part of Christ the testator. This undoubtedly is the natural import of the language, &, we are persuaded, is also its real meaning. The explanation is to be sought in the particular aspect under which in that part of the epistle the sacred writer contemplates the covenant.

 

It is that which, as already noticed, led the ancient Greek interpreters to employ the term ........ (diatheke) disposition or testament, rather than ....., compact, as the synonym for the Heb. berith; viz. the prominent exhibition given in it to the grace & lovingkindness of God.....

 

The passage just referred to in Hebrews is the only one in which the idea of testament is connected to ......(diatheke), & the only one where it should have been so translated. In all other passages where testament now stands, the term covenant should be substituted; & what we now call the Scriptures of the Old & New Testaments had been more fitly designated the Scriptures of the Old & New Covenants.

 

The Vulgate by its testamentum, instead of foedus, in this gave an unhappy direction to the versions of modern Europe. In particular the words used by our Lord at the institution of the supper, should have been rendered, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” as this would far more readily, & without any danger of confusing the idea in people`s minds, have made manifest the reference intended to the better covenant, founded on better promises, which was to be confirmed by the blood of Christ.`

Thus I believe this explains why the word covenant should mainly be used, & that it is not interchangeable with testament. The ancient Greek interpreters apparently should have used the Greek word ........for compact, as a synonym for the Heb. berith, covenant.

 

Hope that is clearer as to why I was questioning covenant & testament.

 

Marilyn.

Hi Marilyn, Though it is true if you were to look in a dictionary in the English language you might find "minor" differences of the words "testament" and "covenant", in the bible there is only one word used to describe both words interchangeably in the NT Greek being "diatheke" that "one" word means covenant and testament. In the OT there is only one Hebrew word "berith" that is translated as covenant and the word testament never appears. The point that I have been making is that "biblically" there is no difference between a coveanant and a testament.

So when you are challenging the Greek word "diatheke" you are challenging the inerrancy of the original manuscripts because the New Testament Covenant was not a translation but was written in the Greek language.

The word "diatheke" in the New Testament Greek can be used interchangeably in the English language. You can take the words "covenant" and "testament" out of the entire New Testament and you could replace those two words with "diatheke" and it would be correct use in every single instance.

I must take issue with what you have posted from Patrick Fairbairn's bible encyclopedia. The way he explains things, he is discrediting the original Greek manuscripts by claiming they should have used a different Greek word than they did. Personally to me it is bad enough whenever people try to "discredit" our English translation by making such claims as they "didn't use the best possible word". But when you do this with the original manuscript, you are bringing into question the very inerrancy of the scripture. The original Greek manuscripts are not translations. They are not copies they are the originals. They didn't have ancient Greek interpreters.

I was hoping when reading through your reply to find your personal answers and opinions rather than to find you argreeing with some book author whose views are coming against the inerrancy of scripture. The scripture you used above in order to make and show a distinction or difference between the two words "testament" and "covenant" I simply do not accept your position in which you have taken.

[Marilyn C]

Hi Openly Curious,

 

Thank you for getting back to me amid all the other discussions. Now I do hear what you are saying about calling into question the inerrancy of scripture. I would not like to do that. I read P. Fairbairn`s comments as `ancient Greek interpreters,` & not those actually writing scripture.

 

Also you did suggest that these thoughts on the `covenant that God the Father made with God the Son,` were my opinions & I did show you 2 others who believe that also. Then in Hebrews 9 we read of the necessity of a person to die for a testament to come into force. 

 

`For where there is a testament there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.` (Heb. 9: 16 & 17)

 

This to me shows that the `testament` is a subset of the covenant that God the Father made with God the Son.

 

Marilyn.

[Guest Butero]

I have been a Christian for over 32 years, and one of the first things I remember we were taught in church is that testament and covenant are the same thing.  I never even heard of anyone disputing that until this thread.  I saw how O.C. and Marilyn have been discussing what Greek and Hebrew words were used, so I looked it up in my own Greek Dictionary, and O.C. is correct.  There is only one word translated covenant and testament in the New Testament, and that Greek word means both.  I honestly don't know how anyone can seriously make the case there is a difference between a covenant and testament.  They mean the same thing.  That is why we speak of the New Covenant and the Old Covenant, though the Bible calls them the New Testament and the Old Testament.  It is the exact same thing. 

[Ezra]

Maybe we could start a thread on whether or not you can be a Christian and reject the deity of Christ, but that would seem to be more of a discussion you would have in the Outer Court.

I will do so and the heading will be "The Deity of Christ and Your Salvation".

[Guest Butero]

I will look for it Ezra, and I am interested in knowing your position. 

[Openly Curious]

Hi Openly Curious,

 

Thank you for getting back to me amid all the other discussions. Now I do hear what you are saying about calling into question the inerrancy of scripture. I would not like to do that. I read P. Fairbairn`s comments as `ancient Greek interpreters,` & not those actually writing scripture.

 

Also you did suggest that these thoughts on the `covenant that God the Father made with God the Son,` were my opinions & I did show you 2 others who believe that also. Then in Hebrews 9 we read of the necessity of a person to die for a testament to come into force. 

 

`For where there is a testament there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.` (Heb. 9: 16 & 17)

 

This to me shows that the `testament` is a subset of the covenant that God the Father made with God the Son.

 

Marilyn.

Hi Marilyn, I just want to point out that there is no "subset" the word testament is not a subset of a covenant. The two words mean the exact same thing. They are both part of the difinition of the Greek word "diatheke".

While you did post some scripture that you've claimed showed that God the Father made a covenant with his Son, they were all out of context and as such you did not convince or prove to me this position you have taken.

[Guest]

@ Inchrist, there are many Christian who are not Trinitarian that believe in the deity of Christ.... 

 

Do you believe Jesus is God? 

 

I agree you don't have to be Trinitarian to be saved, though I am Trinitarian....

 

but you do have to believe Jesus Christ is God.... 

 

If you don't believe that, you are in the same company with a lot of other religions....

 

that accept Christ as a great man and a Prophet....

 

but not who he said he is.... 

 

 

Clearly

 

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22

 

You Can't Have One

 

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 1 John 2:23

 

Without The Other

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

See?

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

[angels4u]

 

 

 

Question: "What does it mean that the church is the bride of Christ?"

Answer: The imagery and symbolism of marriage is applied to Christ and the body of believers known as the church. These are those who have trusted in Jesus Christ as their personal savior and have received eternal life. In the New Testament, Christ, the Bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be His bride (Ephesians 5:25-27). Just as there was a betrothal period in biblical times during which the bride and groom were separated until the wedding, so is the bride of Christ separate from her Bridegroom during the church age. Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to Him (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24). At the Second Coming of Christ, the church will be united with the Bridegroom, the official "wedding ceremony" will take place and, with it, the eternal union of Christ and His bride will be actualized (Revelation 19:7-9; 21:1-2).

At that time, all believers will inhabit the heavenly city known as New Jerusalem, also called “the holy city” in Revelation 21:2 and 10. The New Jerusalem is not the church, but it takes on the church’s characteristics. In his vision of the end of the age, the Apostle John sees the city coming down from heaven adorned “as a bride,” meaning that the inhabitants of the city, the redeemed of the Lord, will be holy and pure, wearing white garments of holiness and righteousness. Some have misinterpreted verse 9 to mean the holy city is the bride of Christ, but that cannot be because Christ died for His people, not for a city. The city is called the bride because it encompasses all who are the bride, just as all the students of a school are sometimes called “the school.”

As believers in Jesus Christ, we who are the bride of Christ wait with great anticipation for the day when we will be united with our Bridegroom. Until then, we remain faithful to Him and say with all the redeemed of the Lord, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/bride-of-Christ.html#ixzz3VRnpO7MA

 

You beat me to it.Yes,we are the Bride of Christ.

 

 

Amen! So we are the Bride of the Lamb, betrothed and waiting!

 

Amen