Talk:Bride of Christ

message: This could really use some clean-up. I'm not sure how to set things in motion to do so...I'm a bit sorry that its a bit unclean so I'll clean it up
Agreed, particularly this part:
Paul calls this a mystery because marriage between a man and a women is a prophetic act of the depth of our relationship with Jesus. This love surpasses our knowledge (Ephesians 3:18).
--124.170.162.165 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old news

message: I have heard this doctrine being used to justify opposition to contraception, this should be looked up or double-checked. 67.68.65.192 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wat. How it can? JosiahHenderson (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contraception

message: I think this article could benefit by some mention of Origen and Bernard of Clairvaux as these two figure pretty centrally to concepts of sponsa christi in my opinion, as does the Song of Songs.  I will try and draft something up when I have time, but some coverage of this would give this article more depth.  Lots of references for this stuff too DRosin (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origen and Bernard 

message: You are giving undo weight to one POV. World Mission Society Church of God has another definition for the Bride as God the Mother coming from
Matthew 9:15 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.
Mark 2:19 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.
Both pointing to God's people as Guests which is distinct from the Bride 
Revelation 22:17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. 
Revelation 21:9-10 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 
Galatians 4:26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother 
Also, if were going to put incorrect interpretation like the Church, some Catholics think the Bride is Mary and shepherds Chapel preaches that it is the 144,000--99.201.24.216 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not POV, it is theology. If you do know a theolologic school of thought which challenges the common understanding that the church is the bride, please feel free to add that and the respective references also. Simply stating "but this is not correct" is no argument.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has deteriorated since a year ago. /Expatinsweden (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: How can it be the Church? These statements were supposedly made while Jesus was alive, that is before his crucifixion. The Christian Church could not have existed before the crucifixion because "Christian" is a reference to the crucifixion.
Qemist (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that's one POV of many or do you insist there is only one POV in theology. Rev 21:2,9 is enough for me. It clearly indicates that the NEW JERUSALEM and not the church are the BRIDE of the lamb (Christ). The congregation of believers form the BODY of Christ. Other POV: http://www.biblical-data.org/BOX/bodies_and_brides.pdf --41.151.48.42 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to boldly add information regarding alternative points of view. This article appears to already consider many POVs and offers them without preference to any one, but if you believe there is an omitted POV, I'm sure everyone in this discussion would encourage you to add it. On the other hand, it is against Wikipedia's policy on neutrality to omit widely held theological points of view that others perceive as incorrect for the same reason that we wouldn't want to omit any points of view you believe are true. In the end, it's a matter of theology, and like you pointed out, there will always be competing POVs. BU Rob13 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Church is NOT the Bride

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 8, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Last week ian.thomson removed my first two posts in 2 min and 18 min respectively so that none of the other editors could examine them.  Why the haste, ian?  
Perhaps I should clarify--both my parents were scientists and I was raised to the rigorous rules of scientific methodology from earliest childhood.  As an adult I learned to follow the strict rules of theology practiced in the Catholic Church.  And I'm familiar with WP rules.  I understand WP rules were established because of egregious abuses of open editing.  
However I've also known scientists to misuse the prestige and authority of their positions; the history of science is filled with serious errors and long delays in correcting them by scientists defending their turf or their biases.  We've seen similar problems in the Church.  And I've encountered it on Wikipedia.  
But the rules of No original research, NPOV and Verifiability were not established to suppress information.  Some people are expert at rule following, some are creative thinkers; we need both.
And sometimes editors must work with what they've got, set aside personal inclinations, give precedence to reality and, if possible, work amicably toward consensus. 
There are few secondary sources on the Bride of Christ.  The most important of them date to the first three centuries of Christianity, making most of them inaccessible.  However the subject has been reemerging in recent years. And the primary source which IS accessible is the Bible.   
I'm a lay contemplative.
I came across the verses in Isaiah referring to the Bride over 40 years ago and immediately recognized their connection with the New Testament and Jesus as Bridegroom.  Over the years of meditating on the significance of the Bridegroom, the Bride and the Marriage I have formed--gasp--a POV.
However, setting that aside, I suggest that all the related citations to the Bride of Christ be listed and reexamined:
In the New Testament--and the related verses in the Old Testament.
(Note: I am using the New American Bible because I find it best retains the poetic intensity used by the prophets to communicate spiritual experience--as much as the King James Bible's Psalm 23 does).
In the Gospels
# 1. John the Baptist's testimony concerning Jesus that, "he who has the bride is the bridegroom..." is the only mention of the bride in the Gospels.(Jn. 3:29)
   
# 2. The Synoptics already listed in the article, of what Jesus responded when asked why his disciples didn't fast when John's disciples and the Pharisees did-- "can the wedding guests mourn while the bridegroom is with them...?"
   
# 3. Jesus' parables of the Wedding Banquet and the Wise and Foolish Virgins who were awaiting the Bridegroom (Mt. 25:1-13)with 4 mentions of the bridegroom, one of the wedding banquet.
   
# 4. The Wedding Banquet at Cana (Jn. 2:1-11).
   
# 5. Jesus never mentions the bride directly in the Gospels (only John B. does).  But there can't be a bridegroom without a bride.  
   
# 6. Clarify that the term "the Bride of Christ" is not used in the Bible but is a term that refers to all these related verses.   
In Revelation
# 1. Rev. 3:12--the first mention of the New Jerusalem.
# 2. "The Time of the Wedding of the Lamb has come and his Bride has made herself ready." (Rev. 19:7 and 8)
# 3. Note in Rev. 21:2, 9-10 these three verses use 4 distinct names to describe the bride:  "the holy city; new Jerusalem"..."I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife."  i.e. city--Jerusalem--bride--wife. (see below)  
# 4. Rev. 22:17 "And the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come"....."
In the Epistles
# 1. In Ephesians 5:21-33--in Paul's discourse on marriage he compares human marriage to the relationship between Christ and the Church--saying, "This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church" (5:32).
  
# 2. As already mentioned in the article, 2 Cor. 11:2
  
# 3. In Galatians 4:27 Paul makes an all important reference to the Old Testament--to Isaiah 54:1.  However for Jews 2000 years ago the image of God as in a spousal relationship with the people of Israel is something they were familiar with.  
In the Old Testment 
There are occasional references to the spousal relationship between God and his people--Hosea is the most heart-wrenching of them because it speaks of the people's infidelity.
And there are occasional references to the bridegroom and the bride in Jeremiah 2:2; 7:34.......oh, dear, the last bus is about to leave.  I must finish this tomorrow.----Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Beginning 

message: If we consider the prophecies concerning Jesus in Isaiah, they were "on the books" [or scrolls, rather] for 700 years without anyone recognizing them as referring to the awaited Messiah.  Since the Bride of Christ is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled it's not surprising that very little has been written about it.
However we can examine the existing evidence, an important part of which is found in the Old (Hebrew) Testament. 
References to the Bride, or any bride, both in the Old Testament and the New are very sparse. And so, although the theology of the bride and the marriage grew quickly in the early church at first, it was not continued.  There is only one place where there is an extended reference to a bride and that is in Isaiah.  Isaiah speaks  repeatedly of the "forsaken bride"--and her final vindication.  I cited these to you in two of the Songs of the Bride Isaiah 54:1-17 (see v 1 and 6) and Isaiah 62:1-12 (see v 4 and 12).  And so it was--the early church began to develop a theology of the Bride and then, mostly forsaking it, left it as a mere honorific. It remained alive but hidden among nuns, and some mystics and contemplatives.
And this was necessary.  The time for the marriage had not yet come....(in process)...Margaret9mary (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Prophecy to be fulfilled 

message: The WP article already cites Revelations in which twice the bride is identified as "the holy city, new Jerusalem...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."  
We can find Jerusalem mentioned repeatedly in Isaiah.
At the very beginning of Isaiah it says twice, "This is a prophecy concerning Judah and Jerusalem" 1:1 and 2:1 (That is, male and female--cities are often identified with the feminine).  
In Isaiah there are repeated references to the servant--for example, Is. 41:8 "But you, Israel, my servant/ Jacob, whom I have chosen/ offspring of Abraham my friend"  see also 41:9, 42:1, 43:1, 44:1 and 21, and 48:12.  That is, the servant is referred to by various interchangeable names, including Judah, 41:1.  And interestingly enough the holy city, Jerusalem is mentioned even more frequently, again with other interchangeable names--Zion, daughter Zion, the city, the bride, the wife, the mother.  Reread Isaiah and count them! (for example 33:20; 40:2 and 9; 52:1-3 and 8-9).
See also Is. 44:26 "It is I who confirm the words of my servants/ I carry out the plan announced by my messengers/ I say to Jerusalem: Be inhabited/ to the cities of Judah: Be rebuilt."  
In other words, these are an important theme in Isaiah. Still in process Margaret9mary (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Holy City, Jerusalem in the Old Testament 

message: Wikipedia is not a forum.  It does not matter who editors are, what religion they were raised in or believe in, who their parents are, or anything like that.  We are not the place to right great wrongs, push new ideas, or interpret primary sources.  Talk pages are for article improvement within the guidelines, not general discussion of the subject.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the collapsed section 

message: Does Wikipedia have any style guidance as to which translation is used when quoting Scripture? The KJV reads awfully (I think) to anyone who's not immersed in it, and I see little compelling reason to use it here. The quotations themselves are germane, but the Early Modern English really isn't.
If there isn't any guidance, I'd recommend using the NRSV, which is the de facto standard in academic circles.
I'm tempted to just make this change, but fear upsetting some sort of political edit balance (I note that the links go to both the KJV and the NIV'84, which strikes me as a peculiar choice of translations to link to).
Claytonth (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the Translation Used 

message: An IP editor added new unsourced content to the lead section  here on 1 September, which was challenged here. The addition fails both WP:VERIFY, which says that contentious content should be supported by inline references and MOS:LEAD, which says that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article. Another editor removed a religious text primary tag  here on 16 September without explanation. I have therefore restored the previous version. TSventon (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced changes September 2023