Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 30 July 2012

Christianity: Jesus Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

This could really use some clean-up. I'm not sure how to set things in motion to do so.

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)

Contraception

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)

Wat. How it can? JosiahHenderson (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about eh contraception argument, but I agree with the first comment that this could use some clean up. The part that's pointed out above is, though an orthodox opinion, it's not a fact but speculation as to Paul's intent. Also, when referencing "Ekklesia" (sp?): it does directly translate to "called out ones" however, that is not its use. If you look at the usage in Josephus and other first century works, you'll find that a better rendering is "congregation" or "assembly."

Barclay-Newman give this definition: evkklhsi,a, aj f church, congregation; assembly, gathering (of religious, political, or unofficial groups) Obviously "church" is not the best rendering since it's origins are from the German "Kirke" meaning "Lord's house" (I think... that should be checked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeoflier (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Origen and Bernard

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)

Church is NOT the Bride

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)

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)

This article has deteriorated since a year ago. /Expatinsweden (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

Part of my edit was removed considering Mary Magdalene they said gnostics do not believe she is the bride, however whenever I met someone who was gnostic they have said she was. I don't want to enter into an edit war over this, but I think we need some sort of consensus over whether this is Dan Brown/Lewis Perdue make believe.-174.45.184.184 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Someone I met" is not verifiable, and not a reliable source. Please present any reliable sources, instead of ill-researched hearsay someone who read The Da Vinci Code and nothing about historical Gnosticism. If you look over the Gnosticism article, you will see that the Gnostics taught that the flesh was inherently evil, which means that Jesus having children would have been more offensive to the Gnostics than to orthodox Christians (who generally approved of having kids, and would have used this issue to further argue with the Gnostics if it was ever a historical consideration). Also, the verse from the Gospel of Philip that was quoted, if blindly accepted as historically accurate, only shows that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were not married: otherwise Jesus's disciples would considered it natural for Him to kiss her. Furthermore, the original text is damaged after "her," it is only speculation that He kissed her on her mouth.

The idea that Jesus had kids cannot be found before Holy Blood, Holy Grail came out. The authors of that book (who later sued Dan Brown) admit that it's not properly researched and that it's based on a hoax. Here is a source, and a second one by Bart D. Ehrman. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say one I said every single last one--174.45.184.184 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Further more I said they were gnostics not that they studied historical Gnosticism. but maybe they all just read Dan Brown agreed and decided to call themselves Gnostic --174.45.184.184 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg to appear as POTD soon

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 Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A New Beginning

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 Misplaced Pages.

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. 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)

1. 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...?"

1. 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.

1. 4. The Wedding Banquet at Cana (Jn. 2:1-11).

1. 5. Jesus never mentions the bride directly in the Gospels (only John B. does). But there can't be a bridegroom without a bride.

1. 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. 1. Rev. 3:12--the first mention of the New Jerusalem.
2. 2. "The Time of the Wedding of the Lamb has come and his Bride has made herself ready." (Rev. 19:7 and 8)
3. 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. 4. Rev. 22:17 "And the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come"....."

In the Epistles

1. 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).

1. 2. As already mentioned in the article, 2 Cor. 11:2

1. 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)205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A Prophecy to be fulfilled

If we consider the prophecies concerning Jesus in Isaiah, they were "on the books" 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)

The Bridegroom and the bride

For nearly 2000 years Jesus has been known to be the Bridegroom on John's direct testimony (Jn. 3:29) To be a bridegroom there must be a bride. Jesus never mentions the bride in the Gospels, but the early church "heard" Him, and from very early identified herself as the bride although it was a "great mystery" (Eph. 5:32).

Jesus laid the foundations for the church but left it to grow and develop in its own time. Christian theology took centuries to understand itself. This quality is unique among religions--that Judeo-Christian faith grew (From Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, thru slavery in Egypt and the Exodus, through judges, David and the Prophets, and finally Jesus, who fulfilled the prophets and took the faith beyond the Jewish nation--and that people's experience with God was added to over a period of many generations.

The Holy City, Jerusalem in the Old Testament

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)

A QUESTION TO EDITORS CONCERNING WP POLICY

Aparently Ian.thomson removed my original entry and claims that Misplaced Pages does not accept original research. Does this mean that if there is no published research we cannot examine the original source? And does it mean that we must not see what is before our very eyes? I am not a theologian, I do not do research. But I couldn't avoid seeing that Rev. identifies the bride, the Lamb's wife as the holy city, Jerusalem and that this is found in Isaiah.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am asking that responsible Christian WP editors re-examine Isaiah. I'm familiar with WP rule of not accepting original research and understand the reason for it, for some people were abusing the privilege of editing. But I have also seen the rules of science abused to suppress evidence observable by all (even laypeople)--superficially following the rules of science, but ignoring data for the purpose of power or bias. Good reasoning and a willingness to set aside cherished assumptions has always been essential to understanding reality and even early Christian theology is an example of it. --Margaret9mary (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTBLOG. We do not accept original research, see WP:NOR. You need reliable secondary sources (preferably works by university presses) to support your statements, see WP:CITE and WP:RS. Individual user's interpretations of Bible verses is considered original research.

Also, you did not need to break your post into two sections, you could have just posted it as one section. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your second question: Misplaced Pages does not discriminate against editors of any worldview, but does discourage original research and personal interpretation regardless of who adds it. Please read WP:No Original Research. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles