Oh wow! All apolegeticians, assemble and look at this!

[tim-from-pa]

I don't think it means that. The apostles asked him about the kingdom. Why would they call him Lord if he wasn't the King?

Jesus said, 'All things have been given to me by my Father.' That includes all authority, all power, all thrones. Going by your logic, how can he restore it if he doesn't have it? Then again, they were not asking him about his throne. They wanted to know if it was time for the kingdom to be restored to Israel.

It's not my reasoning or logic, but the word of God. Of course Jesus will be that King one day---- my point is what of the throne at that time? There was none in the land of Israel, nor did Jesus take one. And as for your mention that they were asking about the kingdom versus the throne, that shows lack of understanding. The throne is synonymous with the kingdom. They all go together.

Let's check the bible on this one shall we?

Ezekiel 21:27:

I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, {i.e. overturned} until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

And again speaking of the royal lines in Judah in Genesis 49:10

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering {obedience}of the people be.

This last verse says that when Messiah takes the throne, that all of the house of Jacob obeys him. This has not yet happened with the Jew, obviously, as Luke 1:32 says. In addition,there will be an ongoing Monarchy until Shiloh comes.

Jesus took no throne---- there was no coronation ceremony, instead he said,

"It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

He now sits on the right hand of God the Father---- God always had that throne to give (Hebrews 1:3) and as God has everything under him just as the Lord God had the Davidic throne under Him all through the ages (1 Chronicles 29:23).

However, as did Solomon, he appoints others to occupy it depending on His choice and the genealogies "until Shiloh comes".

To place this throne out there in heaven severely Gentilizes the whole understanding the people of the covenant had in the Old Testament times and conveniently reforms it into a Gentile view that fits the fancies of the masses when it was not meant to be understood that way at all.

It is this kind of stance that I sense our Christian-turn-Jewish person abhors on their web site.

 

[MarkT]

It's not my reasoning or logic, but the word of God. Of course Jesus will be that King one day---- my point is what of the throne at that time? There was none in the land of Israel, nor did Jesus take one. And as for your mention that they were asking about the kingdom versus the throne, that shows lack of understanding. The throne is synonymous with the kingdom. They all go together.

The throne is synonomous with kingship. There will be a time when peace will be restored in Israel but that won't happen until the Devil is bound and cast into the pit. You can't have both Christ and the Devil ruling at the same time. Christ will reign for a thousand years and then the Devil will be released. When you say there was none in Israel, I think I understand you're saying Israel didn't have a king. That doesn't mean the kingship or right to rule didn't exist. Jesus was born the heir to the throne and being the heir he had the right to rule on earth but he said his kingdom was not of this world. So it was not for that purpose that he was sent. In other words he wasn't sent to restore the throne or to bring peace on earth. He spoke of the kingdom of heaven which is within. That's where we find peace. If it is the kingdom of God then it is not of this earth. It's not of this world where Satan rules.

Let's check the bible on this one shall we?

Ezekiel 21:27:

I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, {i.e. overturned} until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

And again speaking of the royal lines in Judah in Genesis 49:10

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering {obedience}of the people be.

This last verse says that when Messiah takes the throne, that all of the house of Jacob obeys him. This has not yet happened with the Jew, obviously, as Luke 1:32 says. In addition,there will be an ongoing Monarchy until Shiloh comes.

That verse actually goes, 'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet until he comes to whom it belongs (or until Shiloh or until he comes to Shiloh. We know that the Jews were the priests and the teachers of the law until Jesus.

Jesus took no throne---- there was no coronation ceremony, instead he said,

"It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

No but he was given the kingship and he is Lord. It's just that you can't see it. It's invisible. And yes, I attach more importance to what Jesus said. It's not for us to know times and seasons.

He now sits on the right hand of God the Father---- God always had that throne to give (Hebrews 1:3) and as God has everything under him just as the Lord God had the Davidic throne under Him all through the ages (1 Chronicles 29:23).

However, as did Solomon, he appoints others to occupy it depending on His choice and the genealogies "until Shiloh comes".

To place this throne out there in heaven severely Gentilizes the whole understanding the people of the covenant had in the Old Testament times and conveniently reforms it into a Gentile view that fits the fancies of the masses when it was not meant to be understood that way at all.

It is this kind of stance that I sense our Christian-turn-Jewish person abhors on their web site.

I understand your point tim but I'm not Gentilizing anything. He was given the throne of David. The kingdom of heaven isn't called 'of heaven' for no reason. If it was of this earth then it would be called the kingdom of earth. And 'throne' is a spiritual word. It's not a chair but a position of power and authority. When a king 'sits on the throne', he doesn't have to actually be sitting on the throne to be 'sitting on it.' For example, Queen Elizabeth sits on the throne of England. She could be standing, walking, running, swimming, horsebackriding, etc., she would still be 'sitting on the throne.'

 

[tim-from-pa]

Queen Elizabeth sits on the throne of England.

Actually, I believe the Queen sits on the Davidic throne over the house of Israel, and because I believe that I don't have to spiritualize everything to the point of nullifying the actual, earthly counterpart. There is a physical and spiritual parallel to everything in the bible running along side of each other at all times.

Actually, I do not disagree with you in part, but it is only half the answer. I rather play with a full deck instead of hearts and diamonds and claim that is the whole deck. Whatever.

 

[MarkT]

Ezekiel 21:27:

I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, {i.e. overturned} until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

I take it the kingship of Israel will be no more, until he comes whose right it is, and God will give it to him. This would be at the second coming. 'until he comes' implies it 'isn't'. It won't 'be' until he comes. So how can you say 'it is'? Indeed there hasn't been a king or a prince of Israel since Saladin, who took Jerusalem in 1187, of whom the LORD spoke saying, 'And you, O unhallowed wicked one, prince of Israel, whose day has come, the time of your final punishment, thus says the Lord GOD; Remove the turban, and take off the crown' Ez. 21:25

And again speaking of the royal lines in Judah in Genesis 49:10

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering {obedience}of the people be.

Genesis 49:10 predicts the 1st coming. It says, the 'right to rule' shall not depart Judah 'until' he comes to whom it belongs. So Judah will rule until Christ and then Judah will lose the right to rule Israel. In other words, the 'right to rule' will depart from Judah and the obedience of the people shall be to Jesus Christ. And so it is.

This last verse says that when Messiah takes the throne, that all of the house of Jacob obeys him. This has not yet happened with the Jew, obviously, as Luke 1:32 says. In addition,there will be an ongoing Monarchy until Shiloh comes.

If you think the Queen of England is your Lord and master, what can I say?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Mark T:

No, you do not understand me at all, and for that reason I will not continue. All your explanations are assumptions that clearly cannot be backed up by scripture but by your interpretations instead. You sound very mainline establishment.

I think you ought to show a little more respect for scripture. And for that matter, I'd show a little more respect for the union jack and old glory. You clearly took the likes of my avatar and superimposed some sour-puss onto them.

When somebody imitates, even if it is for spoofing, it shows they are easily lead by the masses.

Thank God I'm not in that camp.

 

[MarkT]

No, you do not understand me at all, and for that reason I will not continue. All your explanations are assumptions that clearly cannot be backed up by scripture but by your interpretations instead. You sound very mainline establishment.

Just the opposite tim. No mainline church would listen to me. For example, if I told them to let the stock market collapse, they would not listen. If I told them investing to gain something for nothing comes from evil, they would not listen. If I told them to make an honest living with your hands, they would not listen. If I said, lend to anyone who asks and expect nothing in return, they would not listen to me. It's true I don't understand how you arrived at your beliefs and I'm sorry I suggested you believed Queen Elizabeth was your Lord and master. It's the Holy Spirit that leads me to understand so it's not a matter of interpretation or assuming anything. Not that I never make mistakes but when the scriptures are presented so clearly, I can do nothing but serve the Lord. The Spirit of truth compels me. I'm sure you understand.

I think you ought to show a little more respect for scripture. And for that matter, I'd show a little more respect for the union jack and old glory. You clearly took the likes of my avatar and superimposed some sour-puss onto them.

When somebody imitates, even if it is for spoofing, it shows they are easily lead by the masses.

Thank God I'm not in that camp.

It was not my intention to disrespect anyone's flag. I was looking for a good Al Bundy image and that was the best one I could find. I'll change it for you as soon as I figure out how to do it. Please do continue on with me, not about this, but in any other matter which might come to your mind anytime.

 

[tim-from-pa]

OK Mark T:

No hard feelings. You are at least eloquent in your presentations, even though I do not agree with everything you stated.

No, the Queen is not my Lord and Master. I think she occupies the throne of David as her genealogy can be traced to King David. Frankly, I think (as scripture confirms) that many on the throne of David were jerks, but the Word of the Lord requires the throne to continue jerks not withstanding. However, I do love the queen and do not think that of her. She is not as cold or aloof as the senseless media presents her Majesty and she would be one monarch I would love to meet one day.

The Davidic throne was to be over the house of Israel (not Judah, the Jews) according to scripture as the word of grace was given to the Israelites (the lost tribes) who in turn presented the gospel to the world. You have to understand that I am "British-Israelite" in my beliefs. I put that in quotes because I do not officially belong to that church, but I hold similar beliefs and actually, it permeates all denominations as this is a historical, not spiritual, doctrine regarding the migration of God's people Israel.

 

[cyberjosh]

No, the Queen is not my Lord and Master. I think she occupies the throne of David as her genealogy can be traced to King David.

As moderator of the Catholic Forum I probably shouldn't say this, (*gets mischevious look in his eyes*) but what would you say if a Catholic claimed that the Pope occupied that seat (since it is now the times of the Gentiles - "spitiual Israel" - and the prophetic time table of Daniel for the Jews is on pause until the fulness of (the Gentile) times is complete, to resume the 70th week for the Jews)?

~Josh

 

[tim-from-pa]

No, the Queen is not my Lord and Master. I think she occupies the throne of David as her genealogy can be traced to King David.

As moderator of the Catholic Forum I probably shouldn't say this, (*gets mischevious look in his eyes*) but what would you say if a Catholic claimed that the Pope occupied that seat (since it is now the times of the Gentiles - "spitiual Israel" - and the prophetic time table of Daniel for the Jews is on pause until the fulness of (the Gentile) times is complete, to resume the 70th week for the Jews)?

~Josh

Well, that's true. That is to say that the popes believe they should have that right and privilege to the throne, but do they really? The battle has been raging on over this for a long time for the seat of authority.

"Spiritual Israel" has been tossed around (and I'm sure there will be those on this forum to want to jump in again) to justify what I basically call replacement theology. The reasoning goes that the only thing that matters to God is one's spiritual condition, and therefore the "Jew" is like anyone else who rejects Christ and the promises no longer apply to physical Israel.

Well, replacement theology is just a cuspidor. If one understands the Abrahamic promises carefully, these are EARTHLY blessings to those people rewarded because of the faith of the fathers, regardless of the behavior of the people themselves. And from them would come people of faith (spiritual blessings), and indeed, many, many Israelites would embrace faith along with the earthly promises. Why? Because God said He would In Jeremiah 31:31-34. These are the elect of GRACE within the elect of RACE. The race is the vehicle to bring the people of grace to the fallen world. No vehicle, nobody gets anywhere. I don't think that's too hard to understand.

However, just because someone inherits this birthright does not mean that they in and of themselves are necessarily saved. They can be as much the son of the devil as one can get, but the promises still apply. If they refuse faith, they will get the judgment at the end, but that has not occurred yet, and God can still work with these people. That's the point. Why work with them? Because of the promises to their fathers. Not because they are superior or special in and of themselves.

So, what about the throne of David? Who does it go to? If we are talking about this earthly throne, it goes to the sons of David by their birthright. Is the present pope a blood son of King David? Birthrights are by birth, not appointments. The exception is if God chosen another lineage, but if we look at the bible, they are still blood sons.

 

[MrVersatile48]

The Runner-up for “Worst Person in the World†Speaks Out
Sandy Rios
“The Sandy Rios Show,†WYLL Chicago

August 8, 2007

“Please do us all a favor … get raped and then killed. You rancid, filthy ___.†That’s a direct quote from an e-mail I received after appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor.†I was on the show objecting to the San Diego Padres celebration of “Gay Pride†on the same day they invited hundreds of children for a floppy hat giveaway.

“You are a shameful disgrace and hate monger,†penned another in response to my statement that homosexuality is an unhealthy, life-shortening lifestyle that should not be promoted by the Padres to children.

For such “hate†I was named runner up for the “Worst Person in the World†by MSNBC’s Keith Olberman.

This kind of vulgarity, exaggeration and the not-so-veiled threats are nothing new to those of us who dare speak the truth to a world turned upside down. Homosexual activists have propagated their deceptive message so effectively that their own community tragically believes they cannot change, they have no choiceâ€â€and that people who oppose their “choice†hate them.

And because they have managed to so effectively intimidate anyone who would question their claims, thousands of homosexuals have never heard there is a better way … a God who forgives and a life to live that’s more abundant and free.

While I will never enjoy death threats and vulgar accusations, I know they can, at times, be the natural response of evil to truth. Committed Christ-followers for centuries gave their lives rather than be silenced. Can we not bear these comparatively little consequences in our own lost generation?

Yes, we can.

But the responses that bother me most are ones that out of confusion or, worse, intentionally try to equate a Biblical perspective on homosexuality with godless criminal acts. A recent report from ABC News, “Hate Takes a Life in Houston,†tells the story of Kenneth Cummings, Jr., 46, a gay male flight attendant murdered by Terry Magnum, 26, who claimed, “I believe with all my heart that I was doing the right thing. I planned on sending him to hell.†Terry said he’d been called by God to “carry out a code of retribution†because “sexual perversion†is the “worst sin.â€Â

That story was forwarded to me with the following e-mail: “I just wanted to write and say that I lay the blame for this incident and hundreds of others like it on you … as far as I’m concerned, you have blood on your hands.â€Â

Let me be clear: The murder of Kenneth Cummings and the loss to his loving family is tragic, but to think that the circumstances of his death should force others to be silent on the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle would be wrong-headed and irresponsible. I would have far more to answer for if I kept silent while he and other homosexual brothers and sisters remained tormented in this life and facing condemnation in the next...


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11550580/