Featured The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem. .....the Church

Then you'll note that he put it in as a quote of mine to make it appear I said it. Nowhere in anything I said was that quotation, but he presented it as if I did.

He added it in.

He had to physically type it in. Bottom line: HE LIED.

 

He didn't quote it. Reference link automatically now, for me it came up with the NASB not the KJV that it came up with you. You cannot say he quoted it when all he did was reference it.

 

Exactly! It had nothing to do with a link. More lies. He physically typed in in and stated 'Here it is:' Then after typing it in he stated; 'You said it.' That's called lying.

 

He is only King when they allow Him to be King.

 

The point is that it was not typed it was just referenced and it's the BB website itself that is linking them to either the KJV or ASV. As dhk already showed other versions don't use the word translate so there is no reason to accuse IT of using a word that appears no where in his own typing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Yeah we should give IT the benefit of the doubt that he was not looking at a translation that used the word translate especially since he never typed that word in any of his post.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

No ambiguity, just cover up.

 

Let's examine this position.
Was Christ ever king while on earth, and was the earth ever made his earthly realm? If so, when? Where does the Bible give such information?

Apart from a few Christophanies, He came as a babe born in a manger, and an idol of Him can be found in most Catholic churches. That is the way much of the world remembers his in the winter--the baby Jesus. He, to them, is not the King, but an infant.
He never came as a King. To some he was known as a carpenter, Joseph's son.
To others he was known as a Rabbi, for no one taught as He did.
He would have given the kingdom Israel, but they rejected both Him and the Kingdom.
But He knew they would. It was prophesied. The Jews could not accept Him as King. The could not accept a Messiah who came to them as a suffering servant.
Jesus came to die. He suffered and died to atone for our sins. He did not come as King but as a servant.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
--He came as a servant, to serve, to give his life as a ransom.

The only crown Christ wore was a crown of thorns.
--He was arrayed as a criminal, not a king.

 

Alrighty, let's try this again. I tried to show continuity of how God protected His people in OT days and how it was a picture of how He does it and it gets slammed as 'allegory'. Whatever dude.

Let's look @ the narrative of how God dealt with His people during Egypt's 10 plagues.

Starting in Exodus 8, God started to make distinctions between Israel and Egypt. The flies did not bother them, their livestock did not die, the boils were not on the Israelites, no hail in the land of Goshen, there was no darkness in Goshen, and the blood of a lamb or goat was an instruction given solely to Israel, and all that did not have the blood applied to their door, their firstborn, even do to their livestock, died. Not one of Israel's firstborn, child or livestock died. God made distinction with Israel(a picture of the church to come) and Egypt(a picture of the world, the lost).

We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.[1 John 5:19]

Now, in this verse that has been debated, it is plain to see that there is a distinction made between two , the saved and lost, the regenerate and unregenerate, God's people and Satan's people, &c. This verse does not include us, the saved, with the 'whole world which is under control of the evil one'(Satan). That is clearly referencing the lost, not the saved who are under the evil one's control.

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.[2 Corinthians 4:4]

Now, who is the 'god of this age'? Satan of course. What is it he has done, and is still doing? Blinding the minds(and eyes) of unbelievers, and not believers. He has blinded the unbelievers' minds(and eyes) so that they can not see the Light of the gospel. Are the saved blinded to the Light of the gospel? Of course not. The believers can see as God has opened their blinded eyes, eyes that had been blinded by Satan. Jesus told His disciples "Anyone who walks in the daytime will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light.”[John 11:9-10] This is a Spiritual truth as well. Our spiritual eyes have been opened to see the Light of the Gospel. Jesus told them “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”[John 8:12] Yet, people claim that we are under control of the wicked one, even as the unregenerate are. Balderdash!

 

In answer to this post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...erusalem-the-church.98427/page-6#post-2210860


where IT references Col.1:13,


I answered here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...erusalem-the-church.98427/page-7#post-2210866


Now, first of all, I over-looked the fact that he used the word “transferred” in his own response or explanation.

Secondly, he answered my quote which used the word “translate” with “Col.1:13,” as a link which also uses the word “translate.”

My answer, therefore, was simply to clarify what the verse meant. Is there any harm in a further explanation of the verse? Why all the accusations around an explanation of a verse. I said that “translated” is difficult for some people to understand so “transfer” is a better word. I said that because:

1. It is true.

2. I didn’t notice he had used the word “transfer.”

3. It was a good explanation for others even if he did use the word “transfer.”


My exact post was:

Perhaps he wasn’t confused by the KJV. Other than that what is all the fuss about? Why have you gone on and on about this??

 

Because you have lied about me. You stated I denied sola fide TWICE, and I even told Bro. Sean(whe he owned this site) about it. The mods and admins will not touch you. You're Teflon and nothing sticks to you.

 

1. We are not part of the nation of Israel.
2. Even in the nation of Israel, the Lord was not always their king.
3. From the time of Sinai or the Law to the time of Saul, Israel was set up as theocracy, where the Lord was their rightful king. But then they rejected the theocracy, and in doing so rejected the Lord.

1 Samuel 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
--They didn't want the Lord any more as their king. They wanted a man.

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
--The Lord told Samuel "they have rejected "me." The Lord would no longer reign as their king.

From that time onward they would have a monarchy like the other nations, but it would not be God as king. It would be a man.
Then they went into captivity.
Then Christ came. And he came as a suffering servant not as King.

So where is this kingdom??

 

Again, you missed the context of those passages.

Are Christians under control of Satan?
Are Christians the children of disobedience in the context of Ephesians 2:2?
Has Satan blinded the minds(and eyes) of believers so that they can not see the Light of the gospel?
Are Christians walking in Light or darkness?