Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.Exactly how are humans "metaphorical?" The Priest class are humans, Priests of Christ are human, I see nothing metaphorical about it. As I mentioned earlier in the Scripture reference on PoC, it certainly seems to me that they will be doing priestly stuff.the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant. just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one. the fact remains poc and kot still embody metaphorical references. 'priests' currently includes earthly and metaphorical priests. kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.Actually, it's entirely relevant. They designed the card to be a Priest, so they made sure it fit the Priest defining qualities. Nowhere in the REG do I see that Priests have to be OT. In fact, it does say: "A priest is one who...acts as mediator between men and God" which perfectly describes what the PoC will do when Revelation actually comes to pass....so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?Because he doesn't actually rule anything? I think that was explained earlier...a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.Again, I see nothing metaphorical about PoC being classified as a Priest.
the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant.
just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one.
kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.
so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?
a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.
if it means anything to you, your blatant mockery and disparaging attitude have little amusement to me either.
Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 08:40:11 PMpoc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.Exactly how are humans "metaphorical?" The Priest class are humans, Priests of Christ are human, I see nothing metaphorical about it. As I mentioned earlier in the Scripture reference on PoC, it certainly seems to me that they will be doing priestly stuff.the passage says nothing of poc doing 'priestly stuff'. the passage is completely metaphorical. the priest class is human, yes. is priests of christ? resurrection, second death, reign for a thousand years...does that sound human to you?the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant. just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one. the fact remains poc and kot still embody metaphorical references. 'priests' currently includes earthly and metaphorical priests. kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.Actually, it's entirely relevant. They designed the card to be a Priest, so they made sure it fit the Priest defining qualities. Nowhere in the REG do I see that Priests have to be OT. In fact, it does say: "A priest is one who...acts as mediator between men and God" which perfectly describes what the PoC will do when Revelation actually comes to pass.and people accuse me of selective quoting. convenient how you skpped 'A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar' and 'Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple.' entirely. does a nt priest have to offer a sacrifice? didn't think so. priests of christs misses the reg definition by a mile.[/i]...so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?Because he doesn't actually rule anything? I think that was explained earlier...just because he didnt rule anything earthly means he cant be a king? isnt that a bit narrow-minded? what was he a king of exactly then? why is king in his title?[/i]a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.Again, I see nothing metaphorical about PoC being classified as a Priest.does 'priests of christ' suggest we will be actual priests, as demonstrated in the REG definition? no. its merely a figure of speech to represent something else.
poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.Exactly how are humans "metaphorical?" The Priest class are humans, Priests of Christ are human, I see nothing metaphorical about it. As I mentioned earlier in the Scripture reference on PoC, it certainly seems to me that they will be doing priestly stuff.the passage says nothing of poc doing 'priestly stuff'. the passage is completely metaphorical. the priest class is human, yes. is priests of christ? resurrection, second death, reign for a thousand years...does that sound human to you?the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant. just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one. the fact remains poc and kot still embody metaphorical references. 'priests' currently includes earthly and metaphorical priests. kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.Actually, it's entirely relevant. They designed the card to be a Priest, so they made sure it fit the Priest defining qualities. Nowhere in the REG do I see that Priests have to be OT. In fact, it does say: "A priest is one who...acts as mediator between men and God" which perfectly describes what the PoC will do when Revelation actually comes to pass.and people accuse me of selective quoting. convenient how you skpped 'A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar' and 'Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple.' entirely. does a nt priest have to offer a sacrifice? didn't think so. priests of christs misses the reg definition by a mile.[/i]...so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?Because he doesn't actually rule anything? I think that was explained earlier...just because he didnt rule anything earthly means he cant be a king? isnt that a bit narrow-minded? what was he a king of exactly then? why is king in his title?[/i]a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.Again, I see nothing metaphorical about PoC being classified as a Priest.does 'priests of christ' suggest we will be actual priests, as demonstrated in the REG definition? no. its merely a figure of speech to represent something else.
the passage says nothing of poc doing 'priestly stuff'. the passage is completely metaphorical. the priest class is human, yes. is priests of christ? resurrection, second death, reign for a thousand years...does that sound human to you?
and people accuse me of selective quoting. convenient how you skpped 'A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar' and 'Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple.' entirely. does a nt priest have to offer a sacrifice? didn't think so. priests of christs misses the reg definition by a mile.
just because he didnt rule anything earthly means he cant be a king? isnt that a bit narrow-minded? what was he a king of exactly then? why is king in his title?
Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 09:34:17 PMthe passage says nothing of poc doing 'priestly stuff'. the passage is completely metaphorical. the priest class is human, yes. is priests of christ? resurrection, second death, reign for a thousand years...does that sound human to you?If not humans, then what are they? They're not God, angels, beasts, or demons, so what's left?'human' is earthly. spiritual beings would be more appropriate.Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 09:34:17 PMand people accuse me of selective quoting. convenient how you skpped 'A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar' and 'Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple.' entirely. does a nt priest have to offer a sacrifice? didn't think so. priests of christs misses the reg definition by a mile.I didn't skip them because I'm trying to ignore it, I skipped it because it no longer applies. Since the Cross, sacrifices are no longer necessary, so it wouldn't make sense for a NT Priest to do them. Yet, that doesn't mean in and of itself that you can't have a NT Priest.according to the defintion supplied by the REG, the authoritive source, priests of christs does not adhere to most, if not all, of the definition. as schaef said, priests of christ is only a priest by special exception of design...not by definition.Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 09:34:17 PMjust because he didnt rule anything earthly means he cant be a king? isnt that a bit narrow-minded? what was he a king of exactly then? why is king in his title?Because that's how God told the author to write it? Idk.if you dont know, then what gives you the authority to say he didnt rule over anything?oh, and it might be worth noting tyre actually IS a place.[/i]
'human' is earthly. spiritual beings would be more appropriate.
according to the defintion supplied by the REG, the authoritive source, priests of christs does not adhere to most, if not all, of the definition. as schaef said, priests of christ is only a priest by special exception of design...not by definition.
if you dont know, then what gives you the authority to say he didnt rule over anything?
oh, and it might be worth noting tyre actually IS a place.
For what it's worth, I don't believe KOT is a king. Unless Tyrus is a kingdom... but even then I'd need an explanation.
The decision has been made...
Quote from: browarod on August 25, 2009, 10:31:47 PMThe decision has been made...According to this post it hasn't.
Do you expect me to apologize for disparaging your sarcasm and hostile attitude, your failure to listen and your false claims about my behavior?
In my opinion, this whole argument could be solved if a definition was added to the REG stating exactly what a king is (whatever the definition actually is ruled as), in addition to listing them, so that it's there in writing for people to reference.
I'm tired of sifting through "discussions" like this. Someone please ... close this thread up.
Author
Topic: REG Issue? Is King of Tyrus a King? (Read 12510 times)
