Why are people denying that Christ is presently a King?

[Limey_Bob]

3 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

What is not true?

I did not call you any label.  I merely questioned the very premise of your thread's title.  You have to show some evidence that people deny Kingship to our Lord.

Instead, you make an outlandish claim about others.

Referencing both spiritual and the heavenly, does not sound like a typical Post-Millennialist in some respects, but more akin to what Futurists think who are Pre-Millennial.

In post 1 i said that I reject the standard post-millennial view, in several different ways.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

2 minutes ago, Limey_Bob said:

I said he is currently ruling, I have stated this over and over again ... he is reigning now in heaven, his current reign is spiritual (over his dead saints (disincarnate spirits) in the intermediate state (Revelation 20:4). The literal physical reign of Christ from Jerusalem, upon a literal physical throne and over the earth is still future. Either debate me one on one or place me on ignore.

We're not really debating so much as discussing.  What separates us is a common language: we're simply not communicating.  And one-on-one debate is impossible.

I would debate your claim that the souls in Revelation 20:4 are the Dead in Christ who include my mother and her grandmother.

The souls in Revelation 20:4, in my interpretation, are the Martyrs of the fifth Seal who had to await the completion of the one 'seven' (which includes the final battle of the one 'seven' at Armageddon) when in conjunction with the end of the one 'seven' the Two Witnesses, who had been previously martyred, are called up.  Only then is the number of the souls in the second Heaven completed.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

1 minute ago, Limey_Bob said:

Oh so now you are denying the resurrection of the body,

Nope.

And that word "changed?"  It can also mean EXCHANGE.  Look it up.

[Limey_Bob]

4 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

  You have to show some evidence that people deny Kingship to our Lord.

 

I have been told repeatedly by several posted that Christ's reign will begin at the Millennium, that means that he is not a king now (in their scheme of things).

 

Look will you debate me one on one? It will save so much time to have a moderated debate, otherwise in six months time we will still be speaking at cross purposes.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

1 minute ago, Limey_Bob said:

In post 1 i said that I reject the standard post-millennial view, in several different ways.

And so we're in a guessing game as to what you think.

I'm having a hard time trying figure out how you say you're a Post-Millennialist in the first place...

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Just now, Limey_Bob said:

I have been told repeatedly by several posted that Christ's reign will begin at the Millennium, that means that he is not a king now (in their scheme of things).

When you say, "that means..." you have supplanted a conclusion into what they are saying.

Christ's Reign upon the earth does not start until His Millennium Rule.  That says NOTHING about His current Kingship.

[Limey_Bob]

Marcus said:  "And God doesn't need the old one to fashion a new "house" for us to live in eternally."

 

My reply:  Your use of the words "old" and "new" means that the resurrected body is NEW i.e. different to the old body i.e a different body, but the Bible states that it will be the very same body we previously had, just changed.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

2 minutes ago, Limey_Bob said:

Look will you debate me one on one? It will save so much time to have a moderated debate, otherwise in six months time we will still be speaking at cross purposes.

We're debating now, and there is a moderator.

I think we'll be talking past each other for years.  I rarely have ever seen a person change their thinking who is bold enough to post their opinion ahead of time.

[Limey_Bob]

10 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

 

Christ's Reign upon the earth does not start until His Millennium Rule.  That says NOTHING about His current Kingship.

People have told me on this and other threads that Christ has no present Kingdom rule and no current kingship, they have told me (repeatedly) that that (his kingdom rule) only begins at the millennium. I would strongly disagree, as I believe that Christ is ruling now, not over this present physical earth, but spiritually and in heaven. I believe that his kingdom rule began at the ascension, he rules spiritually in heaven over his dead saints from the ascension until the second coming, then at the second coming his kingdom rule then becomes literal, physical and eternal over this earth. How do I put people on ignore? Could somebody tell me what to do, I am new to these type of forums?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Limey_Bob

[Marcus O'Reillius]

1 minute ago, Limey_Bob said:

My reply:  Your use of the words "old" and "new" means that the resurrected body is NEW i.e. different to the old body i.e a different body, but the Bible states that it will be the very same body we previously had, just changed.

Or exchanged: allasso.

allasso.  The basic sense is “to make other than it is,” used in both the active and middle for “to alter,” “to give in exchange,” “to take in exchange,” and intransitively “to change.”  The NT uses only the transitive active and passive. - Geoffrey Bromiley in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

 1Co 15:35-37 (NASB) But someone will say, How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?  You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

Again - there is no "BODY" to find for billions of souls who have passed away from normal causes.