“Christ is king”

[Koolpc]

Woof

Reported

 

[Koolpc]

No.

The term was used by the Romans to mock him.

Yes, He is King. If you understood Christianity you would see that.

 

[Koolpc]

No.

The term was used by the Romans to mock him.

​

​ What does it mean for Christ to be King? Christ’s role as King is a central theme throughout both the Old and New Testaments. This kingship is not merely symbolic; it encompasses the prophetic fulfillment of an eternal kingship promised through the line of David, the authority demonstrated in His earthly ministry, and the ultimate reign Christ holds in the hearts of believers and over all creation. When Scripture describes Christ as King, it affirms His divine right to rule, His authority over all realms-physical, spiritual, and eternal-and His unique position as the long-awaited Messiah. Source​

​

 

[aveatry]

So as I said in post #300

Its all you need to know to prove that king willy is a foreign agitator -- that's without the lack of providing a simple photo to prove otherwise. You can see just by the times that he posts that he is not in the UK-- watch as he reply’s to my post at around 2.30am UK time after being silent from 2.30 mid day here.

 

[morqthana]

Wow! That makes no sense.

Please give up, or try harder

You said you've read this article:

I’ve read it

So where is the antisemitism in it.

 

[Odds]

​

​ What does it mean for Christ to be King? Christ’s role as King is a central theme throughout both the Old and New Testaments. This kingship is not merely symbolic; it encompasses the prophetic fulfillment of an eternal kingship promised through the line of David, the authority demonstrated in His earthly ministry, and the ultimate reign Christ holds in the hearts of believers and over all creation. When Scripture describes Christ as King, it affirms His divine right to rule, His authority over all realms-physical, spiritual, and eternal-and His unique position as the long-awaited Messiah. Source​

​

Yes, that was a title imposed upon him and the reason why he was crucified.
Not actually true, though.
The Sanhedrin set him up.

Jesus never claimed he was king.

 

[King Billy]

And you then claimed that you could not provide the proof and a photo because you dont have a smart phone and are housebound with only one hand - that has to be the forums most ridiculous swerve and excuse

Yes that is what you said, which was a blatant lie, because what I actually said, and you've correctly quoted me, was:

Except the ones who are house-bound, or the ones who have only one hand, or the ones that don't use a smartphone, or the ones that have no need to kowtow to an eejit in the internet.
But I need no excuse.

If you can't see the difference between me identifying some people who could not comply with your demand, and you thinking I was claiming to be one of those, then I overestimated you.
I even made it clear that I did not need such an excuse.
So you are either really incapable of reading and undrstanding plain English, or you are an inveterate liar.
As it's not the only time you've lied, I know which I believe.

So jog on, lying eejit.

 

[King Billy]

I'm not his "other user name".

STOP LYING.

Dec27 really can't help himself. He's on the wrong end of the stick again, and the only way to redeem himself, in his view, is to lie his way out of it, and try to reduce the thread to ad hominem attacks, hoping it will, be deleted.
He's probably trying to garner support from others to also report the thread.

 

[King Billy]

I have actually been trying to flip it and think of it from the other side, to see if I can get my head around why this particular article caused such a strong reaction amongst so many posters. It has actually been very difficult for me, being such an objective and rational person who enjoys an open debate. But this is what I have come up with:

Consider for a moment that there is a particular poster on here who has, rightly or wrongly, developed a reputation amongst some for being both right wing and hating Muslims. And say that person posted an article which discussed the rise of Muslim hatred, say in Germany, amongst the far left. From a personal standpoint, as a rational and objective person, I would be interested in reading that article and understanding those developments. But what might make some other posters report it. I am trying to get into the mindset of the sort of person who would find that sort of thing so offensive that it needed reporting.

Odds frequently posts articles that require a fair degree of intelligence to fully comprehend.
As MBK, koolpc, dec27, et al have demonstrated that they don't possess sufficient intelligent capability, it's hardly surprising that they confuse an academic article with a prejudicial one.
And as Odds is the one who posts most such academic studies they assume, mistakenly, that Odds is anti-Semitic.
Then whenever Odds posts an article, they automatically assume it must be anti-Semitic because Odds has posted it.
For them it's a kind of self-fulfilling process:
Odds posts an article which they can't comprehend --> It must be anti-Semitic --> Odds posts another article that they can't understand --> in their eyes Odds is anti-Semitic --> every post he makes presenting an article is assumed to be anti-Semitic. --> they're convinced that Odds ia anti-Semitic.

 

[King Billy]

So based on the above, and knowing what you know. Would you be suspicious?

I’ve looked into it and the term is gaining use in an antisemitic way.

So when Christians are singing about Christ the King, they're being anti-Semitic?

 

[King Billy]

Reported

Why?

 

[King Billy]

So incompatible fairy stories.

Can fairy stories be incompatible, if they're fairy stories?
They would have to go something like this:
Jack and Jill went up the hill........
Or
Jack and Jill didn't go up the hill.......

But as they're fairy stories, they might not be referring to the same Jack, or Jill, or the same hill, because everything in the fairy stories is fantasy.

 

[King Billy]

Don't you want to hear it?

Here you said that a lot of people believe that some elements of the US religious right are antisemitic, and the AP article you read says the same, so why don't you want to hear that there's a fracture developing?

Is it because you don't think it is true, despite your post , or is it because you do think it's true but wish it wasn't?

Now you've confused him by giving him three options.

 

[King Billy]

It’s the truth, you can’t handle it.

Prove that you're not lying by providing some evidence.

 

[King Billy]

No he didn't. He said absolutely nothing about the content of the article.

His post ws pure ad hominem.