ECT WHY DID PAUL HAVE AND UNTIMELY BIRTH , 1 COR 15:8 ?

[Derf]

David's throne is literally the kingdom of Israel.

...

Once AGAIN, learn what a FIGURE OF SPEECH is so that you will not be so confused all of the time.
Indeed, they were to follow the law of Moses as written and not the "laws" of the leaders that had perverted them.

...

Once again, from the TEXT (the Bible) there is no reason to believe that they are not literal thrones. Nothing in the passage even hints at figurative thrones.

...

Please demonstrate FROM THE TEXT why you would think that the twelve thrones are not twelve thrones... .

You've done a superb job yourself. I wouldn't want to muck it up.

You've confirmed for me that "throne" is not literal in David's case--it means "kingdom of Israel".
You've confirmed that "sitting" is not literal in comparison to the pharisees and Moses' seat--it means exercising authority.

So if there's no need to sit, there's no need for a throne. And if there's no need for a throne, why would you cling to the literal interpretation of the apostles on thrones?

But I'll add to your sufficient argument against literal thrones: Can you imagine how it will look for the apostles to leave their thrones to wash the people's feet? This is the picture Jesus gave the apostles of how to reign--it didn't include a throne, nor did it need to.
[Jhn 13:3 KJV] Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
[Jhn 13:4 KJV] He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
[Jhn 13:5 KJV] After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded.
[Jhn 13:14 KJV] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
[Jhn 13:15 KJV] For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
[Jhn 13:16 KJV] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Jesus had been given all authority (vs 3). And in an example of how to be Lord of Master of someone, He washed their feet (vs 14). He was preparing to hand over the scepter to them at that very time, explaining how best to use the scepter and how to be master--by being a servant (vs 16).

Jesus neither started from nor ended up on a throne in that scenario. Neither would the disciples need to. They can rule with a wash basin and a towel.

 

[Right Divider]

You've done a superb job yourself. I wouldn't want to muck it up.

You've confirmed for me that "throne" is not literal in David's case--it means "kingdom of Israel".

Not the literal furniture, but the literal kingdom.

You've confirmed that "sitting" is not literal in comparison to the pharisees and Moses' seat--it means exercising authority.

Where is the problem here?

So if there's no need to sit, there's no need for a throne. And if there's no need for a throne, why would you cling to the literal interpretation of the apostles on thrones?

Once AGAIN, because the TEXT gives no hint to a non-literal understanding.

You cannot wave your magic wand here. YOU need some actual support from the PASSAGE that they are figurative thrones. You can't just fish for OTHER examples from all over the Bible to find ones that are figurative and say "see?".

But I'll add to your sufficient argument against literal thrones: Can you imagine how it will look for the apostles to leave their thrones to wash the people's feet? This is the picture Jesus gave the apostles of how to reign--it didn't include a throne, nor did it need to.
[Jhn 13:3 KJV] Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
[Jhn 13:4 KJV] He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
[Jhn 13:5 KJV] After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded.
[Jhn 13:14 KJV] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
[Jhn 13:15 KJV] For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
[Jhn 13:16 KJV] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

You've gone off the deep end.

Jesus had been given all authority (vs 3). And in an example of how to be Lord of Master of someone, He washed their feet (vs 14). He was preparing to hand over the scepter to them at that very time, explaining how best to use the scepter and how to be master--by being a servant (vs 16).

Jesus neither started from nor ended up on a throne in that scenario. Neither would the disciples need to. They can rule with a wash basin and a towel.

Wild speculation seems to be your special gift.

P.S. Do you think that Jesus will be a servant when He returns?

 

[steko]

You've done a superb job yourself. I wouldn't want to muck it up.

You've confirmed for me that "throne" is not literal in David's case--it means "kingdom of Israel".
You've confirmed that "sitting" is not literal in comparison to the pharisees and Moses' seat--it means exercising authority.

So if there's no need to sit, there's no need for a throne. And if there's no need for a throne, why would you cling to the literal interpretation of the apostles on thrones?

But I'll add to your sufficient argument against literal thrones: Can you imagine how it will look for the apostles to leave their thrones to wash the people's feet? This is the picture Jesus gave the apostles of how to reign--it didn't include a throne, nor did it need to.
[Jhn 13:3 KJV] Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
[Jhn 13:4 KJV] He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
[Jhn 13:5 KJV] After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded.
[Jhn 13:14 KJV] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
[Jhn 13:15 KJV] For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
[Jhn 13:16 KJV] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Jesus had been given all authority (vs 3). And in an example of how to be Lord of Master of someone, He washed their feet (vs 14). He was preparing to hand over the scepter to them at that very time, explaining how best to use the scepter and how to be master--by being a servant (vs 16).

Jesus neither started from nor ended up on a throne in that scenario. Neither would the disciples need to. They can rule with a wash basin and a towel.

If the Lord Jesus is not to reign in the future from a literal throne then what do these verses mean?

Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob[Israel] for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

2Sa 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.


Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

 

[Derf]

If the Lord Jesus is not to reign in the future from a literal throne then what do these verses mean?

Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob[Israel] for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

2Sa 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.


Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Ask [MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION]. He was the one that said "throne" doesn't mean "throne" in David's case. Your reference to 2Sam 3:10 is supportive of RD's opinion, too, as it describes "throne of David" as ruling authority.

If, as you properly pointed out, "throne" means authority over, then what does "sit upon the throne" mean? It might mean to reign in peace. Or maybe just "exercising" that authority.

But the point was that literal "thrones" are not required for them to figuratively "sit on thrones", since sitting on figurative thrones would entail falling on literal butts.

Paul is not talking about literal reigning chairs here: [Col 1:16 KJV] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

 

[Right Divider]

Ask @Right Divider. He was the one that said "throne" doesn't mean "throne" in David's case.

Yes, it does. You are lying.

It is David's throne over Israel in Jerusalem.... LITERALLY.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul is not talking about literal reigning chairs here: [Col 1:16 KJV] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And just HOW do you know this?

 

[Derf]

And just HOW do you know this?

Because a "throne" is an inanimate object. Such is not on the order of "principalities", "powers", or "dominions". You would never bow down to a throne--only to the person sitting on the throne--just as YOU pointed out. "Thrones" is a figure of speech for ruling authority or, as you pointed out, the kingdom itself.

Why are you determined to defend literal thrones (chairs that kings sit in) when you think "thrones" means "kingdoms"?

 

[Danoh]

Because a "throne" is an inanimate object. Such is not on the order of "principalities", "powers", or "dominions". You would never bow down to a throne--only to the person sitting on the throne--just as YOU pointed out. "Thrones" is a figure of speech for ruling authority or, as you pointed out, the kingdom itself.

Why are you determined to defend literal thrones (chairs that kings sit in) when you think "thrones" means "kingdoms"?

Not true. In the absence of the person whose throne it is, it is customary to bow to their throne and or that which represents their power.

Just as in Scripture, the LORD GOD is often given benevolence through those Angels sent to represent Him.

Put your reasoning away, already - I take it you have a Bible?

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Derf]

Yes, it does. You are lying.

It is David's throne over Israel in Jerusalem.... LITERALLY.

Hardly. You said:

Not the literal furniture, but the literal kingdom.

I'm agreeing with you! It is NOT the literal furniture. But that is what "throne" means when you are talking about the apostles literally "sitting on thrones". It doesn't have to be literal "thrones" or literal "sitting". It is a figure of speech declaring that they will reign over the kingdom (this is what you believe and are arguing for--don't fight against it).

You've gotten so locked into the idea of literalism as proof of your points, you don't see where you aren't being literal.

If you can get yourself out of the literalism mode of thinking, since you aren't being consistently literal anyway, you might start to see that there are other ways to understand Christ's kingdom. It might not always be a visible kingdom. It might instead be a kingdom that reigns over men's hearts, and not just their bodies. And yet it might culminate in a visible kingdom later on. These ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Derf]

Not true. In the absence of the person whose throne it is, it is customary to bow to their throne and or that which represents their power.

Just as in Scripture, the LORD GOD is often given benevolence through those Angels sent to represent Him.

Put your reasoning away, already - I take it you have a Bible?

Rom. 5:6-8.

Angels are different from inanimate objects. While there might be people who bow to a literal empty throne, the visions of God's throne provided by various prophets were not focused on the furniture, but on the person occupying the furniture.

We don't want to start bowing down to the objects that Jesus touched or sat in or drank out of, do we?

 

[Danoh]

Angels are different from inanimate objects. While there might be people who bow to a literal empty throne, the visions of God's throne provided by various prophets were not focused on the furniture, but on the person occupying the furniture.

We don't want to start bowing down to the objects that Jesus touched or sat in or drank out of, do we?

Lol - not what I'd meant.

Rather, that a sense of respect is forwarded towards those in just authority and or towards them through that which represents them.


"In the name of..."

That sort of thing.

And, you are dealing with Dispensationalists.

We hold, as does Scripture, that these things being talked about are...Literal.

We're talkin Literal - as in...

Genesis 25:16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.

As in...

Numbers 17:6 And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, and every one of their princes gave him a rod apiece, for each prince one, according to their fathers' houses, even twelve rods: and the rod of Aaron was among their rods.

And so on...

You simply do not acknowledge such realities within your endless "figurative."

It is what it is.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[DAN P]

Yes, but Jesus had John write to churches that were existing at that time, and most of which don't exist today.
[Rev 1:11 ESV] saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." And these were not Jewish churches. These were churches that John ministered to, that Paul established. The church of Ephesus was the one Paul talked to in Acts on the way to be bound in Jerusalem. You know...where he called them "sheep". :chuckle:

You have to figuratize the churches in Rev 1:11 to maintain your "literal" stance.

And here's what John says to these seven gentile churches:
[Rev 1:4 ESV] John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,
[Rev 1:5 ESV] and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
[Rev 1:6 ESV] and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.]

To those real and existing churches, John wrote about the kingdom that had already been made. He then went on to describe some coming events (some of which haven't happened yet, even to our day, but some of which might have already happened).

Hi and all the 7 assemblies are not GENTILE ASSEMBLIES and in verse 6 these assemblies will be KINGS and PRIESTS unto to God and this is not the Body of Christ as we are a new Creation unto Christ , gAL 3:28 !!

Can you explain what Gal 3:28 really means ??

danp

 

[steko]

Ask [MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION]. He was the one that said "throne" doesn't mean "throne" in David's case. Your reference to 2Sam 3:10 is supportive of RD's opinion, too, as it describes "throne of David" as ruling authority.

If, as you properly pointed out, "throne" means authority over, then what does "sit upon the throne" mean? It might mean to reign in peace. Or maybe just "exercising" that authority.

But the point was that literal "thrones" are not required for them to figuratively "sit on thrones", since sitting on figurative thrones would entail falling on literal butts.

Paul is not talking about literal reigning chairs here: [Col 1:16 KJV] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

You misunderstood both RD and me.

We are not saying that David's throne means an absence of literal furniture, but that it doesn't require the same furniture as in the case of King David and King Solomon. King Solomon ruled from his father David's throne but as I showed in those verses Solomon designed and built his literal throne furniture and it was different furniture from his father David's furniture, but both were 'the throne of David' and they were both literal furniture and represented their authority and extent of dominion over the twelve tribes of Israel and in the land called Israel as promised to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance forever.
In other words, King David's literal throne furniture does not need to be preserved from decay through history in order for Christ Jesus to inherit, sit on and rule from 'the throne of David'.
The particular furniture doesn't matter but.... there will be furniture and it will be located in the place where GOD chose to set His name there forever...in the allotted land of the tribe of Judah/Mt Moriah/Zion/Jerusalem on this planet earth.

Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Eze 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east[Mt of Olives].
Eze 43:5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.
Eze 43:6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

Eze 37:28 And the heathen[nations] shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.


Not only the nations but many confessing Christians will have a rude awakening when YHVH demonstrates that He has set Israel apart for Himself... for His eternal purpose.

 

[Danoh]

You misunderstood both RD and me.

We are not saying that David's throne means an absence of literal furniture, but that it doesn't require the same furniture as in the case of King David and King Solomon. King Solomon ruled from his father David's throne but as I showed in those verses Solomon designed and built his literal throne furniture and it was different furniture from his father David's furniture, but both were 'the throne of David' and they were both literal furniture and represented their authority and extent of dominion over the twelve tribes of Israel and in the land called Israel as promised to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance forever.
In other words, King David's literal throne furniture does not need to be preserved from decay through history in order for Christ Jesus to inherit, sit on and rule from 'the throne of David'.
The particular furniture doesn't matter but.... there will be furniture and it will be located in the place where GOD chose to set His name there forever...in the allotted land of the tribe of Judah/Mt Moriah/Zion/Jerusalem on this planet earth.

Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Eze 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east[Mt of Olives].
Eze 43:5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.
Eze 43:6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

Eze 37:28 And the heathen[nations] shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.


Not only the nations but many confessing Christians will have a rude awakening when YHVH demonstrates that He has set Israel apart for Himself... for His eternal purpose.

Yep, you said that right, and yes, exactly!



Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Right Divider]

Because a "throne" is an inanimate object. Such is not on the order of "principalities", "powers", or "dominions". You would never bow down to a throne--only to the person sitting on the throne--just as YOU pointed out. "Thrones" is a figure of speech for ruling authority or, as you pointed out, the kingdom itself.

So, according to your logic (which is no logic at all), all things in a list must be of the exact same type?

What about VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE? What do you do there?

Why are you determined to defend literal thrones (chairs that kings sit in) when you think "thrones" means "kingdoms"?

You have confused things beyond belief.

Jesus said that THEY.... the TWELVE apostles would sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel. There in NOTHING in that passage that gives ANY support for them being anything other than actual thrones.

P.S. I've seen these illogical tactic used many, many times. Claim that a verse is figurative..... find OTHER BOOKS that contain figurative language vaguely similar and claim victory. Nope.

 

[Right Divider]

Hardly. You said:

I'm agreeing with you! It is NOT the literal furniture. But that is what "throne" means when you are talking about the apostles literally "sitting on thrones".

It will be a literal throne... just not the same furniture that David sat on.

It doesn't have to be literal "thrones" or literal "sitting". It is a figure of speech declaring that they will reign over the kingdom (this is what you believe and are arguing for--don't fight against it).

You've gotten so locked into the idea of literalism as proof of your points, you don't see where you aren't being literal.

You still have given NO support to the TWELVE thrones being something other than actual thrones that they will sit upon.

If you can get yourself out of the literalism mode of thinking, since you aren't being consistently literal anyway, you might start to see that there are other ways to understand Christ's kingdom. It might not always be a visible kingdom. It might instead be a kingdom that reigns over men's hearts, and not just their bodies. And yet it might culminate in a visible kingdom later on. These ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Please give SUPPORT for your argument that the twelve apostle are going to sit on magical fairy tale thrones.

 

[Derf]

So, according to your logic (which is no logic at all), all things in a list must be of the exact same type?

What about VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE? What do you do there?


You have confused things beyond belief.

Jesus said that THEY.... the TWELVE apostles would sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel. There in NOTHING in that passage that gives ANY support for them being anything other than actual thrones.

P.S. I've seen these illogical tactic used many, many times. Claim that a verse is figurative..... find OTHER BOOKS that contain figurative language vaguely similar and claim victory. Nope.

Visible and invisible refer to physical and spiritual. But not a physical "throne", but, as you pointed out, the thing the throne represents--the authority.

In that light, it makes sense that there are physical and spiritual authorities. The physical ones are obvious--like the governments around the world. The spiritual ones are referred to in scripture, ans seem to be talking about angelic/demonic authorities.

A throne is a "seat" of power and authority. Giving the apostles "thrones" could easily mean giving them authority over the twelve tribes of Israel. If there is furniture involved, it isn't the important thing--the authority is.

And if authority is the important thing, how is that authority exercised? Jesus showed it when He washed their feet. He also warned them not to "lord" their power over their charges:
[Mat 20:25 KJV] But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
[Mat 20:26 KJV] But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
[Mat 20:27 KJV] And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

A throne is a symbol of lordship. It is rightfully the apostles'. But using such a physical thing is a sign of lording their position over other people, and is against what Jesus told them to do.

Peter passed the instruction on to those that came after him, suggesting that his "reign" was ending, at least for now:
[1Pe 5:2 KJV] Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
[1Pe 5:3 KJV] Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
[1Pe 5:4 KJV] And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

By the way, a "crown" is another symbol of authority, and Peter is saying to the leaders of "the flock of God" (probably geese, from what I've read in this thread:crackup, that they receive something that indicates their status as rulers, because they have ruled properly already--by NOT lording their position over the flock, but by being an example of servant leadership.

Do you think that's going to change? Do you think, when Christ returns, that suddenly His leaders will turn a corner and start lording their position over their subjects? No, a thousand times no. The reason they need to be good servant-leaders now, before Christ returns, is that He wants good servant-leaders when he returns. He rewards them with leadership positions on His return because they have been faithful to act like good leaders before His return. It is a constant theme in Jesus' parables--be good servants now in showing how you will lead later.

 

[Right Divider]

Visible and invisible refer to physical and spiritual. But not a physical "throne", but, as you pointed out, the thing the throne represents--the authority.

Christ will sit on a throne in Jerusalem. It will be visible, but you think that the other twelve thrones will be invisible. You've given no legitimate reason why the twelve thrones cannot be sat upon.

 

[Derf]

Lol - not what I'd meant.

Rather, that a sense of respect is forwarded towards those in just authority and or towards them through that which represents them.


"In the name of..."

That sort of thing.

And, you are dealing with Dispensationalists.

We hold, as does Scripture, that these things being talked about are...Literal.

We're talkin Literal - as in...

Genesis 25:16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.

As in...

Numbers 17:6 And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, and every one of their princes gave him a rod apiece, for each prince one, according to their fathers' houses, even twelve rods: and the rod of Aaron was among their rods.

And so on...

You simply do not acknowledge such realities within your endless "figurative."

It is what it is.

Rom. 5:6-8.

No, I'm not endlessly figurative. But the figurative certainly exists. Somewhere there's a line between figurative and literal, and we should strive to figure out the right place for that line. I'm suggesting that 12 thrones--physical chairs the apostle will sit in--is likely on the figurative side, just like Jesus sitting on David's throne is figurative for Him ruling in David's place over the kingdom of Israel.

If there's an actual throne, and there certainly might be, it isn't the important part of the message--the ruling part is the important part.

This is true for our lives, too. It is less important for us to bow before a piece of furniture than it is for us to submit ourselves to Jesus' will.

 

[Derf]

You misunderstood both RD and me.

We are not saying that David's throne means an absence of literal furniture, but that it doesn't require the same furniture as in the case of King David and King Solomon. King Solomon ruled from his father David's throne but as I showed in those verses Solomon designed and built his literal throne furniture and it was different furniture from his father David's furniture, but both were 'the throne of David' and they were both literal furniture and represented their authority and extent of dominion over the twelve tribes of Israel and in the land called Israel as promised to Abraham and his descendants as an inheritance forever.
In other words, King David's literal throne furniture does not need to be preserved from decay through history in order for Christ Jesus to inherit, sit on and rule from 'the throne of David'.
The particular furniture doesn't matter but.... there will be furniture and it will be located in the place where GOD chose to set His name there forever...in the allotted land of the tribe of Judah/Mt Moriah/Zion/Jerusalem on this planet earth.

Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Eze 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east[Mt of Olives].
Eze 43:5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.
Eze 43:6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

Eze 37:28 And the heathen[nations] shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.


Not only the nations but many confessing Christians will have a rude awakening when YHVH demonstrates that He has set Israel apart for Himself... for His eternal purpose.

I think I understood you pretty well. You were saying the line of figurative vs literal was drawn between the same exact pieces of furniture (figurative) and actual, but only similar furniture (literal).
[MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION] was in agreement with you, but also tried to draw the line between furniture and what the furniture represents (kingdom authority). Despite his inconsistency, expressed by drawing the line in two different places, I think he's on the right track with the latter, and the former doesn't really matter that much--as Jesus tried to point out when His disciples were trying to claim those "thrones".