Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 08:40:11 PM

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.

'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.

Quote from: browarod on August 25, 2009, 10:31:47 PM

The decision has been made...

According to this post it hasn't.