Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ironmaw...you are totally failing to see the synergy of all the works and texts I have provided thus far.......the kingdom of sin and death is Israel, that which who made the covenant with death and sin...in Adam....hence 1 Cor 15.
I will quote Mr. Russell....
The Messianic kingdom, that is, the administration of the divine government by the Mediator, so far, at least, as Israel was concerned, reached its culminating point. The kingdom so long predicted, hoped for, prayed for, was now fully come. The final act of the King was to sit upon the throne of His glory and judge His people. He could then ‘deliver up the kingdom to God, even the kingdom.’ This is the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem according to the showing of the Word of God. It was not an isolated fact, a solitary catastrophe,—it was the centre of a group of related and coincident events, not only in the material, but in the spiritual world; not only on earth, but in heaven and in hell; some of them being cognisable by the senses and capable of historical confirmation, and others not.
The "end" in 15:24 is the exact same "the end" as in 1 Cor 1:8, Matt 10:22; Mark 13:7,13; 2 Cor 1:13-14, Matt 24:3; Rev 2:26, Heb 3:6, and 1 Pet 4:7. In other words, 1 Corinthian 15:24's "the end" is the same "end of the age" that was imminent at the time Paul wrote--it is the same "end" Jesus said his twelve apostles could live unto Matt 10:22-23; 24:6,13, the same "end" that Peter declared was at hand in 1 Pet 4:7, and the same "end" that is in 1 Cor 1:7-8; 2 Cor 1:13-14; Heb 3:6,14; Matt 28:20.
The "putting down of all rule, power, and authority" and "delivering up the Kingdom" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the same putting down of the usurping rulers of Israel, who made their covenant with death and sin Isa 28 and in Matthew 21:43-45...the same Kingdom of Matt 21:43 being ripped away from them to be delivered back under the rule of the Father and Christ.
Read all Matt 21:37-45 all to get the context, and reading straight through to Matt 22:13 is advised.
All things were put under the feet of Jesus is the kingdom of death and sin, except the Father, so that God would be all in all, 1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph 1:10,22-23; 4:8-10. The Lord Jesus, as the head of the Church and the high priest of all the Elect, is subject to the Father, before this event, as He is on the right hand of the throne, and not the temple, and throne itself as He is post Parousia Rev 21:22. This does not remove the Kingdom. It established it back unto God and his Chosen instead of continuing in the hands of the usurping, wicked rulers of Israel who were attempting to steal it from Jesus by force Matt 21:38-45; Matt 11:12; Luke 19:14. The Kingdom of God has no end, and is governed under the Messiah, the last Adam, forevermore Isa 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33; Dan 7:14,27; Rev 11:15, 5:10, 1:5-6. Christ reigns forever. If you want to impose a futurist paradigm onto this, it still follows the same theme, of the kingdom that is handed up to the Father is the kingdom of Sin and Death, the wicked rulers, of whatever age you want to take fancy in, the nature of this kingdom is still the same.
Every preterist, amillenialist, historicist, and post millenialist that I have read on the subject, considers this to be the case....you have ascribed to three of these positions...yet you are still in the dark?
Like I said...keep studying....would you like to study this apart from this thread? I would be happy to study it with you.
Last edited by sciotamicks; 01-24-2011 at 09:48 PM..
Ironmaw...you are totally failing to see the synergy of all the works and texts I have provided thus far.......the kingdom of sin and death is Israel, that which who made the covenant with death and sin...in Adam....hence 1 Cor 15.
I will quote Mr. Russell....
The Messianic kingdom, that is, the administration of the divine government by the Mediator, so far, at least, as Israel was concerned, reached its culminating point. The kingdom so long predicted, hoped for, prayed for, was now fully come. The final act of the King was to sit upon the throne of His glory and judge His people. He could then ‘deliver up the kingdom to God, even the kingdom.’ This is the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem according to the showing of the Word of God. It was not an isolated fact, a solitary catastrophe,—it was the centre of a group of related and coincident events, not only in the material, but in the spiritual world; not only on earth, but in heaven and in hell; some of them being cognisable by the senses and capable of historical confirmation, and others not.
The "end" in 15:24 is the exact same "the end" as in 1 Cor 1:8, Matt 10:22; Mark 13:7,13; 2 Cor 1:13-14, Matt 24:3; Rev 2:26, Heb 3:6, and 1 Pet 4:7. In other words, 1 Corinthian 15:24's "the end" is the same "end of the age" that was imminent at the time Paul wrote--it is the same "end" Jesus said his twelve apostles could live unto Matt 10:22-23; 24:6,13, the same "end" that Peter declared was at hand in 1 Pet 4:7, and the same "end" that is in 1 Cor 1:7-8; 2 Cor 1:13-14; Heb 3:6,14; Matt 28:20.
The "putting down of all rule, power, and authority" and "delivering up the Kingdom" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the same putting down of the usurping rulers of Israel, who made their covenant with death and sin Isa 28 and in Matthew 21:43-45...the same Kingdom of Matt 21:43 being ripped away from them to be delivered back under the rule of the Father and Christ.
Read all Matt 21:37-45 all to get the context, and reading straight through to Matt 22:13 is advised.
All things were put under the feet of Jesus is the kingdom of death and sin, except the Father, so that God would be all in all, 1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph 1:10,22-23; 4:8-10. The Lord Jesus, as the head of the Church and the high priest of all the Elect, is subject to the Father, before this event, as He is on the right hand of the throne, and not the temple, and throne itself as He is post Parousia Rev 21:22. This does not remove the Kingdom. It established it back unto God and his Chosen instead of continuing in the hands of the usurping, wicked rulers of Israel who were attempting to steal it from Jesus by force Matt 21:38-45; Matt 11:12; Luke 19:14. The Kingdom of God has no end, and is governed under the Messiah, the last Adam, forevermore Isa 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33; Dan 7:14,27; Rev 11:15, 5:10, 1:5-6. Christ reigns forever.
Every preterist, amillenialist, historicist, and post millenialist considers this to be the case....you have ascribed to three of these positions...yet you are still in the dark?
Like I said...keep studying....would you like to study this apart from this thread?
I am not failing to see what you believe to be "the synergy of all the works and texts I(you) have provided thus far".
I am failing to see the evidence of your interpretation born out in the texts of the scriptures themselves.
I trust the understanding of the earliest church fathers who were disciples of the apostles themselves and their understanding of eschatology much more than i trust you and those men and the traditions they espouse to which you subscribe.
If we take into account all of the writings of the early church fathers concerning the second coming of Christ throughout the entirety of the first 3 centuries, especially the writings of Polycarp who was himself the disciple of the writer of the revelations, and Papias a friend of the prophet hismelf, all we find is the belief that the second coming of Christ had not yet transpired and was yet a future event, as well as a literal resurrection of the dead and a literal reign of Christ on earth over the nations from the throne of David, as the apostles were taught to pray, "thy kingdom come and thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" ...
Now, you quoted the epistle of Barnabas as if it were evidence that the destruction of Israel was in fact the second coming of Christ, and in order to do so no only did you take what he wrote out of context in order to establish your erroneous interpretation, you also claimed it to have been written before the fall of the temple in 70 AD, which can be easily disproved using the actual text itself as various scholars have already done.
Quote:
John Dominic Crossan quotes Koester as stating that New Testament writings are used "neither explicitly nor tacitly" in the Epistle of Barnabas and that this "would argue for an early date, perhaps even before the end of I C.E." Crossan continues (The Cross that Spoke, p. 121):
Richardson and Shukster have also argued for a first-century date. Among several arguments they point to the detail of "a little king, who shall subdue three of the kings under one" and "a little crescent horn, and that it subdued under one three of the great horns" in Barnabas 4:4-5. They propose a composition "date during or immediately after the reign of Nerva (96-8 C.E.) . . . viewed as bringing to an end the glorious Flavian dynasty of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian . . . when a powerful, distinguished, and sucessful dynasty was brought low, humiliated by an assassin's knife" (33, 40).
In 16:3-4, the Epistle of Barnabas says: "Furthermore he says again, 'Lo, they who destroyed(past tense, my emphasis) this temple shall themselves build it.' That is happening now. For owing to the war it(the temple, my emphasis) was destroyed(again past tenst, my emphasis) by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again." This clearly places Barnabas after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. But it also places Barnabas before the Bar Kochba revolt in 132 CE, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. This shows that the document comes from the period between these two revolts.
Jay Curry Treat states on the dating of Barnabas (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, pp. 613-614):
Since Barnabas 16:3 refers to the destruction of the temple, Barnabas must be written after 70 C.E. It must be written before its first undisputable use in Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190. Since 16:4 expects the temple to be rebuilt, it was most likely written before Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site ca. 135. Attempts to use 4:4-5 and 16:1-5 to specify the time of origin more exactly have not won wide agreement. It is important to remember that traditions of varying ages have been incoprorated into this work.
Now, beyond your use of the epistle of Barnabas as evidence of the validity of your interpretation, you quoted Athanasius, and again you rip his words out of context and attempt to use them to establish you interpretation.
It is clear that Athanasius was speaking of the first advent of Christ in the text you quoted, and of the sacrifice which Christ made fro sin on the cross, and not of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD as the second coming of Christ, and this can be easily proven by the statement of "the Athanasian Creed" which was written centuries after the destruction of the temple is 70 AD and clearly points to a yet future coming of Christ when he will literally reign on earth from the city of Jerusalem, and of a literal resurrection of the dead ...
Quote:
"The Athanasian Creed"
"He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation."
Note: I am not using this quote as a proof of UR, but as a proof against the idea that Athanasius believed the second coming of Christ and the millenial reign had already occurred.
Next you go on to quote Clement of Rome as if his writing provided evidence of your preterist tradition in the times of the early church. If he wrote first clement before the fall of the temple then you would have at least one apostolic Father who would seem to support your view, but the evidence is in favor of a later date for the writing of 1st clement to begin with, as is attested to by the majority of scholars on the issue ...
Quote:
On the internal evidence for the dating of 1 Clement, Welborn writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 1060):
The epistle is customarily dated to the end of the reign of Domitian (95 or 96 C.E.). In the first sentence of the letter, the author explains that the Roman church has been delayed in turning its attention to the dispute at Corinth by "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1). This statement is usually interpreted as an allusion to a persecution through which the church at Rome has just been passing. Since chap. 5 speaks of the Neronian persecution as something long past, the sporadic assaults of Domitian must be meant. But the langauge of 1:1 is so vague that one may doubt whether it refers to persecution at all (Merrill 1924: 160); and the evidence for a persecution under Domitian is tenuous (Merrill 1924: 148-73). In letters and speeches on concord, one often finds an apologetic formula like that which introduces 1 Clement; it was customary for one who gave advice on concord to excuse his delay by reference to personal or domestic hindrances (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.2; Aelius Aristides Or. 24.1; Socratic Ep. 31).
Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):
Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.
Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, "These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us." Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.
Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of "our generation" (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40). On the other hand, as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE. The reference to "our generation" is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn. Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.
The fact that Clement does not mention the millennial reign of christ is not evidence that he did not believe in it, and to use such as evidence of the same is an "argumentum ex silentio", a logical fallacy.
Finally in reference to my mentioning of Papias' belief in a literal return and reign of Christ on earth, though we have no evidence that Papias believed in a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth from the fragments of his writings which we may gather from the writings of later church fathers, we do have this evidence From "Eusebius - Ecclesiastical History" that in fact he did believe in the literal millennial reign of Christ on earth after his second future coming.
Though i do not trust Eusebeus theology, his statement is nevertheless powerful evidence for Papias' belief in the literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth because of the fact that Eusebius' actually disagreed with such an interpretation in spite of the fact that he claimed Clement believed in it.
Quote:
From Eusebius - Ecclesiastical History
The same person(Papias), moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.
So the fact is that the earliest church fathers who wrote of the second coming of Christ did so in a literal futurist hermeneutic, looking forward to the coming of messiah and his literal reign on earth over the nations.
So when i take all these evidences and apply the writings of Paul to them, especially Paul's writings concerning the eventual salvation of the same national Israel who had been blinded to a knowledge of the truth of the gospel for the sake of the world after the fullness of the gentiles has entered the kingdom(Romans 11), and add to it the prophecy of Christ concerning the rebuilding of the temple, then i am ultimately persuaded to believe that the return of Christ to earth and his literal reign over the nations, and not in the teachings of the full preterist position which you subscribe to ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 01-24-2011 at 11:43 PM..
There is no more death, sorrow, pain, tears - Rev 21/Isa 51 for those in Christ - 1 Cor 15. Can someone do better than this guy?
I have pain every day, some days excruciating, from arthritis and other ailments, and i cry every now and again in sorrow, especially when i remember my loved ones who have died and are even now dead and buried in the earth whom i do sorely miss ...
So your claiming that the above is true presently to me is not only a mockery of reality, but it is a proverbial slap in the face. If this state of being is as you claim truly what the bible refers to as being without death and pain and tears and sorrow, then the bible is a mockery of reality itself.
I imagine you must live a very well to do and sheltered life if you truly believe that sin and death and pain and tears and sorrow have all been and are presently done away with.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 01-24-2011 at 11:53 PM..
Alright I will bite your little battle....your opinion of Eusebius is duly noted, as is mine of your pagan philosophers such as CoA and Origen....who espoused apokastasis, denial of Christ bearing sin once and for all, you espouse a second payment by man, in the Lake of Fire...LOL....
Let's move forward.....Athanasius declares "For now that "He has come" to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind in checked, and "the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away." For the race of men had gone to ruin had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet "the end of death." (Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word, Section 9 Verse 4; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21-26)....shall we keep going?
Why not? Clement of Rome, who wrote to James and told him what Peter had to the Jews, thusly: " ' For we; said I, 'have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed, and the abomination of desolation shall stand in the holy place; and then the Gospel shall be preached to the Gentiles for a testimony against you....; "When I had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple...;' (Clement, p 94, vol. 8, The Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (145-220) told of how the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment of predictions that had been made in Daniel 9:26. He said: Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that 'both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin; And so the times of the coming Christ, the leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen. In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be exterminated;, (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 158).
Let's refresh Daniel 9 shall we?
Verse 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy
Tertullian interpretations of Zechariah 14:4. He said, " 'But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives; For thus had Zechariah pointed out: 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives; " (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 417)
....millennium began with Christ.
Ep Barnabas - 1st century, 55-68 AD chapter 3 verse 4
For the consummation of sin is to come, as the prophet Daniel says. And for this end the Lord has shortened the times and the days, that his beloved might hasten his coming to his inheritance.
Chapter 4 verse 10:
But he, that he might abolish death and make known the resurrection from the dead [consistent with 1 Cor 15 and Rev 20] was content, as was necessary, to appear in the flesh, that he might make good the promise given before to our fathers, and preparing himself a new people, might demonstrate to them while he was upon earth, that after the resurrection he would judge the world.
Care to proceed? I am full of quotes.....and you will lose this battle. Next?
I accidentalness left out your references to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian as evidence of you full preterist interpretations.
Allow me to make a quick response concerning you claims ...
First concerning the beliefs of Tertullian ...
Quote:
THE MILLENNIUM.—Tertullian has set forth, clearly and succinctly, in his controversy with Marcion,36 his belief concerning the millennium. It had been treated at greater length by him in another work, De Spe Fidelium, but that, unfortunately, is lost. He states that he is familiar with the idea of a literal return of the Jews to Judaea, and the setting up then of an earthly kingdom; but he himself accepts the prophecies relating to the subject in a figurative sense as applying to Christ and His Church. He does, however, believe that a kingdom awaits the saints upon the earth, only that it is in another existence, after the resurrection. It will last for a thousand years, in the divinely built city of Jerusalem, which will be let down from heaven. This is the city which Paul calls ‘our mother from above,’ and in which thepoli/teuma, or citizenship, of Christians is. It was foretold by Ezekiel (xlviii. 30—38) and by John (Rev. xxi. 10—23). Moreover, the New Prophecy taught that a sign of this New Jerusalem would be manifested in a picture of it which would appear in the heavens. That sign, said Tertullian, had already been given. In Judaea, during an expedition to the East, there was seen suspended in the sky a city early every morning for forty days. The city will serve the purpose of receiving the saints on their resurrection. There they will receive spiritual blessings to compensate them for the afflictions of the present life.
The order of events is expressly set forth by Tertullian. ‘Of the heavenly kingdom this is the process. After its |p218 thousand years are over, within which period is completed the resurrection of the saints, who rise sooner or later, according to their deserts, there will ensue the destruction of the world and the conflagration of all things at the judgement; we shall then be changed, in a moment, into the substance of angels, even by the investiture of an incorruptible nature, and so be removed to that kingdom in heaven of which we have now been treating.’
And concerning Clement of Alexandria you quoted ...
Quote:
Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that 'both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin; And so the times of the coming Christ, the leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen. In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be exterminated
There is no doubt that Christs FIRST ADVENT was a fulfillment of all the things written in the above. It makes no mention of the second advent of christ, or that he had already returned, or that the resurrection of the dead had already taken place ...
Also, i left out Barnabas beliefs concerning the future coming of Christ ...
Quote:
"Among the Apostolic Fathers BARNABAS is the first and the only onewho expressly teaches a pre-millennial reign of Christ on earth. He considers the Mosaic history of the creation a type of six ages of labor for the world, each lasting a thousand years, and of a millennium of rest; since with God “one day is as a thousand years.” The millennial Sabbath on earth will be followed by an eighth and eternal day in a new world, of which the Lord’s Day (called by Barnabas “the eighth day”) is the type.” (Phillip Schaff – History of the Christian Church Vol. II, p. 617)
and ...
“Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.” (The Epistle of Barnabus, Chap. XV. — The False and the True Sabbath)
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 01-24-2011 at 11:51 PM..
Back to post #1.Furthermore, all men will not be made righteous. Romans 5 does not say that. Only those who believe in Christ are made righteous. But that is not the topic of this thread, so please don't pursue it on this thread.
Rom 4 [ASV]
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.
If Jesus were to reign forever, how does He accomplish His mission of " ... placing all His enemies under His feet" (I Cor. 15:25)?
Barne's Notes from the Bible:
"For he must reign - It is fit, or proper (δει dei), that he should reign until this is accomplished. It is proper that the mediatorial kingdom should continue till this great work is effected. The word 'must' here refers to the propriety of this continuance of his reign, and to the fact that this was contemplated and predicted as the work which he would accomplish. He came to subdue all his enemies; see -Psa 2:6-10; or Psalm 110:1, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' Paul, doubtless, had this passage in his eye as affirming the necessity that he should reign until all his foes should be subdued. That this refers to the Messiah is abundantly clear from Matthew 22:44-45. "
[SIZE=3]
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
Quote:
[SIZE=3]Unbelievers of course will be thrown into the lake of fire which is the Second death where they will live forever in eternal shame, ruin, uselessness and torment.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Oh that's nice to think about. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]You mean everlasting shame? You know that eternity, eternal, etc means without beginning or end, right?
I cannot fathom how God would create them knowing in advance that they would suffer. Now one may object that He may not have known, etc. However, a number of scriptures indicate otherwise.
Ephesians 1:4, Peter 1:2, Matthew 25:34, Acts 2:23, Revelation 13:8.
Most of the verses I mentioned above do not mention unbelievers explicitly; most of them only mention believers.
Would one dare to say that He knew the fate of believers only?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Mike555, I can't help but notice (literally) that you keep referencing Hebrews 1:8. There are three different expressions with these words used in the Scriptures when referring to time. To quote Louis Abbott,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]"Since the words of God are inspired and are used precisely, to ignore the differences in these passages is to ignore what He is saying."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I've bolded for emphasis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
Hebrews 1:8 ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou aionos, "Thy throne, O God, is for the eon of the eon"
Ephesians 3:21: auto hê doxa en tê ekklêsia kai en Christo Iêsou eis pasas tas geneas tou aionos ton aionon, "To Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons. Amen."
Galatians 1:5: ho hê doxa eis tous aionas ton aionon, "To Whom be glory for the eons of the eons."
Do all of these mean eternity to you, Mike555? It seems pretty weird that they would use three different expressions for one concept, and in spite of "describing eternity" they would use pluralities.
"Then Jesus will indeed deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and it will be the triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who will rule forever."
Where is the Holy Spirit mentioned in [SIZE=3]I Cor. 15:22-28???
[/SIZE]
If Jesus were to reign forever, how does He accomplish His mission of " ... placing all His enemies under His feet" (I Cor. 15:25)?
Barne's Notes from the Bible:
"For he must reign - It is fit, or proper (δει dei), that he should reign until this is accomplished. It is proper that the mediatorial kingdom should continue till this great work is effected. The word 'must' here refers to the propriety of this continuance of his reign, and to the fact that this was contemplated and predicted as the work which he would accomplish. He came to subdue all his enemies; see -Psa 2:6-10; or Psalm 110:1, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' Paul, doubtless, had this passage in his eye as affirming the necessity that he should reign until all his foes should be subdued. That this refers to the Messiah is abundantly clear from Matthew 22:44-45. "
[SIZE=3]
Jesus Christ is the God-man. He is eternal and infinite God and true humanity in one Person. Once Jesus' meditorial reign ends after His enemies have been placed under His feet at the end of the Millennial kingdom which is the last dispensation of human history, He will continue to reign forever. The Triune God - Father, Son, and Spirit, reign eternally.
Jesus' reign over His kingdom is said to be without end. Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33] and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."
Both Revelation 22:1 and 22:3 refer to the eternal state after Christ's enemies have been placed under His feet.
Rev 22:1 Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb,
Rev. 22:3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him.
With regard to those two verses, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 987, states the following.
'It is significant also that the Lamb is pictured on the throne (mentioned also in v. 3). This makes it clear that 1 Corinthians 15:24, which states that Christ "hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power," does not mean that Christ's reign on the throne will end but that it will change its character. Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Rev. 17:14; 19:16) for all eternity.'
Quote:
[/SIZE][SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Oh that's nice to think about. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]You mean everlasting shame? You know that eternity, eternal, etc means without beginning or end, right?
The word 'eternal' can be applied to both the eternal past and eternal future, or it can be used with reference to looking forward to the eternal future.
Quote:
I cannot fathom how God would create them knowing in advance that they would suffer. Now one may object that He may not have known, etc. However, a number of scriptures indicate otherwise.
Ephesians 1:4, Peter 1:2, Matthew 25:34, Acts 2:23, Revelation 13:8.
Most of the verses I mentioned above do not mention unbelievers explicitly; most of them only mention believers.
Would one dare to say that He knew the fate of believers only?[/SIZE]
Since this isn't the topic of the thread, I will not address this comment here.
Quote:
[SIZE=3]Mike555, I can't help but notice (literally) that you keep referencing Hebrews 1:8. There are three different expressions with these words used in the Scriptures when referring to time. To quote Louis Abbott,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]"Since the words of God are inspired and are used precisely, to ignore the differences in these passages is to ignore what He is saying."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I've bolded for emphasis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
Hebrews 1:8 ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou aionos, "Thy throne, O God, is for the eon of the eon"
Ephesians 3:21: auto hê doxa en tê ekklêsia kai en Christo Iêsou eis pasas tas geneas tou aionos ton aionon, "To Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons. Amen."
Galatians 1:5: ho hê doxa eis tous aionas ton aionon, "To Whom be glory for the eons of the eons."
Do all of these mean eternity to you, Mike555? It seems pretty weird that they would use three different expressions for one concept, and in spite of "describing eternity" they would use pluralities.
[font=Times New Roman]"Then Jesus will indeed deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and it will be the triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who will rule forever."
Since the issue is whether or not Jesus will reign forever, I am not going to get into a discussion on the variations in the above phrases.
And it has already been established that Jesus' reign does not end. Once His Millennial reign ends He will still rule eternally.
Quote:
Where is the Holy Spirit mentioned in I Cor. 15:22-28???
The Holy Spirit need not be mentioned directly. The Holy Spirit is God and is co-equal with the Father and with the Son. The triune God will reign forever.
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-18-2012 at 06:01 PM..
When exactly does humanity cease to exist (the last dispensation of human history)? An inquiring mind would like to know, if you can pinpoint the day and hour.
When exactly does humanity cease to exit (the last dispensation of human history)? An inquiring mind would like to know, if you can pinpoint the day and hour.
Humanity will never cease to exist. Dispensations, in which God administers His plan in various ways, belong to human history, to time. After the Millennium which is the last dispensation of human history all will be in the eternal state. Revelation chapters 21 and 22 describe the new heaven and new earth.
Humanity will never cease to exist. Dispensations, in which God administers His plan in various ways, belong to human history, to time.
After the Millennium which is the last dispensation of human history all will be in the eternal state.
Revelation chapters 21 and 22 describe the new heaven and new earth.
"Truly, for life never ends."
Thank you for the response.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
