Jesus will reign forever in the Kingdom of God, contrary to 1 Cor 15:24

[Peacetroll]

 The writings of Paul were dangerous and being edited by the old catholics, became doubly so, and were used as justification for obedience to the tyranny of church and government.
What you quoted and interpeted is backed up no where else in scripture. Jesus Christ will be all and in all because He is the Father in the flesh. The intermediary, the flesh body, God used to ransom all Adam, man to Himself. Why He, God, is called a just God, and a Savior!

Isaiah 43:10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.  

12I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

[reFORMer]

I wonder if you even read my last couple of posts, at least with understanding.  Kings are apart from those they rule.  Everything immersed and filled with the Holy Spirit will be and do perfectly by nature, so need not be subject to anything, but are free.  There is then no more Ruler.

My experience in talking with so many caught up all their lives in being an audience for a few professionals seem incapable of understanding "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."  For what else would they want liberty?  The very idea of personal freedom is something that research suggests was brought to the world by Jesus.  Yet it remains something difficult to comprehend by many people even today.  They seem to only hear descriptions of freedom as rebellion or anarchy.  Jesus as head of the church while preventing any other among us from being over us seems to disappear into a vacuum in some believers heads.

In the longest passage quoted in Greek from the Hebrew God says His new covenant "will not be like that when I took you by the hand and lead you out of Egypt."  Yet people almost 3,000 years later are still singing, "Precious Lord, take my hand; lead me on, let me stand..."  The NEW covenant is not "new" as in different so much as it has the continual quality of "newness," or, "young."  That's why it can't be in external writings.  It is of life in immediacy.  No more being bossed around, even by God.  It is something written in our hearts and minds; meaning, we know and understand within ourselves the will of God, delighting in it with our own hearts, choosing it without being told to.  Not leadings!!!  But, beings!!!

[reFORMer]

"Whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him," and it is so, '...that God may be All in all" (1 Co 15:28) which is "INWARDLY AND OUTWARDLY:  THE DEIFICATION OF EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE."

TOTAL LIBERTY!!!

PERFECT EVERYTHING!!!
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM!!!

[Molly]

Galatians 4:26
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.




28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.



---Galatians 4
:bgdance:

[Molly]

1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

4As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

---Genesis 17

"nations"

H1471
גּי    גּוי
gôy gôy
go'ee, go'-ee
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.


17Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed,and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? --Gen 17



"laughed"

H6711
צחק
tsâchaq
tsaw-khak'
A primitive root; to laugh outright (in merriment or scorn); by implication to sport: - laugh, mock, play, make sport.


19And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. --Gen 17



"Isaac"

H3327
יצחק
yitschâq
yits-khawk'
From H6711; laughter (that is, mockery); Jitschak (or Isaac), son of Abraham: - Isaac. Compare H3446.



31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.--Gal 4

[Molly]

..Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
6And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me.

--Genesis 21





22And I saw no temple therein [the new Jerusalem]: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

26And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

--Revelation 21


"nations"

G1484
ἔθνος
ethnos
eth'-nos
Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.




9Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
10But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. --John 11



John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.



"door"

G2374
θύρα
thura
thoo'-rah
Apparently a primary word (compare "door"); a portal or entrance (the opening or the closure, literally or figuratively): - door, gate.



25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

26And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. --Rev 21

[martincisneros]

The writings of Paul were dangerous and being edited by the old catholics, became doubly so, and were used as justification for obedience to the tyranny of church and government.

All 13 of Paul's epistles are precisely what Paul wrote.  If you want to see some of the forgeries, go to a Christian bookstore or to a public library and peak inside of a book called "The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden" and other similar collections of early Christian writings.  There you'll find Paul's alleged epistle to the Laodiceans and various other things which are clearly not his epistles.

If your complaint against some of Paul's epistles is a style issue, which some wanna-be scholars get into, that because a particular Greek word was used in one epistle and not in another one, then one or the other epistle is necessarily suspect (which is stupid 'cause name a single preacher who maintains lifelong exact wording about anything, even if he maintains precision or grows in it over time) -- just remember the last chapter of Romans where someone speaks up as having co-written Romans with Paul, and then the opening lines of each of the other epistles will reveal either Timothy and/or someone else who co-write the epistle with Paul and therefore may have effected "style" without compromising content and intent.  Galatians, Ephesians, 1Timothy, 2Timothy, and Titus are the only epistles that don't list one or more co-authors in either the opening or closing credits.

And as far as Hebrews, since you seem to quote the KJV a lot and it's the only "translation" that'll list Pauline authorship for Hebrews -- it was more likely written by Barnabas or Priscilla.  There's an ancient tradition attributing the authorship to Priscilla, who was pastor of Philippi, and if you'll look at the book that I've mentioned in this post, there's an epistle attributed to Barnabas that matches the book of Hebrews pretty closely in style and content.  Thank God, the epistle of Barnabas didn't make it into the canon, though, 'cause although it offers a great interpretation of the Levitical food laws as actually relating to the type of people that we fellowship with, on the other hand, it mentions that 6 day theory garbage about the earth being 6,000 years old.  If the earth is only 6 - 8 thousand years old, how come there's a nonstop 6,000+ years of recorded Chinese history?  The earliest you could make everything, if you just had to absolutely young earth everything or you'd lose your sanctification over it, is to say that everything's in the hundreds of thousands of years old.  You'd still be monkeying with the physics and anthropology a bit, but not as badly 'cause at least the things that they've proven over and over again that haven't overlapped in history would be given some space whereas the 6,000 years theory necessitates far more chaos than any credible scientist can believe plausible.  Scientists believe in and relish "chaos," but not in that much chaos as that would necessitate.  We'd of had killings over the age of the earth and over the age of mankind into the 20th century if the general epistle of Barnabas had been allowed into the canon!

The only "editing" by the old catholics occured in the Latin Vulgate, through Jerome's choice of wording into the Latin.  A lot of people deeply involved in the occult will try to say that Paul's epistles have been adulterated, that Paul changed Christianity away from the simplicity in Jesus, etc.  But the changes happened through so-called "Saint" Augustine with his doctrine of election, and through the influence of Thomas Aquinas and his mentor who blended the philosophy of Aristotle with Christianity in their writings and created a "twice the son of Hell" theology to what Augustine had produced.  Eternal punishment and speculations of annihilation of the wicked came into the Church as the Church became latinized and not before.  Neither eternal punishment nor annihilation of the wicked are supported by either the Greek of the New and Old Testaments (i.e. the Septuignt), nor by the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament.  They're only supported by the Latin Vulgate, and even with that, there's a question mark on whether Jerome necessarily meant it to be taken that way in some of his translation work.

I've looked for eternal punishment or annihilation of the wicked in the Hebrew and Greek for 7 years.  It's not there.  I've diligently looked for it, over the last couple of years, almost "hoping" to find it so that I could have a so-called "normal" ministry that would require a little less faith to pay the bills 'cause of being able to feed the itching ears for damnation and rejection and that in the end God's as unforgiving and rejectful as any relationship we ever find in this earth.  But I've not been able to find it.  I've had personal situations come up over the last couple of years where unforgiveness would have been sooo sweet that I could almost taste it's being sweeter than honey, but I couldn't justify it on anything less than the character of God and His ultimate intent for His creation.  So, I've sought for eternal damnation and annihilation as for buried treasure, but haven't been able to find a single verse properly translated and rightly divided that would allow for me to abandon all hope for a single individual in all of creation.  I've looked for it diligently, not so much to refute UR, but for permission to allow myself to grow cold and hateful about a couple of situations that I won't get into.  If you only knew how little sleep I've had over the last couple of years as I've restudied and looked and looked and looked for it, looking for the excuse or why a few people I've known were really going to get it "one day" so that I could take consolation in that, but I've sought in vain.

All 31,173 verses of the Bible scream glad tidings of great joy for all of mankind.  Every verse screams "it is finished!"  Every verse screams the recovery of every lost coin (literally), every lost sheep (literally), and every lost son (literally).  Every verse screams that the 99 aren't good enough for Him!  Every verse screams Revelation 5:13.  Every verse screams about it being a completed work.  Every verse screams about the temporal loss of some blessings, benefits, priveleges, provisions, desires, pleasures, etc., for some people, but at the same time and in the same breath that nonetheless there will be a total restoration accomplished by Jesus Christ.  Every verse screams that Jesus Christ is dissolving all forms of government, including His own, so that He can present it all to the Father so that Father alone shall be all in all.  Every verse screams that Jesus Christ is trying to successfully work Himself out of a job by having completed all that the Father gave Him to do where each life is concerned, and that any failure to complete His divine grace in each life is His own ultimate failure alone as the new federal head of humanity. 

Every verse screams that Jesus won't be outdone by either Joseph or George Washington in completing his task.  Joseph very obviously resigned headship over Egypt after he'd navigated the nation through the 14 year food crisis.  And it's a matter of public record that when the Revolutionary War was completed, when Washington could have made himself another Caesar (he was that popular), he resigned the command of the Army to Congress and secured his place even deeper in the hearts of Americans than at any point previously.  He's not adored even today by millions because he thought that power was something to be grasped and held onto, but because he knew "when" to let go.  When Napoleon Bonaparte was being exiled, he complained that everybody had expected him to be another George Washington.

Every verse screams FORGIVE; LOVE AS I'VE LOVED YOU; BEAR ONE ANOTHER'S BURDENS AND SO FULFILL THE LAW OF CHRIST; WASH -- DON'T AMPUTATE -- BUT WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET; CHRIST HAS LEFT TO YOU AN EXAMPLE OF SUFFERING SO THAT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW IN HIS FOOTSTEPS IN THE BEHALF OF ALL -- BEING MADE COMFORMABLE UNTO HIS DEATH IF BY ANY MEANS.......

[Peacetroll]

 What did any of that have to do with Jesus reigning forever, world without end?

Paul was afraid of forgeries when he was writing his letters. I wonder why?

2 Thessalonians 3:17
The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

As for what Paul wrote being bluntly what he was communicating, Peter sets the record straight.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[martincisneros]

What did any of that have to do with Jesus reigning forever, world without end?

Paul was afraid of forgeries when he was writing his letters. I wonder why?

2 Thessalonians 3:17
The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

As for what Paul wrote being bluntly what he was communicating, Peter sets the record straight.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You get lost fairly easily on what's being said and why at these boards, don't you?  And again, I asserted that there were forgeries, but none of them made it into the canon.  I refered you to a resource where you could have a peak at a couple of the forgeries.  When you examine the context of all of the passages that mention "Gehenna" in the original Greek, it's always over doctrinal and paradigm issues.  And Jesus on one occasion specifically refered to the "destruction of Gehenna."  So, Gehenna is what Peter is referring to here in 2Peter 3, although he didn't mention it by name.  I'm not a preterist, but the first Gehenna judgment, that Jesus and James were citing in referencing "Gehenna," did occur in 70AD, which probably included the burning of many of these forgeries that you've continually taken more confidence in than in the actual Scriptures of the entire New Testament.

No one is disputing the "destruction of Gehenna" over false doctrine, or the plagues of the book of Revelation coming upon those who tried to do a re-write of the book.  However, Jesus does leave the 99 and goes after the destroyed sheep, which are translated "lost" in your KJV, but it's the Greek word "destroyed" that Jesus leaves the 99 over.  No one is disputing the Lake of Fire judgment having overtaken the prodigal son -- 'cause all judgments of works essentially fall into the same category in Scripture although variously described differently.  The Gehenna judgments are paradigm or false doctrine judgments, while the Lake of Fire, or Tartarus judgment is the judgment of works.  When we have a judgment of ideas, beliefs, doctrines, twisting of Scripture, etc., then we're talking about the Gehenna judgment, even if Gehenna's not specifically mentioned in the text.  And the judgment of works is always the Lake of Fire, or Tartarus judgment, whether Lake of Fire or Tartarus are ever mentioned in the context or not -- which they're usually not 'cause Tartarus is only mentioned specifically in Peter's writings, while Lake of Fire is only specifically mentioned in the book of Revelation.  But if we'll compare all of the judgment passages, then it's possible to come to a great degree of accuracy and clarity about the nature, duration, intent, outcome, and timing of each of these judgments.

All of these judgments are related to the reign of the Son of God.  Jesus only reigns while He's subduing and reconciling sinners, so as I've noted previously -- even under your paradigm, it's a failure on the part of Christ to say that He reigns forever 'cause you're implying that there's never a time when He's finished with subduing and reconciling sinners.  And I'm not touching on your thoughts about subduing and reconciling not necessarily being the same thing -- which is a fallacy, but I'm talking about the purpose/duration (i.e. ages of ages) of His reign being acheived.  See Isaiah 34 for two examples of "ages of ages" not necessitating endless perpetuity, because the land in question is not still on fire although that judgment was acheived ages ago, and there's no reason to believe that God did the same miracle for the animals in question that He did for the 3 Hebrew children to perserve them in the midst of fire in the book of Daniel.  Yet both judgments are rendered "forever and ever" by many of the English translations.

1Corinthians 15:28 says that when Christ has acheived His mission, then He hands it all over to the Father who is then all in all in every way in which He was not previously all in all -- so that although some religionists and mystics might try to contend that God is already all in all, the language of 1Corinthians 15:28 necessitates a day coming in which He'll be all in all in a way in which He's not previously been all in all under any paradigm on the matter.  Even Jack Van Impe has had to concede the 1Corinthians 15:28 abdication of the Son of God, although because he won't beleive the Greek text on Luke's Gospel, nor the Hebrew text on the books of Daniel and Isaiah, he's erroneously of the opinion that after that that Christ is recommissioned because of the language in his KJV about Christ reigning forever.  But of this recommission and it's details we're given absolutely no insight in Scripture.  It's a mere conjecture that would only have as it's [potential] base that if you're faithful in little, then God would make you ruler over much, and the mistranslations about "forever" and "forever and ever" when it comes to the reign of Christ.  However, the "all in all" language of Scripture when it comes to that day is fiercely stubborn and doesn't allow for a further yeilding of power or the granting of another scepter to anyone for any reason.  The reign of the Son of God has been to remedy the situation of the fall.  Christ only reigns forever in the sense of each of us having been conformed to His image.  He reigns forever in the sense of having subdued all of our iniquities and in being what each of us sees in the mirror.  But His official titles of King and Priest after the Order of Melchizedec are to the age when God becomes "all in all" and not from then and beyond.

In speaking in this way, I'm not finding fault with the beauty of the sentiment of Christ reigning forever.  No Christian would.  But the Bible does indicate that such an eternal reign on the part of Christ and the Church shall not be in any way except for in the sense that we'll never again be brought under a curse.  The blessing will triumph over the curse.  Mercy rejoiceth against judgment, or triumphs over it as most of the newer translations will render it.  You'll find no dispute with me over the worthiness of Christ to reign forever, but the Bible simply indicates that that won't be necessary 'cause there won't be any subsequent falls as Origen had speculated and got condemned for 'cause he was thought just a little too free-thinking on that point.  The thing is, Origen was seldom a dogmatist.  He was very very speculative and just threw thoughts out there for reflection.  His language was often "what if; let's suppose; wouldn't it be interesting if; wouldn't it be neat if; what if someday, etc."  Gregory of Nyssa was far more dogmatic about everything, including his universalism, whereas Origen blushed over the implication/accusation that he dogmatically preached the salvation of satan.  Universalists that bristle over Thomas Allin's language in "Christ Triumphant" about UR being a hope, or similar language in Jan Bonda's "The One Purpose of God" WOULD NOT enjoy a thorough reading of Origen.

Contextually, Thomas Allin was trying to appeal to the Anglican mind that UR wasn't heretical.  Jan Bonda was doing the same thing where the Calvinist schools of thought were concerned.  And Origen was appealing to pagans concerning the sufficiency of Christ as the centrality of philosophy and history, our world view, our expectations for the future, etc.  So, that's why you find each of those three authors seeming to take a step back, like they're not trying to cram a point of view, but were simply stating that the message of the Universal Restoration wasn't opposed to, but was actually very complimentary and helpful to practical godliness, experiential religion, etc.

Jesus Christ is worthy to reign forever and ever.  You'll not find a single Universalist at these boards that'll argue with it from the point of worthiness or the beauty of the sentiment, and that at just a surface level reading of the KJV, there do seem to be indications of that.  But the Bible does teach that it won't be forever because it won't be necessary.  Not through any fault of Jesus Christ.  It's to His EVERLASTING praise that He'll have acheived the mission that Father commissioned Him for.

If after all of this, if you were still compelled to say "I don't care what you have to say on this.  I guess that on this one thing, I'd be on the same page as Dr. Van Impe, that although there may seemingly be a momentary abdication, that ultimately He'll reign forever at Father's 're-appointment'" then that just means that Anointed Salvation will always be available to everyone everywhere, no matter the need that they may have or that may arise.  Ultimately, although not Scripturally, but ultimately your argument for His reign being forever and ever is actually a perdy darn good argument FOR UR :cloud9:

On the one hand, it's seemingly an argument that He'll never have acheived all of Father's purposes, but on the other hand, it's an argument that all of the gifts and provisions of grace for the recovery of fallen creatures will still be available for as long as God exists :HeartThrob:  Therefore, if sin and damnation or ruin and destruction shall reign into the indefinite future, MUCH MORE shall the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness REIGN through eonian life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  However long those eons of damnation and destruction shall reign, it'll just be that much longer that God's grace will be a consuming fire that'll ravish each of us with His love as we each reach that point of being completely sick and tired of "same ol', same ol'."  When our misery exceeds our fears and our stubbornness, then the coat of many colors will await each of us.  If Christ shall reign forever, then a trillion years from now He'll be crying out "Are there not any more of the human race that I can show Hesed for Adam's sake??"  And additional Mephibosheths will be brought before Christ who will wonder what He could possibly want with such dead dogs as themselves.  And He'll announce before all of Creation that they shall dine at His table from now on :happy3:

However long you wish to make the reign of Christ, it'll just be that much longer that mercy and grace shall abound to all of Creation so that every creature will bask in unending, boundless love -- even the destroyed of former eons.  You have absolutely no idea how drunk with love that He is :HeartThrob: