2 Timothy 2:18 "SOME SAYING RESURRECTION ALREADY BECAME"

[Radagast]

What?!
I am going to remove the post #37.........

Are you talking about the thread link or something else?

Link inside the quote. But I see you've deleted that post.

 

[ToServe]

Why would Paul have to say this to his followers concerning some saying the resurrection has already happened?
[which doesn't appear to occur until Revelation 20:5 "the first resurrection"?]

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

2Ti 2:18
who about the truth swerve<795>, saying the resurrection/ἀνάστασιν<386> already to have become/γεγονέναι<1096>
and they are subverting<396> the of-some<5100> faith.

become/γεγονέναι<1096>
Speech: Verb Parsing: Perfect Infinitive Active

18
οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, λέγοντες ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι,
καὶ ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν.
18
oitineV peri thn alhqeian hstochsan legonteV thn anastasin hdh gegonenai
kai anatrepousin thn tinwn pistin

Revelation 20 shows the Resurrection.

Revelation 20:5
The rest of the dead no they live until should be being finished<5055> the thousand years.
This the resurrection/ἀνάστασις <386>, the first.

20:5
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ1 τὰ χίλια2 ἔτη.
αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
oi de loipoi twn nekrwn ouk anezhsan ews telesqh ta cilia eth auth h anastasiV h prwth
Byzantine Majority
kai oi loipoi twn nekrwn ouk ezhsan acri telesqh ta cilia eth auth h anastasiV h prwth.


.

No need to go into the Greek to 'Proof Text" what is exegetically clear as crystal.

As to answer your question below -

Why would Paul have to say this to his followers concerning some saying the resurrection has already happened?

We need to read 2 Timothy 4 to get a better understanding of why it concerned Paul. The resurrection that was being advocated by the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus was a spiritual one and not a bodily one and this was undermining the faith because faith requires self-sacrifice of what is hoped for and yet not seen. Since self-preservation would be the mindset of the day if it were merely a spiritual resurrection, then the commission to preach from the Gospel would have self-preservation as the underlying extrinsic motivator and not self-sacrifice as the intrinsic motivator that promises something that cannot be seen nor attained in this temporal life.

"of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, in view of his appearing and his kingdom"

Paul is pointing to the biologically dead in Christ.

"Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season"

Paul is encouraging the Church not to be complacent. A self-preservation mindset serves to feed complacency, especially when a choice is there as to whether one chooses to stick their head out on the chopping block for Christ for the sake of his Gospel or to live another day.

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

The itchy ear is a concept of feeding people what they want to hear and not necessarily what the truth entails. Hymenaeus and Philetus who were Greeks seem to be those Greek philosophic teachers who taught that the resurrection is past and that it was a spiritual one, much like how Preterists teach for their 70AD narrative.

The background to what Greeks believed before they were converted to Christianity within their philosophical circles is that physical matter, in general, is inherently evil and that goodness is not material but spiritual within the ethereal realm of the pagan gods they once worshipped. So the theological networkings of the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus is a Preterist variation of the resurrection that does not emphasise a bodily resuscitation, whereby the Greek philosophers of their days considered inherently evil.

They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Hymenaeus and Philetus were turning away people to Greek Myths.

So what was stopping the adherents of the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus was that itchy ears were the mindset of the day for the feel-good experience, rather than self-sacrifice ethos, by enduring hardship (tribulation) and by discharging all the duties of a Christian's ministry. The Hymenaeus and Philetus camp were being accused by Paul for not discharging ALL the duties of their ministry because there was no intrinsic motivation to stick their necks out on the chopping block.

For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Paul now compares his self-sacrifice as a Testator of Hebrews 9:16-17 and Hebrews 12:4, who has resisted to the point of shedding his blood for the faith in Christ Jesus and by so doing has discharged fully his obligations as a minister of Christ.

There is no resurrection for a Testator for Christ until there must also of necessity be the biological death of the testator, as biological death is the demarcation line that now places the Testator as a recipient of the judgement of the works of faith done in the earthly body, in order to receive their eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15). Paul in 2 Timothy 4:1 & 8 would say -

"of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the biologically dead"
"Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing."

The sequence for the Lord's appearance is self-sacrifice in preaching the Gospel, biological death, judgement before the righteous Judge, then resurrection in whatever form that is the glorified form, whereby the witness will then claim their eternal inheritance and to receive their Crown of Life.

No witness is raised or receives their Crown of Life until they keep the faith even onto biological death as Jesus said in Revelation 2:10.

What the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus of the past, along with the Preterists of today are preaching is the itchy ears gospel that is absent of self-sacrifice and one that is a feel-good camp who claim to already have been judged righteous by the righteous Judge within this temporal life, before they have even shed their blood (biologically died).

The Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching a resurrection that was spiritual and one that the recipients get to enjoy the blessings without having to make further sacrifices because Christ has made the sacrifice for them and this is the same theology that the Preterists use in opposition to every exegetic argument to the contrary -

it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The witnesses in Christ must die biologically before they are judged righteous by the righteous judge in order to receive their crown of life and not before. The Preterists 70AD resurrection narrative and Hymenaeus and Philetus resurrection narrative are birds of the same feather and in this respect are false teachings for the itchy ears gospel. The emphasis of beholding the Lord's Appearing on that Day is when the Testator is presented before the risen glorified Lord as one of the Holy Ones that accompany him, within their sinless post mortem bodily resuscitated form, whatever that may be.

John eloquently worded it this way -

1 john 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

 

[Radagast]

The resurrection that was being advocated by the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus was a spiritual one and not a bodily one

Agreed.

The background to what Greeks believed before they were converted to Christianity within their philosophical circles is that physical matter, in general, is inherently evil and that goodness is not material but spiritual

Incorporating that idea is what led to Gnosticism.

along with the Preterists of today are preaching is the itchy ears gospel that is absent of self-sacrifice and one that is a feel-good camp who claim to already have been judged righteous by the righteous Judge within this temporal life, before they have even shed their blood (biologically died).

Disagree with you there, though.

 

[ToServe]

Disagree with you there, though.

Is there a rational argument behind your disagreement, with some supporting evidence that would serve as proof to your position and specifically to identify your eschatological statement of belief?

Just so that I can understand your position, Please identify if you are a Preterist.

Do you disagree that the Preterists believe that the resurrection occurred in 70AD and that they have been already judged righteous within this temporal life and are already in possession of their eternal inheritance (Crown of Life)?

 

[Radagast]

Do you disagree that the Preterists believe that the resurrection occurred in 70AD and that they have been already judged righteous within this temporal life and are already in possession of their eternal inheritance (Crown of Life)?

The term "preterist" on its own is meaningless.

A partial preterist is someone who believes that some, but not all, the prophecies in the NT have been fulfilled. Many people on CF are partial preterists, as am I.

A full preterist is someone who believes that all the prophecies in the NT have been fulfilled. Full preterists are so totally unorthodox that they are not permitted to post their ideas in this forum.

And you appear to be reading a lot of things into 2 Timothy 2:17-18 that are simply not there.

 

[ToServe]

And you appear to be reading a lot of things into 2 Timothy 2:17-18 that are simply not there.

Please feel free to make your reasoned arguments to the contrary.

Partial Preterist or Full Preterist build their entire eschatology on 70AD resurrection and 70AD Christ's coming. Are you saying that Partial Preterism does not advocate a 70AD resurrection and a 70AD Christ's coming narrative?

Please list the things that you as an alleged partial preterist believe have happened in 70AD and why 70AD? Remember with everything that you think is fulfilled, I need to know what your argument is in it being fulfilled in 70AD.

 

[Radagast]

Partial Preterist or Full Preterist build their entire eschatology on 70AD resurrection and 70AD Christ's coming.

No, partial preterists do not believe in a 70 AD resurrection or a 70 Second Coming.

And in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, Paul is not talking about which things were or were not fulfilled in 70 AD, for the simple reason that 2 Timothy was written many years before 70 AD.

Please list the things that you as an alleged partial preterist believe have happened in 70AD and why 70AD? Remember with everything that you think is fulfilled, I need to know what your argument is in it being fulfilled in 70AD.

No.

It would be totally off topic, and the way that you make the demand is incredibly rude.

 

[parousia70]

No, partial preterists do not believe in a 70 AD resurrection or a 70 Second Coming.

Speak for yourself.

 

[parousia70]

It's "most likely" first because most commentators are on my side, such as John Calvin, Matthew Henry, William Hendriksen, John MacArthur, and (for the Catholics) Fr Raymond Collins.

If your Doctrine relies on uninspired commentators as it's FIRST line of defense, I suggest your docrtrine is not built upon a very strong foundation.

And second because it's the only interpretation that really makes sense.

To you perhaps, but that says more about you than it does about the scripture.

[Obviously you and I have not been physically resurrected yet. But Hymenaeus and Philetus seem to have be saying that we have been resurrected already in a spiritual sense

Paul NEVER corrects their notion about the Nature, does HE?
The passage says it was an issue of timing. Moreover, if it had been a dispute on nature, Paul would have simply pointed to graves that had not opened physically. He did no such thing.

Paul was addressing many different kinds of errors in his epistles. That argument doesn't fly.

Rather, it absolutely flys. It makes for a divine origin of Christianity. Had the various opposing jewish sects followed their Nazarene countrymen into the new covenant form of Judaism that providentially detached from temple, tribe, city and priestly class of Aaron, they would have been saved. But instead all of them--Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, and Pharisees--were doomed in the prophesied Roman Jewish war by clinging to Moses. Meanwhile, while Nazarene sect of the Jews escaped and earned worldwide growth and continuation as the true faithful Israel. Undeniably prescient, and no skeptic can get around it.

 

[parousia70]

Why would Paul have to say this to his followers concerning some saying the resurrection has already happened?

We need to read 2 Timothy 4 to get a better understanding of why it concerned Paul. The resurrection that was being advocated by the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus was a spiritual one and not a bodily one and this was undermining the faith because faith requires self-sacrifice of what is hoped for and yet not seen. Since self-preservation would be the mindset of the day if it were merely a spiritual resurrection, then the commission to preach from the Gospel would have self-preservation as the underlying extrinsic motivator and not self-sacrifice as the intrinsic motivator that promises something that cannot be seen nor attained in this temporal life.

The subject is complex, for resurrection may speak of national restoration (Isa 26:13-14,19-20/ Ez 37), of baptismal regeneration, of the exit from Hades/Sheol, and the final judgment.

Just about everyone who studies NT theology knows that a major change took place for the dead back in the first century. In OT times, the dead did *not* ascend, were *not* 'resurrected' from Death and Hades into Heaven but rather were prevented from doing so by the absence of a covenant that cleansed them fully. Moreover, nearly all christian groups admit that a change has occurred for the dead between the OT times and the NT times. What is entirely unclear however is precisely when that change took place. I am making the case that the bible teaches it took place when the Temple was destroyed (Hebrews 9:8) during their "visitation" (Luke 19:40-44), in the days of vengeance (Luke 21:20-22).

The destruction of the Temple was hugely significant in that it was the historic signifier that the Old Covenant had vanished and the New had replaced it. Moreover, the destruction of the Temple was a key teaching of Christ, and one St. Paul picks up on at 2 Thess 2:3-4. And so I believe the most obvious and biblical understanding of 1 Thess 4 is that the dead in Hades were to be united to Christ when the Temple was profaned and desecrated. The "change" was huge, for it was the precise "change" that we think of when we distinguish the Old Covenant from the New Covenant.

I am of the view that 1 Thess 4:13-17 is a discussion of when the O.T. dead would escape Hades/Sheol and be resurrected to be with Christ in the heavenlies. In short, Paul says that their release from Hades was about to happen, as the impending historic change of the covenants (Heb 8:13/2 Cor 3:6-11) was to be marked by the Temple's profanation/desecration (2 Thess 2:3-4/Matt 23:33-24:2) and God's wrath on their disobedient Jewish countrymen (1 Thess 2:15-16/Mt 23:33-38/Acts 3:22-24) at the "Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard" (Mt 21:33-45)

Hymenaeus and Philetus who were Greeks seem to be those Greek philosophic teachers who taught that the resurrection is past and that it was a spiritual one, much like how Preterists teach for their 70AD narrative.

The Stark Difference being, Preterists don't teach the resurrection of the OT Saints from hades into God's Heaven happened during the Old testamental period, the way Hymenaeus and Philetus did.
That was Paul's issue with that they were teaching, plain and Simple. Timing.
Paul had no argument with them about the spiritual Nature of that Raising of the OT Dead From Hades into Heaven, especially after Laying out the "spiritual nature" of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:44-56

That passage plainly says that the victory for the dead was over the OT Hades (see literal greek). Moreover, it says that the very thing that had been holding the dead apart from victory was The Law (of Moses). Therefore, this entirely supports my earlier argument that 1 Thess 4 is speaking about the OT dead in Hades who had to await the full end of the Old Covenant age before they would have victory over Hades, where they were at that time residing. Nearly all Christian groups agree that the dead of Hades exited that place somewhere in the first century. I am merely pinpointing the precise timing and the reason for that timing.
And what do we call the passing from Death (in Hades) into Life (In God's Eternal Heaven)?
That's right. It's called Resurrection.

Hymenaeus and Philetus were turning away people to Greek Myths.

Rather, they were claiming Salvation for the OT Dead, and their 'Resurrection' into God's Eternal Heaven, was attainable through the works of the Law.

Scripture says timing is the issue, and so you had to go beyond scripture to conclude it was NOT TIMING but rather NATURE that was at question. But certainly if NATURE was in question, a simple visit to the graveyard would have sufficed to prove Hymenaeus wrong. So, it's clear to the honest Bible expositor that the issue was NOT nature, but timing, as scripture explicitly states.

But then WHY timing? Based on Paul's consistent war against the Judaizers, and knowing of scripture's explicit teaching that the OT dead in Hades would not attain victory until the Temple's removal/the Parousia at AD 70, (Hebrews 9:8) it is clear that Hymenaeus' claim that such occurred prior to the end of the Temple was damnable Judaizing.

The Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching a resurrection that was spiritual and one that the recipients get to enjoy the blessings without having to make further sacrifices because Christ has made the sacrifice for them and this is the same theology that the Preterists use in opposition to every exegetic argument to the contrary -

Again, The problem with that is that Paul nowhere says that Spiritual nature was in dispute. And in fact, read 1 Cor 15:44-49, which explicitly says "raised a spiritual body." So when you add that to 1 Cor 15:54-56, which says Paul is speaking about the dead in Hades getting victory over the Law Covenant era, and when you see that 1 Thess 4 is linked to the desecration of the Temple at 2 Thess 2, it all amounts to proof that Paul is speaking of the exit of the OT dead from Hades at the full end of the Old Testamental period in 70AD.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The destruction of the Temple was hugely significant in that it was the historic signifier that the Old Covenant had vanished and the New had replaced it. Moreover, the destruction of the Temple was a key teaching of Christ,
So when you add that to 1 Cor 15:54-56, which says Paul is speaking about the dead in Hades getting victory over the Law Covenant era, and when you see that 1 Thess 4 is linked to the desecration of the Temple at 2 Thess 2, it all amounts to proof that Paul is speaking of the exit of the OT dead from Hades at the full end of the Old Testamental period in 70AD.

Hello. I created a thread over here and thought it may interest you being that your user name is in the title.................I could use your input. Thanks

"parousia" in Matthew 24

Matthew 24:3
He is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came to Him according to own, saying, `be telling to us!
when? shall these be
and what? the sign of Thy ParousiaV <3952>,
and of the full end/sun-teleiaV <4930> of the Age?'

Hebrews 8:
8 "For faulting to them He is saying 'behold! days are coming, is saying Lord,
and I shall be consummating/sunteleo<4931> upon the House of Israel and upon the House of Judah a New Covenant,
13 in the to be saying `New<2537>,' He hath made Old the first.
The yet being aged and being obsolete nigh of disappearance.
[Revelation 14:8/18:8/]

Heb 9:26
since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the consummation<4930> of the ages,
for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested;

John 11:48
If-ever we should be letting Him thus, all shall be believing into Him
and shall be coming the Romans and they shall be taking away of Us and the Place and the Nation.

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation,
if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible."
(Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason)

PREFACE

History records few events more generally interesting than the destruction of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the Jewish state, by the arms of the Romans. --

Their intimate connexion with the dissolution of the Levitical economy, and the establishment of Christianity in the world ; the striking verification which they afford of so many of the prophecies, both of the Old and New Testament, and the powerful arguments of the divine authority of the Scriptures which are thence derived ;
the solemn warnings and admonitions which they hold out to all nations, but especially such as are favoured with the light and blessings of REVELATION ; together with the impressive and terrific grandeur of the events themselves -- are circumstances which must always insure to the subject of the following pages more than ordinary degrees of interest and importance.
Many eminent and learned men have employed their pens in the illustration of it ; .........

.................................

 

[ToServe]

No, partial preterists do not believe in a 70 AD resurrection or a 70 Second Coming.

Then that position arguably would not be a partial preterist position and there lies the contention that I have with you.

Preterism is an eschatology devoted to a 70AD resurrection and a 70AD second coming.

And in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, Paul is not talking about which things were or were not fulfilled in 70 AD, for the simple reason that 2 Timothy was written many years before 70 AD.

Without you having to misrepresent my post #42, my explanation of 2 Timothy 2:17-18 is exegetically sound and if you want to argue on the contrary, then please present your argument in a succinct manner to rebut it.

Please find my post link below -

2 Timothy 2:18 "SOME SAYING RESURRECTION ALREADY BECAME"

No.

No, really! why?

You as a Christian witness are expected to present a reasoned argument for the hope that lies in you and yet here we are on an online Christian Forum that avails you the opportunity to present your case and you blatantly refuse. I would like to know why you say you disagree with my exegetically sound post in post #42, by saying point blank you disagree, then you choose to refuse to present a case that supports your disagreement.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

I cannot sincerely accept "no" as a valid rebuttal to what I stated in post #42, sorry!

It would be totally off topic, and the way that you make the demand is incredibly rude.

Speak for your self, as one other poster had also informed you the same as a second witness because you are misrepresenting people's eschatological views and it is just and right for you to acknowledge your oversight in doing so, besides your refusal to explain yourself gives me the impression that you are hiding something, what? I do not know.

 

[ToServe]

The subject is complex, for resurrection may speak of national restoration (Isa 26:13-14,19-20/ Ez 37), of baptismal regeneration, of the exit from Hades/Sheol, and the final judgment.

Yes, I agree that resurrection in the Old Testament was at times used in an allegoric manner to depict a nation rising from the ashes/graves of their fathers before them. Yet we know that much of what was spoken about within the Old Testament, whether known or unbeknownst to the people of that day, was that it entailed a double prophesy that was further elaborated by other Old Testament prophets, as pointing to the Messiah delivering on this promise in one day for the Old Covenant Saints fallen in Hades, that is Christ's Parousia to the Old Covenant Israel, the former sea peoples.

Ezekiel 37:11-14
11Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ 12Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’ ”

Daniel's prophesy is most telling about Daniel's people of ancient Israel and not modern-day Israel born from a political ideology of the "Greater Israel" political agenda. Believe it or not, prophet Daniel spoke about Christ's Parousia for Daniel's People as follows -

Daniel 12:1-3
1“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise (Sign of Jonah). There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

Daniel was told that he would first need to biologically die, then to wait in his Lot in Hades, in expectation of receiving his resurrection at Christ's Parousia, who is depicted as the symbol of Michael rising, meaning it is pointing to the sign of Jonah, Christ's resurrection.

Daniel 12:13
“As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest (biologically die), and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”

I linked Christ's Parousia in Daniel 12:1-3 to the double prophesy in Ezekiel 37:11-14 and its fulfilment for the Old Covenant House of Israel (Daniel's People) when Jesus said on two separate occasions -

Matthew 12:39
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

Christ's Parousia for the Old Covenant peoples, the former sea Zechariah spoke off, who were mentioned in Zechariah 14:8.

The evidence of the Old Covenant resurrection came to be fulfilment on time and on prophesy at the sign of Jonah, after Christ's resurrection and here we have the explicit evidence that it was then and not 70AD.

Matthew 27:52-53
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

[ToServe]

Just about everyone who studies NT theology knows that a major change took place for the dead back in the first century. In OT times, the dead did *not* ascend, were *not* 'resurrected' from Death and Hades into Heaven but rather were prevented from doing so by the absence of a covenant that cleansed them fully. Moreover, nearly all christian groups admit that a change has occurred for the dead between the OT times and the NT times. What is entirely unclear however is precisely when that change took place. I am making the case that the bible teaches it took place when the Temple was destroyed (Hebrews 9:8) during their "visitation" (Luke 19:40-44), in the days of vengeance (Luke 21:20-22).

The bookend for the Old Covenant Saints being raised is Christ's Parousia mentioned in Daniel 12:1-3 as I had explained in Post #53.

The bookend for the New Covenant Saints being raised is Christ's Parousia mentioned in Zechariah 14:1-3, where he will fight with the many Gentiles who have come to full numbers within the Holy City Jerusalem's very walls (New Testament Church) and who are purged of the Tares within on the Great Day of Battle of God Almighty. In Matthew 24 the Angels are sent to separate the Tares from amongst the Wheat at the end of the New Testament Harvest when the Gentile numbers come to full accountability, that is why half of the Gentiles who represent the Tares are expelled from the Holy City and the remaining Gentile who are the Wheat are kept within the City and remain to serve Christ through their offering of Daily Sacrifices as Living Stones.

The 70AD criteria of the Day of Great Battle depicting the destruction of the literal city of Jerusalem is again untenable from the prophecy of Zechariah 14:1-3, rather what is being highlighted in Zechariah 14:1-3 is that this Holy City is the antithesis to the literal city that is full of Gentile believers who are Christ's as the latter sea spoken in Zechariah 14:8.

So that the allegory depiction of the mount of Olives mentioned in Zechariah 14 consisting of both former and latter sea peoples is depicting two peoples, the Old and the New Covenant saints and in this regard Christ's parousia occurs for the Old Covenant at the sign of Jonah when Michael the chief architect of salvation who symbolises the Messiah is declared as rising up for Daniel's people, as pointing to the sign of Jonah (Daniel 12:1). For the New, Covenant Christ is depicted as fighting on the Great day of Battle against the many Gentile nations who are occupying his fenceless and unfortified Holy City that is infiltrated by Gentile Tares who need to be removed (purged).

Christ's Parousia for the New Testament Church occurs when the Gentiles come to full within the antithesis Jerusalem, the Church and when this occurs it is towards the end of the Harvest when he sends his angels in the four quarters of the earth to separate the Tares from amongst the Wheat. It is certainly not an advent of 70AD eschatology that would exegetically suffice as evidence for Christ's parousia to the New Testament Gentile house.

That being said, I believe that Christ's parousia to the New Testament Gentile Church Jerusalem is future at the advent of Christ removing the Tares within his Holy city. Do you see the picture or not, please stay focused on what is being discussed, because your effort to encourage me to respond to you has brought us here, thanks for this.

 

[iamlamad]

The bookend for the Old Covenant Saints being raised is Christ's Parousia mentioned in Daniel 12:1-3 as I had explained in Post #53.

The bookend for the New Covenant Saints being raised is Christ's Parousia mentioned in Zechariah 14:1-3, where he will fight with the many Gentiles who have come to full numbers within the Holy City Jerusalem's very walls (New Testament Church) and who are purged of the Tares within on the Great Day of Battle of God Almighty. In Matthew 24 the Angels are sent to separate the Tares from amongst the Wheat at the end of the New Testament Harvest when the Gentile numbers come to full accountability, that is why half of the Gentiles who represent the Tares are expelled from the Holy City and the remaining Gentile who are the Wheat are kept within the City and remain to serve Christ through their offering of Daily Sacrifices as Living Stones.

The 70AD criteria of the Day of Great Battle depicting the destruction of the literal city of Jerusalem is again untenable from the prophecy of Zechariah 14:1-3, rather what is being highlighted in Zechariah 14:1-3 is that this Holy City is the antithesis to the literal city that is full of Gentile believers who are Christ's as the latter sea spoken in Zechariah 14:8.

So that the allegory depiction of the mount of Olives mentioned in Zechariah 14 consisting of both former and latter sea peoples is depicting two peoples, the Old and the New Covenant saints and in this regard Christ's parousia occurs for the Old Covenant at the sign of Jonah when Michael the chief architect of salvation who symbolises the Messiah is declared as rising up for Daniel's people, as pointing to the sign of Jonah (Daniel 12:1). For the New, Covenant Christ is depicted as fighting on the Great day of Battle against the many Gentile nations who are occupying his fenceless and unfortified Holy City that is infiltrated by Gentile Tares who need to be removed (purged).

Christ's Parousia for the New Testament Church occurs when the Gentiles come to full within the antithesis Jerusalem, the Church and when this occurs it is towards the end of the Harvest when he sends his angels in the four quarters of the earth to separate the Tares from amongst the Wheat. It is certainly not an advent of 70AD eschatology that would exegetically suffice as evidence for Christ's parousia to the New Testament Gentile house.

That being said, I believe that Christ's parousia to the New Testament Gentile Church Jerusalem is future at the advent of Christ removing the Tares within his Holy city. Do you see the picture or not, please stay focused on what is being discussed, because your effort to encourage me to respond to you has brought us here, thanks for this.

Do you think 1 Thes. 4 & 5 is an allegory?

 

[iamlamad]

Yes, I agree that resurrection in the Old Testament was at times used in an allegoric manner to depict a nation rising from the ashes/graves of their fathers before them. Yet we know that much of what was spoken about within the Old Testament, whether known or unbeknownst to the people of that day, was that it entailed a double prophesy that was further elaborated by other Old Testament prophets, as pointing to the Messiah delivering on this promise in one day for the Old Covenant Saints fallen in Hades, that is Christ's Parousia to the Old Covenant Israel, the former sea peoples.



Daniel's prophesy is most telling about Daniel's people of ancient Israel and not modern-day Israel born from a political ideology of the "Greater Israel" political agenda. Believe it or not, prophet Daniel spoke about Christ's Parousia for Daniel's People as follows -



Daniel was told that he would first need to biologically die, then to wait in his Lot in Hades, in expectation of receiving his resurrection at Christ's Parousia, who is depicted as the symbol of Michael rising, meaning it is pointing to the sign of Jonah, Christ's resurrection.



I linked Christ's Parousia in Daniel 12:1-3 to the double prophesy in Ezekiel 37:11-14 and its fulfilment for the Old Covenant House of Israel (Daniel's People) when Jesus said on two separate occasions -





Christ's Parousia for the Old Covenant peoples, the former sea Zechariah spoke off, who were mentioned in Zechariah 14:8.

The evidence of the Old Covenant resurrection came to be fulfilment on time and on prophesy at the sign of Jonah, after Christ's resurrection and here we have the explicit evidence that it was then and not 70AD.

Matthew 27:52-53
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

It was only the elders of the Old Testament that rose when Jesus rose. Their resurrection day is "the last day:" John 6: "I will raise him up at the last day." The last 24 hour day of the 70th week that will end the age will be at the 7th vial. Please notice that at the 7th vial comes the world's worst earthquake. It will be caused when God raises the saints from the Old Testament, including those God declared righteous before the flood.

The resurrection of the church will be as Paul told it in 1 Thes. 4 & 5: just a moment before God's wrath begins at the 6th seal.

 

[iamlamad]

Why would Paul have to say this to his followers concerning some saying the resurrection has already happened?
[which doesn't appear to occur until Revelation 20:5 "the first resurrection"?]

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

2Ti 2:18
who about the truth swerve<795>, saying the resurrection/ἀνάστασιν<386> already to have become/γεγονέναι<1096>
and they are subverting<396> the of-some<5100> faith.

become/γεγονέναι<1096>
Speech: Verb Parsing: Perfect Infinitive Active
.

It seems people were just as confused then as they are today. Paul had to correct the Thessalonians with a second letter.

Why do you think the resurrection of the church will not come until Rev. 20?

 

[iamlamad]

What happened to the resurrected saints mentioned in Matthew 27: 52 ...

https://www.ucg.org/bible.../bible.../what-happened-to-the-resurrected-saints-mentione...
Nov 9, 2010 - Why did God raise dead Christians from their graves at the time of Jesus ... and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into ... (In the Bible, the word saints means those who are sanctified or set ...

Matthew 27:53 After Jesus' resurrection, when they had come out of ...

Matthew 27:53 After Jesus' resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.
and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. King James Bible And came out of the graves after his ...

I think Jesus raised the elders of the Old Testament at that time. Didn't John see 24 elders?

 

[BABerean2]

The bodily resurrection and judgment of the dead described in John 5:27-30 occurs at the Second Coming of Christ, as revealed by Revelation 11:18, and 2 Timothy 4:1.

It lies in the future.

.

 

[claninja]

Why would Paul have to say this to his followers concerning some saying the resurrection has already happened?

We need to read 2 Timothy 4 to get a better understanding of why it concerned Paul. The resurrection that was being advocated by the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus was a spiritual one and not a bodily one and this was undermining the faith because faith requires self-sacrifice of what is hoped for and yet not seen. Since self-preservation would be the mindset of the day if it were merely a spiritual resurrection, then the commission to preach from the Gospel would have self-preservation as the underlying extrinsic motivator and not self-sacrifice as the intrinsic motivator that promises something that cannot be seen nor attained in this temporal life.

Christ's body was prophesied to never see decay. Thus the tomb was empty on the 3rd day. It was the same body that had died, that had risen, in order to fulfill scriptures that Jesus' body wouldn't see decay.

Acts 2:27-29 because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; You will fill me with joy in Your presence.’c
Brothers, I can tell you with confidence that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day

Matthew 28:5-7 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said! Come, see the place where He lay

It was never prophesied that our natural bodies would not see decay. Paul established the nature of our resurrection: unlike Christ's resurrection (never see decay) that fulfilled scriptures, our body that dies is not the same as the one that is raised.

1 Corinthians 15:37, 44-46 And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;”e the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual

Hymenaeus and Philetus who were Greeks seem to be those Greek philosophic teachers who taught that the resurrection is past and that it was a spiritual one, much like how Preterists teach for their 70AD narrative.

Paul doesn't go into any detail about what hymenaeus and Philetus believed about the nature of the resurrection, only that they taught it already occurred.

Preterists believe exactly what paul states about the resurrection: we are not raised in the same body that was sown. The natural body is sown, the spiritual body is raised.

1 Corinthians 15:37, 44-46 And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;”e the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual

So the theological networkings of the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus is a Preterist variation of the resurrection that does not emphasise a bodily resuscitation, whereby the Greek philosophers of their days considered inherently evil.

As a preterist, I disagree with your opinion that Preterists don't believe in a bodily resurrection.

As a preterist, I believe in a bodily resurrection: from natural body to spiritual body

The sequence for the Lord's appearance is self-sacrifice in preaching the Gospel, biological death, judgement before the righteous Judge, then resurrection in whatever form that is the glorified form, whereby the witness will then claim their eternal inheritance and to receive their Crown of Life.

As a preterist I can agree with this

What the Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus of the past, along with the Preterists of today are preaching is the itchy ears gospel that is absent of self-sacrifice and one that is a feel-good camp who claim to already have been judged righteous by the righteous Judge within this temporal life, before they have even shed their blood (biologically died).

The Greeks Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching a resurrection that was spiritual and one that the recipients get to enjoy the blessings without having to make further sacrifices because Christ has made the sacrifice for them and this is the same theology that the Preterists use in opposition to every exegetic argument to the contrary -

Its pretty easy to set up an argument that isn't true then defeat said argument appearing the victor. I believe that's called a strawman argument.