Daniel 12:13 undeniably proves that the AOD fits in the end of this age, not 2000 years ago.

[3 Resurrections]

SOURCE from Josephus?? Never read this

Concerning the two witnesses who were high priests, Josephus wrote about these two high priests (Ananus ben Ananus, one of the chosen governors of Jerusalem, and Jesus ben Gamala) being conspired against by the Zealots and finally murdered, stripped naked by their rejoicing victors, and forbidden burial in Wars 4, chapter 3 and forward to Wars 4.5.2.

Josephus called Ananus "the ancientest of the high priests", and said "He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him." (Wars 4.3.7). Josephus also said of the two high priests that "The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamala, and Ananus the son of Ananus, when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots..." (Wars 4.3.9). Josephus records lengthy samples of both high priests addressing the people and warning them of impending doom if they did not listen to reason.

These two high priests in their efforts to keep order in Jerusalem fell prey to their rival, the zealot leader John of Gischala. This man John tricked the Idumeans into attacking Jerusalem with 20,000 horsemen under 4 commanders in order to get rid of both Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamala.

"...And as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial...I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city." (Wars 4.5.2). This took place probably in the year AD 67 or possibly late AD 66.

The two witnesses are an episode of history that is long past.

 

[RoadoftheGypsy]

Concerning the two witnesses who were high priests, Josephus wrote about these two high priests (Ananus ben Ananus, one of the chosen governors of Jerusalem, and Jesus ben Gamala) being conspired against by the Zealots and finally murdered, stripped naked by their rejoicing victors, and forbidden burial in Wars 4, chapter 3 and forward to Wars 4.5.2.

Josephus called Ananus "the ancientest of the high priests", and said "He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him." (Wars 4.3.7). Josephus also said of the two high priests that "The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamala, and Ananus the son of Ananus, when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots..." (Wars 4.3.9). Josephus records lengthy samples of both high priests addressing the people and warning them of impending doom if they did not listen to reason.

These two high priests in their efforts to keep order in Jerusalem fell prey to their rival, the zealot leader John of Gischala. This man John tricked the Idumeans into attacking Jerusalem with 20,000 horsemen under 4 commanders in order to get rid of both Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamala.

"...And as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial...I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city." (Wars 4.5.2). This took place probably in the year AD 67 or possibly late AD 66.

The two witnesses are an episode of history that is long past.

Thats amazing. I love it when someone does my homework for me! Are there any other spots from Josephus that fit the book of Revelation that you could share with me friend? What about the mark of the beast? The seals trumpets and vials? Some of that? Are you amill or premill in your eschatology?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Are there any other spots from Josephus that fit the book of Revelation that you could share with me friend? What about the mark of the beast? The seals trumpets and vials? Some of that?

This episode concerning the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12 is only part of the entire sixth trumpet judgment which is covered from Revelation 9:12-13 ("...behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded...") up until Revelation 11:14 ("The second woe is past, and behold, the third woe cometh quickly. And the seventh angel sounded..."). In matching detail, Josephus records the actual historical chain of events in this sixth trumpet judgement that concluded with the two high priest witnesses being murdered in Jerusalem. The connection between Josephus and John's sixth trumpet prediction is unmistakable. I have posted on these matching details before on this website, so I'll try to find that particular post for you.

(This is one link to a post on this forum that I think spells out those matching details in comment #154)

Does the Book of Revelation repeat itself?

Yes, it does. If you read this verse about the Revelation 17 Scarlet Beast in the literal versions, it gives us the timing for this Scarlet Beast's reappearance. Revelation 17:8 in the YLT reads this way: "The beast that thou didst see: it WAS, and IT IS NOT; and IT IS ABOUT TO COME UP OUT OF...

christianforums.com

And this episode featuring the two high priest witnesses is only one of the occasions where Josephus duplicates Revelation. I have spent the last ten years studying these connections, and there is so much duplication that I am now solidly Preterist in my eschatology. But not any kind of Preterist that fits squarely into any particular camp, since I see almost all eschatology viewpoints having something with which I can agree.

For instance, like the pre-mill position, I see a literal thousand-year millennium presented in Revelation 20 - not just a symbolic number. That particular millennium (sitting in the middle of the total seven millennia of human history) lasted from 968/967 BC until it "expired" with Christ and the "First resurrection" event in AD 33. That was the year when Satan was loosed in fury on the earth for that "short time" (as John said an enraged Satan was then currently loosed on earth in Rev. 12:12 in his days) until Satan and his devils were imprisoned in Jerusalem from AD 66-70 (as predicted by Isaiah 24:21-23 and Rev. 18:2). After that year, God had slain the great dragon Satan (as predicted in Isaiah 27:1), and caused his unclean spirits "to pass out of the land" (Zechariah 13:2).

As for the "mark of the Beast", this was required by the corrupt high priesthood on any worshippers coming to Israel's temple from 19 BC until AD 66 when the Zealots took over Jerusalem and rebelled against Rome. That "mark" was the abominable Tyrian shekel, without which no one could buy or sell any sacrificial items in the temple, or pay the annual Temple tax. The forbidden images and inscriptions on it gave homage to Rome and Rome's demi-god Heracles / Hercules, which was against God's laws back in Deuteronomy 7:25-26. The required exchange of any foreign currency for this abominable Tyrian shekel brought in a very lucrative fee which the moneychangers collected for the high priests. "Follow the money" and you find the "mark of the Beast"; the love of money being the root of all kinds of evil.

 

[DavidPT]

The question is, does it make Jesus a false prophet, thus a liar, if the following are not involving the same events, the same time period? Let's see if we can determine that. BTW, we all obviously know that it's impossible that Jesus can be a false prophet and a liar. Therefore, it is one's interpretation of something that makes Him out to be both, and not that He actually is.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


A) there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

B) then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Let's assume that A) and B) are not involving the same events, they are not involving the same era of time. And let's assume B) is fulfilled first, then a cpl of thousand years later, or whenever, A) is fulfilled. Obviously, if that was true that would make Jesus a false prophet and a liar, because He said---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The first thing to take into account here is, that He is meaning from the time of the beginning of this world to the time meant in B), that nothing surpasses it nor equals it. But He doesn't stop there. He goes on to say--nor ever shall be. Which obviously means nothing after this will equal nor surpass it, either.

This of course presents a major problem if 2000 years later, the following occurs---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

The next thing to take into account here, there can't be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time in 70 AD, no, nor ever shall be. Then some years later the following occurs---there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Jesus said this---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time
Daniel said this--such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Was the beginning of the world prior to 70 AD? Of course it was. It was way before 70 AD. From the time there was a nation, was that also prior to 70 AD? Of course it was. It was way before 70 AD. How then can Jesus not be a false prophet, thus a liar, if what He said in Matthew 24:21, that if this was applicable to 70 AD, and that He then said---nor ever shall be---then some 2000 years later there comes a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time---which would be a lie if there already was, 2000 years earlier, great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be?

Let's compare something else here. Let's then pretend that it's only a coincedence that both this Greek word and this Hebrew word, they basically mean the same thing. Right?

In Matthew 24:21--tribulation

tribulation
thlipsis
thlip'-sis
from qlibw - thlibo 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble


In Daniel 12:1---trouble

tsarah
tsaw-raw'
feminine of 'tsar' (6862); tightness (i.e. figuratively, trouble); transitively, a female rival:--adversary, adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation, trouble

Let's look at A) and B) again like such

A) there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time in the end of this present age

B) then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time in 70 AD, no, nor ever shall be.

A) is saying, from the time there was a nation through to when this time of trouble is meaning, nothing compares to it, it trumps all times of trouble that had preceded it.


B) is saying, from the time since the beginning of the world through to when this time of trouble is meaning, nothing compares to it, it trumps all times of trouble that had preceded it. And not only that, B) is also saying nothing will equal it nor surpass it after that, either.

If B) happens first, then A) happens later, A) and B) are not squaring, they are contradictory instead. How can A) trump all times of trouble that preceded it if B) preceded it? How can anyone see that being reasonable, see that not being contradictory?

And once again, since a resurrection of the dead has to follow this unequaled time of trouble, where nothing since the beginning of this world nor since there was a nation, equals it nor surpasses it, and that no resurrection of the dead ever occurred in 70 AD nor followed it in the first century, therefore, it is undeniable that B) is involving the same events, the same era of time, that A) is, and that neither are involving the first century and 70 AD.


Why do some interpreters, who are obviously not Preterists, agree with Preterists in regards to Matthew 24:15-21 when Daniel 12 undeniably proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't fit the first century and 70 AD? I'm surprised that these same interpreters are not also agreeing with Preterists concerning Matthew 24:30-31. Now all of sudden they want to part ways with Preterists even though they have pretty much been agreeing with Preterists up unto this point in the Discourse. Obviously, these interpreters know that Preterists are not interpreting Matthew 24:30-31 correctly, otherwise they would be agreeing with them there as well. Which then begs the question, if Preterists can be wrong about that, what else can they be wrong about? Nothing? Only that?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Why do some interpreters, who are obviously not Preterists, agree with Preterists in regards to Matthew 24:15-21 when Daniel 12 undeniably proves that Matthew 24:15-21 can't fit the first century and 70 AD?

Daniel 12 does not "undeniably prove" that point.

And once again, since a resurrection of the dead has to follow this unequaled time of trouble, where nothing since the beginning of this world nor since there was a nation, equals it nor surpasses it, and that no resurrection of the dead ever followed 70 AD, therefore, it is undeniable that B) is involving the same events, the same era of time, that A) is, and that neither are involving the first century and 70 AD.

Yes, a resurrection of the dead has to follow that particular time of trouble, according to the Matthew 24 context. And yes, both "A" and "B" are speaking of the same time frame of unprecedented trouble.

I underlined your single statement above because I think what you meant to say was that no resurrection of the dead ever took place in AD 70. (Naturally, a resurrection in our future would be one that would actually "follow 70 AD".) But if you meant to state from your own viewpoint that no resurrection took place in AD 70, that would be an unprovable assumption on your part, since you weren't there in Jerusalem at that time as an eye-witness of events that either did or did not transpire.

 

[DavidPT]

I underlined your single statement above because I think what you meant to say was that no resurrection of the dead ever took place in AD 70. (Naturally, a resurrection in our future would be one that would actually "follow 70 AD".) But if you meant to state from your own viewpoint that no resurrection took place in AD 70, that would be an unprovable assumption on your part, since you weren't there in Jerusalem at that time as an eye-witness of events that either did or did not transpire.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm now fixing it in order to make it clearer as to what I was ultimately meaning.

 

[DavidPT]

Daniel 12 does not "undeniably prove" that point.

Yes, a resurrection of the dead has to follow that particular time of trouble, according to the Matthew 24 context. And yes, both "A" and "B" are speaking of the same time frame of unprecedented trouble.

And now if you could only acknowledge that this resurrection event is pertaining to in the end of this age and involves Christ's bodily return, the fact you already agree A) and B) are speaking of the same time frame of unprecedented trouble, you would then not be saying---Daniel 12 does not "undeniably prove" that point---you would instead be agreeing with me that it does.

To prove this point, unless I'm misunderstanding you somewhere along the lines altogether, since I'm assuming you would be intellectually honest about the following---if you did agree that the same time frame of unprecedented trouble, that this involves the end of this present age, thus making this resurrection event in the end of this present age and involving Christ's bodily return, would you then agree that Daniel 12 undeniably proves that point, in that case?

 

[3 Resurrections]

And now if you could only acknowledge that this resurrection event is pertaining to in the end of this age and involves Christ's bodily return, the fact you already agree A) and B) are speaking of the same time frame of unprecedented trouble, you would then not be saying---Daniel 12 does not "undeniably prove" that point---you would instead be agreeing with me that it does.

No, I do not agree that Daniel 12 was referring to the end of this present age. Daniel 12:7 quoted the angel saying that by the time ALL those visions were fulfilled, that the power of Daniel's people would be shattered. That "shattering" involved the AD 66-70 period of unprecedented trouble when Christ's prediction of the seven-fold demonic possession of Israel's people was rampant in the city of Jerusalem until the power of Daniel's people was destroyed. This demonic oppression of Jerusalem's inhabitants in seven-fold levels of wickedness at that time was a unique plague on Israel. This had never happened before since the beginning of the world, and would never happen again on earth after that AD 66-70 period - "NO, nor ever shall be".

When both Daniel and Matthew spoke of this same period of unprecedented trouble (both "A" and "B"), Matthew 24:21 stated that no other period of tribulation like it would ever take place AFTER that particular time of trouble, which was to be "IMMEDIATELY" followed by Christ's return (Matthew 24:29-30). This means mankind's continued history on this planet (which would include other times of ordinary tribulation) would keep marching forward in time AFTER Christ's return. However, no other time of ordinary tribulation in history occurring after Christ's return would ever duplicate that former unprecedented time of trouble with its supreme level of demonic oppression. This means we would have to expect ANOTHER bodily return of Christ with a bodily resurrection in our future. Two for the price of one is usually considered a great bargain.

 

[DavidPT]

No, I do not agree that Daniel 12 was referring to the end of this present age. Daniel 12:7 quoted the angel saying that by the time ALL those visions were fulfilled, that the power of Daniel's people would be shattered. That "shattering" involved the AD 66-70 period of unprecedented trouble when Christ's prediction of the seven-fold demonic possession of Israel's people was rampant in the city of Jerusalem until the power of Daniel's people was destroyed. This demonic oppression of Jerusalem's inhabitants in seven-fold levels of wickedness at that time was a unique plague on Israel. This had never happened before since the beginning of the world, and would never happen again on earth after that AD 66-70 period - "NO, nor ever shall be".

When both Daniel and Matthew spoke of this same period of unprecedented trouble (both "A" and "B"), Matthew 24:21 stated that no other period of tribulation like it would ever take place AFTER that particular time of trouble, which was to be "IMMEDIATELY" followed by Christ's return (Matthew 24:29-30). This means mankind's continued history on this planet (which would include other times of ordinary tribulation) would keep marching forward in time AFTER Christ's return. However, no other time of ordinary tribulation in history occurring after Christ's return would ever duplicate that former unprecedented time of trouble with its supreme level of demonic oppression. This means we would have to expect ANOTHER bodily return of Christ with a bodily resurrection in our future. Two for the price of one is usually considered a great bargain.

One thing you and I at least have in common, we both agree that this time of trouble involving both of these accounts in question, they are involving the same time period. Yet, that are some interpreters, who insist B) is not involving A), and that B) precedes A), thus one thing I have been attempting to debunk. Though, in my mind, I already debunked it. Which is not the same as still attempting to, except these other interpreters are obviously not going to agree that I debunked it, but would not disagree that I was attempting to, except, in their mind, it was a failed attempt on my part. Let's face it, no one ever wants to admit that when something has been undeniably debunked, that anything has actually been debunked. I guess, apparently, that way the debate can continue forever(not literally forever, of course).

Keeping in mind, in this particular case, I'm meaning A) and B) involving different eras of time, that this has been undeniably debunked since it is not remotely reasonable that B) can precede A), then A) happen at a much later time. Which then contradicts that A) is meaning no time of trouble before that time equals nor surpasses it if B) is meaning before A), and that B) indicates, not only does no time of trouble prior to it, equals nor surpasses it, it is equally true that no time of trouble following it equals nor surpasses it, either.

Therefore, any interpreter that fully agrees that Daniel 12:2 is involving the resurrection of the dead in the end of this age when Christ bodily returns, and also fully agrees that this follows the time of trouble recorded in Daniel 12:1, that same interpreter should also fully agree that Daniel 12:2 is meaning after Matthew 24:15-21 is fulfilled, since that is involving the same time of trouble that Daniel 12:1 is, and that they already agree that Daniel 12:2 is meaning after Daniel 12:1. But not thousands of years after. IOW, the same era of time Daniel 12:2 will be involving will be pertaining to the same era of time Daniel 12:1 will be involving. That of course doesn't make logical sense if the time period Daniel 12:1 is involving, that it is involving a time period thousands of years earlier if it is supposed to be during the same era of time that verse 2 in Daniel will be involving.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

This translation says---and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. At what time? How can it not be involving the time of trouble? And the fact it says---thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book---where it's highly likely that the book meant here is meaning the book of life, which then has relevance to a resurrection of the dead. If this time of trouble is meaning 2000 years prior to the resurrection in verse 2, what is the point in being delivered 2000 years earlier? It makes no sense.

And even though some interpreters might agree that makes no sense, therefore, they do take the time of trouble in verse 1 to be involving the same time period verse 2 is involving, why then insist Matthew 24:15-21 is meaning 2000 years earlier, when it should already be plainly obvious that Matthew 24:15-21 is involving the same time period both Daniel 12 verse 1 and 2 will be involving? Talk about something that makes no sense. That definitely makes no sense.

 

[3 Resurrections]

This translation says---and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. At what time? How can it not be involving the time of trouble? And the fact it says---thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book---where it's highly likely that the book meant here is meaning the book of life, which then has relevance to a resurrection of the dead.

That underlined statement is right; it IS the book of life being referred to, which indicates that this "delivered" status is speaking of a resurrection of the dead, including the faithful who had died from among Daniel's people. This was one of the resurrection events - but not the one in our future.

Neither is it the "First resurrection", which would involve "Christ the First-fruits" and the (144,000 Firstfruits) Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints. That is because the "time of trouble" was to take place sometime after Christ's resurrection and final ascension had occurred.

 

[DavidPT]

That is because the "time of trouble" was to take place sometime after Christ's resurrection and final ascension had occurred.

I agree. But if we apply this time of trouble to 70 AD, for example, during that or following that, meaning in the first century, there is zero that explains the resurrection Daniel 12:2 is involving. That tells me that this resurrection event has to fit much later in time, in this case, meaning in the end of this age when Christ bodily returns. Which then means the same has to be true in regards to this time of trouble, the fact this resurrection event in verse 2, it occurrs during the same era of time involving this time of trouble.

IMO, you and I would likely be in full agreement about some of these things if you were applying Daniel 12:2 to an era of time that makes logical sense, such as 'in the end of this age'. I can't even remotely make sense out of why you are applying Daniel 12:2 to the era of time you are applying it to. Or maybe I can, the more I think about it. You're simply being consistent here. You are correctly applying verse 2 to the era of time verse 1 is involving. And since you are convinced that verse 1 is involving the era of time you take it to be involving, this logically means to you that the resurrection event in verse 2 must take place during this same era of time. Thus you are being consistent.

One thing I do respect about Preterists, Preterists interpret Scriptures in a consistent manner. Except it would be in vain if applying to the wrong era of time, though. Where Preterists are going wrong sometimes, is when they are applying some of these things to the wrong era of time, such as what you are doing with both Daniel 12:1-2 and Matthew 24:15-21.

Where you are going wrong then, you are applying verse 1 to the wrong era of time, unless you can undeniably prove that a resurrection event occurred during the era of time you have verse 1 involving. At least in your case I'm not having to deal with nonsense that Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:15-21 are involving different time periods. But even so, what you are proposing is nonsensical in another way, unless you can undeniably prove that a resurrection event occurred during the same time period you have verse 1 involving. In my mind, there is no way in a million years that you can undeniably prove that, otherwise you would have done it by now.

So, let me see if I have this straight. Per your view, none of the following is pertaining to the resurrection event Daniel 12:2 is involving, correct?

Luke 20:35-36, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Revelation 20:5

 

[3 Resurrections]

I agree. But if we apply this time of trouble to 70 AD, for example, during that or following that, meaning in the first century, there is zero that explains the resurrection Daniel 12:2 is involving.

Sorry, but there is more than "zero" explaining the Daniel 12:2 resurrection after that AD 70 "time of trouble". Daniel wrote about how to date that resurrection in Daniel 12:11-13. The "blessing" of a resurrection for those who waited would come after a total of 1,335 days would pass. Those 1,335 days were to start when two very specific things happened together during the same "season" (kairos). Those two things were #1, a daily sacrifice being taken away during the same season of time when #2, the abomination of desolation would be set up (which "abomination of desolation" Luke 21:20 interpreted as "Jerusalem surrounded by armies".)

These two specific things happened in the same season of time in AD 66. The daily sacrifice for the Roman empire and the emperor was taken away that year by Eleazar, the governor of the temple, who was a Zealot collaborator. In direct response to this insult and to the Zealot rebellion launched against Rome, Cestius Gallus was sent with the Roman army against the Zealot armies in Jerusalem. From the time Cestius Gallus arrived at Jerusalem in October AD 66, (when his troops contacted the temple wall and were preparing to undermine it), the beginning of the 1,335 days started counting down to the resurrection in which Daniel would participate.

All during those 1,335 days, the unprecedented "time of trouble" was taking place in Israel with demonic possession running rife within the city of Jerusalem, as Christ had already predicted for the "last state" of that wicked generation back in Matthew 12:43-45. Revelation 18:2 predicted that Babylon the "great city" (Jerusalem) would become a "prison (phulake) for every unclean spirit". Once every single unclean spirit was imprisoned within that city, this created an unprecedented time of trouble that had never happened before and would never happen again afterward in history. We know that it will never happen again after AD 70, because God predicted in Zechariah 13:2 that He would cause the unclean spirits to "pass out of the land" after that predicted siege of Jerusalem. Isaiah 24:21-23 agreed with this predicted fate for the punishment of the entire wicked angelic realm.

what you are proposing is nonsensical in another way, unless you can undeniably prove that a resurrection event occurred during the same time period you have verse 1 involving. In my mind, there is no way in a million years that you can undeniably prove that, otherwise you would have done it by now.

The problem is that when I start to submit such scriptural and archaeological evidence of an AD 70 bodily resurrection event, it gets a warning from the moderators and is classified as being "Full Preterist", (even though the Full Preterists totally deny that such a bodily resurrection took place back then. They also deny a future bodily resurrection. In opposition to them, I emphatically agree with scripture which teaches a future bodily resurrection for us, just like it happened before).

If you sincerely are interested in how the resurrection events for the past and the future can be proven from scripture matched with archaeology, I will try to find time coming up to post about it in the Controversial Theology section, which is the forum which allows such a discussion.

So, let me see if I have this straight. Per your view, none of the following is pertaining to the resurrection event Daniel 12:2 is involving, correct?

Luke 20:35-36, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Revelation 20:5

-Luke 20:35-36 is the Daniel12:2 resurrection.

-John 5:28-29 is the Daniel 12:2 resurrection.

-1 Corinthians 15:42-44 describes the resurrection status for the approaching Daniel 12:2 resurrection for believers - those believers who would have died prior to AD 70's 1,335th day. It is also the same resurrection status which we too can expect at the final future resurrection and judgment at the close of fallen man's history on this planet.

-1 Thessalonians 4:16 is describing just the Daniel 12:2 resurrection with its "rapture" to heaven of only the living resurrected saints. The "rapture" was for them - and is not needed for us at the close of fallen man's history on this planet when Christ will return to purge this world of the presence of all human evil forever.

-Revelation 20:5 and its "First resurrection" is describing only the AD 33 resurrection of "Christ the First-fruits" along with the limited group of 144,000 First-fruits saints raised on the same day (who were the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints coming out of Jerusalem's graves in AD 33 when the millennium was finished).

You have just given a list of scriptures above which refer to the three different resurrection events in which God intended for all His children to eventually participate. This matches the symbolism of the former three harvest feast celebrations in Israel at Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

 

[DavidPT]

. Those 1,335 days were to start when two very specific things happened together during the same "season" (kairos). Those two things were #1, a daily sacrifice being taken away during the same season of time when #2, the abomination of desolation would be set up (which "abomination of desolation" Luke 21:20 interpreted as "Jerusalem surrounded by armies".)

I'll focus on this for now, while I'm pondering the remainder of your post.

Let's do some comparing of things here.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand, ) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

If we take the first two accounts in the literal sense, it seems to me that the holy place would be meaning the 2nd temple. And if we then apply the armies surrounding Jerusalem in the 3rd account, to that of the first two accounts, we might come up with something such as the following.


When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, the armies standing in the 2nd temple, standing where they ought not, Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains

Already this is presenting a problem because these armies can't be outside of Jerusalem surrounding it, and then be standing in the 2nd temple, at the same time. Unless you know of a way to combine what is recorded in Luke 21:20-21 with that of Matthew 24:15-16 and Mark 13:14, and then it be making sense of the text, I can't think of a way to do that, though.

If we take Luke 21:20-21 in a literal sense, which we should, and that we then combine the first two accounts with it, that obviously means the first two accounts should be taken in the literal sense as well. What then does it look like, in a literal sense, this---stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not?

How can---Jerusalem compassed with armies---be describing the following---stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not?

When Jerusalem was compassed with armies---what did that look like? Does that mean they were still outside of the city, thus haven't entered the city yet? Or does it mean they were already inside of the city where the 2nd temple was, and that they were standing in the 2nd temple, standing where they ought not? After all, do not the first two accounts indicate that it is when one sees the AOD, stand in the holy place, standing where it ought not, then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains?

And does not the latter account indicate that it is when one sees Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh, then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Already this is presenting a problem because these armies can't be outside of Jerusalem surrounding it, and then be standing in the 2nd temple, at the same time. Unless you know of a way to combine what is recorded in Luke 21:20-21 with that of Matthew 24:15-16 and Mark 13:14, and then it be making sense of the text, I can't think of a way to do that, though.

Here is how those two underlined statements are to be reconciled. There was more than one army that was an abomination causing desolation. Luke mentioned PLURAL "armies" that were to surround Jerusalem. The Roman army outside the temple walls as well as the Zealot armies that came to Jerusalem and got within the temple were both included in this desolating activity.

Remember, it was not only the temple proper which was considered to be holy. As God gave Ezekiel instructions in how the post-exilic temple was to be built and how it would function, he described the holiness of the entire area in this way: "This is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house." (Ezekiel 43:12). This is why Matthew 27:53 says that the resurrected saints went into "the holy city" and were seen of many, because even the space which was round about the temple grounds had at one time been titled "most holy" by God.

So, it was not just going to be the temple structure itself which was supposed to be kept holy, but the entire space surrounding the temple structure was also considered to be "most holy". And that isn't all. The people of Israel when returning to the land after exile were to set apart a "holy portion" when they divided the land. That "holy portion of the land" was where the priests and ministers of the sanctuary were to have places for their houses, and in which the temple with its "most holy place" and its "most holy" environs were to be located. (Ezekiel 45:1-3).

This tells us that when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies which got inside Jerusalem's temple (the Zealot armies with their competing leaders) and also the Roman army outside Jerusalem coming to surround the city, even their presence in the "most holy" area surrounding the temple was considered an abomination that would cause desolation.

Josephus records for us that when Cestius Gallus had his troops get into the city in October of AD 66, they rested their shields in testudo fashion against the walls of the temple in their attempts to undermine them and get into the temple. This caused a great many to flee the city immediately as if the city were ready to be taken.

"Thus did the Romans make their attack against the wall for five days, but to no purpose. But on the next day, Cestius took a great many of his choicest men, and with them the archers, and attempted to break into the temple at the northern quarter of it; but the Jews beat them off from the cloisters, and repulsed them several times when they were gotten near to the wall, till at length the multitude of the darts cut them off, and made them retire; but the first rank of the Romans rested their shields upon the wall, and so did those that were behind them, and the like did those that were still more backward, and guarded themselves with what they call Testudo, (the back of) a tortoise, upon which the darts that were thrown fell, and slided off without doing them any harm; so the soldiers undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately..." (Wars 2.19.5).

It was in the brief couple of days when the Zealot armies went out of Jerusalem, chasing the Roman army away from the city, that any believers inside Jerusalem had a real chance to make a speedy withdrawal from the city. There was a need for haste, because the victorious Zealot armies soon returned to Jerusalem with captured Roman weaponry and immediately locked up the city against any who wanted to leave. This was just before the winter season came, as Christ had specifically told His disciples to pray for this as they were fleeing Judea and Jerusalem for the mountains.

 

[DavidPT]

If you sincerely are interested in how the resurrection events for the past and the future can be proven from scripture matched with archaeology, I will try to find time coming up to post about it in the Controversial Theology section, which is the forum which allows such a discussion.

If I'm going to be honest here, that would be a big waste of time on your part and my part since there is no way, regardless what you might submit as alleged proof, that I'm going to accept it. The reason why is because I am already 100% convinced that Daniel never stood in his lot at the end of the days anytime in the first century, and that this day 1335 is when he does that, thus connecting day 1335 to the resurrection recorded in verse 2 and the deliverance in verse 1.

Since Jesus also mentioned Daniel 12 in Matthew 24 starting with verse 15, there is then a timeline established, which then involves this time of trouble, a period of time following this time of trouble, then a coming and gathering after both of these time periods. And that this 1290 days and this 1335th day fit this timeline in Matthew 24. In my view, the coming and gathering in Matthew 24:30-31, this is pertaining to Daniel 12:12 and this 1335th day, since it is logical that when verses 30-31 are being fulfilled, this is when the resurrection involving Daniel 12:2 occurs, and that this is when Daniel stands in his lot at the end of days, because Daniel is among those that are resurrected per Daniel 12:2.

You aside since you are at least being consistent about things, some of these other interpreters though, I can not figure out how they can fully agree that Daniel 12:2 is meaning when Christ returns, then divorce that from what Daniel 12:10-12 is involving? Because, in order to even reach the time involving Daniel 12:2, Daniel 12:1 has to precede it, and that Daniel 12:1 is involving the same time period Daniel 12:10-12 is involving. And not only that, it is involving the same time period Matthew 24:15-31 is involving, except they insist Matthew 24:15-21 is involving the first century and 70 AD, while agreeing that Matthew 24:30-31 is involving Daniel 12:2.

It is unclear to me what they think Daniel 12:1 is involving, though. Apparently, they don't see it involving Matthew 24:15-21 even though that's the only thing recorded in Matthew 24 that it could possibly be involving. Thus they are not interpreting things in a consistent manner, then insisting it is them that are interpreting Matthew 24:15-21 correctly, not me, even though I'm trying to interpret things in a consistent manner, and that they are not. Is that the way it's supposed to work, though? Interpret something in an inconsistent manner, that way you will undoubtedly arrive at a correct interpretation?

 

[DavidPT]

Here is how those two underlined statements are to be reconciled. There was more than one army that was an abomination causing desolation. Luke mentioned PLURAL "armies" that were to surround Jerusalem. The Roman army outside the temple walls as well as the Zealot armies that came to Jerusalem and got within the temple were both included in this desolating activity.

Remember, it was not only the temple proper which was considered to be holy. As God gave Ezekiel instructions in how the post-exilic temple was to be built and how it would function, he described the holiness of the entire area in this way: "This is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house." (Ezekiel 43:12). This is why Matthew 27:53 says that the resurrected saints went into "the holy city" and were seen of many, because even the space which was round about the temple grounds had at one time been titled "most holy" by God.

So, it was not just going to be the temple structure itself which was supposed to be kept holy, but the entire space surrounding the temple structure was also considered to be "most holy". And that isn't all. The people of Israel when returning to the land after exile were to set apart a "holy portion" when they divided the land. That "holy portion of the land" was where the priests and ministers of the sanctuary were to have places for their houses, and in which the temple with its "most holy place" and its "most holy" environs were to be located. (Ezekiel 45:1-3).

This tells us that when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies which got inside Jerusalem's temple (the Zealot armies with their competing leaders) and also the Roman army outside Jerusalem coming to surround the city, even their presence in the "most holy" area surrounding the temple was considered an abomination that would cause desolation.

Josephus records for us that when Cestius Gallus had his troops get into the city in October of AD 66, they rested their shields in testudo fashion against the walls of the temple in their attempts to undermine them and get into the temple. This caused a great many to flee the city immediately as if the city were ready to be taken.

"Thus did the Romans make their attack against the wall for five days, but to no purpose. But on the next day, Cestius took a great many of his choicest men, and with them the archers, and attempted to break into the temple at the northern quarter of it; but the Jews beat them off from the cloisters, and repulsed them several times when they were gotten near to the wall, till at length the multitude of the darts cut them off, and made them retire; but the first rank of the Romans rested their shields upon the wall, and so did those that were behind them, and the like did those that were still more backward, and guarded themselves with what they call Testudo, (the back of) a tortoise, upon which the darts that were thrown fell, and slided off without doing them any harm; so the soldiers undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately..." (Wars 2.19.5).

It was in the brief couple of days when the Zealot armies went out of Jerusalem, chasing the Roman army away from the city, that any believers inside Jerusalem had a real chance to make a speedy withdrawal from the city. There was a need for haste, because the victorious Zealot armies soon returned to Jerusalem with captured Roman weaponry and immediately locked up the city against any who wanted to leave. This was just before the winter season came, as Christ had specifically told His disciples to pray for this as they were fleeing Judea and Jerusalem for the mountains.

I admit, on the surface, these are somewhat compelling arguments that appear to maybe be in your favor. Except Daniel 12:13 trumps those arguments, and that Daniel 12:13 determines when the end of the days are meaning. Apparently, we both agree the end of the days in verse 13 is meaning day 1335 and that this is logically connected to verse 1 and 2.

And if verse 1 is pertaining to the same time period that Matthew 24:15-21 is involving, in regards to this unequaled time of trouble,
this AOD in question can't be involving the first century and 70 AD because Daniel is yet to stand in his lot at the end of the days, and not instead, that he already did that 2000 years ago in the first century during/following 70 AD.

Even the following couldn't have included Daniel standing in his lot at the end of days since Jesus placed this end of days to be involving a time post His death and resurrection. Why then should we assume Daniel might do that 40 years later, when neither the time Matthew 27:52-53 nor 70 AD was involving, that this was the end of the days?

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

I have already argued the following before, and I'm thinking with you.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

I see this meaning when Daniel 12:12-13 is meaning. In order for Job in his flesh to see God at the time, it obviously requires that he has to be bodily resurrected first. And that verse 25 says, obviously pertaining to Christ, it is the latter day, meaning the end of the days thus day 1335, that He shall stand upon the earth, that being when Job in the flesh sees Him. Are you then going to insist, that in 70 AD or soon after, Christ literally bodily stood upon the earth, as in He bodily returned at that time? There is no way that I can see to interpret Job 19:25-26 without it involving Christ's bodily return and a bodily resurrection of the dead. Isn't, to insist Christ bodily returned in 70 AD, full Preterism?

 

[3 Resurrections]

I admit, on the surface, these are somewhat compelling arguments that appear to maybe be in your favor. Except Daniel 12:13 trumps those arguments, and that Daniel 12:13 determines when the end of the days are meaning. Apparently, we both agree the end of the days in verse 13 is meaning day 1335 and that this is logically connected to verse 1 and 2.

Yes, we are agreed on that 1,335th day being logically connected to Daniel 12:1-2.

And if verse 1 is pertaining to the same time period that Matthew 24:15-21 is involving, in regards to this unequaled time of trouble,
this AOD in question can't be involving the first century and 70 AD because Daniel is yet to stand in his lot at the end of the days, and not instead, that he already did that 2000 years ago in the first century during/following 70 AD.

What is it that convinces you that the AOD (Jerusalem surrounded by armies) was not set up in the first century, and that Daniel as of now has yet to stand in his lot at the end of those 1,335 days? You are basing this view on something, so what would that be?

Even the following couldn't have included Daniel standing in his lot at the end of days since Jesus placed this end of days to be involving a time post His death and resurrection.
Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

You're right, that particular Matthew 27:52-53 resurrection event was just the "First-fruits unto God and the Lamb" (numbering 144,000 First-fruits of those Jewish saints' graves around Jerusalem being broken open). These along with "Christ the First-fruits" composed the "FIRST resurrection" in AD 33. But Daniel was not among that number of 144,000 Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints, because Daniel's resurrection was going to be preceded by that period of 1,335 days - which was going to begin by Jerusalem being surrounded by armies along with a daily sacrifice being taken away during the same season.

I have already argued the following before, and I'm thinking with you.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

I see this meaning when Daniel 12:12-13 is meaning. In order for Job in his flesh to see God at the time, it obviously requires that he has to be bodily resurrected first. And that verse 25 says, obviously pertaining to Christ, it is the latter day, meaning the end of the days thus day 1335, that He shall stand upon the earth, that being when Job in the flesh sees Him. Are you then going to insist, that in 70 AD or soon after, Christ literally bodily stood upon the earth, as in He bodily returned at that time? There is no way that I can see to interpret Job 19:25-26 without it involving Christ's bodily return and a bodily resurrection of the dead. Isn't, to insist Christ bodily returned in 70 AD, full Preterism

You're absolutely correct in what I underlined in your statement above. Job was to be bodily resurrected for that Daniel 12:12-13 resurrection event.

But I am forbidden by this forum to write about an AD 70 bodily resurrection and a bodily return of Christ in that year. Is this idea of a bodily resurrection and bodily return of Christ in AD 70 to be considered "Full Preterism"? NO, most emphatically, it is NOT. The Full Preterists firmly deny ANY bodily resurrection for the believers at ANY time whatsoever, and they firmly deny a bodily return of the bodily-resurrected Christ at any time whatsoever. For the Full Preterists, the physical dead body of the believers is discarded in the ground like so much trash - never to be changed and rendered incorruptible in a resurrection process. I disagree with this absolutely, since scripture tells us otherwise.

As for the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Full Preterist will say that He discarded that physical, resurrected form (which they say was NOT a "glorified" form) during His ascension to heaven in Acts 1. This is wrong, of course. Scripture proves that Christ retained and still retains even today in heaven his glorified, resurrected body which came out of the grave and left that sepulchre completely empty.

But as I said above...I am forbidden on this forum to submit the archaeological evidence of a bodily return of Christ to Jerusalem in AD 70 along with a second bodily resurrection event.

What I can tell you is that the very specific 1,290-day marker of Daniel 12:11 is very significant because that is the date when Jerusalem was once again surrounded by Titus' army when Passover week in AD 70 was in full swing (more of the AOD being set up). Rome's army had been totally absent from Jerusalem ever since the Zealot armies defeated Cestius Gallus's legion in October of AD 66. But 1,290 days after Cestius Gallus had almost taken the temple gate (but withdrew for no reason whatever), Rome's forces showed up again under Titus who arranged his army to surround Jerusalem again for a second time.

Titus deliberately timed his army's arrival after Passover in Jerusalem had begun in order to trap as many Jews in the city as possible. Forty-five days later after the Roman siege had begun (the same as the 1,335th day), the "blessing" of Daniel 12:12-13 occurred - which was that AD 70 year's Pentecost day. This was a day when the wheat harvest in Israel under Mosaic law was celebrated. The symbolism of a "harvest" in scripture is equated with the resurrection of the bodies of God's children out of the dust of the grave. And Israel had THREE of those harvest feast celebrations under Mosaic law - not just one - taking place at Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

 

[Timtofly]

But I am forbidden by this forum to write about an AD 70 bodily resurrection and a bodily return of Christ in that year. Is this idea of a bodily resurrection and bodily return of Christ in AD 70

Since that resurrection was at the Cross mentioned in Matthew 27, why make up another one, not witnessed by any humans?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Since that resurrection was at the Cross mentioned in Matthew 27, why make up another one, not witnessed by any humans?

Well, to be more precise, that Matthew 27 resurrection of that group of saints did not take place at the Cross. Those saints came out of their broken graves after Christ's resurrection, scripture says. These "First-fruits" raised on this day when Christ arose were only the "FIRST resurrection" event. If there was a "FIRST" resurrection, there MUST of necessity be at least a second one. 1 Corinthians 15: 23 mentions this second resurrection that was to follow the "FIRST resurrection" which took place in Matthew 27. This second resurrection was to be witnessed by every eye of "those who pierced Him", so the first-century Jewish generation who had been the "betrayers and murderers" of Christ saw this happening.

 

[Timtofly]

Well, to be more precise, that Matthew 27 resurrection of that group of saints did not take place at the Cross. Those saints came out of their broken graves after Christ's resurrection, scripture says. These "First-fruits" raised on this day when Christ arose were only the "FIRST resurrection" event. If there was a "FIRST" resurrection, there MUST of necessity be at least a second one. 1 Corinthians 15: 23 mentions this second resurrection that was to follow the "FIRST resurrection" which took place in Matthew 27. This second resurrection was to be witnessed by every eye of "those who pierced Him", so the first-century Jewish generation who had been the "betrayers and murderers" of Christ saw this happening.

Firstfruits is about a harvest, but the firstfruits does not indicate a first and second resurrection. A harvest is not necessarily a resurrection.

The OT redeemed were the firstfruits of the NT church. Yet the church will be all one harvest. To declare there was no physical bodily resurrection at the Cross for the OT is to deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Himself. The OT firstfruits is the entire body of Christ up until that point. Leaving them in death, is leaving Christ in death.

A first resurrection is a physical resurrection. A second resurrection is a spiritual resurrection. That is the only first and second aspect of a resurrection.

The first birth is physical. The second birth is spiritual. There is no third or fourth birth. The first death is physical. The second death is spiritual. There is no third or fourth death. Resurrections are not about a first, second, or third. How each soul experiences life is about a first and second event.

So even turning Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 order into 3 resurrections is not exactly what Paul was saying.


"Made alive" could be either or both physical and spiritual. When Adam disobeyed God, he died both physically and spiritually. So made alive is the reverse process of both a physical and spiritual resurrection or restoration, because a dead spirit is not physically dead, it is demonized and become a devil. There is no resurrection of a dead spirit, nor a resurrection out of the second death. The second death is just the final state of the soul both physically and spiritually dead. Because both soul and spirit is cast into the LOF, and not really joined back together from all indications.

The full restoration of a son of God is the joining of the soul with the body and spirit. That was the order Paul talked mainly about. But there is 3 presentations of people "made alive". The third and last would be those born in the Millennium reign of Christ. Those who are born with a permanent incorruptible physical body, but are not full sons of God, because they are not glorified, that is having put on the spirit.

Those who start out the millennium are the firstfruits of the Millennium. The final harvest of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, but they will no longer be physically dead flesh, but the soul will reside in God's permanent incorruptible physical body.

That is the order of being made alive Paul was talking about. Paul states all will be changed.

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

The OT was the firstfruits that had a general resurrection at the Cross. They were presented to God upon the resurrection of Jesus. At the Second Coming the glorified church will be presented as completely restored. However there is the reigning on earth part with a physically resurrected millennium firstfruits, and the final harvest: the sheep and the wheat, that happens after the Second Coming that will be restored at the end, when all of creation is handed back to God.

So being made alive is not just about a physical resurrection. It is about the restoration of the soul that puts on a physical body and puts on the spirit over the physical body. That is why the full restoration has humans shining as the stars, because that was the state of the sons of God created on the 6th day. Not just a physical creation, but a spiritual creation as well. There was no separation of the physical and the spiritual. One is not made alive with just a physical resurrection. One is made alive with the joining of the spirit that makes us a complete and restored son of God.

Trying to pinpoint in time 2, 3, or more physical resurrections and claim that is what Paul and the NT is declaring is missing the whole point of God's redemptive plan.