• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Days Of Noah

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by Love First, May 27, 2021.

  1. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,714
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    They are not chosen because of works, their works reflect their faith. Have you never read James 2?

    James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    This lines up with what Jesus says in Matthew 25:31-46. He will not give people eternal life in the kingdom of God because of their works. He will give them eternal life in the kingdom of God because of their faith which was made evident by their works including things that Jesus mentions in Matthew 25:31-46 like feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, giving clothes to the naked, visiting those in prison and so on. The kind of faith that saves will result in works (unless the person doesn't get that chance, such as the thief on the cross who Jesus knew had that kind of faith).

    Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

    This passage makes it clear that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. But, it also makes it clear that those who are saved are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained". So, the good works are the evidence that we have saving faith. The sheep in Matthew 25:31-46 have saving faith because their works reflect that. The goats do not. All people are either sheep or goats. All people are either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30).

    Do you not think that you will appear before Christ to be judged for what you have done?

    Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

    2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

    What is the difference between what verses like these describe and what is described in Matthew 25:31-46? Do you think you are not included among those who will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of yourself and "the things done in the body, according to" what you have done in your lifetime?
     
  2. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,714
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Here you are once again trying to force me to interpret scripture according to how you understand it. I am not obligated to do that, as I've made clear many times before.

    Those passages are not describing the same events. They may have some similar wording, but they have completely different contexts. Zechariah 12 has to do with mourning someone's death. Christ's death, in this case. And many did mourn His death. Revelation 1:7, on the other hand, has to do with people wailing in fear because of the wrath that is about to be poured out on them. It is referring to people like the ones described here:

    Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

    The reaction people will have to Christ's second coming will have nothing to do with mourning His death. There is nothing written in the book of Revelation to support that idea. Instead, people will be cowering in fear even to the point of wanting mountains and rocks to fall on them instead of facing "the wrath of the Lamb".

    Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in part in the following passage, so we should let scripture dictate the timing of the prophecy from Zechariah 12.

    John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
    34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
    35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

    This clearly indicates that when Zechariah 12:10 talks about them looking on him whom they pierced, it's talking about the day that He was crucified and not about the day He returns. You are not letting scripture interpret scripture for you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2021
  3. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +4,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    And the scripture that supports this contention is?
    (Please say: “He lead captivity captive”...)
     
  4. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,541
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I did ask what other options are there. It looks like you just provided one, that being that they are not the same events. My post was based on if they were the same events, and not, if they were not the same events. So let's consider your option.

    But let's consider all of Zechariah 12 since all of it involves in that day. But not meaning a single day, but meaning a particular era of time. Why would that chapter start out with events that are obviously meaning post Christ's death, then end with events involving Christ's death at an earlier time? Why would it be chronologically out of order like that?
     
  5. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,714
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Can you please specifically address the points (or at least one point) I made in post #182 first? I think that's only fair.
     
  6. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    These sheep did not even know their works did anything, or were being recorded by God. This is not a judgment about faith or choices in life. The question was raised, "when did we do these things?". How can one be redeemed by faith and not know that it was being worked out?

    Your verses do apply to a believer who chose God's Atonement. They do not apply to Matthew 25.

    "Then the people who have done what God wants will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you our guest, or needing clothes and provide them? When did we see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’

    Is that a question you are going to ask God at the judgment? Why do you need to question whether or not you lived by faith? If you understand that now, why would you forget about it after arriving in Paradise?

    Another point if this throne is not on earth in Jerusalem, do all go to heaven to be judged even Adam's flesh and blood, which is not even allowed in Paradise.

    "All the nations will be assembled before him."

    This does not mention at all the dead in sheol, nor those in Christ in Paradise. This only applies to living people and current government formations. No nations in Paradise, and no nations in sheol.
     
  7. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    "Also the graves were opened, and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life; and after Yeshua rose, they came out of the graves and went into the holy city, where many people saw them."

    Paradise was opened, Abraham's bosom was vacated. Do you think they left earth at the first opportunity or had to endure the wretched state of sin for 40 years like you claim, for the "second coming"? Or did they all have to be martyred in a second physical death?
     
  8. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Why do many think most Scripture is off chronologically and needs human interpretation to intervene and straighten out God's Word?
     
  9. BuildingApologetics

    BuildingApologetics New Member

    61
    +20
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    I should mention, before I start that I very much appreciate your replies. They have been thoughtful, informative, and written in a kind way. We may disagree on a lot, but I think this conversation has been fruitful.

    I think you may agree with this, but I highly doubt that this is a conversation that can be solved on the qualitative descriptions of either the second coming or judgment to come in 70 AD (depending on who is right here). I will always interpret things more literally than you, and you will interpret things more figuratively than me. Of course it is still fruitful to go through texts dealing with issues like the resurrection, since they will demonstrate how each of our hermeneutics handles the terrain of scripture. Maybe that will be a good way of seeing which offers a smoother ride.

    However, I am willing to bet that the passages that will be most helpful are the ones that we use to justify each of our hermeneutics. For example, if a text can be interpreted in a more literal futurist sense, or a more figurative preterist sense, how do we know who is interpreting correctly? How do we get past the seeming impasse of the different glasses we use to read the text? We are each making a claim about how scripture should be interpreted. Therefore, the question is who can meet the burden of proof of demonstrating that their hermeneutic is the better one?

    This is why, for you, the time passages are going to be critical, along with any texts you believe cannot be interpreted in a futurist way. For me, my case must be centered around answering the question, how did Jesus, the disciples, and the Christian/Jewish communities understand the terms in question.

    Timing Passages

    I believe we are still waiting on that. However, I think 70 AD can be taken as a foreshadowing of that.

    Figurative. In fact, if you go back and read the text he is quoting from, the whole point is that the Lord seems slow, but that he does not delay in the sense of being late. Even if it seems like a long time, it is still on time.

    Figurative. Interestingly preterists seem to be fans of using Old Testament examples to reinterpret seemingly plain New Testament passages, so you should have no problem with this argument. Consider the following:
    Zechariah 12:2: Behold, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of staggering to all the surrounding peoples.
    Isaiah 65:17: For look! I am about to create new heavens and a new earth,
    and the former things shall not be remembered,
    and they shall not come to mind
    Isaiah 66:18: “And I—their works and thoughts!—am about to come to gather all nations and tongues,
    and they shall come and see my glory.

    These are only just some of the texts that could be used to make my point. Clearly all of these texts are Messianic when understood in light of other similar passages of scripture. If you dispute this, I would be happy to provide evidence. Notice that they all talk about the coming of Messiah (either first or second coming) as about to happen. The Old Testament loudly proclaims the soon coming of Messiah. Even if you cram all of the above prophecies into the first century, the prophets claimed these prophecies would be fulfilled soon around half a millennia before the first century began. In fact whenever a time statement is applied to the coming of Messiah in the Old Testament, it is always figurative, unless a specific time period is spelled out (Daniel 9). This leaves preterists with a few options.

    1) Claim that, although soon is always figurative when referring to the Messiah in the OT, it must be considered literal in the NT. This is a completely inconsistent hermeneutic, and makes the preterist guilty of the very thing they accuse futurist of doing (for example taking "coming on the clouds" literal).
    2) Claim that "about to come" can cover over 500 years, but not 2000 years. One would have to prove such an arbitrary cutoff between these two numbers for such a claim to be valid.
    3) Deny the messianic nature of all of the above prophecies.
    4) Claim that Jesus showed up and fulfilled these events well before His birth.
    Since I have no commitment to preterism, I can be consistent and say that time statements about the coming of Messiah are always (unless we have some strong reason to say otherwise) to be considered figurative.
     
  10. BuildingApologetics

    BuildingApologetics New Member

    61
    +20
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    part 2...

    Nature of the Resurrection
    For clarity, the statement in question is:
    "If you don't believe that the resurrection is a literal event in which we rise from the earth, then you don't believe in a resurrection at all. Jesus leaves no room for a metaphorical interpretation."

    Obviously, all of the points I am about to say require evidence, but I figured I would just lay them all out here. Here are several of the properties of a literal resurrection, so we can be clear. 1) It is a transfer from physical death to physical life. 2) The nature of that physical life is a physical body. 3) We will have a physical body that is just like the physical body Jesus had after the resurrection. 4) That physical body will actually have flesh, bone, joints, limbs, etc.

    I'm interested in hearing which of these points you agree with. In my last statement I was rather vague in addressing your exact position (which is why I said "if you believe x" a number of times). After your last reply, I have a better understanding of how you interpret the classic rapture passage, but I am no more clear on your understanding of the resurrection from the dead. You mentioned how the word can be used in other contexts, but you did not provide a clear, unequivocal description of what you believe to be the nature of the resurrection. Do you believe the resurrection from the dead is the same for unbelievers as believers? What are the differences if they exist? I have trouble addressing your position since I don't even know exactly what it is. For that reason I will again address your view with more general statements.

    So how do I justify such a view? Well partly because of the text I examined in my last reply. You did not interact with that argument, so I will make it again here in more detail, since I may not have been clear. The passage in question is Luke 20:27-40, and I will be going through it line by line.

    Luke 20:27: Now some of the Sadducees—who deny that there is a resurrection—came up and asked him...

    Okay, so a basic understanding of who exactly the Sadducees are will be helpful. Sadducees were a distinct minority, but they were also the intellectual elites of the day. The Sadducees believed in all of the Old Testament in a sense, but they really only considered the Torah to be completely binding. Since the resurrection from the dead is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, Sadducees didn't really believe it. However, history records that they would often pretend to be Pharisees who believed in the resurrection. How would they do this? They would talk about the resurrection as if they actually believed it, but they actually redefined the resurrection as a metaphor. They believed the term was just a symbol of having children who would eventually replace you.
    Interestingly, although many Sadducees would claim to believe in a resurrection, because they did not believe in it in the literal sense in which God intended, Luke summarizes them as "the Sadducees—who deny that there is a resurrection". For Jesus, Luke, and the other NT writers, this metaphorical interpretation is the same as unbelief.

    A denial of a resurrection in the flesh is a denial of the resurrection. This is one of the reasons why John calls those who deny Jesus came in the flesh "antichrists". A denial of a physical resurrection is likely just as grievous of an error.

    Luke 20:28-33: saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us if someone’s brother dies having a wife, and this man is childless, that his brother should take the wife and father descendants for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers, and the first took a wife and died childless, 30 and the second, 31 and the third took her, and likewise also the seven did not leave children and died. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 Therefore in the resurrection, the woman—whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”

    So here they go posing a difficult question as if it is a refutation of what the Bible clearly says. Notice how they try to use the Bible to debunk the Bible. This is a lot like liberal theologians who try to argue that a Biblical truth is false because of another Biblical truth. Thankfully, I don't see you doing any of that.

    Luke 20:34-35: And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,

    This is where I have difficulty understanding your position. Do you believe the resurrection is simply the transfer of saints to heaven when they die in the church age (as well as a transfer of saints from the grave to heaven in 70 AD)? I'm going to go ahead and assume that is your view. If not, then please correct me. According to Jesus in this passage, there are two distinct "ages" as we have discussed. Notice, nothing in Jesus statement here is about location. It is about different eras of time. The first is characterized by the fact that "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage".

    What does the term "sons of this age" mean? The most obvious interpretation seems to be individuals who live in the time period known as "this age". Who are the sons of "that age"? Clearly, then they are the individuals who are alive in "that age". So what do those who live in "that age"/time period do? Those who live in the time period known as "that age" "neither marry not are given in marriage". Notice, you also must be worth to exist in the time period known as "that age". Since age is not about location, but about era. According to Jesus, if you exist in the age to come, you are not married and cannot become married. Since this obviously does not describe the time period in which we exist now, we cannot be in the age to come.

    Notice that the whole point of the passage is that the metaphorical interpretation of resurrection is unbelief and is false. If preterists want to allegorize any of the text within this didactic teaching, they are falling into the same trap that the passage is designed to attack.

    Luke 20:36: for they are not even able to die any longer, because they are like the angels and are sons of God, because they are sons of the resurrection.

    Again we are agreed that the resurrection from the dead is the transition point between the ages. Here, however, I need more clarification about your position. Assuming I am a true Christian, have I already been raised from the dead in your view, or am I waiting on that to occur? If I am waiting for it to occur, will that happen immediately upon my physical death?

    It seems clear from this text that Jesus views the resurrection as a third person observer. He does not consider the transition point from "this age" to "the age to come" to be one that occurs to different individuals at different times as they either convert to the gospel and are regenerated or die and come to life in the afterlife. Instead the transition point is the same for all individuals.

    Luke 20:37: But that the dead are raised, even Moses revealed in the passage about the bush, when he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.


    Jesus knows that the Sadducees revere the five books of Moses, so he references it to prove His case for the resurrection. He points out that YHWH was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob during the time of Moses. What is the significance of this? Jesus goes on to explain...

    Luke 20:38: Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him!”

    Jesus point is that, because God is the God of the living rather than the dead, that proves that Abraham, Moses, and Isaac were alive during the time of Moses and during the time of Jesus. Therefore, if the resurrection is future from the uttering of this point, then the resurrection cannot be merely about coming to life in a spiritual sense. According to Jesus, they were already spiritually alive.

    Okay, let's dig into the text since this is one of the best reasons to take a literal view. Also, again, please clarify what you mean if you believe yourself to have a literal view. First, let's back up because you skipped a whole bunch of context that is massively important for understanding the text at hand. Since this post is already too long, I wont go line by line through the text. Instead I will provide an outline and highlight several important statements. We will pay special attention to the meaning of "spiritual body".

    - Paul begins the chapter by making a case for the literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    - Paul explains that Christ is the firstfruits of our hope. He emphasizes the point that we will be raised from the dead in the same way Christ was risen from the dead. Therefore, Christ is the proof to the authenticity and reality of our future resurrection. That is why, if Christ has not physically risen, we are the most of all people to be pitied. Consider the passage:

    1 Cor 15:12: Now if Christ is preached as raised up from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

    This is the exact state you are in if you don't believe in the physical resurrection of the body. Notice that Paul constantly goes back and forth between the raising of Christ and the raising of the church. And notice how inconsistent your hermeneutic must be to understand the very same term in two very different ways, and go back and forth, switching the meanings as it suits your theology. That's eisegesis.

    1 Cor 15:13-16: But if there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ has not been raised either. 14 But if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. 15 And also we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if after all, then, the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised either.

    Again, Paul consistently goes back and forth between the resurrection of Christ and our future resurrection to emphasize that these are the same type of resurrection.

    - Paul then explains that the resurrection from the dead is the defeat of death imposed by Adam
    - Paul explains that there is no meaning in life if there is no resurrection
    - Paul explains that the "heavenly body" will be more glorious than the earthly body. This is the text you quoted.

    However, you conveniently did not include an important verse that will help us understand the term spiritual body in verse 44. Consider the context:

    1 Corinthians 15:44-45: It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    Does spirit in this context mean non-physical? It's easy to conclude that if we stop at verse 44. However, Paul describes Jesus- post resurrection- as a spirit. Yet, according to Jesus, He was not literally a spirit (Luke 24:39). Therefore, if spirit does not imply lack of physicality in verse 45, why should we make it necessarily non-physical in verse 44. Instead, Paul is emphasizing the union between our spirit and our renewed physical body, as well as one again claiming that we will have the same type of body Jesus had post-resurrection.

    1 Corinthians 15:53: For it is necessary for this perishable body to put on incorruptibility, and this mortal body to put on immortality.

    Paul is emphasizing the point that we will have bodies. We will not be disembodied spirits for eternity; we will be walking, talking human beings. Furthermore, this is consistent with the rest of Biblical teaching about the resurrection.

    1 John 3:2: Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is

    So this confirms that we will be like him when the resurrection from the dead occurs. This is the exact point Paul is making in 1 Cor 15.

    Philippians 3:21: who will transform our humble body to be conformed to his glorious body, in accordance with the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

    Clearly God is not going to remove our bodies; he is going to transform our bodies. The point here is that we will still have bodies, and they will be like the one Christ has after His resurrection. This is the clear NT teaching.

    I appreciate you explaining your view and even citing scripture, however, many of the scriptures you cited I don't consider to be in favor of your view. For example 2 Thess 2. So if you are going to use these texts to show that your belief is true, you need to show how those texts must be interpreted.

    Use of the word in other contexts doesn't really help us understand the term in this context. Clearly Paul is not referring to baptism or the raising of nations in 1 Cor 15 for example. Yes, they may help us understand the word a bit better, however it doesn't change our understanding of the eschatological passages in any way.

    What text do you think supports this idea? What texts do you specifically regard as future?

    For the record, I agree with you about Luke 19, but not Luke 21. Luke 21 may possibly be foreshadowed in 70, but it was not fulfilled then.

    But 2 Thess 2 was not fulfilled in 70 AD. There was no abomination of desolation, and there is no one who claimed to be God in the temple. If you are going to argue that it must have happened, but it just wasn't recorded, then you need to explain why both Old and New Testament would describe this as the major sign of Jesus' coming, yet most people would never even hear that it was fulfilled. How can something be a sign if no one sees it?
    Also, who exactly is the man of sin, and how was he slain with the breath of Jesus mouth?
    You can't just claim this as 70 AD without giving good evidence that what happened in 70 closely matches the description here.

    Lastly, regarding the transfer of those in Hades. I agree that something happened there, but I am not an expert on the topic. However, I consider that to have taken place at Jesus death. This is why he was able to say that the thief on the cross would be with Him in paradise rather than Hades. If your going to argue 70 AD, you will need some good evidence for that.

    But he describes both as happening at the "last trumpet". Whatever you consider the last trumpet to be, both happen practically simultaneously. It's just that the dead are raised immediately prior.

    I will be interested in hearing your case for that!

    Sorry for the long delay and the long reply. Some things take time to be addressed adequately.
     
  11. DavidPT

    DavidPT Well-Known Member

    +1,541
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    I understand where you are coming from in that post. I see it making sense what you are concluding, yet it doesn't seem to answer any of the following questions I have about Zechariah 12 if you are correct.


    In Zechariah 12, if verses 10-14 are pertaining to the cross in the first century, where that obviously involved trying to save ppl, why does verse 9 have the LORD already seeking out to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem before He even tries to save them first? That sounds post cross, not pre cross or during the cross. Why would we need to know that before verses 10-14 if those verses are meaning prior to the LORD seeking out to do this?

    Clearly, it is in that day, the same era of time verses 10-14 are meaning, that the LORD will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. Why would He not be seeking out to destroy all nations that come against Jerusalem, in the end of this age? How can this not involve Zechariah 14 verse 1 and 2, for one? How can those verses be meaning anything involving the first century?
     
  12. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +4,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Bodies of MANY Holy People coming out of their graves and appearing to many = Sheol Vacated of ALL Holy People? That's a pretty generous reading into that passage...

    I believe what Scripture teaches about it.
    “Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:” Hebrews 11:35

    I believe, Like Lazarus, those all died a second Physical death. We have no scriptural reason or instruction to conclude anything else.
     
  13. Spiritual Jew

    Spiritual Jew Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,714
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Okay, fair enough, but you don't want to share any specific thoughts about what I said in post #182? What are your thoughts on what I said regarding Zechariah 12:10 having a different context than Revelation 1:7?

    I'm not really interested in a one way discussion where I'm the only one in the "discussion" who specifically addresses the other person's points and answers the other person's questions.

    What do you make of Zechariah 12:10 being referenced in John 19:37? How can you think that Zechariah 12:10 has a future fulfillment when scripture indicates that it was fulfilled long ago?
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2021
  14. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    So you refute Jesus is the Resurrection and Life now?

    The Resurrection and Life happens when?
     
  15. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +4,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I refute no such thing.
    The resurrection is not something Jesus does, it’s something Jesus IS.
     
  16. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    If one is in Christ they cannot die twice. After the Cross, no one tasted death who are in Christ. That has nothing to do with eschatology period! That is soteriology!
     
  17. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +4,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I'm gonna work backwards :) I likewise appreciate the tenor of your replies to me. they are well thought and refernce scripture that you believe support your view.

    This type of conversation is rare here, and I appreciate it.

    Clear.
    Yes they require evidence, otherwise they are merely suppositions.

    But I get that these are the points you will be attempting to demonstrate from scripture.

    ZERO.

    Your view requires that in our resurrection bodies we would retain any wounds we may have received in death "Just Like the physical body Jesus had", did.

    Yet, I'm gonna go out on a limb and make the assumption that you believe our resurrected "physical" Bodies will be Fully healed of all wounds and thus be in superior physical condition to Christ's resurrected physical body..

    Here's the Rub...You Can't simultaneously claim "there will be No difference, our bodies will be JUST LIKE HIS" and "well, they wont be EXACTLY alike", especially when your claim amounts to the difference resulting in our bodies being in superior physical condition to His....

    Once you argue for a difference between ours and His, you nullify your argument against there being a difference.

    Not positionally, no.

    Location.

    They didn't believe that after physical death, they would one day be clothed in a "spiritual body that God gives them", as Paul taught. I agree they didn't believe this. In contrast, As I DO believe what Paul taught, I'm confident you agree the Sadducees did not believe as I do, about the resurrection.

    That's why they were "sad, you see". :)
    And, Since I do not, by any stretch, Deny that there is a resurrection, and rather I AFFIRM that there is a resurrection, complete with Literal Resurrected Bodies Given to us By God, I'm confident you (or at least our readers) can see the straw man you've created by comparing my view to theirs, as they are nothing alike.

    Here's where we part ways...I don't see how you've shown this with any of the above texts.

    Metaphorical belief in "eternal life through perpetual offspring" is indeed a denial of the resurrection.

    Believing, as I do, that the resurrection Body is a Spiritual Body that God Gives us, and the Body that is sown is not the body that shall be, Just as Paul Taught, is hardly any belief akin to anything the Sadducees held or professed.

    You haven't shown where the Bible connects the two?

    Denial that Jesus was Born a Physical Human in the flesh Flesh, as the Gnostics, is antichrist.

    You appear to apply only supposition to extrapolate this to the resurrection of believers.

    Close enough.

    OK....

    Rather, the text is quite specific, its "the sons who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead" are the ones who neither marry nor are given in marriage... Jesus is describing a reality FOR THE DEAD who have been RESURRECTED. Nothing is mentioned about marrying and being given in marriage changing BEFORE physical death from one age to the other.

    You are conflating two separate realities:

    "that age" and "the resurrection from the Dead" but I don't see your scriptural instruction to do so.

    For the reasons stated, I don't notice that at all.

    You are waiting. There is a reason the doctrine is called the resurrection FROM THE DEAD. You have to be Dead first.

    Yes.
    What do you think happens?

    You go to heaven as a Bodiless spirit and wait to be reunited with your Reconstituted physical Body at some future date? - If so, I'd like to see the scriptural teaching that you believe supports this.

    Again you conflate the transition of Ages with the resurrection from the dead, which is fine, but it fails to take into account the Need to be DEAD before you can attain "the resurrection from the Dead"

    Paul Clears that up.

    6 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

    Paul testifies this is not a simultaneous event.
    Luke 24:39
    39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

    I have no disagreement that Christ Post resurrection/Pre Glorification Body was the very same physical Body that Hung on the cross. The Very same Body that could walk on water and pass through Hostile crowds untouched. It was unchanged.

    Continued.....
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2021
  18. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +4,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    You Bring up a passage (1 John 3:2) that fully supports my contention. John was an eyewitness to the Post Resurrection/Pre Glorification Body of Jesus, and here he states unequivocally that he still had not “seen” Jesus “as He is”.

    Clearly John understood that something happened to Christ's Body at or after the ascension that changed it in some way from it's pre ascension-post resurrection form. And For Sure, John's Depictions of Christ's heavenly Body in the Revelation bear NO Physical resemblance to the one that Hung on the Cross and subsequently Rose from the Grave and appeared to many... (Revelation 1:13-16, Revelation 5:6, etc...)
    I contend that "change" was the Glorification, which came no earlier than Acts 1:9, and it is unto THAT body that ours will be fashioned, and not unto His pre glorification, wound riddled Body that came out of the tomb.

    The reason there are differences in the way we are raised and the way in which Christ was raised is because of those Biblically defined differences between Christ's body and ours. Differences such as:
    Christ is the only one who is both fully God and fully Man -- God incarnate. (John 1:1-18). Christ is the only one who was virgin born, and, therefore, born without original sin. (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:12-21; 7:4-11; etc.). Christ is the only one who ever lived a sinless life. (Heb. 4:15). Christ is the only one promised that his flesh would not suffer decay. (Acts 2:27,31). This is clear NT teaching.

    His human body was not subject to original sin, nor corruptible (i.e. He was "impeccable"), nor did He ever commit sin and become corrupted. Because of this, He could keep His selfsame body, whereas, we cannot.
    Unless Jesus' body had been resurrected, His disciples would have had no assurance that His soul had been to Hades and had been resurrected.

    The physical resurrection of Christ was essential to verify the spiritual, to which it was tied. While, Just Like the concept of retaining our wounds in our resurrected bodies “Just Like Jesus did” would have no point, the physical resurrection of our bodies would likewise have no point, since we will not continue living on this planet, breathing earth's oxygen, and eating earth's food after we die physically, and of course, unlike Jesus, we will not have to PROVE our resurrection to anyone.
    Or, it was seen.

    Paul plainly shows that the "man of sin" was one of his own contemporaries who was at that time being restrained from the seizure of the Jerusalem Temple by some restrainer there:

    And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.

    The Holy Spirit was not the restrainer, and the "man of sin" is a man, one who was alive and grown and was accomplishing his role in Paul's generation. That is what the text says. The man of sin was alive in Paul's day. What more proof do we need??

    The reason it is right to assign 2 Thess 2 to the event of the Temple takeover by the messianic Zealots at AD 66-70 is:

    (1) Paul says the man of sin was already in action at the time he is writing and that the Thessalonians knew the man and what was restraining that man -- such is a then-contemporary issue

    (2) History shows that the Zealot false messianic movement indeed arose in Israel, indeed captured the Holy Temple, and indeed launched a national rebellion that culminated in the destruction of the nation and Temple

    (3) There are *many* day-of-the-Lord judgments throughout history, and the bible counts AD 70 as one of them

    The man of sin was being restrained in the first century, and the Thessalonians knew who was restraining that man before his takeover of the Jerusalem Temple at AD 66-67. It was obviously a first-century event.
    Again, The man of sin was alive at the time Paul is speaking (2 Thess 2:7). His accomplices in his work of rebellion were the "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6), Judaizers who were set apart to receive God's wrath for their persecution of the apostles that were spreading the gospel of Christ to all the gentiles (1 Thess 2:14-16; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6). Judas, a member of the Zealots, had been a part of this political movement, and thus was called "son of perdition" (Jn 17:12/2 Thess 2:3). Judas was acting along with this key political movement when he betrayed Christ to the rulers. The Zealot movement was a violent terrorist movement, and it took over the Temple in AD 66 [the Sicarii (dagger-men terrorists)], launching the Jewish Civil War and Great Revolt against Rome that ended in the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem, and most of Israel's cities.

    So, As to the "man of lawlessness/the son of perdition," scripture makes it clear that he was being restrained from siezing control of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem at the time Paul was writing to the Thessalonians (see: 2 Thess 2:6-7)

    We don't need extra biblical confirmation as to the exact Identity of the Man of Sin to affirm he was a contemporary of Paul's. The passage itself shows He was already a blood pumping, air-breathing, grown Human MAN at the time Paul wrote the passage, and the Thessalonians already knew who was restraining him from his takeover of the temple. This man's lawlessness was already at work in the nation of Israel in Paul's day; only he who then restrained this anarchy continued to do so until he was taken out of the way. And then the lawless one was revealed (2 Thess 2:7-8). This, of course, took place at the Jerusalem Temple within about 10 years of Paul's writing. Whoever he was, he was one of these men. even though we need no extra biblical confirmation of his exact identity to confirm He indeed fulfilled Paul's Prophesy in his generation for the reasons I stated, If you must have a name, Manehem ben Judah Fits the Bill perfectly, as he indeed had himself crowned as the messiah-king in the Temple

    So the passage has a fulfillment clearly contemporary with Paul and the 1st century Thessalonians exactly as Paul stated. That 2 Thess 2 passage MUST be past in fulfillment.

    Next, we know that the phrases "brightness of his presence" and "spirit of his mouth" don't require a physical incarnation of God, for they never require such anywhere else in the bible when that language is used of God's judgments (see: Ps 44:3, Jer 4:26; Nahum 1:1,5; Isa 30:30-31).

    The Jews understood that God governs human events and brings calamities upon nations as His personal judgments. It was through the eyes of faith that Elisha saw God's warring chariots of fire all around during a human battle (2 Kings 6:17). It was through the eyes of faith that Gideon raised his own sword and shouted "the Sword of the Lord" (Judges 7:20-22). It was with the eyes of faith that King David could say of his defeat of King Saul:
    "Smoke went up out of [God's] nostrils, fire from His mouth devoured; coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. And He rode on a cherub and flew; And He appeared on the wings of the wind. And He made darkness canopies around Him, a mass of waters, thick clouds of the sky. From the brightness before Him coals of fire were kindled. The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered His voice. And He sent out arrows, and scattered them, Lightning, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of His nostrils." (2 Sam 22:8-16)

    Likewise it was with the eyes of faith that Jesus labeled the destruction of their country the "coming of the Lord of the Vineyard" and "the Stone which crushes them" (Matt 21:40-45). You see, the Jews understood the rise and fall of nations and empires as God's doing. In none of these instances was a physical incarnation required. And yet in all of these instances God LITERALLY came and waged war and did countless deeds.

    I’ve already laid that out but will do so again. We already Know that Hades contained two separate Holding Tanks, one for the wicked and one for the righteous, separated by a great gulf. Jesus went to the Righteous Side (Paradise) with the thief that day… To insist that Jesus took the unatoned with Him to heaven BEFORE His own resurrection is putting the cart before the horse. And Lest you argue that it happened at the ascension, Scripture tells us We know the earthly temple was a copy of heavenly order. The most holy place being an earthly copy of heaven, where God's presence resides.
    Hebrews 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these

    The author of Hebrews states, in relation to the high priest going into the most holy place once a year, that the way into the holy places is not yet open while the 1st tabernacle is having (present tense) a standing (often used in scripture in regards to sedition or dissension). The author even adds WHICH IS SYMBOLIC FOR THE PRESENT AGE

    Hebrews 9:8-9 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first tabernacle is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age).

    Paul goes into even greater detail tying the resurrection of the Dead into Gods Heaven to the temple's destruction:

    Paul clearly taught the resurrection was ABOUT TO happen in their lifetimes -- Acts 24:15; Romans 13:11, 1 Thess 4:15. Indeed the fact that Christ was called the "FIRSTFRUITS" indicates the whole harvest is present, and not thousands of years off.

    Paul ties the victory of resurrection to the end of the LAW AGE, when the early followers of Jesus would cease to observe the Law of Moses (which they did observe up to AD 70). It was when the Mosaic System was destroyed that the victory of resurrection would happen: Paul writes:

    1 Corinthians 15:54-56
    and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW

    Look very closely at the saying that "death is swallowed up in victory." Look how Paul ties it to the end of the Age of the Mosaic Law and NOT the end of the New Covenant Age (which had barely even begun yet). Paul writes:

    'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades is thy victory?' And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW -- 1 Cor 15:55-56

    It was The Law of Moses that was preventing the saints from entering Heaven due to it's condemnation of the saints. Paul sees the victory over death to be tied to the removal of the Law Age, which was centered in the Temple system instituted by God and not destroyed until AD 70. Christ had very much to say about the destruction of the Temple.

    Paul was living in the last days of the Old Testament Age when Resurrection was about to happen (Romans 13:11; Acts 24:15), -- it was even to occur in their lifetimes as Paul fully expected and taught (1 Thess 4:15 -- "WE who are alive and remain..."). Acts 24:15 says:

    Acts 24:15
    having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that THERE IS ABOUT TO BE a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous (Young's LITERAL translation)

    Indeed, Jesus was resurrected out of Hades at AD 30 and Paul was expecting the rest of the O.T. saints to exit Hades and join Christ in Heaven's bliss very, very, soon. They hadn't yet, but Paul promised that the Hebrews 11 O.T. saints were destined to receive their promise in Paul's generation (Hebrews 11:39-40).

    Does Paul tie Resurrection (which he taught was ABOUT TO happen in their lifetimes -- Acts 24:15; Romans 13:11, 1 Thess 4:15) to the end of the New Covenant Age? Absolutely not. Does Paul tie the institution of Resurrection to the end of the Old Testament Age? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES. Paul ties the institution of Resurrection to the removal of THE OLD COVENANT LAW OF MOSES. Paul teaches that the sting and victory of death (which futurists teach have not yet been eradicated) exists due to SIN POWERED BY THE LAW OF MOSES! (1 Cor 15:56). Look at it carefully one last time:

    1 Corinthians 15:54-56
    and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up in victory where, O Death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades is thy victory?'[56] And the sting of the death is sin, AND THE POWER OF SIN IS THE LAW.

    When the Temple was destroyed at the last trump at AD 70 the dead O.T. saints were instantly taken to Heaven to be with Christ in their eternal inheritance. They are there now and we, the living, are caught up to be with them instantly and exactly as 2 Cor 5:1-2 states:

    2 Corinthians 5:1-2
    For we know that if the earthly house of our tent is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. For most assuredly in this we groan, longing to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven

    None of this of course NEGATES the yet future CREEDAL consummation into the FINAL ETERNAL STATE of all things, The timing and details of which have not been revealed to Men (Deuteronomy 29:29)
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2021
  19. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +4,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I find it interesting how your use the phrase to contrast "a more literal futurist sense, or a more figurative preterist sense" then go on to apply "a more figurative sense" to the scriptures I asked you to comment on...

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to go ahead and un-cement "Figurative" from "Preterist" in your vernacular, if you are going to FULLY rely on a figurative interpretation of specific passages to support your futurism.
    Just a thought.

    The "soon" events in the OT were either contextually bound to apply only to the end time generation, or had a Typological Contemporary application that was literally SOON for them.

    That's the difference.

    And Typology is a time-bound hermeneutic. Those shadows of the O.T. foretold the story of the Messianic Advent via things familiar to the Jews' way of life. Once Christ is come the shadows are done away (Col 2:16-17). The heavenly things that arrived in Christ's advent are the object for which the types only were shadows (Heb 8:4-5). These heavenly New Covenant things are the final destiny. The Law contained the shadow but not the very image of such great things (Heb 10:1-2). We have the heavenly things now. They have been delivered and they are the END product, not the mere means to some future and better end product. The eternal New Covenant IS the destination. One could say that the entire book of Hebrews, from chapter 1 to chapter 13, argues this exact point. The biblical answer answering this whole question is written down as the book of Hebrews (all).

    What happens when we apply a TYPOLOGICAL reading to New-Covenant-Age things as if they were mere types (i.e., as if they were the MEANS to some end and not the end itself)?
    What happens is that the Cross and blood of Jesus then becomes a mere TYPE of some future and TRUE salvation for the whole world that hasn't happened yet. The many other N.T. fulfillments are then made TYPES as well. This runs exactly contrary to the understanding of the writer of Hebrews and Paul (assuming they are not the same). To them, the New Covenant consists in and of the TRUE HEAVENLY THINGS for which all prior earthly types merely pointed to.

    To the apostles, the New Covenant is the end goal. It is Messiah. It is the HEAVENLY THINGS and, therefore, the final covenantal state. The Old Testament Era was the earthly administration where the many types were not effectual in accomplishing the salvation they pointed to. Once the effectual Messianic religion came and atonement was made, there is no more need for types and shadows. The object has come and the shadows are passed away.

    Finally, I believe Jesus Christ truly addressed the issue clearly when he instructed the apostles that ALL things written concerning Him MUST be fulfilled (Luke 24:44-47)...and then Jesus actually gives THE terminus for WHEN all those things written would be fulfilled -- namely, the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22). So the shadows are fulfilled in the present, eternal, New Covenant Age that was ushered in during the last days period of the typological Old Testament Age. The New Covenant delivered REALITIES, and not mere types and shadows.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2021
  20. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    +415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Jesus was God on earth. His physical body does not need to be changed without scars.

    Adam's flesh and blood is corruptible. It returns to dust, not restored. Those in Christ go from an earthly corruptible tent into a permanent incorruptible body in Paradise. That is an immediate resurrection, or as Christ put it, not even tasting death. Those is Christ are no longer bound to this corruptible flesh. They have a permanent body made by God in Paradise, and immediately. There is no holding place for the soul, that only pertains to the OT phenomenon called Abraham's bosom.

    Only our current corruptible bodies need a resurrection from sin and death.
     
Loading...