Not according to the definition of "eschatology".Your assumption is that only includes the end of tine events. That’s not true. There are eschatological events throughout scripture.
It means study of last things. That’s then entomology of the word. Your definition is too narrow.Not according to the definition of "eschatology".
Tell that to the dictionary-makers.It means study of last things. That’s then entomology of the word. Your definition is too narrow.
If Christ Himself said "I and my Father are one", that would indicate that the armies of one are the armies of the other. I think you are making a division where none exists.
Wasn't the returning Christ going to be wearing raiment dipped in the blood of His enemies? This "Word of God" would come, in righteousness making war, and "treading the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God". Nobody gets blood from the "winepress" to stain all their raiment by remaining in a far-off location. Christ was in the thick of this AD 70 judgment. It was Jesus's return that would make the tribes mourn when they would look upon Him whom they had pierced.
The Lord whom those Israelites sought would "suddenly come to His Temple". But they would not be able to abide the Day of His coming in AD 70, for He would come like a refiner's fire, thoroughly purging His "floor" - Ornan's threshing-floor site where the Temple had been built. Those Israelites were not able to stand when He appeared back then.
Since you are beholden to the dictionary makers,Tell that to the dictionary-makers.
In response to your claim that Job 14:10-14 proves we'll be regathered from the dust of the ground. Don't see it.This does not contradict the bodily resurrection. All it proves is that all mankind dies, and their mortal life "continueth not" to live forever in that state.
Israel as a nation would rise again, but those nations that were foes would not rise again.I'm glad you included this Ezekiel 37:1-14 prophecy, because I was going to mention this one also. It portrays the "resurrection" of the people of Israel as a united people in the post-exilic return, after their 70 years of being scattered among the nations. God would revive Israel and Judah, using the decrees of the Persians to instigate that revival.
Yet the metaphoric description of HOW that "resurrection" occurred nationally at that time is reflective of just how the Israelites understood a resurrection process to be accomplished. First, the scattered bones of each body came together, "bone to his bone" (no mix-up between each body's parts). Then flesh and sinews came upon those bones, wrapped in skin once more. Then it took the breath of God's Spirit to bring those bodies to a living condition. Metaphorically, it took this step-by-step process to restore Israel and Judah with a rebuilt Temple, and hearts revived to serve their God with His Spirit among them.
This Ezekiel 37 resurrection process is exactly how the individual physical remains of the saints' bodies were changed in the AD 33 resurrection, and the AD 70 resurrection. And it all took place "in the twinkling of an eye". Job knew all about having to wait until his "change" came (Job 14:14-15). God would not forget Job's dead body lying in the grave, but would "have a desire to the work of His hands".
As to the physical bodies of the wicked, (as you have said, those who were the foes of the true Israel of God), Isaiah 26:14 wrote "they shall not rise".
Hebrews 7:28 on declares the nature of the priesthood, nothing about Him remaining in the flesh to do that.The reason for that is found in Hebrews 7:23-25, where the nature of Christ's high priesthood is described (established at His first ascension on His resurrection day). Christ's high priesthood was said to be after the order of Melchizedek, who had no beginning of life nor end of days. That was contrary to the Levitical high priests, who did die physically. "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."
Jesus today still "continueth ever" in that resurrected form that "passed into the heavens", and became a high priest that had been "perfected forevermore" (Heb. 7:28). A high priest was supposed to be one united with the people he was representing before God. If Jesus had not maintained His resurrected human / divine form, He would not have been able to represent us before the Father. Like must represent like. The acceptance of our prayers and our persons before God depends upon this.
No, I'm saying the 144,000 are the firstfruits of the wheat harvest of all 12 tribes. Exodus 34:22 Which is what you make bread from.Here, you are mixing up the Passover First-fruits sheaf handful of barley offered along with the single He-lamb, and the later Pentecost offering of two wheat loaves made with leaven. Two different harvest feast celebrations.
You're assuming too many things not stated.This is Paul saying that the early church had among them some of those "First-fruits" of the Spirit's work of redeeming bodies from the earth. (NOT the same as the "Fruit of the Spirit" of love, joy, etc.) Paul and the church had the example present with them of these resurrected Matthew 27, 144,000 First-fruits which they could see and touch, and they were groaning as they awaited the very same change for themselves, when their own bodies would be "redeemed from the earth" after death. Paul wrote about "the glory which is about to be revealed in us" in those days (Romans being written around AD 60, and the AD 70 bodily resurrection soon to come).
I see Him as the first to rise from Adams death(the day he ate of it death)No, Christ was not the first to be raised from the dead. He was the first to ASCEND to the Father in a resurrected body. No resurrected person had ascended before then. THAT is the definition of being "begotten" by God as the "First-born" and the "First-begotten". As Psalms 2:7-8 predicted about Christ's ascension, "THIS DAY have I begotten thee" was the day when Christ was standing before God in His resurrected body, and was invited to ask His Father to give Him the heathen for His inheritance. Paul stated that this single "day" was fulfilled on Christ's resurrection day in Acts 13:33-34.as to whether the Christ was to suffer, and whether, as first from the resurrection of the dead, He would proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”
Many were raised out of the grave before Christ, but none ascended to the Father in their resurrected bodies until Christ "opened the matrix" as the "First-born" to have ascended to heaven. That was the day when Christ became ordained as the high priest "king", set upon God's holy hill of Zion.
Either there is a trinity or there isn't. If there is a trinity, my view, then it was the Father who sent the armies, not the Son. If it also meant the Son, why didn't it say so? The Father and Son have separate wills. Which means the Father did these things on behalf of His Son.
Not to mention Jesus PRAYED, & said "My Father is greater than I".Either there is a trinity or there isn't. If there is a trinity, my view, then it was the Father who sent the armies, not the Son. If it also meant the Son, why didn't it say so? The Father and Son have separate wills. Which means the Father did these things on behalf of His Son.
If you wanna link all fulfilled Biblical prophecy to eschatology, go ahead. But whenever we see a website discussing it, it's almost always a discussion about end-time events surrounding Jesus' return.Since you are beholden to the dictionary makers,
any system of doctrines concerning last, or final, matters, as death, the Judgment, the afterlife, etc.
Also:
History and Etymology
Greek eschatos last, farthest
Full preterism is false because it's VERY-OBVIOUS Jesus hasn't returned.
Regardless of your distractions over words, it still stands that most of Revelation and Matt 24 are in regards to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Distracting by arguing whether or not it falls within your definition of “eschatology” doesn’t change those truths.If you wanna link all fulfilled Biblical prophecy to eschatology, go ahead. But whenever we see a website discussing it, it's almost always a discussion about end-time events surrounding Jesus' return.
From the other point of view, I think its obvious that both Jesus and apostles taught people that He will return during their life/generation and at least some of them will still be alive to see it.
Its not logically possible to be 2,000 years and still nothing.
So there are two choices:
a) either they were mistaken or the biblical record of their words is wrong
b) He did return but most Christians imagine His return to look differently than how it actually looked like
Before this, there were 10 resurrections of which Lazarus was the latest. There are obviously exceptions to the general rule of Hebrews,
Colossians 1:18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Acts 26:23that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”
Hebrews 7:28 on declares the nature of the priesthood, nothing about Him remaining in the flesh to do that.
You do notice, don't you, that the word "UNTIL the heavens no longer exist" represents the point at which the dead in Christ are "woken from his sleep"? I think you agree with me that the change to the New Heavens and the New Earth took place back in the AD 70 era. This is when conditions of the Old Heavens and the Old Earth were done away with and no longer existed. Which is also when this "awaking from sleep" out of the grave took place for the believers, according to Job.2So a man lies down and does not rise.
Until the heavens no longer exist,
He will not awake nor be woken from his sleep.
13“Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,
That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
14“If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Because we interpret literal things literally and symbolic things symbolically.And these arguments alone, where I too agree with you about, destroy some of Preterism, such as their interpretation of Matthew 24:30. That coming has Him coming in glory. And that coming is meaning after the tribulation of those days meant in Matthew 24:29 and is meaning during or after the stars fall from heaven, also recorded in that verse. I'm not implying the falling stars might be literal. I simply don't know. My point only has to do with the fact the coming recorded in verse 30 is after the falling stars or maybe during it, but certainly not prior to it.
Speaking of falling stars, if one doesn't take those literally, why are these same ones taking what is recorded in Matthew 24:15 literally, that it is literally involving the 2nd temple in the first century?
Do you understand that a falling star would literally annihilate the earth completely? I don't know if you have Amils like me in mind, but that isn't what I believe will happen. I believe the entire surface of the earth will be burned up and not that the entire planet itself down to the core will be all burned up and annihilated completely. I believe the new earth will be this earth renewed and not an entirely different (new) earth.Of course though, since some Amils think this entire planet literally goes up in flames during the 2nd coming, that could mean these same Amils take the falling stars literally as well.
The total destruction of Jerusalem was not something that was done in secret.No; Jesus plainly said His return will be in great power & glory, and as lightning flashes. And even people inside know when lightning flashes!
Exactly, they are long-dead.And in the Rev. He said EVERY EYE will see His return, even those who pierced Him... and those who pierced Him are long-dead.
So, those resurrected people didn't die again?You are assuming those 10 resurrections were exceptions to the Hebrews 9:27 rule of being appointed to die once. They weren't. No scriptures anywhere state that any of these resurrected ones died again. When Hebrews 9:27 plainly declares that to be an impossibility, then you have to go with that expressed truth.
Those 500 who were witnesses of the risen Christ? Those of that group who had since died were obviously NOT members of the Matthew 27 resurrected group who had already died once. Those of the 500 who were said to be still living? Possibly could have been some of the Matthew 27 resurrected saints.
The title "First-born" is indeed unique to Christ alone. That and the "First-begotten" title as well. But this is different than being the "First-fruits", which was a title that the 144,000 also shared along with Christ. I believe you are confusing the First-fruits BARLEY harvest around Passover with the later WHEAT harvest, which came later at Pentecost. It was the BARLEY harvest which had the sheaf handful of First-fruits waved before the Lord, that was accompanied by the single He-lamb without blemish.
That is one translation, but not necessarily an accurate one. In several translations, including the YLT and the Interlinear, Acts 26:23 reads with this sense: "...since the Christ was to be a suffering Christ, and by coming back from the dead was then to be the first to proclaim a message of light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." The emphasis here is not on Christ being the first to rise from the dead in a resurrection, but rather, that after His resurrection, He was the FIRST to proclaim that good news to both the Jews and then the Gentiles. "To the Jew FIRST, and also to the Greek", as the order of evangelism went out from Jerusalem to the nations. That was the gospel message Christ first entrusted to Mary, to the first individual recorded as meeting Him after His resurrection.
Of course it refers to Christ remaining in the flesh in His high priesthood role. His deathless high priesthood (reflective of Melchizedek's) is presented in direct contrast to those former priests "who were not suffered to continue by reason of death" - meaning their PHYSICAL death halted their high priesthood function. In the case of Christ, once He was raised from the dead, He gave testimony to John that "I am He that liveth and WAS dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore..." (Rev. 1:18). "Death hath no more dominion over Him". For Christ's flesh-and-bones, resurrected body to have been discarded would have been a second death for it, which scripture does not allow.
You do notice, don't you, that the word "UNTIL the heavens no longer exist" represents the point at which the dead in Christ are "woken from his sleep"? I think you agree with me that the change to the New Heavens and the New Earth took place back in the AD 70 era. This is when conditions of the Old Heavens and the Old Earth were done away with and no longer existed. Which is also when this "awaking from sleep" out of the grave took place for the believers, according to Job.
Why have you truncated the ending of this last Job 14:14 verse though? The LXX version of this passage is an interesting one. "For if a man should die, shall he live again, having accomplished the days of his life? I will wait TILL I EXIST AGAIN". (or, "till I am MADE AGAIN"). A reconstruction of the original material "made again" into a new condition seems apparent in this text.
Thing is, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THEN, NOR HAS IT HAPPENED YET.The total destruction of Jerusalem was not something that was done in secret.
Exactly, they are long-dead.
He and apostles taught it will happen soon, during their lifetime/generation. The drive and lifestyle of the first church was evidently under the impression of a quickly coming judgement, it can be seen throughout the New Testament.
That’s not even close to what He said. If He wanted to say that, He would have. “This generation”, whenever used, is always about the generation which is being addressed. The plain reading is plain.Thing is, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THEN, NOR HAS IT HAPPENED YET.
The generation that sees the beginning of those things will see them all.
...except it DIDN'T THEN HAPPEN.That’s not even close to what He said. If He wanted to say that, He would have. “This generation”, whenever used, is always about the generation which is being addressed. The plain reading is plain.
IT DID!...except it DIDN'T THEN HAPPEN.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?