This generation

[Timtofly]

So if a Christian was spiritually dead before salvation and they are now spiritually alive, by what means does Scripture say we are brought from death into newness of life?

Not dead. Not born yet. We are not dead prior to conception. We have to be born first, live, and then die.

Paul was saying in Adam is death. Not that we are dead even before birth.

 

[rwb]

Not dead. Not born yet. We are not dead prior to conception. We have to be born first, live, and then die.

Paul was saying in Adam is death. Not that we are dead even before birth.

There is some part of mankind at birth that is apparently dead in trespasses and sins, what part of mankind is Paul referring to?

Ephesians 2:1 (KJV) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5 (KJV) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Colossians 2:13 (KJV) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Romans 6:13 (KJV) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Ephesians 5:14 (KJV) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

1 Timothy 5:6 (KJV) But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have no idea what your argument is here. It’s a simple question. Do you believe the vineyard owner destroyed the wicked tenants in 70ad? Yes or no?

What was your reason for asking this question? I think it's because you think that if the answer is yes then that parable can be used as evidence that Jesus came in 70 AD. If so, then you need to realize that the vineyard owner represents God the Father. So, with that in mind, why would you use that parable as evidence to support your claim that Christ came in 70 AD (if that's what you're attempting to do - please correct me if I'm wrong about that)?

 

[DavidPT]

Give me one good reason why neither Matthew nor Mark would think it was worthwhile to record His answer to that question?

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

Right after verse 14 is apparently when the end is meaning. Meaning that Matthew 24:15 begins the time of the end, thus leads to the literal end at the end of it all.

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: )

In Luke 21 it never records that this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come, prior to verse 20. But why not? It records it in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, prior to mentioning the AOD. That is because Luke 21:20 doesn't involve the end, but that Matthew 24:15 through the remainder of that chapter does. Clearly, this in Matthew 24:3---and of the end of the world--does not involve anything recorded in Luke 21:20-23, yet involves what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-51.

Nothing recorded in Matthew 24:15-51 involves anything recorded in Luke 21:20-23. And that is the problem with some of these interpretations, including yours. You have some of Matthew 24:15-51 involving Luke 21:20-23 when none of it is. Even though Preterists are just as wrong as you are about some of these things, at least they are being consistent about things. Unlike you, though they too have Matthew 24:15 paralleling Luke 21:20, they don't have the sun going dark 2000 years after when they have Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-23 meaning.

Matthew 24:21 is not meaning persecution of unbelieving Jews in the first century, it is meaning the persecution of the church. Even though the church was being persecuted in the first century, it was never at a level that matches any of the following.

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.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

It seems unreasonable to assume the elect meant in verse 22 are meaning unbelieving Jews in the first century. If meaning them, verse 22 would have to be understood like such----And except those days should be shortened, there should be no unbelieving Jews remaining alive: but for the unbelieving Jews' sake those days shall be shortened.

But if we have the elect in verse 22 meaning the church, that verse would be basically saying this---And except those days should be shortened, there should no saint of the church remaining alive: but for the church's sake those days shall be shortened. Which then totally disagrees with what happened in 70 AD, that the church would have gone extinct had not those days been shortened. History records that most of the church, or maybe even all of, exited to safety, not instead stayed behind and were slaughtered with the unbelieving Jews.

But let's not factor in one single thing I posted in any of the above, let's just insist that Matthew 24:15 is involving the same period of time Luke 21:20 is involving. Thus there is really nothing to debate.

While I can't explain what Jesus meant by fleeing into the mountains in Matthew 24, if not meaning pertaining to 70 AD, well there's a lot of things I can't explain in the NT, and probably neither can you, but that doesn't have to mean it is therefore literally involving what it appears to be saying.

For example.

Revelation 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.


If I can't explain what this means, and that if you can't explain what that means either, does that then mean we have no choice but to take it to literally mean what it says, that, though one wishes to die, it is impossible to die during this 5 month period?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Quoting Fullness of the Gentiles:

Paul's doctrine regarding the Resurrection from the dead
(1 Corinthians 15:4; 12-23, 35-36, 42-45, 50-57):
But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what [σῶμα sōma] body do they come?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the verses below are the key to correctly understand Jesus and His apostles' resurrection doctrine, because without exception each and every passage and verse in the New Testament which talks about the resurrection (rising again), is unambiguously talking about the resurrection of the body (σῶμα sōma) from the dead, in the day that the body is raised a spiritual body:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive [ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō] unless it dies.

So also the [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised in power; it is sown a natural body [σῶμα sōma], it is raised a spiritual body [σῶμα sōma]. There is a natural body [σῶμα sōma], and there is a spiritual body [σῶμα sōma].

And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?"

And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no exceptions in the New Testament. All the verses talking about the resurrection are talking about the resurrection of the body.

***FOG, I wanted to show you something often overlooked in the passage from Paul. There are other verses I will address also, but for now I offer this. Paul is showing us how in death the believer goes to heaven a spiritual body. He is showing us both the spiritual rising of believers in death, and also showing us the bodily resurrection when the last trumpet sounds.

1 Corinthians 15:44 (KJVSL) It is sown σπείρω a natural ψυχικός body σῶμα; it is raised ἐγείρω a spiritual πνευματικός body σῶμα. There is ἐστί a natural ψυχικός body σῶμα, and καί there is ἐστί a spiritual πνευματικός body σῶμα.

Our natural body being dead and buried is raised a spiritual body, because there is a natural body AND a spiritual body. Since in death we are raised a spiritual body, we need to understand what a spiritual body means.

Spiritual - pneumatikós - non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (dæmoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:—spiritual

We become a spiritual body before our natural mortal body is raised to life again.

That's not what Paul taught. He taught that the dead in Christ will be raised and that we will all be changed to have a spiritual body at the last trumpet which is when Christ returns. Our natural, mortal body will be resurrected at that time and changed into a spiritual, immortal body.

That's because in life we have already been quickened by His Spirit in us. Our mortal body too will also be quickened by His Spirit, but not until the last trumpet sounds the return of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJVSL) And καί so οὕτω it is written γράφω, The first πρῶτος man ἄνθρωπος Adam Ἀδάμ was made γίνομαι εἰς a living ζάω soul ψυχή; the last ἔσχατος Adam Ἀδάμ was made εἰς a quickening ζωοποιέω spirit πνεῦμα.

1 Corinthians 15:46 (KJVSL) Howbeit ἀλλά that was not οὐ first πρῶτον which is spiritual πνευματικός, but ἀλλά that which is natural ψυχικός; and afterward ἔπειτα that which is spiritual πνευματικός.

The natural, or mortal body of flesh came first, then in death after our mortal body dies comes a spiritual body, that ascends to heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:47 (KJVSL) The first πρῶτος man ἄνθρωπος is of ἐκ the earth γῆ, earthy χοϊκός: the second δεύτερος man ἄνθρωπος is the Lord κύριος from ἐκ heaven οὐρανός.

1 Corinthians 15:48 (KJVSL) As οἷος is the earthy χοϊκός, such τοιοῦτος are they also καί that are earthy χοϊκός: and καί as is οἷος the heavenly ἐπουράνιος, such τοιοῦτος are they ἐπουράνιος also καί that are heavenly ἐπουράνιος.

First we are a body of earth, earthy, and in death we will be a heavenly spiritual body, as are the angels, and as is the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:49 (KJVSL) And καί as καθώς we have borne φορέω the image εἰκών of the earthy χοϊκός, we shall φορέω also καί bear φορέω the image εἰκών of the heavenly ἐπουράνιος.

Just as we were the image of the earthy body, made of dust/clay, we will bear the image of the heavenly, spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:50 (KJVSL) Now δέ this τοῦτο I say φημί, brethren ἀδελφός, that ὅτι flesh σάρξ and καί blood αἷμα cannot οὐ δύναμαι inherit κληρονομέω the kingdom βασιλεία of God θεός; neither οὐδέ doth κληρονομέω corruption φθορά inherit κληρονομέω incorruption ἀφθαρσία.

Since mortal, earthy bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God, we as spiritual body will wait in heaven with the Lord until the resurrection and quickening of our mortal body. Then with immortality, and incorruption, without sin we are complete living soul once more to inherit the new heavens and the new earth.

1 Corinthians 15:51-58 (KJV) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

First we are raised to spiritual body after our body succumbs to death, then on the last day, when the last trumpet sounds the return of our Lord, our mortal body too will be resurrected and quickened by the Spirit to live with Christ throughout eternity.

I disagree. I think you're missing what Paul was teaching there about the timing of believers having a spiritual body. That does not occur upon death, it will occur when Christ returns at the last trumpet in the future.

Our current physical bodies are natural, corruptible and mortal. When the dead in Christ are raised at the future return of Christ they will be resurrected, and along with those who are still alive at the time, will be changed to have spiritual, incorruptible and immortal bodies. Our bodies will be considered to be spiritual rather than natural at that point because only spiritual bodies can be immortal while natural bodies are mortal.

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Notice in the passage above that Paul is contrasting our current bodies with the kind of bodies we will have in the future. We will not have another type of body until the resurrection of the dead that occurs when Christ returns at the last trumpet. Notice that the natural body is raised a spiritual body. There is no bodily resurrection that occurs upon death. That will occur in the future when Christ returns. So, what Paul was saying in the passage above is that the corruptible, dishonorable, weak and natural bodies of the dead in Christ will be raised in the future as incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual bodies. That has not yet occurred for any of the dead in Christ. The idea that anyone besides Christ yet has a spiritual body is not taught in 1 Corinthians 15.

We all will be changed at the same time when Christ returns at the last trumpet and it is not until then that we will have spiritual, incorruptible, immortal, glorious and powerful bodies.

There is a reason why John says that he saw the souls of the dead in Christ in passages like Revelation 6:9-11 and Revelation 20:4. And that is because their bodies have not yet been raised and changed. If they already had spiritual bodies, as you're saying, then why would John have said he saw their souls?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.(does not involve what happened in 70 AD)

Right after verse 14 is apparently when the end is meaning. Meaning that Matthew 24:15 begins the time of the end, thus leads to the literal end at the end of it all.

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: )

In Luke 21 it never records that this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come, prior to verse 20. But why not? It records it in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, prior to mentioning the AOD. That is because Luke 21:20 doesn't involve the end, but that Matthew 24:15 through the remainder of that chapter does. Clearly, this in Matthew 24:3---and of the end of the world--does not involve anything recorded in Luke 21:20-23, yet involves what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-51.

Nothing recorded in Matthew 24:15-51 involves anything recorded in Luke 21:20-23. And that is the problem with some of these interpretations, including yours. You have some of Matthew 24:15-51 involving Luke 21:20-23 when none of it is. Even though Preterists are just as wrong as you are about some of these things, at least they are being consistent about things. Unlike you, though they too have Matthew 24:15 paralleling Luke 21:20, they don't have the sun going dark 2000 years after when they have Matthew 24:15-51 and Luke 21:20-23 meaning.

Matthew 24:21 is not meaning persecution of unbelieving Jews in the first century, it is meaning the persecution of the church. Even though the church was being persecuted in the first century, it was never at a level that matches any of the following.

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.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

It seems unreasonable to assume the elect meant in verse 22 are meaning unbelieving Jews in the first century. If meaning them, verse 22 would have to be understood like such----And except those days should be shortened, there should be no unbelieving Jews remaining alive: but for the unbelieving Jews' sake those days shall be shortened.

But if we have the elect in verse 22 meaning the church, that verse would be basically saying this---And except those days should be shortened, there should no saint of the church remaining alive: but for the church's sake those days shall be shortened. Which then totally disagrees with what happened in 70 AD, that the church would have gone extinct had not those days been shortened. History records that most of the church, or maybe even all of, exited to safety, not instead stayed behind and were slaughtered with the unbelieving Jews.

But let's not factor in one single thing I posted in any of the above, let's just insist that Matthew 24:15 is involving the same period of time Luke 21:20 is involving. Thus there is really nothing to debate.

While I can't explain what Jesus meant by fleeing into the mountains in Matthew 24, if not meaning pertaining to 70 AD, well there's a lot of things I can't explain in the NT, and probably neither can you, but that doesn't have to mean it is therefore literally involving what it appears to be saying.

For example.

Revelation 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.


If I can't explain what this means, and that if you can't explain what that means either, does that then mean we have no choice but to take it to literally mean what it says, that, though one wishes to die, it is impossible to die during this 5 month period?

How does anything you said here address my request, which was: Give me one good reason why neither Matthew nor Mark would think it was worthwhile to record His answer to that question? With "that question" being the one they asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. All you're doing is once again telling me how you interpret Matthew 24, as if I didn't already know, but that isn't what I asked for.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years."

If Revelation 20:4-6 is not referring to a 'spiritual' resurrection, but to the resurrection of the body (which is what all other New Testament verses talking about the resurrection are unambiguously referring to), then unless this resurrection took place after the death of Nero on June 9th, A.D 68 (or at some other point in history), it's still coming, because worshiping the beast and his image and receiving his mark on the forehead or in the hand is only written about in two passages: Revelation 13:12-18 and Revelation 20:4.

The first resurrection was Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20;22, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). So, Revelation 20:4-6 is not talking specifically about a spiritual resurrection, but rather is talking about spiritually having part in Christ's bodily resurrection (the first resurrection), which plenty of scripture talks about, such as Romans 6 and Ephesians 2:1-6.

Please answer these questions in relation to what is written in Revelation 20:6.

At what point is it true that the second death has no power over a believer? When they are bodily raised from the dead or at some point before that?

At what point is a believer considered to be a priest of God and of Christ (hint: see 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:5-6)?

At what point did (or will) Christ begin to reign (hint: see Matt 28:18 and Eph 1:19-23)?

At what point does someone enter Christ's kingdom to reign with Him (hint: see Colossians 1:12-13)?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Sounds like you have doctrinal bias.

How so? What basis is there for thinking that any time Jesus referred to "the end of the age" He was not speaking of the same age each time? Otherwise, how can anyone know which age He was talking about?

When it came to ages, He always had 2 in mind: this temporal age and the eternal age to come (Luke 20:34-36). I believe our understanding of the end of the age should be based on that and not based on doctrinal bias that makes any given reference by Jesus to "the end of the age" to be the end of whatever age fits your doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
— Matthew 28:18-20

Can you explain exactly how you think this passage talks about the way that all of Christ's enemies will be defeated?

 

[DavidPT]

How does anything you said here address my request, which was: Give me one good reason why neither Matthew nor Mark would think it was worthwhile to record His answer to that question? With "that question" being the one they asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. All you're doing is once again telling me how you interpret Matthew 24, as if I didn't already know, but that isn't what I asked for.

I gave you plenty of reasons, that being that it doesn't add up if Matthew 24:15 is involving what Luke 21:20 is involving. For one, it contradicts who the elect are meaning in Matthew 24. It contradicts that great tribulation is the persecution of the church, not persecution of the unbelieving Jews in the first century. You would think if the great tribulation He was referring to in Matthew 24:21, that this is pertaining to unbelieving Jews at the time, that He would have at least had some unbelieving Jews sitting among them at the mount of Olives. But He didn't.

 

[Timtofly]

OK so Jesus did not rise from physical death?

How did that universally defeat death for all humanity? It was the proof that death could be defeated, and was defeated for Christ. All the OT redeemed in Abraham's bosom defeated death. They are now physically in Paradise.

Are you saying, because you claim the physical resurrection is not until the last day, then death is not defeated either?

Death is defeated when cast into the LOF. The sting of death was removed at the Cross, because those who accepted Salvation no longer taste death. They do not wait in the grave, as death never happens for them. The soul immediately receives a permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise.

Most here do not allow death to be defeated since the Cross, then argue that the Resurrection of Christ was the final defeat of death. They are the one's mixed up in their interpretations. The lost still die. Death was not defeated for them.

What was defeated when Christ arose?
What was defeated at any physical resurrection?
What was defeated when Death was cast into the LOF?

What stopped when Christ arose?
What stopped at any physical resurrection?
What stopped when Death was cast into the LOF?

Do all these events happen at the same time?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I gave you plenty of reasons, that being that it doesn't add up if Matthew 24:15 is involving what Luke 21:20 is involving. For one, it contradicts who the elect are meaning in Matthew 24. It contradicts that great tribulation is the persecution of the church, not persecution of the unbelieving Jews in the first century. You would think if the great tribulation He was referring to in Matthew 24:21, that this is pertaining to unbelieving Jews at the time, that He would have at least had some unbelieving Jews sitting among them at the mount of Olives. But He didn't.

Those aren't reasons as to why Matthew and Mark would think it was not worthwhile for them to record His answer to the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. I'm asking why you think Matthew and Mark decided to not record His answer to that question. So far, you have not answered that question.

All you're doing is telling me how you interpret Matthew 24, but you're not telling me why you think Matthew didn't record Jesus's answer to the question of when the temple buildings would be destroyed.

I already know how you interpret Matthew 24 and Luke 21, so I am not asking you to tell me that.

 

[claninja]

That's how you see it, but in my view you have no reasonable explanation for how the end of the age occurred in 70 AD

That’s not really an argument. The dispensationalist can also argue that Matthew and marks “AOD” is a different event than Luke’s “armies surrounding Jerusalem” because “that’s how they see it”. Such argument is biased, believing the presupposition is true.

Especially in relation to how Jesus viewed the end of the age in terms of it being the end of this temporal age during which people get married and die (Luke 20:34-36). And, in my view, you also have no viable explanation for how your understanding of the end of the age fits with what Jesus said in passages like Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50.

the disciples’ associated the end of the age with the destruction of the temple and coming of Christ, hence their question.

Christ said “this generation” will not pass away until all these things occur. Thus, end of the age is with the disciples generation, which can also be supported with

1.) they believed it was the last days (acts 2:16-17)

2.) they believed the end “had drawn near” (1 peter 4:7)

3.) they believed it was the last hour (1 john 2:18)

4.) they believed Christ would come in a little while and without delay (Hebrews 10:37)

5.) they believed the coming of the lord “had drawn near” (James 5:8)

6.) they believed the ends of the ages had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11)

So, until you provide a much stronger explanation for how the end of the age could have possibly occurred in 70 AD, the type of argument you're making here holds no water as far as I'm concerned. It's clear to me that in the Olivet Discourse Jesus spoke of separate local and global events that would occur at different times in history. That can most clearly be seen in Luke 21. Luke 21:20-24 describes a local event in and around Jerusalem which occurred around 70 AD and Luke 21:25-36 describes a future global event (Christ's second coming which will result in heaven and earth passing away - just like Peter prophesied in 2nd Peter 3) that would occur when the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled.

So the disciples knew it wasnt the end of the age and didn’t believe Christ would come soon?

 

[claninja]

No. What prompted you to ask that question? When I talked about the entire earth being destroyed, I was talking about the entire earth surface and not saying the earth itself was completely annihilated. Which I would think should be obvious, but I guess you need something like that spelled out to you?

Not following. Peter compares the heavens and earth as being destroyed with the flood, but you only believe the surface was destroyed, not the heavens?

do you believe the language of the “removal” of the earth or sky “rolling g back as a scroll” is literal?

 

[claninja]

What was your reason for asking this question? I think it's because you think that if the answer is yes then that parable can be used as evidence that Jesus came in 70 AD. If so, then you need to realize that the vineyard owner represents God the Father. So, with that in mind, why would you use that parable as evidence to support your claim that Christ came in 70 AD (if that's what you're attempting to do - please correct me if I'm wrong about that)?

why was Christ accused of blasphemy when he stated he would be coming on the clouds?

I see no problem of Christ equating with the father when coming in judgement upon Israel with “the clouds”

 

[Timtofly]

Saying you disagree doesn't cut it. You avoided all the different passages I presented that forbid your argument. They rebut the idea that 100% of the New Testament resurrection passages teach the resurrection is physical. I refer you back to them.

All you are trying to do is force the physical resurrection to be the same thing as a spiritual birth. The physical is physical. The spirit is spirit. The physical body is no less spiritual than the spirit is spiritual. The spirit is not a physical body. The spirit is what is put on over the physical body. Clothes are physical but they are not a physical body. They are put on over the physical body. They serve a different purpose than the body. So does the spirit. The use of the word "spiritual" is not a body replacement, as in no longer physical. It is that one body comes from Adam. The other physical body comes from God. One is a temporal body of death. The other a permanent body of life. They both are physical, the difference is one dies and returns to dust. The other one cannot return to dust. The permanent one can be taken away, and destroyed by God. Since it was given by God, it can be taken away by God. Spiritual does not imply eternal. Eternal is a separate aspect. Spiritual does not imply non-physical. Spiritual points out it is not a genetic copy of Adam flesh.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That’s not really an argument. The dispensationalist can also argue that Matthew and marks “AOD” is a different event than Luke’s “armies surrounding Jerusalem” because “that’s how they see it”. Such argument is biased, believing the presupposition is true.

I said "in my view you have no reasonable explanation for how the end of the age occurred in 70 AD", so that was the main point I was making in my statement. And I have backed up that point several times in other posts. How am I being biased by pointing this out?

the disciples’ associated the end of the age with the destruction of the temple and coming of Christ, hence their question.

It doesn't matter if they assumed that the destruction of the temple would bring about the end of the age. That doesn't make it so. They were often mistaken about the future at that time, as evidenced by things like the question they asked in Acts 1:6.

Christ said “this generation” will not pass away until all these things occur. Thus, end of the age is with the disciples generation, which can also be supported with

Jesus hasn't come yet and the gathering of the elect hasn't happened yet, so your theory that this generation passed away in 70 AD can't possibly be true.

1.) they believed it was the last days (acts 2:16-17)

It was. And it still is today. The last days refer to the time period from the first coming until the second coming. Scoffers will scoff at the second coming in the last days up until it happens (2 Peter 3:3-4) and it hasn't happened yet.

So the disciples knew it wasnt the end of the age and didn’t believe Christ would come soon?

I don't care about what the disciples thought at the time the Olivet Discourse was given, I care about what Jesus knew.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

why was Christ accused of blasphemy when he stated he would be coming on the clouds?

I see no problem of Christ equating with the father when coming in judgement upon Israel with “the clouds”

You're not really addressing my point here. The parable you referenced said nothing about Jesus coming to destroy His enemies. I'm not surprised that you would try to find a way around that.

 

[Timtofly]

Firstly, none of this rebuts anything Amils believe. Amils believe in spiritual regeneration through spiritual birth. But regeneration involves a spiritual resurrection which causes a spiritual new birth. That is undeniable from studying Scripture. But an unregenerate man is spiritually dead. For someone to move from death unto life requires resurrection (whether natural or spiritual). The human being’s spirit is dead toward the things of God. before conversion. Man from the fall has been imprisoned in darkness and the grave. He needs God’s help to release him. That part of him that fell in the fall and which was in perfect communion with God was turned around in the opposite direction to be at total enmity with Him. Without a resurrection the spiritual man within us remains at total variance to God. That spirit needs quickened and brought back into union and communion with God. This only occurs through spiritual resurrection. In the new birth a person's spirit is made alive (by the quickening work of the Holy Spirit) which involves a spiritual resurrection from death to life. You duck around this in your posts and divert unto irrelevancies. Please address this. The Scriptures I give support this and rebut your claims.

Secondly, Jesus physical resurrection is the first resurrection.

Finally, Amils believe in a future physical resurrection and the one and only future resurrection.

Do you have just one verse that declares a dead spirit? The soul is separated from the spirit. The spiritual birth is about the soul, not getting a new spirit. The soul is brought into the family of God. The soul being dead is a metaphor, not a literal aspect of reality.

We are a soul. That is the one thing that did not change when Adam disobeyed God. The soul lost a permanent incorruptible physical body, and gained a temporal, corruptible, physical body. The spirit was removed and placed in the presence of God. Adam's image became the human image through Seth. The image of God as sons of God was lost.

Adam's soul did not stop functioning. Yet Adam physically and spiritually died. The soul lost both the physical and spiritual image of God. That is what the metaphor and reality of death is.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not following. Peter compares the heavens and earth as being destroyed with the flood, but you only believe the surface was destroyed, not the heavens?

LOL. No, that's not what I'm saying. Are we speaking the same language here? We might as well be speaking two completely different languages. This seems hopeless.

I see no basis for thinking that Peter compared a literal physical event of the past (the flood in Noah's day) to a figurative event in the future. It's clear to me that he was directly comparing like events (that cause mass physical destruction) in a literal way. And you certainly have done nothing to change my mind about that.

do you believe the language of the “removal” of the earth or sky “rolling g back as a scroll” is literal?

No. Why do you ask?