What if both are true?

[Beloved Servant]

Good post, Card.



This point in particular is still veiled to most people:
"The resurrection that happened in John's day was the resurrection of those that died prior to 33AD"

[thinktank]

:cloud9: The last day was not 70AD, as the tabernacle pattern shows. Far from it. There are many holes in that theory, not the least of which is a historical text of one Ireaneus (sp) who said that John wrote revelation in the end of Domitain's reign, which puts it's authorship after 70AD, WELL AFTER 70AD, and shoots down the whole Nero as beast thing, especially since Nero died in 66AD. There are many others, but as I have had this conversation before, would prefer not to go there again.

And I explained how He returns, in the "time(S) of refreshing" that it was said would come.

As for the sin issue, He came as a man and took on our sins. Since He was the perfect sacrifice and provision has been made, He doesn't come back in that way again.

The resurrection that happened in John's day was the resurrection of those that died prior to 33AD. There is still a resurrection to come, which is for one thing, why Paul said he was pressing in so if by any means he might attain the resurrection. The error of the Sadducees was that they said the resurrection had come already. Blessings...

What if apostle Paul meant that since he did not know the day or hour of Christs return he being a man of God hope in his return, as he that has this hope purifies himself even as he is pure.

Christians have been looking for Christs return throughout history, because that what Jesus commanded us to do, to make sure that we are ready and not to be neglectful.

Because I see no evidence that a resurection happened in Pauls day, but it is something yet to happen. :2c:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Did you miss the part where many arose from their graves and were seen of many, when He arose? Blessings...

[thinktank]

:cloud9: Did you miss the part where many arose from their graves and were seen of many, when He arose? Blessings...

Ah you saw that too, very few people notice that :thumbsup:

But that resurection was during Christ's time, Paul did not start his ministry yet :2c:

[whome?]

:cloud9: The last day was not 70AD, as the tabernacle pattern shows. Far from it. There are many holes in that theory, not the least of which is a historical text of one Ireaneus (sp) who said that John wrote revelation in the end of Domitain's reign, which puts it's authorship after 70AD, WELL AFTER 70AD, and shoots down the whole Nero as beast thing, especially since Nero died in 66AD. There are many others, but as I have had this conversation before, would prefer not to go there again.

Well I do believe Revelation was written before 70AD, so you not believing it doesn't shoot down anything for me. I can see how you would think differently believing it was written around the year 96.

And I explained how He returns, in the "time(S) of refreshing" that it was said would come.

What you said was "He appears in our "heavens" when we look for Him, as He is NOW, for we'll not know Him after the flesh, but after the Spirit from now on. This is one way He appears, in that AHA! moment of revelation that is quickened to us by and through His Spirit." I didn't understand what you were saying because I do not have a clue to what you mean by this. What do you mean by "heavens" and "AHA! moment of revelation"?

The resurrection that happened in John's day was the resurrection of those that died prior to 33AD.

I was not referring to the time when Christ rose.

There is still a resurrection to come...

Bingo! This is what I was asking about. If all of those verses that talk about the coming resurrection was written before 70AD, then a resurrection in 70AD, "in John's time" would fulfill those verses. CHB seems to think there was a resurrection in John's time, I assumed he meant 70AD.

Now I know just about everyone sees a resurrection to come. But if all the resurrection verses were fulfill in 70AD then how do we know there is another mass resurrection? I think we all agree that each one of us will be resurrected to face judgement. Yet when we talk about a future resurrection we refer to large groups at once, or everyone at once (depending on different beliefs). I am like CHB, it looks to me like a resurrection happen in John's time. Am I sure of it? NO! But studying more on it leads me to wonder if there really was one in 70AD like it looks, from where do we get another future one?

This is the whole reason I came to this forum. I thought this would be talked about more here. I found this site by a search in Google. I searched for "Second Coming 70AD". Which took me to http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew6/D6-TheComingOfChristIn70AD.html

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: This is why I would think this.....these dates showing the years these works were written, were compiled by a Dr. Sickler, based on the opinions of HUNDREDS of scholars.

1 Thessalonians 50
2 Thessalonians 51
Galatians 51.9
1 Corinthians 55.2
2 Corinthians 56.1
Romans 57.1
Philemon 60.3
Philippians 60.3
Ephesians 61.9
Colossians 61.0
James 63.1
1 Timothy 63.8
Titus 64.0
Gospel of Mark 64.1
2 Timothy 65.5
1 Peter 66.9 19
Gospel of Matthew 67.2 
Hebrews 68.8
Gospel of Luke 69.8
2 Peter 72.2
Acts 70.9
Jude 73.2
Gospel of John 86.6
1 John   89.2
2 John 89.6
3 John 90.1
Revelation 92.7

If you don't know how revelation of the Word comes to us in the times of refreshing, which is the same thing as Him appearing in our heavens, spiritually speaking, then it's impossible for me to explain it any further.

I wasn't referring to just HIS resurrection either. It does say in there that when He arose (33AD obviously), many arose WITH HIM, and they were seen of many people. Not positive, CHB will have to answer that, but I don't think she thinks there was a resurrection in 70AD, either.

Since the resurrection took place in 33AD and the scriptures were all written after that date, including the ones talking about a resurrection to come, it is clear to me that a resurrection is to come. Blessings...
   

[micah7:9]

my  :2c:
COMING  G3952  parousia ; a being near, that is, advent (often, return; From the present participle of G3918
G3918  pareimi ; to be near, that is, at hand;
RESURRECTION  G386  anastasis ; a standing up again, that is, (literally) a resurrection from death
(individual, general or by implication (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): -
raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.  From G450
G450  anistēmi ; to stand up (literally or figuratively, transitively or intransitively): - arise, lift up, raise up (again),
rise (again), stand up (-right).

[WhiteWings]

:cloud9: This is why I would think this.....these dates showing the years these works were written, were compiled by a Dr. Sickler, based on the opinions of HUNDREDS of scholars.

Scholars often base their writtings on works of others....
Anyway there are scholars that believe all were writter before 70AD. One of reasons is that the destruction of the Temple is never mentioned...
I'll try to find the article.

[WhiteWings]

As promised a few articles that date the whole NT before 70 AD. (more on request)

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm
http://www.british-israel.ca/Interview.htm
http://www.bethinking.org/resources/the-dating-of-the-new-testament.htm
http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/lives_events/more/canon.shtml
From TentMaker: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/revelation_written_before_70AD_Kiser.htm

Quite a bit to read but worth it....

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: But the destruction of the temple was mentioned......and there are full preterists that are trying to twist the dates so their theory will hold water, and their theory is dependent upon the writings being done before 70AD, obviously. Blessings...

[WhiteWings]

:cloud9: But the destruction of the temple was mentioned......

Where?

and there are full preterists that are trying to twist the dates so their theory will hold water,

Naughty Gary :laughing7:

and their theory is dependent upon the writings being done before 70AD, obviously. Blessings...

The same can be said of other theories.
Some late dates (you mentioned) ever date certain books after the curch fathers referenced to them.
Really if you read the non theological arguments in the links I think you can only conclude they are sound.

BTW Peter, Paul and James died before the dates from your list

[jabcat]

To try and clarify, this is first-hand info;  Gary believes there could be multiple fulfillments of certain things, and stated re: 70 AD, that we need to pay attention to it, that major things happened.  He doesn't rule out future occurrences/events unfolding.  I believe he'd be considered a partial preterist (as am I).

I think your info about the dates of deaths etc is interesting WW.  I know there's conflicting info about it.  If you find more definitive info, plz post it.  Thanks.

[CHB]

BTW Peter, Paul and James died before the dates from your list

Hi WhiteWings,

Just got caught up on reading the post. Haven't been able to respond much, have a very sick husband to take care of.

WW, I think you are right about Peter, Paul, and James being dead before the 90s.

I believe John was the last of the apostles to die because of what Jesus said in (John 21:21-23). "Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?" (Verse 22) Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I COME, what is that to thee? follow me.  (Verse 23) Then went out this saying abroad among the brethern, THAT THAT DISCIPLE SHOULD NOT DIE: yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die; but If I will that he tarry TILL I COME, what is that to thee?"

Some have tried to say that Jesus was talking about Johns epistle  enduring till the end but I believe Jesus meant exactly what he said. Jesus said John would not die until he returned. Was Jesus talking about returning in spirit, such as Pentecost or did he come and get the "firstfruits" that is mentioned in (1Cor. 15:23)?  

(Rev. 1:6-7) And HATH MADE US {past tense} kings and priests unto God and his Father.  (Verse 7) Behold he cometh with clouds ; and every eye shall see him, AND THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM.

In order for those who pierced him to see his return wouldn't he have had to return in their day?

What about these verses in (Rev. 7:14-15) where John sees those who came out of great tribulation? It says they are before the throne of God, and serve him night and day.

I am not saying there won't be another resurrection, I do believe there will be, but it sure sounds like there was one in John's day.


CHB      

[thinktank]

It does say That disciple. Jesus loved John more than the others it seems, I know God loves us all but he does love some more than others sorry to say. Father God loves his son Jesus more than us for example, he also had his favourite disciples, John and Peter.

To me that says only John had a resurection, just like what happened to Enoch. :2c:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I've got a friend that says Paul had one, and chose to stay here to help the others and write about what happened to him.  :dontknow:

[WhiteWings]

I think your info about the dates of deaths etc is interesting WW.  I know there's conflicting info about it.  If you find more definitive info, plz post it.  Thanks.

I think it's best you read all my links. It gives a clearer picture than a few quotes. Anyway as a teaser....

One of the other most disruptive events in the history of the first Christian community was the stoning of the brother of the Lord, James, in 62. We know this because a reliable historian-reliable in the sense that he wasn't someone who wanted to prove Christianity right at all costs-the Jewish historian Josephus, mentions this stoning and gives us the year

Let me give you one other example from the Gospel usually regarded as the latest, John. Most people would say this dates to the late first century. Now, consider the archaeological facts we have these days. For example, in John 5:1 he [John] describes the healing of the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda.

John tells the story in the past tense. But then he tells readers where it happened as if saying: "If you want to see where Jesus did this miracle, then go to the Pool of Bethesda; it's still there," and he describes it.

The pool was rediscovered-exactly the way he described it-earlier this century, but it had been destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans.

Lactantius wrote that Nero crucified Peter, and slew Paul., Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died II; John Chrysostom wrote Nero knew Paul personally and had him killed, John Chrysostom, Concerning Lowliness of Mind 4; Sulpicius Severus says Nero killed Peter and Paul, Sulpicius Severus, Chronica II.28-29.
==> Nero died 9 June 68

There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).

The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

=> Read they were slaughtered by the Romans.

An example of writings with fixed dates are the Qumran or Dead Sea scrolls. We know these were sealed in the caves about 68 AD in advance of the Roman invasion which destroyed the temple. Fragments of several New Testament books may have been discovered among the texts found at Qumran. One, known as 7Q5, has been identified as Mark 6:52-53

As we have seen, there is virtually unanimous agreement that 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were written by Paul at various dates between 48 and 62.

The Qumran fragment of 1 Timothy (if valid) may be evidence that it was written before 68

Acts was probably written just after 62 AD. Scholars are pretty well agreed that Paul's imprisonment in Rome, with which the book ends, takes us up to that year. After building up to Paul's imprisonment and appeal, the author mysteriously breaks off, leaving the story unresolved.

Acts was a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. Therefore Luke (in some form or another) must be dated before 62

So there are much more than just Biblical arguments.

[thinktank]

:cloud9: I've got a friend that says Paul had one, and chose to stay here to help the others and write about what happened to him.  :dontknow:

Paul was killed though, do you mean he was raised from the dead? and then choose to stay upon the earth, just like Jesus after he rose from the dead?

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: No, he's saying that Paul went to the third heaven, COULD have been permanently translated, but CHOSE to "come back" to stay here and help the others and write what happened to him.

[CHB]

:cloud9: No, he's saying that Paul went to the third heaven, COULD have been permanently translated, but CHOSE to "come back" to stay here and help the others and write what happened to him.

Cardinal,

Did your friend get this from what Paul said about being out of body or some other source? How did they come to this conclusion?

CHB

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Yes, basically he says that Paul was referring to himself, that Paul experienced what he wrote about pertaining to it. He may have a point, because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and He does teach by doing a lot of time. Or He just does something, and THEN explains what He did, would be a good way to say it. Blessings...

[thinktank]

he did say "I knew a man" to the common person this means, another person. But something to ponder on, whether Paul did mean himself or another person.

[whome?]

2. Corinthians 12:
1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

A lot of people think that 5th verse means Paul was saying it was himself that was taken up. I studied it quite a bit once and I could not determine that.

It is interesting that the man heard words unlawful for a man to utter.

[thinktank]

I personally think hes talking about John of patmos, but various dates, would have to be known, which is difficult.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Until this friend of mine suggested this, I always thought it referred to Paul's witnessing of Peter's vision, which would be a catching up in the Spirit, at that moment he experienced it. Blessings...

[Beloved Servant]

I always knew it as the Saul/Paul experience.