Tentmaker Forum

What if soul sleep and immortal spirit are both true?

For Adam was told that he dies after eating the fruit. So now being spiritually dead, he could no longer see or hear God and his spirit would decay and also his knowledge of God. His descendands would now cater to the body and ignore the spirit and its needs. So now instead of worshipping God in spirit, they would worship a God they made with hands, something that they could see.

Paganism dominated until Christ came to restore our spirit, and his teachings were borrowed for other religions from being one of worshipping a God which one can see, to worshipping an invisible God, e.g Muslim, buddist.

So people are all spiritually dead and the scriptures say, that they sleep in the dust, but God came to make us alive and we become born again, this time of the spirit, so that Christ says
he that beliveth on me, shall never die. Those that become born again, don't particarly feel anything, I think this is because the reborn spirit, is to small to make an impact, so the bible tells us to feed upon the word of God that we may grow.

In the great white throne judgment, the sleeping spiritually dead are revived by God and brought up to be judged.

The soul sleep verses are all in OT. What if the resurrection of Jesus ended the soul sleep?

QuoteFor Adam was told that he dies after eating the fruit. So now being spiritually dead,

I wonder if that means the spirit is really dead or just 'disconnected'. If not it could mean that the spirit gets resurrected many times during the lifetime of a luke warm Christian.

 :cloud9: I'm doing some more studying on this.....I'll get back to this.....Blessings....

willieH: Hi Thinktank... :hithere:

Don't know everything, but here's how I see it:

The "SPIRIT" is not who we are... As MEN, ...WE are [animated] DUST... Gen 3:19 -- The SPIRIT which animates, is the LIGHT which is CHRIST, which "LIGHTS" [makes alive/animate] every man which enters the world -- John 1:9

The portion of YHVH given to be the "man", "willieH" --- is part of HIM which is just a "part" of the "ALL" that YHVH God, ...IS -- 1 Cor 15:28 

His "CHILDREN", are manifestations of the LIVING KNOWLEDGE which is IN the Heart of YHVH, being manifested "IMAGES" of HIM and HIS KNOWLEDGE which contains GOOD and EVIL...

The WORD is that which CONTAINS this "KNOWLEDGE" -- Gen 3:22 -- and that KNOWLEDGE is that which is being expressed within the manifestation of this realm.

The "SOUL" ceases to BE, when it dies (from its involvement in the manifestation of EVIL )-- Ecc 9:5 -- which is WHY the "death" of each saint [child] of God is PRECIOUS to Him... for said "involvement" is FINISHED.

That which is "beyond" this LIFE is that which was BEFORE it... as ALL the Sons of God shouted for JOY at the Creation -- Job 38:7 -- Luke 15:11-32

It is my opinion, that our PRIMARY goal is to be seeking LOVE, not "knowledge" (knowledge is just a means to the enlightenment of the greater issue)... We should be seeking the revelation of the LOVE which was so MAJESTIC, that it was willing to give up His only Son to redeem and reconcile the Creation which had been given over to the manifestation of EVIL...

KNOWLEDGE is not the ultimate thing... LOVE is... Eph 3:19 -- in LOVE is found the SURPASSING of KNOWLEDGE, and the FULLNESS of GOD... which IS -- ALL in ALL

Quote from: WhiteWings on June 23, 2010, 07:29:54 PM
The soul sleep verses are all in OT. What if the resurrection of Jesus ended the soul sleep?

QuoteFor Adam was told that he dies after eating the fruit. So now being spiritually dead,

I wonder if that means the spirit is really dead or just 'disconnected'. If not it could mean that the spirit gets resurrected many times during the lifetime of a luke warm Christian.

WW,

I have wondered this myself???  Here is something I have come to really think about as being true.

Before Christ no one ascended to heaven. Even up to John no one had ascended to heaven except Christ who came down from heaven. Paul speaks many times about the resurrection as if it will happen any time. All of the apostles expected Christ to return in their day. According to the scriptures such words as, I come quickly, this generation will not pass till all be fulfilled, those who pierced Jesus would look upon him, John living till Christ came back and so forth. In (1Thess. 4) Paul is speaking as if this will take place at that time not 2000 years in the future. Jesus told the 7 Churches "behold I come quickly".

I am not certain of this but from reading all the scriptures, there was a resurrection in John's day and he was the last apostle living when it happened.

I don't think any one has gone on to heaven after they died since that time period. There is another resurrection in the future when Christ comes back again, at least this is where I am at at this point.

If someone has a better answer for all of the scriptures that point to a resurrection and ascension I would like to read them.

CHB

I guess no one has even thought about this? Looks like I am the only one that questions these many scriptures.

CHB

Quote from: CHB on June 24, 2010, 12:55:31 AMWW, I have wondered this myself???

I don't know what you wondered about  :laughing7:

QuoteBefore Christ no one ascended to heaven. Even up to John no one had ascended to heaven except Christ who came down from heaven. Paul speaks many times about the resurrection as if it will happen any time.

You are right about that. Assume for a moment there was soul sleep before Jesus but not after. Not a weird scenario. Jesus is resurrection so it's no suprise He could be the turning point in soul sleep. I would guess soul sleep would end near the resurrection of Jesus. I would say somewhere between His ascending to heaven and say 50 days later. Or perhaps in the extreme when the Temple got destroyed.
For me "soon" is also connected to how time is used (in the Bible). Time is always related to humans. For a human soon isn't 2000 years. I would say more like 2 months at most.

QuoteAll of the apostles expected Christ to return in their day. According to the scriptures such words as, I come quickly, this generation will not pass till all be fulfilled,

What is a generation? The meaning of generation in Hebrew is much wider than in Greek. NT is written in Greek is most often said. But there are also scholars who disagree with that. One of teh Hebrew definitions could also be read as "this age" Or pehaps even "this is the last age of Fathers plan"

WW,

I wondered about the same things you wondered about.  :laughing7:

Thanks for your reply.

Here is something else I wondered about. There are scriptures that mention Christ returning with his saints, who are the saints? Some say, angels but what if they are the FIRSTFRUITS in (1Cor. 15:23). How can Christ be a firstfruits, wouldn't he be a firstfruit? I believe the Concordant says firstfruit, am not sure about this, will have to look it up. In Rev. John is in the process of worshipping who was speaking to him and he tells John I am of your brethern the prophets. Chapter 14 speaks of the hundred and fourty four thousand as if they are in heaven.

These are a few of many scriptures I wonder about.

CHB

I'm wondering if our interpretation of Scripture stating Jesus was the only one who ascended really means no one ever made it into heaven before he did, or since for that matter.  What if that wasn't what he was trying to say at all?  Where did Enoch go when God took him?  Where did Elijah go?  When Peter James and John saw Elijah and Moses, were they really there or was that just an "illusion"?  Was God really just tricking them to see something that really wasn't there?

I get the feeling that not everything is as it appears to be. 

I do like the opening thoughts entertaining the notion that it's referring to spiritual death rather than literal soul sleep.  And again, I still believe death simply means separation . . .disconnection . . .not just absence of life.  I think it has a lot to do with passing from one state to another . . .from one realm over to another.

Quote from: CHB on June 25, 2010, 03:42:35 PMHow can Christ be a firstfruits, wouldn't he be a firstfruit?

First Fruits is the first harvest of the year. It was on the sunday when Jesus' tomb was found empty.
The whole harvest (usually small) is first fruits. But the harvest starts with picking one/few fruits and high priest presents that fruit(s) to the people that gathered at the Temple. (that's how i remember it)
In every harvest there is always something harvested first (and last)
Jesus was the first fruit of the first fruits harvest of that year.

Quote from: WhiteWings on June 25, 2010, 04:04:50 PM

In every harvest there is always something harvested first (and last)
Jesus was the first fruit of the first fruits harvest of that year.

Yes, I believe Jesus was a firstfruit also I am wondering if there wasn't a firstfruits harvest that happened in John's day? Remember Jesus said in (John 4:35) Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

If they were ready to harvest why wait 2000 more years, wouldn't the fruit be ruined, rotten?

CHB

Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.

And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both He that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together."

Folks, Christ Himself is the "sower" who began sowing the seed at the beginning of the harvest season. He said so Himself in Matthew 13:37. He is also the "reaper" who brings the harvest to an end. That is exactly what He is stating in John 4:34. He is the One who will "finish the work" that He began. Praise the Lord!

But when is the work to be finished? Folks, it is exactly four months between the Festival of Pentecost and the Festival of Tabernacles. Count it for yourself. So it is obvious that the Lord met the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well on the day of Pentecost. Folks, the Festival of Tabernacles is the celebration of all the completed harvests [barley...wheat...grape] at the end of the year. But there, on the day of Pentecost, the Lord explicitly told His disciples, "DO NOT SAY.....There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest...." The Lord told His disciples the harvest was ready right then and was being reaped that day. What day? The day of Pentecost!

Folks, the Lord is coming to resurrect and rapture His New Testament saints to glory at the end of the barley harvest on the day of Pentecost. Glory! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!

---

QuoteIf they were ready to harvest why wait 2000 more years, wouldn't the fruit be ruined, rotten?

I believe there is a deep meaning in the harvests. But I also believe it's more complex than just counting days.
If the harvest should have started then because else it would be ruined, then the other harvests should have been completed too by now.
I think the havests are continuously because the sowing (birth) is too.

Quote from: CHB on June 25, 2010, 05:59:06 PM

Quote from: WhiteWings on June 25, 2010, 04:04:50 PM

In every harvest there is always something harvested first (and last)
Jesus was the first fruit of the first fruits harvest of that year.

If they were ready to harvest why wait 2000 more years, wouldn't the fruit be ruined, rotten?

CHB

Jesus was the first seed and if it die it bringeth much fruit. When fruit dies, the seeds in it then multiply and go back into the soil to produce another harvest. So Christ continues to sow seed throughout time, through his saints, who are his servants. :2c:

Quote from: CHB
If they were ready to harvest why wait 2000 more years, wouldn't the fruit be ruined, rotten?

Quote from: WhiteWings
I believe there is a deep meaning in the harvests. But I also believe it's more complex than just counting days.
If the harvest should have started then because else it would be ruined, then the other harvests should have been completed too by now.
I think the havests are continuously because the sowing (birth) is too.

What if that was the only harvest and the next harvest is yet to come because the field isn't white enough to harvest? Maybe it isn't ready yet? Look how long it took for the first harvest to be ready.

CHB

I think there are very good and very evil during every harvest time since creation. So every year has it's first fruit harvests...?

QuoteWhat if that was the only harvest and the next harvest is yet to come because the field isn't white enough to harvest? Maybe it isn't ready yet? Look how long it took for the first harvest to be ready.

If that's the case then the next harvests will be in a very distant future.
A cycle of harvests takes a year. The first harvest was ~4000 years from Adam.
I'm no farmer but I think the fields  for the spring crop is sown in september.
Jesus was sown/born in september and harvested/resurected in April.
Harvest Seasons of Ancient Israel (http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/festivals/harvest.htm)

I think Adam was born in the same month. But most likely another year :laughing7:

QuoteLook how long it took for the first harvest to be ready

The first harvest took 4000 years = 7 months => 1 month=571 years
The harvesting ends 7 months after the first harvest.
A total of 8000 years.
Right now we would be in the middle of the grapes harvest.

Very interesting.  :happy3:


CHB

Soul sleep? Just what is soul sleep? I believe I know what you say, but what is soul sleep I cant find it in my Bible . Is it like spiritual death? I always thought that when you died you were dead. Dont it say in the Bible that the soul that sinneth it shall die? Ezk 18:20 So tell me more what the Word says about soul sleep?

Quote from: willieH on June 23, 2010, 11:37:25 PM
willieH: Hi Thinktank... :hithere:

Don't know everything, but here's how I see it:

The "SPIRIT" is not who we are... As MEN, ...WE are [animated] DUST... Gen 3:19 -- The SPIRIT which animates, is the LIGHT which is CHRIST, which "LIGHTS" [makes alive/animate] every man which enters the world -- John 1:9

The portion of YHVH given to be the "man", "willieH" --- is part of HIM which is just a "part" of the "ALL" that YHVH God, ...IS -- 1 Cor 15:28 

His "CHILDREN", are manifestations of the LIVING KNOWLEDGE which is IN the Heart of YHVH, being manifested "IMAGES" of HIM and HIS KNOWLEDGE which contains GOOD and EVIL...

The WORD is that which CONTAINS this "KNOWLEDGE" -- Gen 3:22 -- and that KNOWLEDGE is that which is being expressed within the manifestation of this realm.

The "SOUL" ceases to BE, when it dies (from its involvement in the manifestation of EVIL )-- Ecc 9:5 -- which is WHY the "death" of each saint [child] of God is PRECIOUS to Him... for said "involvement" is FINISHED.

That which is "beyond" this LIFE is that which was BEFORE it... as ALL the Sons of God shouted for JOY at the Creation -- Job 38:7 -- Luke 15:11-32

It is my opinion, that our PRIMARY goal is to be seeking LOVE, not "knowledge" (knowledge is just a means to the enlightenment of the greater issue)... We should be seeking the revelation of the LOVE which was so MAJESTIC, that it was willing to give up His only Son to redeem and reconcile the Creation which had been given over to the manifestation of EVIL...

KNOWLEDGE is not the ultimate thing... LOVE is... Eph 3:19 -- in LOVE is found the SURPASSING of KNOWLEDGE, and the FULLNESS of GOD... which IS -- ALL in ALL

...willieH  :cloud9:

Very well said. Very well said.

Quote from: CHB on June 24, 2010, 12:55:31 AM
I am not certain of this but from reading all the scriptures, there was a resurrection in John's day and he was the last apostle living when it happened.

I don't think any one has gone on to heaven after they died since that time period. There is another resurrection in the future when Christ comes back again, at least this is where I am at at this point.

If someone has a better answer for all of the scriptures that point to a resurrection and ascension I would like to read them.

CHB

The only problem I have with this is that if there was a resurrection in John's day, wouldn't that have been the second coming? Which means if there is another "coming" it would be a Third Coming so to speak. I can find a second coming in the bible but I can't find a third one.

 :cloud9: I can't find a "second" (and final) coming in there. I think the problem was that when they that knew the truth died off and Constantine got involved, the meaning of His coming, as being He did come, He is coming, and He will come, was "lost".

So to take the people's "eyes" off looking for His appearing in the light of revelation, visions, and dreams, the speaking gifts, ect., lest any might come to the truth and break free of the tyranny of the "church", they created a doctrine of Him bodily coming, to get their eyes on that instead. My  :2c: Blessings...

Quote from: Cardinal on July 06, 2010, 08:53:49 PM
:cloud9: I can't find a "second" (and final) coming in there.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I can't find a third, fourth, or fifth coming. Just seems like Jesus was coming back one more time to finish things to me. Which makes me question if there was a coming in 70AD, is there another coming still in the future?

Sorry for taking this off-topic.

                                                                                   

Quote from: whome? on July 09, 2010, 05:58:36 AM

Quote from: Cardinal on July 06, 2010, 08:53:49 PM
:cloud9: I can't find a "second" (and final) coming in there.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I can't find a third, fourth, or fifth coming. Just seems like Jesus was coming back one more time to finish things to me. Which makes me question if there was a coming in 70AD, is there another coming still in the future?

Sorry for taking this off-topic.

:cloud9: Did you notice that it says, TO THEM THAT LOOK FOR HIM HE APPEARS? Most of the world is not looking for Him, but to those that are, He appears. He appears without sin (therefore without a physical body that houses/takes on sin), but unto salvation.

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.

The reason this "second time" is worded that way, is because He appears as He is now (after the Spirit, not the flesh), and He is no longer bound by a flesh body constrained by the realm of time....... so His appearing (the "second time") is constant to those that are looking for Him.

Salvation is not a one time experience, but a saving unto the end of our salvation, ie. spirit, soul, AND body. We are saved, we are being saved, we shall be saved. Blessings...

QuoteDid you notice that it says, TO THEM THAT LOOK FOR HIM HE APPEARS? Most of the world is not looking for Him, but to those that are, He appears.

Yes I noticed that but I take this to be "on the last day" so to speak.

QuoteHe appears without sin (therefore without a physical body that houses/takes on sin), but unto salvation.

I wasn't trying to argue any type of body that he would come back in. Just that Jesus claimed he would come back again, which would be the second time. If this second time was in 70AD (during John's time) how do we get he will come back again for a third or forth or fifth time? However, I do believe he was without sin in his physical body the first time so I do not see "sin" here as being "flesh".

QuoteSalvation is not a one time experience, but a saving unto the end of our salvation, ie. spirit, soul, AND body. We are saved, we are being saved, we shall be saved. Blessings...

I agree. But I understand "without sin, but unto salvation" as being the 'we shall be saved' part. The last day. The second coming.

Maybe you guys here see "the ending" different, I don't know. Or it could be that we are just talking past each other. Let me rephrase what I was getting at.

QuoteI am not certain of this but from reading all the scriptures, there was a resurrection in John's day and he was the last apostle living when it happened.

This is what got to me, it was posted by CHB. While I am not certain either, I agree with the above quote. Reading all the scriptures it does seem like there was a resurrection in John's day and that he was the last apostle living when it happened.

However, I understand the scriptures as teaching that Christ came to earth, taught men, die for our sins, returned to Heaven to some day come back (the second time) to redeem the "saved". My problem is that if this happened in John's day, how do we know he is coming again (a third time) to redeem us who consider ourselves the "saved" today?

Do you see my problem? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, only trying to understand things myself. I was hoping CHB could add his thoughts (If he is a he!). It just seems to me that if Jesus returned ... say 70AD the only thing left for us is judgement after we die.

:dontknow:

 :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...

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"

Quote from: Cardinal on July 09, 2010, 09:32:23 AM
: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:

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

Quote from: Cardinal on July 09, 2010, 11:33:09 PM
: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:

Quote from: Cardinal on July 09, 2010, 09:32:23 AM
: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.

Quote
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"?

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteThere 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

 :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...
   

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).

Quote from: Cardinal on July 10, 2010, 10:35:37 AM
: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.

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....

 :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...

Quote from: Cardinal on July 15, 2010, 06:06:49 PM:cloud9: But the destruction of the temple was mentioned......

Where?

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

Naughty Gary :laughing7:

Quoteand 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

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.

Quote from: WhiteWings on July 15, 2010, 06:23:32 PM

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      

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:

 :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:

Quote from: jabcat on July 15, 2010, 07:57:52 PMI 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....

QuoteOne 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

QuoteLet 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

QuoteThere 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).

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteAn 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

QuoteAs 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

QuoteActs 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.

Quote from: Cardinal on July 15, 2010, 08:43:10 PM
: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?

 :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.

Quote from: Cardinal on July 15, 2010, 09:58:17 PM
: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

 :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...

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.

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.

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

 :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...

I always knew it as the Saul/Paul experience.

 :cloud9: you may be right.....it is compelling.... :thumbsup: