Archaeological proof of Christ's AD 70 bodily return

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL, Yep, sorry, I'thm typing too fast. It was Revelation 12:12 (not John 12:12) when John was giving a warning to his own readers that Satan had already come down to them in great wrath for that "short time" / aka the "little season" when he was released from his millennial chain so that he could once more deceive the nations. A "little season" when compared to the "long season" of 40 years of wilderness wanderings for the Israelites (Joshua 24:7) means that Satan's "little season" beginning in AD 33 couldn't possibly last longer than a "long season" of 40 years. And it didn't. Satan and all his unclean spirits and demonic hosts were imprisoned within Jerusalem in AD 66 to plague that "wicked generation" of Israelites in their "last state". God slew them all in that location by the close of AD 70, as predicted in Scripture.

The Greek word translated as "short" (oligos) in Revelation 12:12 is a different Greek word translated as "little" (mikros) in Revelation 20:3. The Greek word oligos can refer to a relatively, but not literally, small number. Such as in Matthew 22:14 when Jesus said "many are called, but few are chosen". The word "few" there is translated from the Greek word oligos and it does not mean literally few, but relatively few are chosen in comparison to the many who are called. So, Satan's short (oligos) time is relatively short and not literally short. It's limited. But, the word translated as "little" in relation to Satan's little season in Revelation 20 is "mikros" and that word means a literal small amount or number. So, there is no relation between the "short time" of Revelation 12:12 and the little season of Revelation 20:3.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You mock scripture with childish jokes, ridiculous images and memes and expect to be taken seriously?

No, he's mocking the ridiculous claims made by 3 Resurrections in this thread. Jesus did not come bodily or in any way, shape or form in 70 AD and there was no bodily resurrection of the dead in 70 AD. Such a claim is utterly ludicrous and deserves to be mocked.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

BAD translation. The intent of this verse is to say that Christ was the FIRST to proclaim light to the Jewish people AND to the Gentiles - NOT that He was the first to rise from the dead. Try the ERV. "How that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles." Christ was the first one after His resurrection from the dead to give the great commission to the apostles, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature..." - not just the Jewish people.

You have no verses at all which say that Lazarus died twice. This is a common assumption, but it has no Scripture basis whatever. The first ones given a glorified resurrected body were those few examples in the OT - women who received their dead raised to life again. They never died again either. You can't just simply flush the "once to die" rule in Hebrews 9:27-28 arbitrarily, or the same rule in Luke 20:35-36. That is to make Scripture contradict itself. Not a good idea.

Paul said that Christ was the first to rise from the dead. But, you say Lazarus was.

No, I never said Lazarus was the first to rise from the dead. Besides the few OT examples, the disciples and Christ were raising people from the dead during His earthly ministry, don't you remember? He gave them a command in Matthew 10:8. "And as ye go, preach, saying The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, RAISE THE DEAD, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." And Paul never said Christ was the first to rise from the dead. Christ was uniquely called "the Firstborn" and "the First-begotten" not because He was the first to rise from the dead, but because He was the FIRST TO ASCEND to heaven in a glorified, resurrected human body form. No man had ascended to heaven to stand in God's presence before Christ did this at His resurrection-day ascension.

 

[3 Resurrections]

there was no bodily resurrection of the dead in 70 AD.

There absolutely was a bodily resurrection of the dead in AD 70. Daniel gave us the exact day in which it would happen in Daniel 12:11-13. I believe Daniel, Christ, and all the other NT writers concerning this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God established a literal 1,000 years in Genesis.

There's no literal 1,000 years referenced in Genesis.

Therefore it only causes confusion when we argue against that which God has determined.

Trying to act as if there is anything in Genesis about a supposed 1,000 year time period after Jesus returns is what causes confusion. You have no clear, straightforward scripture to support your Premil belief.

 

[pandaflower]

No, he's mocking the ridiculous claims made by 3 Resurrections in this thread. Jesus did not come bodily or in any way, shape or form in 70 AD and there was no bodily resurrection of the dead in 70 AD. Such a claim is utterly ludicrous and deserves to be mocked.

Mockery is infantile.
Satan mocked Jesus during the Lord's fast.

Ridiculous claims are refuted by scripture. And by those who hold to the discipline faith instills.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

BAD translation. The intent of this verse is to say that Christ was the FIRST to proclaim light to the Jewish people AND to the Gentiles - NOT that He was the first to rise from the dead.

LOL! This is what people resort to when they can't support their false doctrine with scripture. Bad translation. LOL. No. It lines up with 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 which lists Christ as being the first to be resurrected followed in order by those who are His at His second coming. You just insist on spewing nothing but nonsense in this thread and it's just sad to see. Ask God for wisdom if you want to actually know the truth about these things (James 1:5-7).

Try the ERV. "How that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles." Christ was the first one after His resurrection from the dead to give the great commission to the apostles, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature..." - not just the Jewish people.

LOL. The ERV? LOL. Try not resorting to looking at many different translations until you find one that translates a verse the way you want it to. I guess you think the ERV translators all knew Greek better than every other English translators of all of the other English translations? No other translation butchers the verse like that. Jesus was the first to be resurrected with an immortal body, as 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 indicates. And why wouldn't have that been the case? Immortality is only possible through Jesus, so it makes perfect sense that He would have been the first to have an immortal body.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Mockery is infantile.
Satan mocked Jesus during the Lord's fast.

Ridiculous claims are refuted by scripture. And by those who hold to the discipline faith instills.

I have refuted his ridiculous claims with scripture. They are so incredibly ridiculous, that they deserve to be mocked. If you agree with him, then I mock your ludicrous beliefs, also.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Only the 12 apostles/disciples of Christ were at the Last Supper and Lazarus was not one of them. What makes you want to believe things that are not taught in scripture?

Give me the verse that says ONLY the twelve were with Christ at the Last Supper. This is an artificial limitation that you are putting on the text that isn't found in Scripture at all. I have given several Scripture evidences above that John the son of Zebedee could not possibly have been the one called "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in Scripture. Therefore, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was not John son of Zebedee leaning on Christ at the Last Supper. Lazarus was the only disciple of Christ who was ever characterized by this particular phrase in Scripture.

 

[PinSeeker]

There will be a new earth.

Hmmm. Well I agree in a certain sense, but maybe not in the sense that you seem to mean that. God is making all things new (Revelation 21:5), not "making all new things." <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Scott.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Give me the verse that says ONLY the twelve were with Christ at the Last Supper. This is an artificial limitation that you are putting on the text that isn't found in Scripture at all. I have given several Scripture evidences above that John the son of Zebedee could not possibly have been the one called "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in Scripture. Therefore, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was not John son of Zebedee leaning on Christ at the Last Supper. Lazarus was the only disciple of Christ who was ever characterized by this particular phrase in Scripture.

Your lack of discernment is startling.

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. 20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.”

Where do you see any indication here whatsoever that anyone but His twelve disciples were there with Him? None whatsoever. It says He was "at the table with the Twelve". That's it. No one else there. So, what are you basing your theory on that anyone else was there besides your imagination?

 

[David in NJ]

Hmmmm... <smile> Well, I'm not disputing that, per se, but I might be somewhat interested in what you think the justification for such an assertion would be. As far as I know, the word "thousand" only appears a couple of times in Genesis, and neither one has anything to do with years. Maybe that's not really what you are referring to... I'm certainly with you on preterism, though.


I'm not arguing with anyone, David, or "against" anything, much less God's inerrant and infallible Word, which, of course, stands/endures forever.

Grace and peace to you.

@amigo de christo , @Lizbeth @pandaflower , i hope you like this

 

[3 Resurrections]

It lines up with 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 which lists Christ as being the first to be resurrected

1 Cor. 15:22 does NOT say that Christ was the first to be resurrected. It calls Him "Christ the FIRST-fruits". This is NOT a unique title. There were also 144,000 who were likewise called "FIRST-fruits" in Revelation 14. In other words, there were also 144,000 who were bodily-resurrected on the same day that Christ arose. That "FIRST-fruits" term in 1 Cor. 15:22-23 was the fulfillment of the symbolism found in Israel's barley harvest, with the sheaf handful of "first-fruits" offered TOGETHER in the temple that day along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12). Christ shared the "First-fruits" title with the 144,000 because He shared the same "First resurrection" event with them in AD 33: the First resurrection event in the list of three events which 1 Cor. 15:22-24 gives us.

Where do you see any indication here whatsoever that anyone but His twelve disciples were there with Him?

Where do you yourself see that it is ONLY twelve who were there with Christ? The language in this text doesn't give you leeway to put that limitation on this event. The "disciple whom Jesus loved" was there, leaning on Christ's breast. That particular phrase was specifically given to Lazarus in Scripture, as found in the fourth gospel. This is hardly my "imagination".

 

[PinSeeker]

@amigo de christo , @Lizbeth @pandaflower , i hope you like this

Hmmm, so your theology and/or eschatology is based on a song? I mean it's a nice one, but.... <smile>

David, you said previously that "God established a literal 1,000 years in Genesis." I'd like to see you expound on that with... something more than a song... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[3 Resurrections]

LOL. The ERV? LOL. Try not resorting to looking at many different translations until you find one that translates a verse the way you want it to. I guess you think the ERV translators all knew Greek better than every other English translators of all of the other English translations? No other translation butchers the verse like that.

I prefer the Interlinear myself. This verse reads as follows: "...whether [he] first through resurrection of [dead] light is about to announce to the people and to the nations." The word "first" modifies the verb phrase "is about to announce". It does not say Christ was the first to rise from the dead in this passage.

The "First-fruits" title was not unique to Christ alone. However, the titles of "the First-born" and "the first-begotten" WERE unique to Christ. These are different titles altogether than the "First-fruits". That is because Christ was "begotten" in heaven that morning after His resurrection. God announced this by the prophet in Psalms 2: "THIS DAY have I begotten thee". God would speak these words directly to the resurrected Son in heaven at His resurrection-day ascension. Christ was absolutely the first glorified resurrected one in human form to ascend to heaven in a glorified resurrected body. It was a unique act which had never been done before that point in time by anyone.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

1 Cor. 15:22 does NOT say that Christ was the first to be resurrected. It calls Him "Christ the FIRST-fruits". This is NOT a unique title. There were also 144,000 who were likewise called "FIRST-fruits" in Revelation 14.

Look at the context of the verse. It seems that context means nothing to you.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

Notice in verse 20 that Paul says that Christ Himself is the firstfruits and He is the firstfruits "of those who have fallen asleep", which are the dead in Christ. Then in verse 22 Paul points out that all will be made alive (bodily resurrected unto immortality) in Christ and then he gives the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality. We know that bodily resurrections unto bodily immortality is the context here since we know that Christ Himself was bodily resurrected unto bodily immortality and when we continue reading in 1 Corinthians 15 you can see Paul write about all believers being changed to have immortal bodies at the last trumpet.

So, after the first resurrection unto bodily immortality, which was Christ's resurrection, Pauls says that next in order are "those who are Christ's at His coming", which refers to His second coming. And that's it. He didn't talk about any other resurrections besides Christ's itself and the resurrection of the dead in Christ. But, you add another resurrection (or two?) that Paul obviously knew nothing about because they are imaginary.

Where do you yourself see that it is ONLY twelve who were there with Christ? The language in this text doesn't give you leeway to put that limitation on this event. The "disciple whom Jesus loved" was there, leaning on Christ's breast. That particular phrase was specifically given to Lazarus in Scripture, as found in the fourth gospel. This is hardly my "imagination".

LOL. It only talks about the twelve being with Him at the table of the Last Supper. There is no indication whatsoever that anyone else was there. But, if you want to believe in things that only come from your imagination, that's your choice. But, you definitely aren't getting it from scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I prefer the Interlinear myself. This verse reads as follows: "...whether [he] first through resurrection of [dead] light is about to announce to the people and to the nations." The word "first" modifies the verb phrase "is about to announce". It does not say Christ was the first to rise from the dead in this passage.

The "First-fruits" title was not unique to Christ alone. However, the titles of "the First-born" and "the first-begotten" WERE unique to Christ. These are different titles altogether than the "First-fruits". That is because Christ was "begotten" in heaven that morning after His resurrection. God announced this by the prophet in Psalms 2: "THIS DAY have I begotten thee". God would speak these words directly to the resurrected Son in heaven at His resurrection-day ascension. Christ was absolutely the first glorified resurrected one in human form to ascend to heaven in a glorified resurrected body. It was a unique act which had never been done before that point in time by anyone.

I'm getting very tired of your nonsense. The verse (Acts 26:23), which is Paul speaking, says that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead and that lines up with Paul teaching that same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. But, interpreting scripture with scripture while avoiding contradictions is obviously not something you're interested in.

 

[David in NJ]

Hmmm, so your theology and/or eschatology is based on a song? I mean it's a nice one, but.... <smile>

David, you said previously that "God established a literal 1,000 years in Genesis." I'd like to see you expound on that with... something more than a song... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, David.

The song is for encouragement = as most are

 

[3 Resurrections]

Notice in verse 20 that Paul says that Christ Himself is the firstfruits and He is the firstfruits "of those who have fallen asleep", which are the dead in Christ. T

Absolutely true. But the word "First-fruits" is NOT indicative of a single stalk of grain being harvested. It is a group harvested on the same day. Christ was one of these "First-fruits", but there were also 144,000 other Jewish "First-fruits" raised that same day. The 144,000 "First-fruits" were the Matthew 27:52-53 saints resurrected by Christ that same day - also bodily resurrected to immortality, just the same as Christ.

But, you add another resurrection (or two?)

Naaa, there aren't four resurrections - there are only three group bodily resurrection events total. Just like Paul was writing about in 1 Cor. 15:22-24, and as Christ was speaking about when He mentioned coming "in the second watch AND the third watch" in Luke 12:38.

LOL. It only talks about the twelve being with Him at the table of the Last Supper. There is no indication whatsoever that anyone else was there. But, if you want to believe in things that only come from your imagination, that's your choice. But, you definitely aren't getting it from scripture.

I showed you from Scripture where "the disciple that Jesus loved" could not possibly have been one of the twelve disciples, but you apparently don't wish to consider these Scriptures as proof. Your choice.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Absolutely true. But the word "First-fruits" is NOT indicative of a single stalk of grain being harvested. It is a group harvested on the same day. Christ was one of these "First-fruits", but there were also 144,000 other Jewish "First-fruits" raised that same day. The 144,000 "First-fruits" were the Matthew 27:52-53 saints resurrected by Christ that same day - also bodily resurrected to immortality, just the same as Christ.

You said "Absolutely true" in response to my having said that Christ Himself is the firstfruits and then you proceeded to show that you don't actually agree with me. You can't say "Absolutely true" in agreement with me and then turn around and contradict what I said. Paul makes no mention of any firstfruits except for Christ Himself. You are once again trying to twist scripture to fit your doctrine.

Naaa, there aren't four resurrections - there are only thee group bodily resurrection events total.

LOL. That's not what Paul taught. At all. And it's not taught anywhere else in scripture, either. Paul taught that there was Christ's resurrection that was the first in order and next in order are those who are Christ's at His second coming. That's it. He mentioned no one else being resurrected. So, you are trying to add to scripture with your imaginary additional resurrections.

Just like Paul was writing about in 1 Cor. 15:22-24, and as Christ was speaking about when He mentioned coming "in the second watch AND the third watch" in Luke 12:38.

LOL. There you go again trying to change scripture to fit your doctrine. That says the second watch OR the third watch. Don't give me your nonsense about what the Greek word means. The reason it is translated as "or" in that verse is because it means it's possible He could return in the second watch AND it's possible He could return in the third watch". So, that means He can return in the second watch OR the third watch, but not both. Period.

I showed you from Scripture where "the disciple that Jesus loved" could not possibly have been one of the twelve disciples, but you apparently don't wish to consider these Scriptures as proof. Your choice.

I consider all scripture and I see that you are misinterpreting a great deal of scripture. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not looking at the scriptures. Lazarus was not at The Last Supper since only the 12 disciples were there and he did not write the book of Revelation. That is pure nonsense of the highest order. You are trying too hard to act like you are just holier than everyone else and only you can discern the truth of these things. You are making simple things convoluted for no reason whatsoever. You clearly have a desire to be contrary and a desire to try to impress people that only you have discovered the truth of all these things. It's ridiculous. Ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7).