Archaeological proof of Christ's AD 70 bodily return

[pandaflower]

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.

You're too angry to do anything else but justify it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

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.

Christ is a single individual. The term "First-fruits" in this text refers to a group that is "harvested" by being resurrected at the same time. Did you ever see a harvest consisting of only a single stalk of grain? That makes no sense. "First-fruits" is a PLURAL word. Paul was perfectly aware of the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised out of their graves that same day as Christ. Paul didn't mention their number of 144,000 First-fruits, (as it appears in Revelation 14), but in Romans 8:23, Paul mentioned that the church HAD the First-fruits among them. These "First-fruits" were also eagerly awaiting the next resurrection when "the redemption of the body" would also be given to the believers who would have died by then. Those resurrected Matt. 27:52-53 saints wanted to be taken to heaven along with the rest of the resurrected righteous ones in AD 70. They were eagerly awaiting this event.

LOL. There you go again trying to change scripture to fit your doctrine. That says the second watch OR the third watch.

The KJV and other translations may have translated it that way, but the word "kai" as found in Luke 12:38 never means "OR". The Greek "Kai" means either "in addition to" or it can be used in an explanatory sense, such as "namely" or "specifically" or "even". The last time I checked, there were maybe about 11 translations that correctly translated this Luke 12:38 verse using "AND". There would be a return in the second watch AND (kai) the third watch, with the servants being blessed if they were found watching at BOTH returns. That is why the apostle Peter asked in Luke 12:41, "Lord speakest thou this parable unto us or even to all? Christ answered that it would be "whoever" that was a wise and faithful steward would be blessed. Christ applied this parable generically, which means that Peter's generation that was found watching for His first-century coming would be blessed, as we today likewise will be blessed if we are found faithful stewards awaiting Christ's next return in our future.

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 t

I realize it's easy to misunderstand people's motives simply by the words that appear in these replies. But personally, I try not to judge people's intentions on these comments, since there is absolutely no way to confirm someone's mindset. You can believe what you wish about my intentions and my attitude, but fortunately My Lord knows my heart on these matters, and His opinion of me is truly all that matters in the long run.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're too angry to do anything else but justify it.

You think it's justifiable for someone to make the heretical claim that Jesus came to earth bodily in 70 AD? Do you think that's a viable claim when it's very clear to anyone with discernment that Jesus has not come back bodily yet?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Christ is a single individual. The term "First-fruits" in this text refers to a group that is "harvested" by being resurrected at the same time.

Are you even reading the verse? It very clearly says that Jesus Himself is the firstfruits and He, and only He, is the firstfruits "of those who have fallen asleep". I believe the Greek word should have been translated as firstfruit instead to avoid confusion, and a few translations do translate it that way. Regardless, it only refers to Christ in relation to firstfruit(s) in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23.

Did you ever see a harvest consisting of only a single stalk of grain? That makes no sense. "First-fruits" is a PLURAL word.

Yes, but the Greek word aparchē does not have to be plural.

It is used in this verse, for example:

Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit (aparchē) be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

The KJV and other translations may have translated it that way, but the word "kai" as found in Luke 12:38 never means "OR".

It CAN mean "OR" in the sense that I told you, which you apparently ignored. In the verse in question it can, and does, mean it's possible He could return in the second watch AND it's possible He could return in the third watch. So, the word means "and" in that sense. But, that is no different than saying He could come in the second watch OR the third watch and that's why it was translated that way.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Are you even reading the verse? It very clearly says that Jesus Himself is the firstfruits and He, and only He, is the firstfruits "of those who have fallen asleep".

Again, you are inserting an artificial limitation of "and ONLY HE" on this verse that isn't there. Jesus is called "the First-fruits" of those who had fallen asleep because He participated in that first bodily resurrection event that day which ALSO included the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints which rose from the grave that same day. There were 144,000 of them who were ALSO given the title of "the First-fruits" in Revelation 14. Paul even mentions the "First-fruits" in Romans 8:23, so he wasn't unaware of their continued presence in the early church.

In the OT Mosaic rituals, the "First-fruits" at Passover was the sheaf handful of first-ripened barley grain that was offered in the temple along WITH the single He-lamb without blemish. Leviticus 23:10-12 describes this joint offering, which was intended to act as a symbol of the group of Matt. 27:52-53 saints raised the same day as Christ our Passover Lamb. Together, they were both considered the "First-fruits".

It CAN mean "OR" in the sense that I told you, which you apparently ignored. In the verse in question it can, and does, mean it's possible He could return in the second watch AND it's possible He could return in the third watch. So, the word means "and" in that sense. But, that is no different than saying He could come in the second watch OR the third watch and that's why it was translated that way.

No, "kai" is never translated as "OR". If the returning lord in the parable found the servants watching when He returned in the second AND the third watch, they would be blessed - on BOTH occasions.

 

[3 Resurrections]

it's very clear to anyone with discernment that Jesus has not come back bodily yet?

You did not live back then to be an eye-witness either way. We are to rely on the Scriptures, which tell us repeatedly about the first-century return of Christ. Even today, the atheist derides Christians by mocking us for all of the Scripture promises that Christ would bodily return in that first-century generation. So, even the atheist and the unbeliever at least understand that the Scripture promises a first-century return, even though they believe that the disciples and Christ were merely mistaken, deluded, or liars in these predictions of a first-century return.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, you are inserting an artificial limitation of "and ONLY HE" on this verse that isn't there.

Yes, it is! Read the verse.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Who else but Christ is said to have "become the firstfruits of them that slept here"? No one. Ask God for wisdom because you really need it (James 1:5-7).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You did not live back then to be an eye-witness either way. We are to rely on the Scriptures, which tell us repeatedly about the first-century return of Christ.

The Scriptures NEVER tell us about a supposed first century return of Christ. You are imagining things.

Even today, the atheist derides Christians by mocking us for all of the Scripture promises that Christ would bodily return in that first-century generation.

Look at this! Unbelievable! Think about it. You think an atheist can understand scripture?! Are you kidding me? Have you never read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16? The natural man cannot understanding the deeper things of scripture like what we're talking about. So, their mocking is based on a false understanding of scripture that you share with them! Sad! Pathetic.

 

[pandaflower]

You think it's justifiable for someone to make the heretical claim that Jesus came to earth bodily in 70 AD? Do you think that's a viable claim when it's very clear to anyone with discernment that Jesus has not come back bodily yet?

I think people have been trying to reconcile the promise of Jesus 2nd coming before that generation to whom he was speaking passes away for generations.

But they did pass away. And how many generations later , we've been waiting for his 2nd coming for over two thousand years.

 

[rebuilder 454]

There was a deliberate reason back then for creating such confused opinion as to the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This was done in order to confound and thwart the Pharisees who were "out to get" Lazarus and ANYBODY ASSOCIATING WITH HIM (like Mary the mother of Christ would have been, who was going to be put in the care of this disciple by Christ). The Pharisees regarded that "disciple whom Jesus loved" as a traitor. This man was "known unto the high priest" (John 18:15). Because Lazarus was raised from the dead and was a fervent devoted follower of the despised Christ, he earned the Pharisees' intense hatred. Unfortunately, this confusion has extended into our present day, with people still in doubt as to this "beloved disciple's" identity.

With the "beloved disciple" knowing that he had a target painted on his back by the Jewish religious leaders, he intentionally adopted several aliases so that mother Mary who had been put in his keeping would not likewise be targeted by their hatred for Christ. This is why we have such vague language which doesn't specifically identify the author of the fourth gospel by name, or the three epistles either.

It couldn't have been John the son of Zebedee who took mother Mary into his own home that hour of the crucifixion, because John son of Zebedee's home was in far-off Galilee. The beloved Lazarus's home was in Bethany, only a short walk away from the crucifixion site; a home which was readily available for Mary to move into immediately from that crucifixion hour onward.

....all conjecture, in order to spread your false doctrine.

They say " follow the money trail" to get to the truth.
....but yours is "follow the grand canyon leaps" trail.

In the "Jesus came and you all missed it" doctrine, stuff like this becomes a "Hyper pivotal issue".

It should be plain as day that the disciple Jesus loved was/is John.

No big deal at all.
But no...YOU NEED IT TO BE LAZARUS for some DOCTRINAL PROTECTION REASON.

See, that is how you Know you are on the wrong track.
One "uh oh" after another, and another, and another.

The total smear job you do on the date of John's revelation is a joke ,big time.

 

[Scott Downey]

I think people have been trying to reconcile the promise of Jesus 2nd coming before that generation to whom he was speaking passes away for generations.

But they did pass away. And how many generations later , we've been waiting for his 2nd coming for over two thousand years.

One very main refutation is that the DAY of the second coming is as a snare that comes on ALL those who dwell on the face of the whole earth, not just Jerusalem, v34-36.

Luke 21

The Parable of the Fig Tree​

29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

The Importance of Watching​

34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with [h]carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch therefore, and pray always that you may [i]be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

37 And in the daytime He was teaching in the temple, but at night He went out and stayed on the mountain called Olivet. 38 Then early in the morning all the people came to Him in the temple to hear Him.

 

[dad]

You think it's justifiable for someone to make the heretical claim that Jesus came to earth bodily in 70 AD? Do you think that's a viable claim when it's very clear to anyone with discernment that Jesus has not come back bodily yet?

It is not a serious position.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The Scriptures NEVER tell us about a supposed first century return of Christ. You are imagining things.

Yes, they do. Practically every book except maybe a couple in the NT has something to say about Christ's first-century return. The predictions are there, and are even more obvious when one refers to the original language.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Who else but Christ is said to have "become the firstfruits of them that slept here"? No one. Ask God for wisdom because you really need it (James 1:5-7).

I'm not arguing that Christ is not the First-fruits. He was. But it goes a step beyond to artificially insert a limitation into this verse when you say that Christ is the ONLY one who was ever given that title of the "First-fruits", when the 144,000 were clearly given that title in Revelation 14:4, and were clearly referred to by Paul in Romans 8:23 as the church having these "First-fruits" at that time.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I think people have been trying to reconcile the promise of Jesus 2nd coming before that generation to whom he was speaking passes away for generations.

But they did pass away. And how many generations later , we've been waiting for his 2nd coming for over two thousand years.

Not only did they pass away, but "all these things" DID NOT HAPPEN ,AS WE KNOW ,FROM HISTORY.

An ENTIRE DOCTRINE built on a falsehood.

Just plain silly.
Silly men formulating and torturing verses to make a mystery statement into their own private doctrine.

Jesus also said , "not one hair on your heads will be harmed" to the disciples.
All but John died brutal horrible deaths by Satan.

Looks like it's time for the next verse torture doctrine, to make Jesus's words "true".

Let's see, what special doctrine can fickle men birth from YET ANOTHER SEEMING CONTRADICTION of Jesus's words???????

 

[rebuilder 454]

Yes, they do. Practically every book except maybe a couple in the NT has something to say about Christ's first-century return. The predictions are there, and are even more obvious when one refers to the original language.


I'm not arguing that Christ is not the First-fruits. He was. But it goes a step beyond to artificially insert a limitation into this verse when you say that Christ is the ONLY one who was ever given that title of the "First-fruits", when the 144,000 were clearly given that title in Revelation 14:4, and were clearly referred to by Paul in Romans 8:23 as the church having these "First-fruits" at that time.

QUOTE
" not arguing that Christ is not the First-fruits. He was. But it goes a step beyond to artificially insert a limitation into this verse when you say that Christ is the ONLY one who was ever given that title of the "First-fruits", when the 144,000 were clearly given that title in Revelation 14:4, and were clearly referred to by Paul in Romans 8:23 as the church having these "First-fruits" at that time."

Ahhhh, yet another dilemma your created cunning doctrine NEEDS BIBLE MODIFICATION.

SO.... you defeat yourself again.

You are changing a book that carries a curse for doing so.

Romans 8 does not AT ALL say what you are inventing.

You have no knowledge of the grafting in of the Jews.
The 144k ARE FIRSTFRUIT JEWS.
Main harvest Jews follows, as anyone that had any knowledge of harvest will tell you.

That harvest is Rev 14:14
Rev 14, therefore is another doctrine destroyer.

...and that FACT goes 100% against your created doctrine.

Your deal is all out of whack.

 

[3 Resurrections]

....all conjecture, in order to spread your false doctrine.

It is not "conjecture" to say that the Jewish leadership was out to get Lazarus, as well as Christ. John 12:10-11 tells us this.
It is not "conjecture" to say that Lazarus was referred to as "He whom thou lovest" in John 11:3. It was well known that Jesus loved Martha, and her sister Mary, and Lazarus (John 11:5). And when Jesus wept over Lazarus's grave, it was commented "Behold, how he loved him!" (John 11:36). Lazarus was without doubt "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This was never a moniker given to John son of Zebedee who was nicknamed one of the "sons of thunder".

This beloved disciple was going to "tarry" until Jesus returned. That was not true of John son of Zebedee, whom Christ predicted in Matthew 10:23 would share a "cup" of martyrdom as well as his brother James, who was already martyred by Herod by the time Acts 12:1-2 was written.

The total smear job you do on the date of John's revelation is a joke ,big time.

That comment shows me that you haven't done a thorough enough job of checking into all the internal evidence of datable events which Revelation gives us. When these datable events are stacked up and compared with each other, it pins down the composition date of Revelation to somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Jesus also said , "not one hair on your heads will be harmed" to the disciples.
All but John died brutal horrible deaths by Satan.

Not quite the right quote. Christ said in Luke 21:16-18 that even though the disciples would be persecuted and put to death, "But there shall not an hair of your heads perish". The fate destined for the bodies of the righteous dead is that their mortal remains will be bodily resurrected and changed into the immortal and incorruptible condition - with not a hair lost to them in the resurrected state.

You have no knowledge of the grafting in of the Jews.
The 144k ARE FIRSTFRUIT JEWS.

The 144,000 WERE Jewish "First-fruits" from all those stipulated tribe names in Revelation 7. It was ONLY Jewish OT dead saints who were resurrected out of those broken-open graves around Jerusalem on Christ's resurrection day back in AD 33. The 144,000 First-fruits were the Matthew 27:52-53 group of resurrected saints.

But the genealogies were later pronounced as something "unprofitable and vain" by Paul in Titus 3:9. That is because God intended those Israelite tribal lineages to disappear, once they had served their designated purpose. There are no extant Jewish tribes today, and haven't been since those archived genealogical records were all burned up by the Zealots back in the AD 66-70 war years.

 

[pandaflower]

Not only did they pass away, but "all these things" DID NOT HAPPEN ,AS WE KNOW ,FROM HISTORY.

An ENTIRE DOCTRINE built on a falsehood.

Just plain silly.
Silly men formulating and torturing verses to make a mystery statement into their own private doctrine.

Jesus also said , "not one hair on your heads will be harmed" to the disciples.
All but John died brutal horrible deaths by Satan.

Looks like it's time for the next verse torture doctrine, to make Jesus's words "true".

Let's see, what special doctrine can fickle men birth from YET ANOTHER SEEMING CONTRADICTION of Jesus's words???????

What does that the say,per your observation there,of the whole of the New Testament?

 

[rebuilder 454]

What does that the say,per your observation there,of the whole of the New Testament?

It is from heaven and not man.
A spiritual book from a spiritual God.
It is His Book to us.
It is not from the mind of man.
Men try to mentally unpack it.

The verse; "WHERE the body is, the eagles gather"
Is become a pillar of conjecture where a group of men ( postrib rapture adherents) form the pillar of their doctrine.
(Not even knowing what Jesus was saying)

So does the preterest form his doctrine off of a separate pillar of conjecture...." This generation"
(Inspite of the facts)

 

[rebuilder 454]

Not quite the right quote. Christ said in Luke 21:16-18 that even though the disciples would be persecuted and put to death, "But there shall not an hair of your heads perish". The fate destined for the bodies of the righteous dead is that their mortal remains will be bodily resurrected and changed into the immortal and incorruptible condition - with not a hair lost to them in the resurrected state.


The 144,000 WERE Jewish "First-fruits" from all those stipulated tribe names in Revelation 7. It was ONLY Jewish OT dead saints who were resurrected out of those broken-open graves around Jerusalem on Christ's resurrection day back in AD 33. The 144,000 First-fruits were the Matthew 27:52-53 group of resurrected saints.

But the genealogies were later pronounced as something "unprofitable and vain" by Paul in Titus 3:9. That is because God intended those Israelite tribal lineages to disappear, once they had served their designated purpose. There are no extant Jewish tribes today, and haven't been since those archived genealogical records were all burned up by the Zealots back in the AD 66-70 war years.

Nope nope nope.
The scorpions were told not to sting the 144k
Hello...DURING THE TRIB.
Then in Rev 14 they are not on earth anymore , DURING THE TRIB.
Firstfruits means they are ethnic Jews Gathered BEFORE MAIN HARVEST JEWS.
You are not creative enough to cunningly reinvent the spoken word.

That is a real time event of the future.

But I want to say " nice try", but your conjecture and supposition is a lame one.