Search results

In case this was addressed to me... Yes, Christ Jesus already bodily returned in AD 70, and was eye-witnessed at that bodily return to the Mount of Olives by "those that pierced Him" - the tribes of Israel who were besieged within the city of Jerusalem in AD 70. Yes, the so-called "locusts"...

Well, out of respect to the theme of this original post, I'll start a new one in the eschatology forum with the title "Archeological proofs of Christ's AD 70 bodily return". That work for you?

Everybody is a "heretic" to someone else. The over-use of this term being thrown around at random negates its meaning. Kind of reminds me of the Inquisition.

Yep. Absolutely irrefutable. More specifically, the internal evidence within Revelation itself pins down that composition date to a very narrow window of time between late AD 59 and early AD 60, just before the catastrophic AD 60 Laodicean earthquake which overwhelmed the city. John was...

Those who deny Christ's words in Matthew 16:27-28 are calling Christ a liar concerning His bodily return with the angels to give rewards to all according to their works, and while some of those people Christ was speaking to at that time were still alive to see it happen. Nobody alive today...

Christ's return in AD 70 does not need for its true physical, bodily "nature" to be changed to avoid conflict with the imminent time statements. There is no conflict. Christ bodily returned in AD 70, just as He promised to those of the first-century generation, to gather ONLY the...

Then Christ Himself would be "even MORE of a Full Preterist", if you are determined to slap a label on everything. Christ taught that He would return in the glory of His Father with the angels, to give rewards to everyone according to their works, and this would happen while some of those...

Yes, the Matt. 27:52-53 saints were about the 144,000 First-fruits. The 144,000 "First-fruits" in Rev. 7 & 14 were given that particular title along with "Christ the First-fruits" because they shared the very same "First resurrection" event in AD 33. On the very same day. That can only be the...

Full Preterism rightly recognizes the correct Scripture that teaches the timing of Christ's second coming return in AD 70. Unfortunately, they do not have the nature of Christ's return identified correctly - which was bodily, and visibly for those who had pierced Him. Also unfortunately, they...

No, Scriptures NEVER write about a so-called "one and only" resurrection event. There is a particular agricultural reason for Christ being called the "First-fruits". That was a reference to the first harvest in Israel at Passover. Leviticus 23:10-12 describes a joint offering of a sheaf...

Wrong. Christ's body in heaven at present is the same post-resurrection, tangible body form which He invited the disciples to touch and handle, and see. Christ's glorified body which came out of the grave, leaving nothing behind in the tomb, is the same glorified body which is in heaven today...

Are you paying attention to the particular differences in my viewpoint which I am emphasizing with the Full-Preterist position being presented here? I do NOT teach that the second coming with its accompanying resurrection was supposed to be ONLY spiritual in nature, which is a hallmark of Full...

Sorry, I disagree that Christ abandoned His glorified, resurrected body which came out of the grave on His resurrection day. Hebrews tells us this. It is the very reason why Christ's high priesthood was made "after the order of Melchizedek". That was because Christ was unlike every other high...

No, Paul taught that there were three of those resurrection events. He presented this in 1 Cor. 15:23-24. Each of these resurrection events would happen in a particular "order". The Greek word Paul used there was "tagmati", which has the connotation of the ranked military order of a...

Yep. Clear as a bell. The Greek "Mikron, hoson, hoson" terms used in this Hebrews 10:37 verse are translated "a little while, how little, how little!" James 5 also taught that Christ's coming was compared to the "judge" that was then "standing at the door" as the book of James was being...

Yes, Christ Jesus did come bodily and visibly in that AD 70 generation, and was witnessed in AD 70 by every eye of those who pierced Him, as was predicted. We today have archeological proofs that He came to the Mount of Olives that year, just as was promised for that first-century generation...

"Melchizedek" was the "nickname" given to the translated Enoch. Enoch became known as the deathless Melchizedek who, at the time Abraham knew him, had no obvious genealogy or beginning of life or end of days. This single example of the only person ever to be translated so that he would never...

Yes, those Matt. 27:52-53 saints were given glorified bodies. Any saint who is bodily-resurrected retains that glorified, incorruptible immortal body form. In the same way that Romans 6:9 tells us that "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him"...

You are correct that the Matt. 27:52-53 saints bodily resurrected in AD 33 were waiting for a "full restoration" event you referred to in AD 70. They were waiting for their final transport into heaven. It wasn't good enough just for their bodily remains to come up out of the grave, changed into...

No, it is not even possible for those Matt. 27:52-53 resurrected saints to have died again. "...Neither CAN they die anymore, but are like the angels in heaven..." You are merely uttering a common misconception about those raised to life again in the Scriptures dying twice. Can't happen...