What were the disciples asking when they inquired about “what will be the sign of your coming”?

[Marty fox]

Polycarp knew a different John than the author of Revelation. John was a common name shared by many in the early church. I believe Polycarp's connection was with the young man John surnamed Mark (sister's son to Barnabas). This man remained serving in the early church after Christ's AD 70 return.

The AD 70 "rapture" did not include a so-called "translation" experience for the living saints to take them to heaven. A "translation" change is not spoken of anywhere in 1 Thess. 4. The "rapture" only took bodily-resurrected saints to heaven in AD 70. Those who Paul said would be "alive and remaining" were those who had already been made alive by the resurrection process, (like Lazarus and the Matt. 27:52-53 saints), but who had all "remained" on earth (like the beloved disciple in John 21:22) until Christ's AD 70 return.

Thanks but I was addressing Matthew who said that all saints alive went to heaven in 70AD

 

[MatthewG]

No definitely not we only need the bible its just the fact that Polycarp was a saved disciple of Jesus so why was he still around to teach Irenaeus.

I believe that Revelation is about 70AD thus it was written before 70AD

Right, well perhaps Polycarp hung out with John before he was taken. I don't know.

It doesn't really hold a lot of water for me to like consider it as something to bank my life on.

 

[Marty fox]

Right, well perhaps Polycarp hung out with John before he was taken. I don't know.

It doesn't really hold a lot of water for me to like consider it as something to bank my life on.

But wouldn't of Polycarp of been raptured also?

 

[MatthewG]

But wouldn't of Polycarp of been raptured also?

Depends on what he believed at the time. I don't even know who Polycarp is.

 

[MatthewG]

@Marty fox Idk if this is true or not but I just googled when Polycarp was born.


AI Overview

Polycarp was born around the year 69 AD. He was a Christian bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John. He lived into the middle of the 2nd century AD

I don't believe John lived passed the destruction.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I don't need to take this from someone who claims that there will be a 3rd coming of Jesus which is never taught in scripture. He did not come in 70 AD. Get that out of your head. Scripture teaches that He will come in like manner as He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11) which was visibly and bodily. He has not yet come back in any way, shape or form. You are deceived.

Of course Christ came "in like manner" as He ascended. This was going to be Christ's glorified, resurrected body form that would return to the Mount of Olives. And Zechariah predicted that this would take place "in that day" during the siege period for Juda and Jerusalem that ended in AD 70.

History continued flowing in the usual "year-to-year" progression after that second coming, as Zechariah 14:16 predicted it would do. You and I are sitting in that "year-to-year" progress of time which followed Christ's AD 70 bodily second coming return. Since you and I must also stand before God in a judgment to receive rewards according to our works, then this necessitates a THIRD coming of Christ for us. The Scriptures do teach a third coming. Read the parable Christ gave about His future comings in the second AND the third watch, with a blessing for those servants who would be found faithfully watching on BOTH those occasions (Luke 12:35-38).

Nonsense. Peter made it clear that the last days would continue until the return of Christ when the heavens and earth are burned up (2 Peter 3:3-13) and that has not yet happened.

The "earth" Peter referred to was "tes ges", meaning the land of Israel specifically - not the entire globe being turned into a cinder floating in space. The "earth" and the "works" in the land of Israel most certainly were "burned up" by the invading Romans and the marauding Zealot factions. Christ said "I came to send fire on the earth", and He wished that it had already been kindled during His own earthly ministry.

Malachi 4 predicted that this "great and dreadful day of the Lord" was coming that would "burn like an oven", with all the proud and those who did wickedly being burned up just like stubble. After that fiery day of judgment, there would still be righteous individuals who feared the Lord inhabiting the earth who would go out and "grow up as calves of the stall", and who would be able to tread down the ashes of the wicked underfoot. Regular history would continue on this planet, even after God's fiery judgment having burned up the wicked to ashes in AD 70. John the Baptist as the fulfillment of "Elijah the prophet" was sent to prepare the people of Israel for this coming fiery judgment that his generation would experience in those first-century days. We are not waiting for this to happen in our future. It's long past already.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I don't believe John lived passed the destruction.

The "beloved disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was referring to the resurrected Lazarus - not John the son of Zebedee. Lazarus went by several aliases in the early church, since he became a target for the Pharisees after his resurrection. His given name was "John Eleazar", and he was a member of the Sanhedrin council. This bodily-resurrected man was taken to heaven with the rest of the bodily-resurrected saints in AD 70.

The author of Revelation was actually Lazarus, and this man never died again.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ages come and go. The Mosaic Age concerning the Law was still on going in the day Yeshua had shown up.

I call it the Mosaic Age, cause they still ran on Laws. They would stone people to death, but also mock God, by invariantly disregarding Yahavah all together.

I asked where scripture refers to "the Mosaic age". You are showing that it's something the people made up rather than being something specifically referred to in scripture, which is my point.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm talking about the temple and sacrificial age

Where does scripture ever refer to that specifically? When Jesus talked about "this age" and "the age to come" He did not speak in terms of a supposed mosaic or old covenant or "temple and sacrificial" age. I think we should stick to the ages that scripture speaks about instead of inventing our own.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course Christ came "in like manner" as He ascended. This was going to be Christ's glorified, resurrected body form that would return to the Mount of Olives. And Zechariah predicted that this would take place "in that day" during the siege period for Juda and Jerusalem that ended in AD 70.

History continued flowing in the usual "year-to-year" progression after that second coming, as Zechariah 14:16 predicted it would do. You and I are sitting in that "year-to-year" progress of time which followed Christ's AD 70 bodily second coming return. Since you and I must also stand before God in a judgment to receive rewards according to our works, then this necessitates a THIRD coming of Christ for us. The Scriptures do teach a third coming. Read the parable Christ gave about His future comings in the second AND the third watch, with a blessing for those servants who would be found faithfully watching on BOTH those occasions (Luke 12:35-38).

Stop twisting scripture to fit your false doctrine.

Luke 12:38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

The "earth" Peter referred to was "tes ges", meaning the land of Israel specifically - not the entire globe being turned into a cinder floating in space.

LOL. You are so deceived. As if Peter would have compared the flood in Noah's day directly to a local event in Israel? No, he was comparing like events of the same scope. Jesus will return to burn up the entire surface of the earth with fire just like the entire surface of the earth was flooded with water in Noah's day.

The "earth" and the "works" in the land of Israel most certainly were "burned up" by the invading Romans and the marauding Zealot factions. Christ said "I came to send fire on the earth", and He wished that it had already been kindled during His own earthly ministry.

Malachi 4 predicted that this "great and dreadful day of the Lord" was coming that would "burn like an oven", with all the proud and those who did wickedly being burned up just like stubble. After that fiery day of judgment, there would still be righteous individuals who feared the Lord inhabiting the earth who would go out and "grow up as calves of the stall", and who would be able to tread down the ashes of the wicked underfoot. Regular history would continue on this planet, even after God's fiery judgment having burned up the wicked to ashes in AD 70. John the Baptist as the fulfillment of "Elijah the prophet" was sent to prepare the people of Israel for this coming fiery judgment that his generation would experience in those first-century days. We are not waiting for this to happen in our future. It's long past already.

I'm not falling for your preterist delusions. Jesus will be ridding the world of sin and death once and for all when He comes and the only way to do that is to destroy the earth as we know it and make it new. He will usher in the new heavens and new earth when He comes (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Peter 3:10-13).

 

[MatthewG]

I asked where scripture refers to "the Mosaic age". You are showing that it's something the people made up rather than being something specifically referred to in scripture, which is my point.

Well those Jewish leaders and priest at the time were still reigning with the Mosaic Law... If you don't take it as something important, that's alright with me.


Your choices are your own choices. No one elses.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well those Jewish leaders and priest at the time were still reigning with the Mosaic Law... If you don't take it as something important, that's alright with me.

LOL. You are completely missing the point, so I'll have to spell it out for you. The reason I asked the question is because some preterists (not sure if you do this) try to claim that the old covenant or Mosaic age ended in 70 AD. For one thing, scripture never refers specifically to an old covenant or Mosaic age. But, if we could refer to the old covenant and the time of the Mosaic law as an age, then it ended and was made obsolete when Jesus died on the cross and not in 70 AD.

Your choices are your own choices. No one elses.

I don't need you to tell me things like this.

 

[MatthewG]

LOL. You are completely missing the point, so I'll have to spell it out for you. The reason I asked the question is because some preterists (not sure if you do this) try to claim that the old covenant or Mosaic age ended in 70 AD. For one thing, scripture never refers specifically to an old covenant or Mosaic age. But, if we could refer to the old covenant and the time of the Mosaic law as an age, then it ended and was made obsolete when Jesus died on the cross and not in 70 AD.


I don't need you to tell me things like this.

I don't like going back and forth with people who do not care in the first place. That's alright.


bickering and what not isnt of the spirit, it is of the flesh.

 

[Marty fox]

Where does scripture ever refer to that specifically? When Jesus talked about "this age" and "the age to come" He did not speak in terms of a supposed mosaic or old covenant or "temple and sacrificial" age. I think we should stick to the ages that scripture speaks about instead of inventing our own.

Sure but Jesus did put an and to the 1500 year old covenant age didn't He?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't like going back and forth with people who do not care in the first place. That's alright.

Where did I say I do not care? Nowhere. How about addressing what I did say?

bickering and what not isnt of the spirit, it is of the flesh.

Your false full preterist doctrine is not of the Spirit, but of the flesh, so I don't need any lectures from you.

 

[MatthewG]

Where did I say I do not care? Nowhere. How about addressing what I did say?


Your false full preterist doctrine is not of the Spirit, but of the flesh, so I don't need any lectures from you.

Kay.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure but Jesus did put an and to the 1500 year old covenant age didn't He?

Yes, but He did that at the cross and not in 70 AD.

 

[pandaflower]

The point you were making is to propose that the second coming was Christ's resurrection. How does the Gospels' date of being written down change what Christ said in Matt. 16:27-28 about some of those He was THEN speaking to at that very moment remaining alive to see His second coming return before they had physically died? Your response is a non sequitur argument.

OK

 

[Marty fox]

Yes, but He did that at the cross and not in 70 AD.

Yes exactly but Israel kept on living in the old covenant area and doing the sin sacrifices which was a rejection of Jesus thus Jesus removed the temple

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes exactly but Israel kept on living in the old covenant area and doing the sin sacrifices which was a rejection of Jesus thus Jesus removed the temple

That's meaningless. Does that change the fact that the old covenant was made obsolete by the death of Christ? No.