That is absurd. As basically stated b4, the church is the one new man, not two new men, with one resurrected and the other waiting to be. See more further below.
spiritualization? Like "this generation," or "two Elijahs?"
Obviously you ignored the qualified nature of the reproof "of so much of Scripture," the vast degree of spiritualization, dozens of entire chapters.
How long do you think animal life will exist after all green grass is burnt up? (Rev 8:7) What do we eat then, the remaining canned food? How long do you think that will last?
How long do you think it takes for grass to grow back after it is burned? Sometimes more vigorously as the burning releases nutrients back into the soil. But it is a judgment, which the Lord will see the elect thru.
The famous preterist historian, Moses Stuart...all of those early historians, and others, followed the bandwagon of Irenaeus, and are therefore unreliable as historical witnesses in this matter.
The famous historian, Moses Stuart you mean, while i see no proof they all followed Irenaeus, while if you are going to impugn Irenaeus then you must also fairly do to Josephus.
I also read that early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, The Didache all expected a future figure and do not accept Nero
Yet as one critique says. If Revelation were written under Nero, there would be too few emperors; if under Domitian, too many. The original readers would have had no more information on these emperor successions than we do, and possibly even less. How many Americans can immediately name the last seven presidents? Furthermore, how could the eighth emperor who is identified as the beast also be one of the seven (Rev. 17:11)
there is not one word of about a third temple in the entire new testament,
You mean about one being built, which a fair point, though an argument from silence, yet if Rev. speaks of a literal one then it support its existence. And that literal nature is the contention.
I, personally, have never said the church was divided. What I did say was that those of the first resurrection were all Jews, as Daniel stated in Dan 12;
Wrong. Daniel speaks of "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" which constitutes all believers in the NT, "the Israel of God," (Gal. 6:16) and the NT only speaks of one res. of the just, at the culmination of all things.
ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mat 19:28 KJV)
Indeed they shall, as a special part of the body of Christ judging all the lost:
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10)
That all res.NT church saints form that body of judges in incontrovertible.
there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:3-4 KJV)
there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:3-4 KJV)
Indeed, these are the Jews who will be converted and preach during the Trib, after the fulness of the Gentiles be entered in. It simply does not say these are resurrected saints.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev 21:9-10, 12, 14 KJV)
Also affirmed, the original foundational apostles, (Eph. 2:20) thus only one was chosen to replace Judas, (Acts 1:15ff) and does not represent all Jews.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Indeed, as i just said. But what is built is the church, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;" (Ephesians 2:19) having made "in himself of twain one new man, so making peace," (v. 15) not a divided entity, with some being res. while others remain. Again. that is simply absurd.
Additionally all his servants are from the twelve tribes; and his disciples sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes. There is not a single Gentile mentioned.
That is either blindness or willful denial, as it is expressly stated that all the saints shall judge the world, and that the body of Christ is one, and in which There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28) Which is "the mystery," "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body , and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6)
>>>And writing to both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him, and with the resurrection being bodily, and a separate Jewish resurrection is simply untenable.<<<
Where does it say that?
Say what? That both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him? And or that this is bodily? Look up the word "we" in context where it says that,
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, (John 5:28) shall hear his voice, (John 5:28)
Do you deny that the resurrection is bodily?
DANIEL1212: >>>That is absurd. As basically stated b4, the church is the one new man, not two new men, with one resurrected and the other waiting to be. See more further below. <<<
I don't understand why you don't understand. I haven't had futuristic doctrine drummed into my head all my life, so I am reasonably certain I never will understand your interpretation. Jesus said his coming would happen in the generation of his discples; and he said it not just once, but many times, in many different ways? Why do you insist on spiritualizing his words? For example, how do you manage to spiritualize a futuristic interpretation from this verse?
"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1 KJV)
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)
I don't know how one can honestly spritualize those scriptures, other than "tongue in cheek."
>>>Obviously you ignored the qualified nature of the reproof "of so much of Scripture," the vast degree of spiritualization, dozens of entire chapters.<<<
Give me some examples. And how does one spiritualize visionary spirit, or spirit spoken by an angel? That sounds like a double negative to me.
ME: >>>How long do you think animal life will exist after all green grass is burnt up? (Rev 8:7) What do we eat then, the remaining canned food? How long do you think that will last?<<<
YOU:>>>How long do you think it takes for grass to grow back after it is burned? Sometimes more vigorously as the burning releases nutrients back into the soil. But it is a judgment, which the Lord will see the elect thru.<<<
LOL! I was wondering how one might weasel out of that one.
>>>The famous "preterist" [inserted by Dartuser] historian, Moses Stuart...all of those early historians, and others, followed the bandwagon of Irenaeus, and are therefore unreliable as historical witnesses in this matter.<<<
>>>The famous historian, Moses Stuart you mean, while i see no proof they all followed Irenaeus, while if you are going to impugn Irenaeus then you must also fairly do to Josephus.<<<
First: you are misquoting and mischaracterizing my remarks. I would appreciate it if you do not do that. If you can't debate honestly, then say so and we can consider this debate over.
If you don't see the proof about Irenaeus, then you don't want to see it. I seem to recall that even some dispensational historians have bitten the bullet and admitted that all early historians who wrote of a Domitian date were simply relaying what Irenaeus wrote. It is an indisputable fact.
I personally do not believe Irenaeus did not intend his words to be translated in the manner they were translated. The significant change in time periods from paragraph 1 to 3 leads me to believe he did not clearly write what he intended to write.
>>>I also read that early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, The Didache all expected a future figure and do not accept Nero<<<
Again, they all jumped on Irenaeus' bandwagon. Concensus is not history. It is only concensus.
>>>Yet as one critique says. If Revelation were written under Nero, there would be too few emperors; if under Domitian, too many. <<<
I have read that, but I don't recall where. Probably Ken Gentry's book. But I soon realized that whoever wrote that was desperate to make the actual history fit his preconceived notions of history. These are the "seven kings:"
"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." (Rev 17:9-10 KJV)
These are the first seven Roman Emperors, who according to the Jews, were Kings (e.g., "We have no king but Caesar.")
1. Julius Caesar
2. Augustus
3. Tiberius
4. Gaius (Caligula)
5. Claudius
6. Nero
7. Galba, who only reigned for six months (e.g., a "short space".)
Nero, who reigned from 54AD to June of 68AD, persecuted Christians for forty and two months, exactly the time the scripture states the beast made war with the saints. Nero's persecutions ended upon his death in 68 AD.
Galba, the seventh, continued "a short space" (six months,) and therefore fits the scripture perfectly.
>>>The original readers would have had no more information on these emperor successions than we do, and possibly even less.<<<
Yes, they were sorta "isolated" by slow means of transportation and no other means of communication. Plus, all the earliest church leaders were resurrected and left no follow-up manuscripts. John certainly wasn't much help after the war, if that was really John, and not an imposter.
>>>How many Americans can immediately name the last seven presidents? Furthermore, how could the eighth emperor who is identified as the beast also be one of the seven (Rev. 17:11)<<<
There is a lot of speculation about what that really means. Historians, of all stripes, don't know: they can only speculate. This is, in my opinion, a reasonable interpretation from Dr. Ken Gentry's book, Beast of Revelation, pages 308-9:
"One reasonable alternative interpretation of the relevant passages is the possibility that the sixth head’s revival in the eighth head speaks merely of a semus in which Nero lived again. That is, it could be that the slain head that died was in fact Nero, but that his return to life as the eighth head was not a literal, corporeal reappearance on the scene of history, but a moral and symbolical return. For instance, Revelation 17:10-11 reads: “and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.” Literally, the seventh emperor of Rome was Galba, who reigned only “a little while,” i.e., from June, A.D. 68 to January 1, A.D. 69. The eighth emperor, however, was Otho. Suetonius tells us something of Otho that is of great interest if this interpretive route be taken. Upon presenting himself to the Senate and returning to the palace, it is said of Otho: “When in the midst of the other adulations of those who congratulated and flattered him, he was hailed by the common herd as Nero, he made no sign of dissent; on the contrary, according to some writers, he even made use of that surname in his commissions and his first letters to some of the governors of the provinces.” Tacitus, too, speaks of Otho’s predilection for Nero: “It was believed that he also brought up the question of celebrating Nero’s memory with the hope of winning over the Roman people; and in fact some set up statues of Nero; moreover on certain days the people and soldiers, as if adding thereby to Otho’s nobility and distinction, acclaimed him as Nero Otho.” Dio Cassius mentions the same idea: “But men did not fail to realize that his rule was sure to be even more licentious and harsh than immediately added Nero’s name to his own.”
That also explains how he could have the wound by the sword, and still live.
>>>there is not one word of about a third temple in the entire new testament,<<<
>>>You mean about one being built, which a fair point, though an argument from silence, yet if Rev. speaks of a literal one then it support its existence. And that literal nature is the contention.<<<
If I was rich enough, I could build one. But didn't I read somewhere that, except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain? (Ps 127:1) When you get time, maybe you can show us where we can find the third temple in the New Testament, which was the context of my original response.
>>>Wrong. Daniel speaks of "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" which constitutes all believers in the NT, "the Israel of God," (Gal. 6:16) and the NT only speaks of one res. of the just, at the culmination of all things.<<<
Read it again. You are muddying the waters by ignoring the word "many." You are also ignoring the words "thy people." You may think that means both Israel and Gentiles, but I seriously doubt Daniel thought that way.
>>>And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10)<<<
>>>That all res.NT church saints form that body of judges in incontrovertible.<<<
And who are the saints? I certainly don't believe it is anyone living today, or even after 70 AD.
>>>there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:3-4 KJV)
>>>Indeed, these are the Jews who will be converted and preach during the Trib, after the fulness of the Gentiles be entered in. It simply does not say these are resurrected saints.<<<
Where does it say that? Please show me which scriptures you spiritualized to arrive at that conclusion.
>>>And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev 21:9-10, 12, 14 KJV)<<<
Also affirmed, the original foundational apostles, (Eph. 2:20) thus only one was chosen to replace Judas, (Acts 1:15ff) and does not represent all Jews.
>>>And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,<<<
>>>Indeed, as i just said. But what is built is the church, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;" (Ephesians 2:19) having made "in himself of twain one new man, so making peace," (v. 15) not a divided entity, with some being res. while others remain. Again. that is simply absurd.<<<
I believe Paul was referring to the holy temple, which is within us, and not the holy city (Rev 21:22.) I believe the holy temple is the so-called "camp of the saints" that can be found in Revelation 20. But since you have taken what I said completely out of context, whether by accident or not, I recommend you read again what I wrote.
>>>Additionally all his servants are from the twelve tribes; and his disciples sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes. There is not a single Gentile mentioned.
That is either blindness or willful denial, as it is expressly stated that all the saints shall judge the world, and that the body of Christ is one, and in which There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28) Which is "the mystery," "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body , and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6)<<<
Again, you have ignored my context, and are pretending I said something I did not. Please re-read, in its entirety, everything I wrote. Your reference says noting about reigning, nor of the first resurrection. Take note that an heir is not necessarily one who reigns (like a disciple reigns.) Nor is an heir necessarily part of the elect.
>>>And writing to both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him, and with the resurrection being bodily, and a separate Jewish resurrection is simply untenable.<<<
>>>Where does it say that?<<<
>>>Say what? That both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him? And or that this is bodily? Look up the word "we" in context where it says that,<<<
>>>Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)<<<
>>>Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, (John 5:28) shall hear his voice, (John 5:28)<<<
>>>Do you deny that the resurrection is bodily? <<<
No, but I don't know what kind of body is resurrected, nor do you. I can only relay what is written; and I am unsure exactly what to make of it. You provided a small part from 1 Corinthians. There is more. We will begin with a general statement by Jesus:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63 KJV)
Now, Christ was resurrected in his bodily flesh: but he still had holes and scars from his crucifixion.:
"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (John 20:24-28 KJV)
So, it is likely that Christ had yet to receive his spiritual body: the one mentioned in the following passage:
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:42-44 KJV)
Now we know that when Christ spoke to John in the Revelation, he did not speak from an earthly body, but in the form of an angel:
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16)
And as you referenced, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (1 Cor 15:45-56 KJV)
Peter said the same thing about the flesh, but by comparing it to grass:
"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings," (1 Pet 1:19-25 KJV)
There is one other key point: if I believed that I or others would be coming back to earth with Christ to spend 1000 years walking around, or doing whatever those who "reign" do, I would probably try to squeeze a "flesh and blood" resurrection out of the scriptures. But Christ said this to the woman who inquired about where she should worship:
"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:20-24 KJV)
I must conclude from the new covenant scriptures that we will have a "bodily" resurrection, but it will be spiritual bodies, and not fleshly, earthly types of bodies.
Philip