Prophecy concerning Israel

What general resurrection took place in AD 70?

 

You state here that for us to learn more about our [resurrected] bodies that we should look to 1 Cor. 15...seems like that is what I was referencing in my last post...

From the above two passages, I reckon this to say that our bodies will bear the same image of the heavenly - as our Lord from heaven. Christ is also described as "the firstfruits of them that slept." In order for Him to be the "First" of anything - don't the rest have to be the same?

Of course other passages teach the same - this is just gleanings from 1 Cor. 15. I reiterate that I am simply saying there is obviously a new type(?) of physical form that is considered/reckoned to also be spiritual.

The burden of proof that there is some form of "spiritual" body other than what the plain sense of these scriptures indicate - falls squarely on your shoulders. Even if you can "make" some scriptures "allow" what you say - you have to show where it clearly says that the new "body" is not physical in some way, and that our new "body" will be different from Christ's - not just an assumption or "logical conclusion" on your part.

 

Thanks for asking RAdam. That would be the one in 1 Thessalonians 4!

 

So you believe that Christ came visibly in the clouds of heaven as the lightening, raised the dead, judged humanity, destroyed the wicked in flaming fire, destroyed the earth in fervent heat, and ushered in a new heavens and earth wherein is no crying, pain, suffering, or death in AD 70? Wow.

 

Indeed I Do!

I rest on nothing less than the assurance of God that that is exactly what happened. Read it for yourself.
Rev 21
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

Heaven and earth is basic reference to the temple system or old covenant and Christ ushered in the New Covenant or new heaven and new earth.

Dwelling place of God with man--holy spirit indwells us.

No more mourning , crying nor pain for the former things have passed away. That is to say the Jewish people won't mourn over the passing of the Old Covenant.

And the final victory--death (note sin death as in separation from God) will be no more.

As a preterist I can rejoice in these things having already taken place. Sadly, as a futurist, RAdam can't celebrate Our Lord's victory here. He will have to die first and learn these things in heaven. Not to worry RAdam I not the kind of guy to rub it in when we both meet on the other side.

 

I am not a futurist, first of all. Don't you dare put me into that category.

You made this statement: "Not to worry RAdam I not the kind of guy to rub it in when we both meet on the other side." You really need to repent from this kind of an attitude. The knowledge you and I possess here in time is a great gift of God's grace that He didn't owe us. We ought to be thankful for what knowledge we have and not be highminded about it. When we all get to heaven we'll doubtless find out we were wrong about a few things at least, and we won't have the attitude of "I was right and you were wrong" but will rather praise God for His wondrous works.

Now, as to the passage in question, the new heavens and earth are not here yet. That is a future event. Peter said he was looking for the new heavens and earth, meaning it wasn't established in his time. He said Christ would destroy the current heaven and earth, which he referred to as the "heavens and earth which are now" which he says are kept in store until that day when they would be destroyed and melt with fervent heat. In the context, the heaven and earth are not figurative words for a religious system, but speak of God's physical creation. Peter says the scoffers are willingly ignorant of the fact that God created the heavens and earth with his word, and that He flooded the old world in the days of Noah. This isn't a religious system, it is the physical heavens and earth.

Peter's reference of this goes back to Isaiah 65 which testifies first of the final destruction of physical Jerusalem and afterwards the creation of New Jerusalem. The natural first was destroyed by the Romans and then God creates a new one, a spiritual counterpart. He creates a place where there will be no voice of weeping nor the voice of crying. John sees the vision of this fulfillment in Revelation 21 and 22 and he tells us about it. They are all talking about the same thing, and that is the final triumph of God's people in the eternal state, when God shall have destroyed all His enemies finally, remade the earth in righteousness, and we will dwell therein in holiness and righteousness with the Lord in our midst.

 

Peter was looking for the new heaven and new earth because he was writing before 70 AD. Had he been writing afterward he would have stated he was living in the new heavens and new earth.

As for the whining, I find it very typical of many futurist they can dish it out all day, but can't deal with disagreement or criticism of their position. It's a good thing they are futurist since they don't posses the fortitude to be preterists. I get called devil, satan, antichrist and much worse than you have come close to and I don't lose sleep over it or spend a second out side the forums worrying about it. Good grief what cry babies!

All I can say gentlemen is either put your big boy pants, grow a little spine, or just stay out the forums so you won't have to deal with anybody disagreeing with you. Kind of reminds me of the Pharisees lashing out at Jesus because they felt threatened by him.

I'll sleep good tonight no matter how many times I get called the devil because I'm firm in my convictions.

 

About the new heavens and the new earth: Did you know that Spurgeon had some pretty decent sermons on the subject? On this topic he sounded very much like a Preterist - I mean fellow heretic:tongue3:.

 

Again, I'm not a futurist. I believe the 70 weeks prophecy has been fulfilled in its entirety and that the first portion of Matthew 24 has also ben fulfilled. Futurists don't hold to those positions. Quit throwing me in that category, you are mischaracterizing my views and that is not only not a Christian thing to do, it is downright unethical in terms of holding a conversation about anything. I have yet to call you devil, antichrist, or any of that garbage. To me you are a fellow brother in Christ, although I disagree with you, and I will not stoop to calling you names. You can quit accusing me of such now.

Now, here's the problem with that view you hold. Peter said he was looking for a new heavens and earth, and you claim this is the New Covenant system. The New Covenant system was at the very least ushered in by the time of Christ's death and Pentecost, we should all agree. No NT writer refers to the New Covenant system as something they are waiting on but rather a present reality. Peter, writing in the 60's AD, has been a minister of the New Covenant system for over 30 years. He isn't waiting on the New Covenant system, he is living under that system. He is looking for something else.

Now, you say the heavens and earth are sometimes referring to the religious system. On that I'll agree. What I won't agree with is that is the meaning in 2 Peter 3. The context tells us what Peter means when he speaks of the heavens and earth, and it is the physical creation. He first speaks of the creation of the heavens and earth by the word of God. Then he speaks of the flooding of that earth in the days of Noah. Then he speaks of the current heavens and earth which are reserved by the same word of God that created them unto fire at the day of the Lord which will come as a thief in the night. The latter statement is no doubt a reference to the Olivet Discourse. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus gives a clear sign for 70 AD (Jerusalem compassed with armies) but refuses to give a clear sign for His second coming and the end of the world (but of that day and hour knoweth no man) and says His coming will be as as thief in the night. Peter is talking about a yet future coming of Jesus Christ, which will be a globally recognized event, in which the physical creation will be destroyed and God will usher in a new creation, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Now, John saw a city descending onto the new heavens and earth, which he called New Jerusalem, in which was no crying, no pain, no suffering, etc. We are subject to all of those things now, but we won't be in the eternal state. Furthermore, he goes on to say that the former heavens and earth won't even come into mind. The Jewish dispensation comes into mind a lot, that's not what he is talking about.

 

Well RAdam congratulations on making it as far as a partial Preterist, many full Preterist stop at the partial station on their journey to full Preterism. If you keep studying the scripture diligently and sincerely you may well make it over here sooner than you think. I dare say most people go through the partial stage before their arrival. You are however twisting my words. I never said or even suggested you specifically called me devil, satan, or antichrist I said I have been called those things—along with a few other names.

The apostles were full Preterists and realizing that and believing the bible in its original manuscripts were inerrant I couldn’t honestly hold out any longer. I decided if Preterism was good enough for the apostles it was good enough for me. I didn’t try to finagle the scripture where it would suit my view—I changed my view to fit the bible.

The New Covenant was partially ushered in at Christ’s resurrection from the grave and Pentecost, but not completely. There is much scripture that shows the Apostles were still waiting on its full implementation—which happened in 70 AD at the return of Christ and the complete end of the Old Covenant. There’s no in-between covenant mentioned in the bible so think about it—if the Old Covenant ended by definition the New Covenant has to have arrived. Not to mention all the biblical support for its arrival then.

Don Preston wrote a whole book on 2 Peter 3. I suggest you read that and see if you still think it intends for a physical destruction of the world vs. a description of the end of the Old Covenant. It’s called “The Elements Shall Melt with Fervent Heat.”

As for Jedi since you think you are being treated snotty. I tell you what—I have plenty of friends and antagonists in forums to keep me entertained. I don’t need you soooo unless you need me why don’t we just agree not to respond to each other any more. Problem solved.

 

This was one of the astounding things I noticed also: The Old Covenant is either in force or it isn't. If it is in force now then we are under the Law, pure and simple. But if isn't in force it is because it is replaced by the New Covenant. But - and here was the part that was hard to get used to at first - if we are in the New Covenant (we are) we also, according to Matt. 5:17 - 18, are in the New heavens and new Earth. The old Heaven and Earth have passed away.

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I had never before noticed that this verse speaks of a strict either/or situation.
Every jot and tittle of the Law will still be in force up until the time two things happen, signaled by the two uses of "till":
1. Till Heaven and Earth pass
2. Till all be fulfilled.

IOW, we are either under the Law or we are past the time when heaven and earth have passed. Jesus, of course, is speaking figuratively, just as He did concerning the temple of His body in John 2.

 

You still aren't dealing with the context of 2 Peter 3. Peter defines, in the context, what heavens and earth mean. This is the clearest point in the bible where this topic is discussed and the context supports only one view - that of the physical heavens and earth being destroyed at the coming of the Lord as a thief in the night.

Again, also, you have the problem of making two events one and having a huge contradiction in Matthew 24. Of AD 70 Jesus gives the disciples a clear sign and uses language that could not be misunderstood to warn them when to get outta town so they won't endure the events of those days. Then, in speaking of His second coming and the end of the world, He says "of that day and hour knoweth no man" and goes on to explain that His coming will be as a thief in the night. Preterism has a problem because it has Jesus giving a clear sign of an event and then turning around and refusing to give a clear sign of the same event and stating that it will be as a thief in the night. Obviously, these must be two separate events, not one and the same.

Now, again, Peter refers to which coming he is talking about when he says it will be as a thief in the night. He is speaking of the event Jesus said no man would know the day and hour of. He is speaking of the event Jesus described as taking the world by surprise, where people would be going on business as usual like the days of Noah and Lot, saying peace and safety and then sudden destruction comes on them. Here is something interesting, the people Peter refers to as "scoffers" have the same attitude. They say that everything is continuing business as usual, so Jesus isn't coming back. Sudden destruction shall come upon them.

 

By the way, you say there is no in-between covenant. I agree. What event ended the old covenant and ushered in the new covenant? You say 70 AD. However, Daniel 9 says that in the midst of the week Messiah would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Obviously it is not talking about making those things cease from being done altogether, because they still were carried out by the Jews. So what does he mean. Well Hebrews 10 illuminates that. Jesus caused those sacrifices, which were but temporary shadows, to cease by fulfilling what they pictured with His own sacrifice. Thus, when Jesus died on Calvary, God ripped that vail in the temple in two, signifying two things: 1)the way into the true holiest of all was now made manifest and 2) what this pictured has been fulfilled and is no longer needed in any sense. When Jesus died, my friend, the old covenant passed away. Christ brought in the new covenant. The 69th week ended and the 70th began with the baptism of Christ and about 3 and a half years later He died causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

 

Why do people put words in my mouth? No, it was not all strictly 70 AD. 70 AD was the absolute end of the Old Covenant, but the beginning of the end was when Christ said "It is finished."

At the time of Hebrews still, written in the 60s, the Old Covenant was said to be passing away. But at the AD 70 it truly was all done away with, the stoicheia ("elements") having been dissolved, as Peter writes,

 

Hebrews 10:9 - "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

The context here is not the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the cross of Christ. This chapter emphatically states, and that before 70 AD, that Christ had forever fulfilled, and thus taken away, the old covenant, and had established the new.

If the New Covenant hadn't been entirely established at the death of Christ, and wouldn't be so until about 40 years later, then all the epistles writen in the intervening time stating that Christ had redeemed us from under the law, that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith, that the heir so long as he is a child is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father (the time appointed in our case being when Christ came and redeemed us), are all wrong. If the Old Covenant isn't gone, fulfilled, the temporary carnal shadow being replaced by the eternal spiritual reality, then how can Paul say we aren't under the law but under grace to Christ? How, then, could Christians have been free from the requirements of the law? Paul said those things stood in meats and drinks and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation, and then clearly says the time of reformation was when Christ came and died. Either Christ fulfilled the law when He died on Calvary or He didn't. If He did, and the scriptures are clear that is the case, then it was no longer of force. Christ ushered in the New Covenant. Hebrews 9 says that a covenant is of no force while hte testator liveth, but rather it is of force when men are dead.

70 AD marks God's judgement on the Jewish nation. At that time He destroyed all they trusted in - their city, their temple, their geneological records, etc. The temple in that city had already been dispossessed by God. Jesus said "behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Not as earlier "my Father's house" or "My house" but "your house." He then "went out and departed from the temple," and I find no evidence He ever went back. Shortly thereafter would the true temple be broken and raised again, and the New Covenant would be of force. A matter of weeks later the Spirit of God would be poured upon the disciples at which time 3,000 would be converted in a single day, and these would continue steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread. They were New Covenant believers.

 

Maybe we are talking about the same thing, just having a semantics problem. All I'm saying is that from Calvary to AD 70 there was an overlap period. Yes, Christ's death and resurrection defeated the enemy, fulfilled the Law, openly spoiled the enemy - all that. But the news of this did not reach immediately all through the ancient world. A conscientious proselyte to the Jews, like Cornelius, but living, say, in Britain was not all of a sudden because he was still worshiping in the old way. For that matter, even the Apostles took a while to let the ramifications of the New Covenant sink in.

This is why Paul of the "ends of the ages". The two overlapped a bit. He also said, in Hebrews, that the old Covenant was "fading away".

The value of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is that it inexorably demonstrated once for all the total doing away of the Old Covenant. What was "fading away" in the previous decade was now dissolved. This is because, from an earthly standpoint:
1. There is no Temple.
2. There can be no sacrifice.
3. There are no more priests.
4. And soon, the genealogies go missing (especially after the Bar Kochba revolt 60 years later), so the knowledge of the tribes is lost also.

 

70 AD was important, but it wasn't the doing away of the Old Covenant. That was already done by Christ. This was the first message Jesus preached after His resurrection that we have on record and the message the apostles preached. Jesus Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

I pretty much agree with that.