Romans 16:20 is a Strong Proof of Christ's 70 AD Return

[OldRegular]

Apostle paul does refer to us being raised up in "spiritual" bodies in 1 Corinthians 15, but the greek and contex would support that he menas the body is NOT same as the "earthly" body, not same "substence" still phyusical, yet different!

I agree. The resurrection body of Jesus Christ was different than the mortal physical body. Very little in Scripture indicates what those differences are but He apparently was able to pass through a wall and also eat food. Yet the language the Apostle Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 indicates a great difference between the mortal body and the resurrection body.

Consider what God through the Apostle Paul states in the following Scripture, particularly verses 51 & 52:

1 Corinthians 15:50-55, KJV

50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52. 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.
53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54. 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.
55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

In verses 51 & 52 Paul states that at the last trumpet:

1. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.

2. The dead shall be raised incorruptible.

Now if there is no resurrection of the body does that not imply soul sleep, contrary to Scripture. Also Paul states the living shall be changed at the last trumpet. Now the soul/spirit was changed at the new birth so what is to be changed?

 

[HankD]

Hello Hank,

Thanks. We are doing well. And I hope you and your family are having a great Christmas.

This is short for now. I had mentioned somewhere else today that I did already have an ECF post here at BB. I will try to find it and, if time permits, augment it. Short point is that a few of those writers have, I believe (on both external and internal evidence) early pre-Parousia dates.

And by ECF I mean the term in a most restrictive sense, the earliest of the CFs.

BTW, we haven't actually left for China. I changed my location because i suspect that once we get there I may very well be Internetless (at least as far as these sites are concerned) for a while. We were given our official red-stamped invitation and work permits yesterday. All that remains is the visa paperwork from Chicago (by email and mail). We should leave in a few days.

OK, yes my family is well (relatively speaking).
We just welcomed our 15th grandchild into the world.

I hope Providence works in your favor to get you home.

As to the ECF - yes the Apostolic and Patristic Church Fathers would be of the most value.

Admitedly any writings pre-AD70 which claim a bodily and visible return of Christ could be categorized as ignorance (in the good sense).

What is telling is that of the patristic fathers, I found nothing REreterism and AD70 sack of Jerusalem as a Second Coming.

I did find mention of AD70 as a retribution but not as a fulfilment of the promise of Acts 1:11

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.​

Or the fulfillment of the promise of the rule and reign of Christ and His own for 1000 years.​

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.​

HankD​

 

[preachinjesus]

If Jesus did return in AD 70, why did no one in the early church see Him?

Even the most spiritualist interpretation of eschatology believes at the eschaton people will notice. If Jesus did return in AD 70 He must've gone to a deserted island somewhere.

 

[convicted1]

If Jesus did return in AD 70, why did no one in the early church see Him?

Even the most spiritualist interpretation of eschatology believes at the eschaton people will notice. If Jesus did return in AD 70 He must've gone to a deserted island somewhere.

Didn't you read that He came with the "whisper" of the arch angel.......

 

[DHK]

Since we know Christ returned in 70 AD and won’t be coming back in the next few days (or centuries or eons)

Such an arrogant statement to make: "We know Christ returned in 70 A.D."
But you don't know. And that in itself is the spirit of antichrist according to 1John. Why boast of things you do not know?

First, where is the evidence that he returned. He promised a physical, bodily return. Document this. Who saw him? Where are the witnesses? If it is physical it was a literal event, for he promised a physical return.

Second, if you don't believe in a rapture, then your only other option is that he would "come in the glory of his father with the holy angels"..."to take vengeance upon those that know not the gospel." (Mark 8:38; 1Thes.1). And "every eye would see him (Rev.1). There would be plenty of evidence of his return. Where is the evidence. Produce it. Books would be full of it. But you have none, and have produced none. Your bank is empty, and your theology is bankrupt.

Third, Christ admonished to all of us to watch as a thief in the night telling us that he could come at any time, at a time when we would least expect it--not at the time when the Roman army was advancing to destroy the Temple. Your theory goes against what Jesus was speaking of. Your interpretation of those Scriptures is wrong.

Fourth, you have put yourself on the side of the cults who have been setting dates for eons. Christ clearly commanded us not to set dates, but that is what you have done. You have set a date against the command of Christ.

Fifth, those throughout history (other than the cults) have thought that this was the end. Have you ever considered that? Have you ever read history books?
I read where those during the WWII thought that Mussolini was the Antichrist.
I have read where many thought that Hitler was the Antichrist.
Many thought that when Antiochus Epiphanes stood up for the Jews was the ushering in of the Kingdom, but it was not.
Many thought that the Gulf war was going to be the end, but it was not.

And yet you blithely go on thinking that you KNOW that 70 A.D. Christ returned without a shred of evidence that he did. The SDA know that he did, and so did the J.W.'s. What makes you more right than they?

 

[asterisktom]

If Jesus did return in AD 70, why did no one in the early church see Him?

If Jesus really did build His Temple (John 2) why did no one in the early church see Him?

Same type of question.
Same type of answer.

 

[preachinjesus]

Too much to answer here right now, but I will touch on a few. Underlining on your comments is mine.

Don't talk to me of "artful dodges" and then artfully put words in my mouth, "spiritualist" in quotes, as if I would ever write that term in a positive sense.

Well as you engage in this conversation your default reply to serious questions about the return of Christ is constantly something that happened spiritually or non-physically.

You seem to put the two on a par. (I don't believe you really think of them that way.) However my basis for the topics on this thread is the Bible alone.

Actually I'll challenge that you are using "the Bible alone" you constantly refer to exterior trends for dating the NT. That's okay, because you have to. Though I don't conflate the NT and early church documents in terms of authority, I do believe they work hand-in-hand for giving evidences to reprove the NT and our claims concerning those documents.

It is theologically unnecessary for us to believe we "only need the Bible" for all matters historically and theologically. While the Bible remains authoritative as the test for all conclusions theologically there are a wealth of other dodcuments which provide a reasonable means of support for conclusions and work.

Preterists have to use early church documents to prove their claims. That's okay, just be honest about it. You need early church documents to make the claim (which I'll address later) that Revelation is a pre-AD 70 document.

But, since you mention dating, Revelation was written in the 60s. See Schaff, among several others, for a scholarly study on this. Schaff used to believe - as I did - in a later date for Revelation, but finally saw the force of the evidence for that early date.

Ah, see the use of early church documents. Remember, that's okay. First of all, you can't, you just can't date Clement I to AD 60. As Bishop of Rome, he didn't start serving until after Linus and Anacletus. He didn't have any authority to write the document until late AD 90. Given the succession of the Bishops of Rome during the first two hundred years, and the excellent historical work conetmporary of their era, you can't put Clement of Rome before AD 90. I have no clue how you get him at AD 60. Nobody, and I mean nobody does that. Its as erroneous as saying the Gospel of Judas was written by Judas.

I'd challenge that Schaff is reliable here, and for a lot of history. He's old, and by that I mean his history (which I'm looking at on my shelf right now) was great in its day but made a lot of conclusions contemporary scholarship has corrected. One of them being (which I would challenge you to prove) that Revelation was written in AD 60.

As for the dating of Revelation prior to AD 90, I don't see it. Even the internal evidence (knowing what we do about the context of the late first century environment) doesn't lend itself to a statement prior to AD 90. To get to AD 70 you have to overcome serious objections textually, particularly the use of churches in cities that needed more development like in the first three chapters of the book. Also the Greek utilizes so many words that might not have been in widespread use. There are so many more internal reasons to put the dating past AD 90 you have to make a case, an extraordinary case for anything prior to AD 70.

I read a JETS article not too long ago trying to make the case for a prior to AD 70 dating, but it failed to make a good case. And that guy has a PhD in theology. One of the most powerful objections is that (granting Johanine authorship) John was not available to write the text prior to AD 90.

Many of the others who were supposedly silent on the Parousia were actually writing before it, like Clement of Rome, and the writer of the Didache. I had written this on this board months ago. If interested I will dig it up.

Well dig it up, I encourage you in this. Here's the thing, you've got zero support in the early church, ante-nicene (and even post-Nicene) period for preterism. Nobody believes it.

 

[preachinjesus]

If Jesus really did build His Temple (John 2) why did no one in the early church see Him?

Same type of question.
Same type of answer.

Um, not the same. In John 2 Jesus is talking about His body. Nobody disagrees with this. How can you even try to make the leap to something else? He was talking about His resurrection.

It isn't about actual "building" but the resurrection. You can't get away from this. I don't know any serious scholar who disagrees with that conclusion.

 

[preachinjesus]

Since we know Christ returned in 70 AD and won’t be coming back in the next few days (or centuries or eons) I’ll see you all on the flip side of my travels. Just remember what they say, inside every futurist is a cocoon with a Preterist waiting to be released from the shackles of denial to embracing the victory of Christ.

"We know" yeah, I'm not buying that one.

So if Christ returned in AD 70, why is it that no early church writer or any other New Testament document records this event?

Why is it for New Testament (and Old Testament) the vast majority of eschatological writing is about the bodily return that no one can deny. When Jesus returns, He returns for all believers. So:
1. How do you get around that we are all still here?
2. What is the result of Christ's return?
3. Why is Satan still present in the world?
4. Why is it after 1070 we still have evil in the world?
5. Why is it no one records this supposed return in AD 70?
6. Finally, why, if Jesus returned in AD 70, is it a "secret" return?

 

[asterisktom]

Well as you engage in this conversation your default reply to serious questions about the return of Christ is constantly something that happened spiritually or non-physically.



Actually I'll challenge that you are using "the Bible alone" you constantly refer to
exterior trends for dating the NT. That's okay, because you have to. Though I don't conflate the NT and early church documents in terms of authority, I do believe they work hand-in-hand for giving evidences to reprove the NT and our claims concerning those documents.

It is theologically unnecessary for us to believe we "only need the Bible" for all matters historically and theologically. While the Bible remains authoritative as the test for all conclusions theologically there are a wealth of other dodcuments which provide a reasonable means of support for conclusions and work.

Preterists have to use early church documents to prove their claims. That's okay, just be honest about it. You need early church documents to make the claim (which I'll address later) that Revelation is a pre-AD 70 document.



Ah, see the use of early church documents. Remember, that's okay. First of all, you can't, you just can't date Clement I to AD 60. As Bishop of Rome, he didn't start serving until after Linus and Anacletus. He didn't have any authority to write the document until late AD 90. Given the succession of the Bishops of Rome during the first two hundred years, and the excellent historical work conetmporary of their era, you can't put Clement of Rome before AD 90. I have no clue how you get him at AD 60. Nobody, and I mean nobody does that. Its as erroneous as saying the Gospel of Judas was written by Judas.

I'd challenge that Schaff is reliable here, and for a lot of history. He's old, and by that I mean his history (which I'm looking at on my shelf right now) was great in its day but made a lot of conclusions contemporary scholarship has corrected. One of them being (which I would challenge you to prove) that Revelation was written in AD 60.

As for the dating of Revelation prior to AD 90, I don't see it. Even the internal evidence (knowing what we do about the context of the late first century environment) doesn't lend itself to a statement prior to AD 90. To get to AD 70 you have to overcome serious objections textually, particularly the use of churches in cities that needed more development like in the first three chapters of the book. Also the Greek utilizes so many words that might not have been in widespread use. There are so many more internal reasons to put the dating past AD 90 you have to make a case, an extraordinary case for anything prior to AD 70.

I read a JETS article not too long ago trying to make the case for a prior to AD 70 dating, but it failed to make a good case. And that guy has a PhD in theology. One of the most powerful objections is that (granting Johanine authorship) John was not available to write the text prior to AD 90.



Well dig it up, I encourage you in this. Here's the thing, you've got zero support in the early church, ante-nicene (and even post-Nicene) period for preterism. Nobody believes it.

Just so you know, I am not interested in getting into arguments. Discussions, lively discussions even, but with respect. You don't seem to appreciate the difference between those two modes of discussion. So I am not going to go to the trouble of answering your points, because I know exactly where it will go. Just not going to do it.

Nothing personal.

 

[preachinjesus]

Well man, I'm just talking. I don't know how you can hear my inflection, I haven't used any insulting phrases, maybe if I go back and dot my posts with smilies that would help.

Here's the thing, if you don't have a case then don't respond. But I've been nothing but affirmming in all of my posts around here. I will challenge error when I see it and I see the preterist position as error.

You've made a ton of unfounded conclusions which deserve to be challenged. This is a debate forum, so if you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen.

I'm not too torn up that you won't respond, you've done this before.

 

[HankD]

How about one debate challenge at a time:

i.e. This passage:

1 Thessalonians 4

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.​

Preterists keep telling us to take the word "shortly" as it is supposedly meant in its natural meaning (however it can be and is translated "quickly" in places).

well how about several of the terms/words used in this 1 Thessalonians passage?

1) the Lord Himself will descend from heaven (per Acts 1:11).
2) with a shout.
3) the dead in Christ will rise
4) we will meet Him in the air.

How are these 4 plain meaning texts taken in their natural meaning expained by preterists who (I repeat) keep telling us to take the text in it's natural meaning.

OK using that principle then the Lord Himself will descend from heaven into the atmosphere. There will be a shout, the dead will rise and we will meet Him in the air.

Can a preterist explain how all these things happened with no historical record or perhaps it was not revealed publicly?

In any event please give an exposition of this passage and how it could have happened in AD70 so that we can rebut if it contains flawed logic/reasoning.

And please don't give us a URL to visit.
Please be so kind as to address the 4 points iterated above in your own words.

Thanks
HankD

 

[beameup]

If Daniel's 70 weeks are contiguous, then Christ's return would have been AD 37.
If Daniel's 70 weeks are not contiguous then it doesn't matter how long the space between the 69th week and the 70th week are.

Matt 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
(whoso readeth, let him understand) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

[agedman]

As someone old, opinionated, senile, I am having a bit of a problem discerning who is on what side of this pre-teristic issue.

Can someone please list the posters and what view they might be posting?

At least that way, I might be able to follow a bit of the issues.

Thanks!

 

[HankD]

As someone old, opinionated, senile, I am having a bit of a problem discerning who is on what side of this pre-teristic issue.

Can someone please list the posters and what view they might be posting?

At least that way, I might be able to follow a bit of the issues.

Thanks!

In this thread it comes down to two kinds of believers.

1) Full Preterists: Those who believe the Second Coming of Christ happened in AD70 - circa The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Roman General Titus. All scripture has been fulfilled.

2. Futurists: Christ's Second Coming is yet future.

I can only speak for myself.
I am a futurist.

HankD

 

[michael-acts17:11]

In this thread it comes down to two kinds of believers.

1) Full Preterists: Those who believe the Second Coming of Christ happened in AD70 - circa The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Roman General Titus. All scripture has been fulfilled.

2. Futurists: Christ's Second Coming is yet future.

I can only speak for myself.
I am a futurist.

HankD

Christ did not return in 70AD. The prophecies of His coming on a cloud are speaking of coming judgement; not His physical return on a little puff of vapor. We are still awaiting His literal, physical return when He will take the unbelievers first, then the believers. He will then destroy the universe with a great fire & recreate it anew.
The 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled as prophesied. The 70th week is describing Christ's coming & covenant, the destruction of Jerusalem, & the end of the Old Law.

 

[beameup]

Christ did not return in 70AD. The prophecies of His coming on a cloud are speaking of coming judgement; not His physical return on a little puff of vapor. We are still awaiting His literal, physical return when He will take the unbelievers first, then the believers. He will then destroy the universe with a great fire & recreate it anew.
The 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled as prophesied. The 70th week is describing Christ's coming & covenant, the destruction of Jerusalem, & the end of the Old Law.

So, when was the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel the Prophet?

Are you saying that "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be".
has already occurred?

 

[michael-acts17:11]

So, when was the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel the Prophet?

Are you saying that "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be".
has already occurred?

EVERY NT reference to the abomination that causes desolation speaks of the apostles witnessing this event. The key verse is Luke 21:20 where Christ states that the apostles will literally, physically see Jerusalem surrounded by armies which shall make it desolate.
Read Daniel 9 without the dispensational blinders & the truth of verse 27 becomes incredible. Ask yourself this, where does Scripture ever refer to an antiChrist in Daniel or claim that he will make a covenant? This is all presupposition. Only Christ makes the covenant & ends the sacrifice & oblation on the cross of sacrifice.

Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Mat 23:36-38)
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) (Mat 24:15)

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: (Mar 13:13-14)

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (Luk 21:17-20)

The grammatical context of these verses must be adulterated to make them apply to any other audience than the one to whom Jesus was speaking. It is the epitome of self-deception to ignore such clear Biblical teaching and force it to apply to some distant not yet conceived peoples.

When God told Adam "thou shalt surely die", was he referring to some distant person?
When God told Moses "that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt", was he talking to one of our contemporary's?

 

[HankD]

Can a preterist respond to the 4 points and associated questions in post number 52?

Thanks
HankD

 

[beameup]

The grammatical context of these verses must be adulterated to make them apply to any other audience than the one to whom Jesus was speaking. It is the epitome of self-deception to ignore such clear Biblical teaching and force it to apply to some distant not yet conceived peoples.

Who is Paul referring to in this verse?
...and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God. - 2 Thes 2:3b-4

I think that I had asked you when the things of Matt 24 occurred (fully, not "partially"
as in a "preview" like for example Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 63BC).