Preterism and "This Generation"

[Warren]

Ed,

I n oticed you didn't use Heb.9:26, which says that Christ came the first time "at the end of the age". That verse alone tells us that SOME age was coming to an end at that time. It couldn't have been the Church age because:

1. The Church age was just getting underway at that time!

2. The Church age never ends.

The term "the end of the age" means just that - the very end itself was near in the first century period. It does NOT mean "the church age".

It is soooooo funny that you make both the terms "this generation" and "the end of the age" to mean the Church age. Wow. What next, Ed? Oh yeah, "the last days" means the Church age too, hey??

Please stop and think, will ya. Dispensationalists would agree that the New Testament teaches imminency, right? The problem with your futuristic view is that you can't tell an atheist that the coming of the Lord was imminent in the first century and it's still imminent today. You would get laughed at up and down by the atheist, and quickly dismissed as irrelevant to any sort of meaningful discussion. Please think about that! You can't have imminency in the first century AND ALSO in the year 2004...that is, if teaching scripture with integrity means anything at all.

Warren

 

[Warren]

I want Eric and Ed to repent of their pride here. I have PROVED that "this generation" meant the lifetime of the people Jesus was speaking to (Lk.11:51, 17:25; Matt.23:36, etc..etc...). Yet you two think nothing of that. Amazing.

I made the point that the same time words (shortly, near, quickly, at hand, etc..) are used elsewhere in the N.T. and meant a short period of time to the original audience. Yet, you two dismiss that without a blink.

I have shown that Jesus put all three elements of the disciples' question - the Temple's destruction, the coming of the Lord and the end of the age - under one and the same time statement of "this generation", meaning that it was all or nothing in 70 A.D. Yet, you insert the old convenient "double fulfillment" theory.

It's time to come clean, you two. Our doctrine must be based on what the New Testament SAYS, not on theories that Eric says must happen (double fulfillment).

The desolation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was perfectly consistent with past days of the Lord, when God sent destroying armies to ruin a nation. And if Jesus "came in judgment upon Israel", Eric, then that WAS his Second Coming.

Time to repent, guys.

Warren

 

[Ed Edwards]

Warren: "The Church age never ends."

Book, chapter, and verse - please. THank you.

The Church never ends.
The church age, being an age has
a start - Day of Pentacost 33AD
an end - the pretribulation rapture/resurrection
a purpose - the dispensation where salvation is
an individual experience by faith in Jesus.

When the last gentile that is going to get saved,
gets saved, then the Lord will come get His own.

Members of the spiritual church who are gathered
together from the day of Pentacost, 33AD to the
pretribulation rapture will be as the Body of Christ
and will exist in Him eternally. The Church is eternal,
the church age is of a fixed length (unknown to us).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Warren:
It is soooooo funny that you make both the terms "this generation" and "the end of the age" to mean the Church age. Wow. What next, Ed? Oh yeah, "the last days" means the Church age too, hey??

Yes, the last days are
the Church age.

Acts 15-21 (HCSB)

For these people are not drunk, as you suppose,
since it's only nine in the morning.
16 On the contrary, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 And it will be in the last days, says God,
that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your
sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will
see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.
18 I will even pour out My Spirit on My male and female
slaves in those days, and they will prophesy.
19 I will display wonders in the heaven above and signs
on the earth below: blood and fire and a cloud of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood
, before the great and remarkable day of the Lord comes;
21 then whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Yep, the "last days" begins at Pentacost.
The "last days" will end at the pretribulation rapture/resurrection
-- coming to your world soon.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Warren: "I have PROVED that "this generation" meant the lifetime of the people Jesus was speaking to (Lk.11:51 ... )."

You proved nothing.

Luke 11:48-50 (HCSB):

Therefore you are witnesses that you approve
the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them,
and you build their monuments.
49 And because of this, the wisdom of God said,
'I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,'
50 so that this generation may be held responsible
for the blood of all the prophets shed since
the foundation of the world,

The scripture says to me that "this generation" is the
age of the Law. The age of the Law started at Mt. Sinai
and ended at the foot of the cross, 33AD.
In the age of the law men were saved by believing that
God would send the Messiah.

 

[Warren]

Ed,

A little late for your bedtime, don't you think?

The last days is not the last 2000 years. John said, "Little children, it IS the last time." My, my, can't you sense the IMMINENCY in that statement? And how about these:

"The coming of the Lord draweth near." (James 5:8)

"The time is SHORT" (I Cor.7:29)

"The time is NEAR" (Rev.1:3; 22:10)

"The Lord is NEAR." (Phil.4:5)


These imminency statements were made in the first century, Ed. They were not written to you! How do you have imminency in the first century AND also in the year 2004?? Hahahahaha. Atheists have a field day with futuristic eschatology because of such blunders. The preterist view is the only view that is CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS. It is the only view that uses basic rules of interpretation. It is the only view that answers the "non-return" argument by atheists against Christ and the Bible.

Come on, Ed, let's hear how you can have imminency in the first century and then say everything is STILL imminent 2000 years later.

Either the Lord's coming was imminent during the N.T. period OR IT WASN'T. It's that simple.

Warren

 

[Ed Edwards]

Warren: "Either the Lord's coming was imminent
during the N.T. period OR IT WASN'T."

The Lord's coming has always been held to be
imminent for the last 2004-33 = 1,771 years.
The Lord's coming is now imminent. Should the
Lord tarry, the Lord's coming will be imminent
in 10 years. Should the
Lord tarry, the Lord's coming will be imminent
in 100 years. Should the Lord tarry,
the Lord's coming will be imminent
in a thousand years.

An athiest asked me when I'd give up on looking
for Jesus to come get me in the pretribulation rapture.
1 day = 1,000 years
There are 365 days in a year.
So i'd say after 365,000 years i'll probably give
up on on Jesus coming back. But not until then

In 96AD Jesus said "Yes, I am coming quickly."

Revelation 22:20 (HCSB):

He who testifies about these things says,
"Yes, I am coming quickly."
Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

How could one helped but beleive it in 96AD?
But ten years later in 97AD, if you are a believeer,
would you not believe it also? Yes you would belive
Jesus is coming soon, His coming is emminent.
Each year until even 2004, His coming is emminent.
Which year did His coming being delayed another year
did the imminency wear off? Come on, name the year.
Failure to name a year denotes the correctness of
the Doctrine of the Imminency of the Lord's Return.

Years of time have come and gone
Since i first heard it told
How Jesus would come again some day
If back then* it seemed so real
Well, i just can't help but feel
How much closer His coming is today.

Signs of the times are everywhere
There's a brand feeling in the air
Keep your eyes upon the Eastern skys
Lift up your head
Your redemption drawreth nigh

"Back then" was 52 years ago in 1952.

The adventist movement started with a prophet who
figured out that no one knows the day or the hour
when Jesus will return, but the year is 1844AD.
Well, Jesus did not return in 1844 (His second advent
was imminent that year, if the Lord had wanted to
return that year.)

 

[Ed Edwards]

How do you have imminency in the first century
AND also in the year 2004?? Hahahahaha.

One day at a time, like the drunks sing:

Yesterday's gone, Sweet Jesus
And tomorrow may never be mine
Help me each day, show me the way
One day at a time.

One day at a time, Sweet Jesus
That's all that I'm asking of You
Help me each day, show me the way
That I have to climb.

Here 720,118 days after the asscention of Jesus,
His return is still imminent-
it could still happen any day now.

 

[eschatologist]

This ALWAYS imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ has been perpetuated by MAN'S flawed theology and doctrine! Usages of the terms "soon" and "near" and "about to" are used in the same sense as we use them today, unless you have a reason or motive to stretch (think of a rubber band) them out to fit some particular view. If we are to conclude that these important eschatological time statements can be allowed to be streched in this manner, then why not ALL and ANY other time statements? The sky could be the limit as to just what WE decide to make them. This is why this discriminate use of these terms have NO value in sound biblical interpretation, because if allowed to change the meaning of time statements, what could be next -- salvation?

 

[Eric B]

Eschatologist; this statement is basicallly answered below.

 

[Eric B]

Eric, a spiritual body is a body! You act as if it is some mystical nothingness. Shame on you. You dispnesationalists like to use the word "bodily" all the time, as if preterists teach a non-bodily resurrection and a non-bodily return of Christ. That simply is not the case.

You argued that Christ rose bodily. But keep in mind that Paul said the last Adam, who is Christ, was "made a quickening spirit" (I Cor.15:45). So the Lord was eventually glorified, and could go through walls and disappear at will. Bodily but with a spiritual body. That is the same pattern for us.

And it was still the SAME BODY, transformed! That's what the EMPTY TOMB was all about! If what you're saying is true, the dust of His body would still be in the tomb today; and since you are so concerned about what skeptics think; that would have dispelled any Passover Plot myths about them stealing the body. The body is still here; the resurrection was spiritual. (which went along with what most believed about death anyway, so then what would have been the point?) You have not been able deal with this fact.

Basically, Eric, you make the mistake of interpreting the time statements by your preconcieved notions about the action statements. The problem with that is that, as with all futurists, you disregard the crucial original audience factor. In doing so, you make the time statements irrelevant and meaningless to the very people they were written and spoken to. Poor dupes, they didn't have a chance at understanding the plain language that Jesus and the inspired Apostles used, right?

Once again, if it was dual, then the aspect of it that was for the original audience was still relevant for them, and nothing aftrwards takes away from that. You have not shown how it has, but just argue against it because it goes against your "only for back then" theory. The Bible is for all of us; every age.

Another problem is that your view of the time words is that of INCONSISTENCY, which is yet another violation of hermeneutics. In other words, stretching words like "shortly", "near", "quickly", and "this generation" to thousands of years is inconsistent with how those same time words are used elsewhere. That makes for one incoherent mess, Eric. NNE has a chance at rightly interpreting scripture using your law of inconsistency. We MUST remain consistent (hermenutics 101).

You still don't get it. With dualism, it still was "shortly", "near", "quickly" and "this generation" for their aspect of the fulfillment. You fight against the idea so much, you don't even grasp its difference from pure futurism, but use the same arguments against it. Like I said, this was a special fulfillment for that generation directly involved in the crucifixion. Christ could have actually returned then, but God's plan apparently called for the world to develop some more, down to the present.

And there are other instance of "shortly" in the OT that wind up being stretched to centuries even if the end was in AD70. Psalms 37:10 "Yet a little while and the wicked shall not be!" This shows that the time statements can be figurative as well! Then, there's Haggai 2:6's "in a little while, I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the the sea, and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, and the desire of the nations shall come; and I will fillt his house with glory" over 500 years before AD70. One site explains it away as referring to Darius overturning Israel's enemies, being "typological" and "foreshadow[ing] the fulfillment of the better promise (Heb. 8:6) that was fulfilled in Christ's generation". If that was true, then no matter what, it is still an extension of a clear time statement. If you do that there, then we see that there are dual fulfillments.

The problem with your futuristic view is that you can't tell an atheist that the coming of the Lord was imminent in the first century and it's still imminent today. You would get laughed at up and down by the atheist, and quickly dismissed as irrelevant to any sort of meaningful discussion.

It is the only view that answers the "non-return" argument by atheists against Christ and the Bible.

Preterism is tempting for that reason. Just like saying Christ is not the only way, because it is "foolishness" to the world. This theory's replacement of supernatural redemption in the physical realm with invisible "spirit" happenings is actually easier to believe in an age where supernaturalism is denied. It actually goes along nicely with rationalism, and jibes with the faltering faith of even many Christians who tire of both waiting for Christ to return, and all the false alarms that date-setters and others have given in the meantime, and the other excesses futuristic dispensationalism has often gotten into. It blends well with much of the sentiments of pop Culture (e.g. Oprah, --e.g. "the kingdom is only in your heart"; "the Bible is just allegory", etc) and the new-agers, too.

I want Eric and Ed to repent of their pride here. I have PROVED that "this generation" meant the lifetime of the people Jesus was speaking to (Lk.11:51, 17:25; Matt.23:36, etc..etc...). Yet you two think nothing of that. Amazing.
I made the point that the same time words (shortly, near, quickly, at hand, etc..) are used elsewhere in the N.T. and meant a short period of time to the original audience. Yet, you two dismiss that without a blink.

I have shown that Jesus put all three elements of the disciples' question - the Temple's destruction, the coming of the Lord and the end of the age - under one and the same time statement of "this generation", meaning that it was all or nothing in 70 A.D. Yet, you insert the old convenient "double fulfillment" theory.
Time to repent, guys.

You're the one who seems to have the most pride here, with your triumphalistic statements ("I think dispensationalism will be a minority
view in the church in a few years."), and your speaking as if futurism and dualism are so ridiculous; when you haven't even disproven anything I have said; but rather repeat the same already answered statements about time statements. With all of the doctrinal ignorance, it is possible for the Church to get sucked into anything that sounds good (Eph.4:4), but that does not prove it is true, any more than the Catholic doctrines of old were true, or even that pretribulational futurism is true because so many believe it now.

It's time to come clean, you two. Our doctrine must be based on what the New Testament SAYS, not on theories that Eric says must happen (double fulfillment).

It must be based on what ALL of the scripture says, not only one set of scriptures you take, while grossly symbolizing away the others to the point that they lose meaning, and The Bible ends up not even being for us altogether, but rather just a history book.

The desolation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was perfectly consistent with past days of the Lord, when God sent destroying armies to ruin a nation.

And the future destruction of the rest of the nations is consistent with (and thus antitypical of) that too. No conflict!

And if Jesus "came in judgment upon Israel", Eric, then that WAS his Second Coming.

Not the completion of it, as described by all the prophecies, with Him ruling over ALL, and all godless nations REALLY subdued. Once again, if you insist His "coming" was only in "heaven", then He did not come back at all. If the subduction of the nations only means they eventually fall, then nothing has changed since Adam.

 

[Warren]

Ed,

The problem with your "always imminent" thinking is that it makes the words of scripture a LIE to the very ones they were written to. And they weren't written to us!

Warren

 

[Warren]

Ed,

Those poor first century Christian dupes - what a sad deception those time statements must have been. Think about it. Further, if we can't trust what Jesus and the Apostles said concerning imminency and the end then how can we trust them in other matters of faith. Your view of "always imminent" is laughed at by the atheists, higher critics, liberals, and Jewish and Muslim scholars. The truth is, there is no such thing as "always imminent"! Either the end was imminent at the time of the inspired writings or it wasn't. You can't have it both ways. If I were to write you a letter and say that I will be coming to your house "shortly", say, before "this month" is up, and 10 years later I still hadn't arrived, wouldn't you think I lied? Wouldn't you think that my word had no integrity?? Come on, now. That's how you have to approach the imminency statements and "this generation". Jesus and the inspired Apostles made it abundantly clear to those early believers that the end would come in their lifetime, or generation. Plus, we can run references on where those same time words are used in non-eschatological verses and plainly see that they meant exactly what they say.

As for II Peter 3:8, I have already explained that verse in a previous post. Day/thousand years was a metaphor taken from Psalms. It simply meant that God was "longsuffering" (II Pet.3:9). The end, however, was "NEAR" (I Pet.4:7), and would "linger not" (II Pet.2:3). Peter was refuting the first century Jewish scoffers by repeatedly saying that the end, though it had been coming "a long time" (II Pet.2:3) would NOW "linger not".

God inspired the Apostles to write words that those early believers could easily understand, not words that they would have been given false hopes by. Think about it.

Warren

 

[Warren]

Eric,

You said "it was still the same body (Christ's". Youn have to remember that God "did not suffer him to see corruption" (Psalms16, Acts 2), and that Christ was unique in that regard. Not so with us. Yes, I believe we will look similar in our glorified bodies. But think about it. Those who die in wars and aren't recovered see corruption. Then the plants use their atoms for nourishment. Then animals eat the plants. Then other animals eat those animals. We too eat the animals that ate the plants that ate the human corpse. So now the atoms of the fallen war soldier or whoever are in OTHER PEOPLE. They have babies and the mothers pass on the atoms to their babies. On and on and on. Do you really think God retrieves those atoms of the man who died originally by taking them out of all the other people who now possess them??? Come on, now. Our glorified bodies do not need to have our old earthly atoms retrieved and put back in place and zapped into a glorious state! That's a pretty ridiculous idea you have going there, Eric. In fact, it contradicts Paul's teach that in no way is our glorified body "earthly".

Warren

 

[Eric B]

Nowhere does it say that only those who "don't see corruption" get their bodies back. All the other saints who arose at the crucifixion; their "bodies" "came forth from the graves", and this doesn't specify only people who had just died and didn't start to decay yet. Your arguments about atoms may make logical sense, but what we keep seeing in the Bible regarding resurrection is that somehow this new body is a rejuvenation of the old one, and rises from the grave it was laid in. God made the first man from the dust with atoms that may have had other uses. If it was just a spirit resurrection, then "graves" would have been irrelevant. Nowhere does it say Christ's was "special" in being the only one in which it would be the body; but rather His is made the model of ours.
And as far as "earthly", once it is glorified, it is no longer earthly, but called spiritual.
And the other problem with the spirit resurrection, is that we are forever removed from the earth, which is then left to the world of sinners (with some getting saved out of it)forever. We were promised to inherit the earth. And ironically, it is preterists who chide us for the "escapism" of our rapture/physical millennium/visible Kingdom-on-earth doctrine! It's your position that ultimately teaches that.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Eschatologist: "This ALWAYS imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ has been perpetuated by MAN'S flawed theology and doctrine!"

The Second coming of our Master and Savior, Jesus, the Christ,
has only been imminent now. In 33AD it was the now of then, imminent.
in 34AD it was the now of then, imminent.
There is no "always imminent". It was only imminent at the

Before i toss a coin i know the odds are 50% for heads
and 50% for tails. After i do the toss and get a tail
the odds are 0% for heads and 100% for tails.
Before each "now" 33AD through 2003AD the before the toss
changes of the Lord Jesus Christ returning was good,
i.e. His coming was imminent.
For each now before this current now, 22AD-2003AD,
Jesus did not visibally and physically appear. This
does NOT invalidate that before the time, it was
imminent. THus the return of Jesus has been imminent
33AD through 2003 AD yet has not happened yet.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Eschatologist: //Usages of the terms "soon" and "near"
and "about to" are used in the same sense as we use them
today, unless you have a reason or motive to stretch (think
of a rubber band) them out to fit some particular view//

Romans 11:25 (HCSB):

So that you will not be conceited, brothers,
I do not want you to be unaware of this secret:
a partial hardening has come to Israel until
the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

"Until" is God's code for a particular view that
is used to strech them to fit.
It is called a secret, for God didn't let it be shown
that "soon" would be in God's time (not man's time)
until Paul wrote about it.

BTW, some call "this generation" the Church Age, some
call it the Gentile Age, for mostly Gentiles will be getting
saved from the Day of Pentacost, 33AD, to 2003 and on to
the pretribulation rapture/resurrection.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Warren:
Ed,

The problem with your "always imminent" thinking is that it makes the words of scripture a LIE to the very ones they were written to. And they weren't written to us!

Warren

How can i a mere human
make God's written word to be a lie?
Yes, the words of which you speak were written
to people then and to us as well.
The words of God gave the original audience
hope and they give us hope today.

 

[Grasshopper]

BTW, there are physical mountains
and islands visable today.
When did they reappear?

This post was ignored before
(well, a person who knows the answer
won't tell. Can anybody here
spell GNOSTIC?)

So now I'm a gnostic because you don't know your OT. Please don't lecture Warren on name-calling anymore.


Mountains are used to represent tribes, nations and kingdoms.

Amos 4
1 Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink

Zech 4:7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.

Here is what Matthew Henry says of this verse:


v. 7): Who art thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain. See here, (1.) How the difficulty is represented; it is a great mountain, impassable and immovable, a heap of rubbish, like a great mountain, which must be got away, or the work cannot go on. The enemies of the Jews are proud and hard as great mountains; but, when God has work to do, the mountains that stand in the way of it shall dwindle into mole-hills; for see here,
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=zec&chapter=004

Isaiah 2
1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Jer 51:24 "Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion," declares the LORD .
25 "I am against you, O destroying mountain,
you who destroy the whole earth,"
declares the LORD .
"I will stretch out my hand against you,
roll you off the cliffs,
and make you a burned-out mountain.

Dan 2:35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.


So mountains are clearly used in a figurative way. Now notice what happens to mountains: All historical:

Micah 1:
Judgment Against Samaria and Jerusalem
3 Look! The LORD is coming from his dwelling place;
he comes down and treads the high places of the earth.
4 The mountains melt beneath him
and the valleys split apart ,
like wax before the fire,
like water rushing down a slope.

Literal Ed?

Nahum 1
1 An oracle concerning Nineveh . The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
5 The mountains quake before him
and the hills melt away .
The earth trembles at his presence,
the world and all who live in it.
6 Who can withstand his indignation?
Who can endure his fierce anger?
His wrath is poured out like fire;
the rocks are shattered before him.

Literal Ed?

Hab 3:6 He stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed
His ways are eternal.
7 I saw the tents of Cushan in distress,
the dwellings of Midian in anguish.
10 the mountains saw you and writhed .
Torrents of water swept by;
the deep roared
and lifted its waves on high.


Literal Ed?

Is 55:12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you ,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

Literal Ed?

Is 40:4 Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low ;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.

Literal Ed?

Luke 3:5Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low .
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
6And all mankind will see God's salvation.

Literal Ed?


Now Mr. Ed says " No way has Rev.6:14 happened yet. Can any of you gnostic preterist give me a date that these things happened?"

Rev. 6:14 And the heaven was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Well Ed, look how the OT prophets described the judgement on Edom:

Is. 34: 4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll; and all their host shall fade away, as the leaf fadeth from off the vine, and as a fading leaf from the fig-tree.
5 For my sword hath drunk its fill in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Edom, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

Isn't it strange that the NT prophets used the same type of language the OT prophets used when describing judgements? Funny how that is isn't it? But there are some who insist the NT prophets meant it all literally. Right? After all it would be foolish to let OT scripture help us interpret NT scripture.

 

[Warren]

Eric,

I'm not sure about the Matt.27 saints who came out of the graves. However, Paul's seed analogy backs up what I'm saying. Unless a seed dies and goes into the ground the life within doesn't come forth. Paul said our outward man was is perishing, but the inward man is renewed. The seed analogy shows that the resurrection body is not a reconstition of our bodily atoms from all points of the globe where they are scattered and then a zapping into incorruptible atoms. Rather, it is a brand new body - a "heavenly" one.

Further, when a saint dies today, he doesn't "sleep", waiting for a resurrection, since the resurrection happened in direct linkage to the "tribulation of those days", which was the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Warren