Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[Ghada]

Yes, it is valid.

That is irrelevant of the point being made. Don't change the subject.

It's the point being made. It's a good point, but not a law requiring all fulfilled prophecy of Scripture be recorded in Scripture, if Scripture is still being written on earth...

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

As I said....if you say so.

All anyone has to do is look at YOUR post #308. No denying it. Pure and simple mockery. Made yourself irrelevant in this conversation.

 

[Ghada]

That was Lazarus in John 21:20-24 who was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 11:3 & 5).

Jesus loved Marth, her sister, and Lazarus.

Jhn 13:18
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Jhn 13:23
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

Jhn 21:20
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Lazuras was not an apostle at the Lord's supper. Apparently Scripture is written expressly to reject this fringe idea, that Lazarus was the beloved apostle at the Passover supper and writing the gospel of John.

And as if that isn't enough:

Jhn 21:21

Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.


Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

The disciple whom Jesus loved is the disciple writing the gospel of John.

I do love how Christ has written all Scripture not only to prove all true things of God, but also to disprove all false things about His word.

In his resurrected glorified body, Lazarus the "beloved disciple" "tarried" until Christ's first-century coming return.

Jesus Christ was the first man ever bodily resurrected from the dead with immortal flesh and bones.

Christ didn't have to say anything at all to the other disciples about this beloved disciple dying, because He had already told the disciples in Luke 20:35-36 concerning anybody who had been resurrected, "neither CAN they die anymore, for they are equal unto the angels..." .

Correct. Preaching the bodily resurrection is past, for any other person than Jesus Christ, is an old heresy rebuked by Paul.

This is only tradition introduced at a certain point, as Ghada freely admits.

Correct. And so without Scriptural proof, nor any other documented proof, there's never been any reason in the churches to doubt John was banished by Domitian in his old age to Patmos.

Tradition is not gospel truth.

True. As anything not proven in Scripture, is not gospel proof. Especially heresies that contradict gospel truth.

2Ti 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

There are also traditions and records that say John was exiled by Nero. Which are you going to believe?

Much more obscure, but no problem. If John was in Patmos during Nero's reign, fine.

Since the whole argument is irrelavent to Bible doctrine and prophecy, then I'm only throwing in my 2 cents for a speculative argument.

However, if Nero being the banisher leads someone to preach the resurrection is past for anyone other than Jesus Christ, then I'll shun Nero and go with Domitian.

Just to ensure there's no attachment of heresy on my part.

the INTERNAL evidence of scripture for the dating of Revelation - which is the subject of this post.

I haven't seen any made. But only speculation of other things, such as how long does it take to become lukewarm after an earthquake... How about a volcano or tsunami?

And only demanding Christ write Scripture confirming His prophecy of Jesursalem's destruction, is not an internal argument from Scripture, but only an external demand of highly opinionated readers.

 

[CrowCross]

All anyone has to do is look at YOUR post #308. No denying it. Pure and simple mockery. Made yourself irrelevant in this conversation.

LOL...still trying?
I simply pointed out some people simply post a bible verse and assume they are right and everyone else is wrong because they have posted a bible verse. Notice how I didn't call you an idiot for not getting that concept first time around.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

LOL...still trying?
I simply pointed out some people simply post a bible verse and assume they are right and everyone else is wrong because they have posted a bible verse. Notice how I didn't call you an idiot for not getting that concept first time around.

You are the one that called people out for mocking. And the very next post you made - the very next one - you do the same thing. That you keep mocking me for pointing out your own hypocrisy is the sign you can't be trusted in a civil discourse. You continue to be irrelevant.

 

[Ghada]

Count them.....incarnation...that's one right?

Jesus then died, resurrected then ascended...right so far?

True.

Still waiting on His second coming to earth. Which will be in His glory over all the earth in sight of all men.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The generation still at hand is every generation following, including our own.

This is blatantly false. When Christ told John in Revelation 1:3 & 19 that the visions of things that were "about to be hereafter" were then "at hand", this meant that those prophecies were starting their fulfillment and were presently starting to take place at the time John received those visions.

The words "AT HAND" in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 do not apply to any and every generation that ever exists. That is a joke. God explicitly defined what he meant by an "AT HAND" prophecy back in Ezekiel 12:21-28. That kind of prophecy is not "prolonged" into "times that are far off". Instead, they are fulfilled "in your days" for those who are first receiving that prophecy. God both "speaks" the word of prophecy and then "performs" it in the same time frame for an "at hand" prophecy.

This means that the visions of future things that were then "at hand" in John's days would be fulfilled in their days - not "prolonged" into distant times that were "far off" (such as our generation).

Now, if you are going to insist that John was writing Revelation in the 90's, then you are obligated by God's own Ezekiel 12:21-28 definition of what an "at hand" prophecy is to determine when Revelation's cataclysmic events have unfolded back in the 90's.

I am patiently waiting for your own explanation of when in the 90's all of John's visions have occurred...

 

[CrowCross]

You are the one that called people out for mocking. And the very next post you made - the very next one - you do the same thing. That you keep mocking me for pointing out your own hypocrisy is the sign you can't be trusted in a civil discourse. You continue to be irrelevant.

If you say so.

 

[Josheb]

If there is a document that says John was imprisoned about 90 AD, then that is most likely true.

The traditional agreement is John was banished by Domitian. Aside from internal Bible evidence, or any other documents, there's never been any reason not to accept it.

This was addressed earlier in the thread. First, the tradition does not exist. The dating has been a matter of debate since the early days of discourse and it was not until liberal theologians began to question the veracity of Jesus' and the apostles' expectations and urgency that the lat-date view gained momentum. A partial preterist view in which at least part of Matthew 24 and Revelation were deemed to be about Jerusalem's judgment and destruction was the norm long before de Alcazar formalized the preterist view during the Reformation in defense of the Pope and RCism.

The late date is based on a speculative statement first made by Irenaeus more than a century after the canon of scripture was closed. Later ECFs replicated his position without critical examination or verification so it became "tradition," but the fact is that Irenaeus' statement was speculation, not fact. Know one know exactly when John wrote the book. This thread has covered various evidences for early and late dates.

Tradition is evidence, but it's not proof. As evidence, the tradition proves to be questionable because of the speculative nature of Irenaeus' statement and the fact it was repeated as hearsay, not investigated fact. Tradition used to say the world was coming to an end simply because the KJV translated aionios as "world" and not "age." That eror has been corrected and now no one thinks the world is literally going to cease to exist when Jesus returns.

 

[Josheb]

It's the point being made. It's a good point,

Yes, it is.

...but not a law requiring all fulfilled prophecy of Scripture be recorded in Scripture, if Scripture is still being written on earth...

Non sequitur. Such a position has never been asserted in this thread. If you're just covering the (irrelevant) base, then the point's been made and it's the valid point that should be discussed (not the irrelevancy).

 

[Ghada]

The words "AT HAND" in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 do not apply to any and every generation that ever exists.

That is every generation following until the return of the Lord, including our own now.

There will be no antichrist leadership during any generation of His Mellinnium, nor on the eternal new earth.

There will be one more brief generation of a false christ and leadership against the Lord and His saints, after His Mellinium expires, and Satan is loosed on earth without the King executing His law on earth.

God explicitly defined what he meant by an "AT HAND" prophecy back in Ezekiel 12:21-28. That kind of prophecy is not "prolonged" into "times that are far off". Instead, they are fulfilled "in your days" for those who are first receiving that prophecy.

True. The first antichrists coming into the world began immediately after the first generation of Jesus' resurrection. The last great antichrist will be immediately before He returns to earth.

As in John's day, there be many antichrists still coming into the world, to one degree or another of deception and destruction of souls.

God both "speaks" the word of prophecy and then "performs" it in the same time frame for an "at hand" prophecy.

God doesn't perform antichrists coming into the world. Satan does. Nor does Jesus Christ perform war upon the saints to decieve them to false christs.

The Lord performs tribulation of wrath upon them troubling His people, and will perform His greatest tribulation of wrath upon the earth at His return.

Now, if you are going to insist that John was writing Revelation in the 90's,

I don't insist anything about the date Revelation is written. It's only a game of speculation. My vote is simply the 90's for reasons I've given.

However, I have learned that when people get all worked up about something, then there is usually a personal reason for it. What does it matter to you? What is any doctrinal or prophetic significance to the date Revelation is written?

then you are obligated by God's own Ezekiel 12:21-28 definition of what an "at hand" prophecy is to determine when Revelation's cataclysmic events have unfolded back in the 90's.

Every generation on earth has cataclysmic events, and wars, and rumors of wars. And since the Lord's resurrection, false christs and antichrists coming with great promise and going with great swaths of spiritual and physical destruction in their wake.

The greatest cataclysmic events individually and worldwide, will be from the Lord in the air upon all inhabitors on the earth, that are not resurrected to meet Him in the air.

I am patiently waiting for your own explanation of when in the 90's all of John's visions have occurred...

None of them have, including that of the last great antichrist rising and falling in Rev 6. More localized versions have come with the same usual manner of rising success and falling failure, destroying others along with themselves.

This is why we are told at the beginning to understand and keep the things written in Revelation. Because the book exposes the hidden nature of false christs, prophets, apostles, and teachers. Revelation is not just a book of future events, but a spiritual guide to proving the gospel people preach, whether it be that of God in Scripture or not.

As the gospel has spread throughout the world, then these antichrists have also enlarged themselves over more and more people. The first recorded antichirst by name is Diotrephes in 3 John, who was dominating one local church, so that he wouldn't even allow a chosen apostle of Jesus Christ to have any say in the congregation. Others have usurped the Headship of Jesus and dominated whole organizations and denominations of believers from time to time.

The last great antichrist will indeed be the first worldwide organization of his own churches, built upon his own gospel. He will be the most decieving false christ ever come in his own name. Both Jewish and Christian believers will be caught up in his deceptively alluring and warlike gospel.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That is every generation following until the return of the Lord, including our own now.

A prophecy said to be "AT HAND" is presently going to be fulfilled in the days of those who were FIRST receiving that prophecy. You are totally missing God's definition of what "AT HAND" means in Ezekiel 12:21-28. The first-century generation to whom those "AT HAND" prophecies were delivered had those prophecies performed in their own days before they had died. Christ confirmed this in Matthew 16:27-28.

I don't insist anything about the date Revelation is written. It's only a game of speculation. My vote is simply the 90's for reasons I've given.

However, I have learned that when people get all worked up about something, then there is usually a personal reason for it. What does it matter to you? What is any doctrinal or prophetic significance to the date Revelation is written?

What matters is the veracity of Christ's identity as a true Prophet and the Son of God. If Christ lied about those He spoke to experiencing His return in glory to give rewards to all according to their works before those people had died, then He is a liar and a false prophet, and we need not believe a single word that He said. If he lied in saying that ALL that list of events He gave in Luke 21:8-36 were "about to come to pass" for those disciples He was speaking to in their own first-century generation, then again, He lied as a false prophet.

If Christ's words to John in Revelation about those "AT HAND" prophecies of future events ALL coming to pass in John's days, then again, He lied and is a false prophet which we should totally dismiss. And if you cannot prove that all those prophetic events of the future came to pass in the 90's, then you need to discard your theory of an AD 90's composition of Revelation.

Christ's deity is on the line, that is what is important.

 

[Ghada]

This was addressed earlier in the thread. First, the tradition does not exist.

In my personal experience of Bible interest, including as an unbeliever, the tradition has commonly be John on Patmos in the 90's.

The dating has been a matter of debate since the early days of discourse

Obviously not about the date Revelation was written. It would have been common knowledge by Christians in the first century AD.

and it was not until liberal theologians began to question the veracity of Jesus' and the apostles' expectations and urgency

Which has nothing to do with the date Revelation was written.

The heresy of doubting the Lord's coming to earth again, was as early as the time of 2 Peter.

that the lat-date view gained momentum.

Any debate on date would not have begun until after the death of John. However long it took for Christians to care about it.

Which I still don't. I haven't seen one thing in Scripture nor any arguments made by date debators, unless I've missed it, how it has anything to do with teaching doctrine and prophecy of Christ written by His apostles.

A partial preterist view in which at least part of Matthew 24 and Revelation were deemed to be about Jerusalem's judgment and destruction

Ok. An earlier date is to quash any preterism?

Matthew 24 only prophecies Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD. However, neither Antiochus' idolatry, nor Caligula's statue, nor Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD, can possibly be the time of Daniel's prophecied abomination, that stands in the holy place of God on earth

Mat 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

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)

Yes, we understand this great abomination is only after the gospel is first preached throughout the world.

But, for partial preterism, it is certainly known in Scripture about false christs coming in their own name, with persecutions, and also with the offended falling back of some naming Christ.

All these things were plainly warned of by Jesus, as well as confirmed by the apostles, who themselves were in these last days, and endured such things unto the end.

Also the works of the churches judged by Jesus are well known from Revelation 2-3. As well as events in heaven with the Lord's ascension to the throneroom in Rev 4-5. It's only with Rev 6 that the last great antichrist as yet to come on the earth before the Lord's return in Rev 19, and His Mellinium on earth in Rev 20.

The end of these last days does not come until the Lord's return.

was the norm long before de Alcazar formalized the preterist view during the Reformation in defense of the Pope and RCism.

I took a quick glance at Alcazar. He's just an anti-Mellinialist making sure prophecy only spiritual, so that prophecy is made into symbolic myth alone.

John was a preterist in part, by acknowledging his own companionship in tribulation and wrath of unrighteous man. However, the last great antichrist on earth in Rev 6, has yet to come.

Or, at least he has not commonly revealed himself. That will be seen and known by many namers of Christ seduced into whatever false gospel of Christ he comes up with, and spreads worlwide.

I'm thinking it's a grand mixture of justification by faith alone, and by works alone. It will entice both the grace-only Christians and the law-only Jews.

Also, I believe Scripture shows him to by a Syrian born Jew, that will convert to 'Judeo Christianity', and pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ in the most grandest of fashions. (with a little help from his friend and dragon over fire and the sky, in the sight of the foolish sight-seers seeking signs.)

In any case, some anti-mil super-spiritualist agreeing with John on Patmos in the 90's, does not disprove it. No more than the negative argument of Revelation not mentioning Jerusalem's destruction, nor the death of apostles to date.

but the fact is that Irenaeus' statement was speculation, not fact.

Of course, without Scriptural nor historical evidence, then it's all speculation. Which is fine by me, since being written in the 60's or 90's, has nothing to do with the prophecy of the last great antichrist to come on earth, immediately before the Lord's return.

The former has not appeared from his unseen rising place, to be admired in the wide wide world of ministerial sports. And especially not the Lord from heaven seen over all the earth.

Know one know exactly when John wrote the book.

My bet is on the traditional 90's, along with his great age prophesied by Jesus.

In fact, that prophecy is even more convincing of his old age on Patmos:

John 21:22
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

The normal reading is Jesus speaking of His coming again over all the earth. But He certainly did come to John personally on Patmos, after John had tarried into old age.

I apreciate the thread in that I haven't yet entered into such a speculative debate. However, I'm convicned enough by the nature of Christ's prophecy, which ofter has a two-edged meaning, that it supports the standard Christian tradition: John imprisoned on Patmos by Domitian in the 90's.

And so far as with me personally, even before being born again, tt's this earlier date that's been hidden in some corner. My question is why. What's the point? Other than the standard zeal to 'find' some new thing to 'reveal'...

Act 17:21
(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

There's always been theologians and philosophers and mystics trying to come up with something brand-spanking new, that the whole world had been missing to date.

Tradition used to say the world was coming to an end simply because the KJV translated aionios as "world" and not "age."

True. Not to mention the usual chicken littles, end times zealots, and downright destructive antichrists coming in their own name....

That eror has been corrected and now no one thinks the world is literally going to cease to exist when Jesus returns.

Not so. The passing away of this heaven and earth, is not until His Mellinium expires on earth, and the last rise of Satan and rebellion quenched by fire from the Lord in heaven.

Psa 2:1
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

 

[Ghada]

A prophecy said to be "AT HAND" is presently going to be fulfilled in the days of those who were FIRST receiving that prophecy.

They already had been enduring tribulation and wrath of wicked men, long before John was on Patmos.

You are totally missing God's definition of what "AT HAND" means in Ezekiel 12:21-28. The first-century generation to whom those "AT HAND" prophecies were delivered had those prophecies performed in their own days before they had died. Christ confirmed this in Matthew 16:27-28.

Wait. Are you trying to say the prophecy of Revelation is already passed?

If so, then no wonder you preach the bodily resurrection is past.

As well as needing to believe the Lord has come His second time to earth. (Although much more stealthily than He Himself prophecies)

Do you also believe this heaven and earth are passed, and the GWT judgment as been done?

How about the new heaven and earth? Is this it?

If he lied in saying that ALL that list of events He gave in Luke 21:8-36 were "about to come to pass" for those disciples

Taken with Matthew 24, we know at least three things did not come to pass in the 1st century AD: The gospel preached in all the world among all nations on earth, Daniel's abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, and the Lord come again with glory seen over all the earth.

And if you cannot prove that all those prophetic events of the future came to pass in the 90's,

If you cannot read what is said to understand it, before objecting to it, then you'll continue to uselessly object to something else, and to the wrong person.

then you need to discard your theory of an AD 90's composition of Revelation.

Actually, do to this thread's speculations about it, I now believe it is established prophecy of Jesus, and not just standard tradition of the churches.

John 21:22
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Even as some prophecy has double-edged meaning, so with this one. The Lord is not necessarily prophecying of His coming again in the air, but certainly can be speaking of His own personal coming to John on Patmos. For which John must tarry, as into old age.

He could indeed have been speaking of coming His second time upon the earth to rule, because He still does not know Himself the day nor the hour of the Father's command.

But after His resurrection, He certainly could be sure of bringing His Revelation to John on Patmos, after tarrying many years hence...

Sometimes it takes a question previously unasked, to provoke an answer not yet considered.

 

[Ghada]

What matters is the veracity of Christ's identity as a true Prophet and the Son of God.

No, It's only the veracity of some interpreters of His prophecies.

And some preaching He has come again and the resurrection is past, aren't really even in the running. Such heresies are not new, but it looks like they are enduring. Even with it already being condemned in Scripture since the 1st century AD.

All such false prophecying will end with the Lord's return to Jersualem, and His reign over all the earth.

Zec 13:3
And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

In that time of righteous government and speedily executed rule on earth, even the parents will have their false prophecying kids killed.

If Christ's words to John in Revelation about those "AT HAND" prophecies of future events ALL coming to pass in John's days, then again,

I'm betting the source of your angst, is anti-mil, right? You think you are now reigning with Christ from heaven over all the earth?

You want to believe the judgment of works unto the second death, has no power over your own works of the flesh. Right?

Christ's deity is on the line, that is what is important.

If you think that Jesus Christ's prophecy and deity is dependent upon your surreal stuff, then that would be your own christ's veracity at stake.

Which is actually true. There are people trusting in their own doctrine alone to justify them. Therefore, of their doctrine is derailed, then so is their christ.

Seriously folks...

 

[Ghada]

Such a position has never been asserted in this thread. If you're just covering the (irrelevant) base, then the point's been made and it's the valid point that should be discussed (not the irrelevancy).

Ok. Let's back up. CPlease clarify for me the point here:

Josheb said:
When prophesies are fulfilled in the NT it is noted. How then would the fulfillment of Jerusalem's destruction not be noted if the scriptures were written after those prophecies were fulfilled?

When you speak of prophecies 'fulfilled in the NT', do you mean prophecies fulfilled while the NT is still being written in the 1st century AD?

Such as the coming and virgin birth of Christ. His rejection by His own people.The slaughter of innocents by Herod. His death by crucifixion. Etc...

Josheb said:
When prophesies are fulfilled in the NT it is noted. How then would the fulfillment of Jerusalem's destruction not be noted if the scriptures were written after those prophecies were fulfilled?

Do you mean that since other fulfilled prophecies are noted in the NT, that during the time of NT writing, all fulfilled prophecies ought be noted?

So, that we would wonder why NT Scriptures written after Jersualem's destruction, do not note it?

 

[3 Resurrections]

I don't insist anything about the date Revelation is written.

For someone who has no vested interest in when Revelation was written, you have certainly deluged this post with your own viewpoint about it. If it makes no difference to you, then why post?

And some preaching He has come again and the resurrection is past, aren't really even in the running. Such heresies are not new, but it looks like they are enduring. Even with it already being condemned in Scripture since the 1st century AD.

The heresy which Paul refuted was the false teaching that there was NO resurrection of the dead coming in the future for that first-century generation to experience (1 Cor. 15:12). Of course, a bodily resurrection event had already occurred, which was the one involving Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints, all raised to glorified, incorruptible bodies on that same day back in AD 33.

The heresy being taught by Hymenaeus and Philetus was that THIS resurrection of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints was the only one that would ever occur. It wasn't. It was only the FIRST one (as 1 Cor. 15:23 also teaches). Which I also have presented here on this forum on other posts.

I'm betting the source of your angst, is anti-mil, right? You think you are now reigning with Christ from heaven over all the earth?

LOL you are presuming that I have "angst". Actually, it was seeing the past fulfillment of all the unsealed Revelation prophecies given by Christ that removed all the angst that my former Pre mil disp. training from my youth had instilled in me. I don't miss it. Too much fear-mongering of the gullible, which I once used to be.

This post is not supposed to be about the discussion of the millennium. There are plenty other posts already started on this subject. Pick one, or start your own fresh post on it.

 

[Ghada]

For someone who has no vested interest in when Revelation was written, you have certainly deluged this post with your own viewpoint about it. If it makes no difference to you, then why post?

Joining in speculation does not have a vested interest, but only curiosity. It can be interesting, without being serious.

For me, unless shown otherwise, the date of Revelation has no relavance to teaching the doctrine and prophecy in it.

The heresy which Paul refuted was the false teaching that there was NO resurrection of the dead coming in the future for that first-century generation to experience (1 Cor. 15:12).

True. It also applies to preaching any bodily resurrection is past, other than that of Jesus Christ.

Afterall, it's preaching the promised resurrection is past. Some try to preach it as a partial series of bodily resurrections, but it's still the same thing: The resurrection is past for this or that person.

Nobody other than Jesus Christ is already resurrected with immortal body forever.

It also applies to preaching the first resurrection is past 'spiritually', with saints now 'spiritually' reigning over the earth with Christ in heavenly places.

Of course, a bodily resurrection event had already occurred, which was the one involving Christ

True.

and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints, all raised to glorified, incorruptible bodies on that same day back in AD 33.

False. They came out of the graves, but nothing is said of them having glorified bodies walking around in Jersualem for all to see.

There are plenty examples of the dead rising again, who then lived natural lives unto death and judgment.

The man touching the prophets bones was not resurrected with glorified body on earth. Nor Tabitha, nor the boy on the bier, nor Lazarus, nor the saints walking in Jersualem after the Lord's resurrection.

The heresy being taught by Hymenaeus and Philetus was that THIS resurrection of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints was the only one that would ever occur.

I've never heard this. Thanks. Do you have proof in Scripture of it?

Therefore, they maybe based their heresy upon error, by not making difference between being raised from the dead on earth, and being resurrected with glorified bodies.

It wasn't. It was only the FIRST one (as 1 Cor. 15:23 also teaches).

1Co 15:23
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Jesus Christ is the only one raised bodily from the dead. The saints are resurrected at His coming.

Once again, the Lord has not come a second time, as by stealth.

Too much fear-mongering of the gullible, which I once used to be.

You mean the fear of the Lord and His righteous judgment of works?

1 Peter
{1:15} But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; {1:16} Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. {1:17} And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:

Those who believe the Lord has already come again, and His saints are now resurrected to reign with Him 'spritiually' forever, do so in order to prophecy their own escape from any judgement of their own unrighteous works, unto the second death.

Rev 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.

It's the old worm of justification by faith alone, wiggling it's way into prophecy as well as doctrine of Christ.

This post is not supposed to be about the discussion of the millennium.

This post is about the book of Revelation, which has gone from dating it to the prophecy of it, when it is suggested that the prophecies of the book were fulfilled in the 1st century. As though the dating of the book somehow shows it.

Therefore, the the argument is open to the prophecy of the first resurrection of the saints to reign with Christ in His mellinium on earth.

And some do teach the first resurrection is past, the saints now reign with the Lord over the earth from heaven, and they can never be judged for their works on earth unto the second death.

It's a prophetic lie to match a doctrinal lie, that by their own incredibly gracious faith alone, some people actually believe they are exempted from the righteous judgment of the Lord by their own unrighteous works:

2Pe 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

[Josheb]

In my personal experience of Bible interest, including as an unbeliever, the tradition has commonly be John on Patmos in the 90's.

Blessedly, personal anecdotal report is not proof of anything. I might just as readily say my personal experience has been different and then where would that get us? Competing opinions?


If you haven't done so already, give Ken Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell," a read. Gentry covers a wide array of evidence (including the matter of "tradition" and the Irenaeus report). His evidence was sufficient and persuasive enough to change the minds of many leading theologians from a variety of sectarian orientations. You may not agree with his conclusions, but you'll be way better informed.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Nobody other than Jesus Christ is already resurrected with immortal body forever.

That's not true. Everyone the disciples and Christ raised from the dead remained alive (as well as those three examples back in the OT). It isn't even possible for anyone to die twice (even the wicked) as "it is appointed unto men ONCE to die" - and once only, just as Christ died only once (Heb. 9:27-28). For those worthy to attain heaven's realm in that resurrected state, "Neither CAN they die anymore, but are as the angels..." (Luke 20:35-36).

Scripture never says that Christ was the first one to come out of the grave in an immortal body. But He WAS the first one to ascend to the Father in heaven in a glorified, immortal body. This is what gave Jesus the title of "the First-born", as the first to ascend to the Father and become the "First-begotten from the dead" to appear in heaven. This is not just a play on words. It is what the Father said to the newly-ascended Son on the day of His appearing in heaven in that resurrected state when He consecrated Him as our Great high priest king on God's holy hill of Zion (Psalms 2:6-8).

False. They came out of the graves, but nothing is said of them having glorified bodies walking around in Jersualem for all to see.

The Matthew 27:52-53 saints never died again. See above Luke 20:35-36 verses. Also the Hebrews 9:27-28 verses. Nobody ever physically dies twice. You need to read the description of the 144,000 "First-fruits" in Revelation 14:2-5 who were standing on Mount Zion with the Lamb ("Christ the First-fruits"). Those 144,000 "First-fruits" were "without fault" and had "no guile in their mouth", having bodies that were "redeemed from the earth". This is only true of the perfected, glorified, resurrected state of the saints. These were the Matthew 27:52-53 saints who were raised from the dead the same day as Christ, and who went into the city of Jerusalem and were seen of many. The 144,000 First-fruits are pictured as standing on Mount Zion in Rev. 14:1 because both Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints were present in the city of Jerusalem on that same day. They shared the same "First-fruits" title because they all shared the same bodily resurrection event - the FIRST one in AD 33.

There are plenty examples of the dead rising again, who then lived natural lives unto death and judgment.

The man touching the prophets bones was not resurrected with glorified body on earth. Nor Tabitha, nor the boy on the bier, nor Lazarus, nor the saints walking in Jersualem after the Lord's resurrection.

Those were not "natural lives unto death and judgment". This is your own presumption, and has no backing in scripture. Once a person is bodily raised from the dead, this is a glorified, immortal body form which can never die again. It takes the power of the Holy Spirit to raise a body from the grave, which shows that they are considered a child of God. The physical bodies of the wicked dead never rise bodily from the grave. They physically die once only like everyone, but in their case, their physical bodies are destined to be left to perish in the grave, as Christ taught.