Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[3 Resurrections]

We don't know how many there were...who they were...and what happened to them.

Perhaps you don't, but I do.

 

[Ghada]

Nope. We are talking about three GROUP resurrections,

Ok. If you want to clarify your teaching. Every so-called resurrection is not counted as a separate resurrection.

Just because I find things interesting, and do want to understand it, so as to properly correct it, that doesn't mean I go along with the obvious errors of it.

Rev 20:5
This is the first resurrection.

Scripture is emphatically clear that the first resurrection of the saints at the Lord's return, is the first resurrection of any saints from the dead.

It's also emphatically clear, that they will reign with the Lord upon the earth a thousand years. Not 'as' nor 'like' a thousand years.

In terms of resurrections, you do the same with some raisings from of dead bodies on earth, as being 'like' resurrections.

scheduled to take place on the same time of year that the Passover, Pentecost, and Feast of Tabernacles resurrections used to take place. Those who were raised to life again in the OT and the NT on an individual basis had to wait for the rapture on Pentecost day in AD 70 to be taken to heaven with Christ with the group resurrected at that time.

Oh, boy. The plot thickens. The resurrection and rapture of the church in AD 70.

No wonder you reject sure prophecy of His coming again, that He will be seen by all on earth from the air. Which is the only time He comes to recieve His own unto Himself in the air:

Jhn 14:3
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

I'm wondering if you are an OSAS believer in being justified by your own faith alone. The pernicious doctrine invades and corrupts most all Scriptures of doctrine, as well as some prophecies of Scripture.

Do you believe you are saved and justified by your own faith alone? Any unrighteous works of the flesh you still do on earth, are not judged and condemned as others doing the same things, because of your own faith?

Our inheritance is to be "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24).

If we remain faithful and blameless in deed and in truth unto the end.

Psa 106:3
Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.

1 Thess
{5:22} Abstain from all appearance of evil. {5:23} And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. {5:24} Faithful [is] he that calleth you, who also will do it.

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.

Do you also believe you will not be wholly pure of heart and blameless in life, until after your own grave? That's the vain hope of the unrepentant sinners, that believe the very power of their own faith alone, will raise them from the dead without judgment of their sinful works.

A restored, face-to-face intimate fellowship with our Creator in a perfected, immortal body is the full spectrum of our salvation inheritance.

It's being born again on earth:

2 Cor
{5:17} Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. {5:18} And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ

Reward of inheritance is resurrection from the dead unto life, by doing His righteousness with a pure heart unto the end.

Unrepented workers of iniquity waiting to be born again after the grave, by the power of their own faith alone, wait too long to repent of their own unrighteousness.

There is no repentance nor new heart and life granted by the grave.

Christ was unique in that He was the first to ascend to heaven in that glorified, resurrected state. No man ascended to heaven in that condition before Christ did this on the morning after His resurrection.

Exactly. Even as no man is recorded to have been resurrected from the dead before Jesus Christ, so has no man been recorded as ascending to heaven before Him, nor since. Not anyone raised from the dead on earth. Nor Mohamet.

The first resurrection and ascension of the saints, will be at the first resurrection at the moment of His return to earth in full view of all eyes on earth.

Rev 20:5
This is the first resurrection.

No, that isn't required. Just because Christ was the first to ascent to heaven does not make it necessary that He be the first to be resurrected.

It's required to be written in Scripture, to teach it as truth of Scripture.

Everything else is personal speculation. Unless of course such speculation contradicts anything written in Scripture.

Rev 20:5
This is the first resurrection.

And this is not true that nothing is said about what happened to the others raised from the dead before and after Christ's resurrection and ascension.

Exactly. Which is why we don't say they are bodily resurrected with immortal bodies. Since Scripture does not say so.

All we can say is that their bodies were raised from death to live again on earth. Many don't believe that, and some don't believe that is enough.

And if you are indeed an OSAS faith aloner, then I still don't see how your coming up with mnore resurrections, or a 70 AD rapture, helps you to believe your own works won't ever be judged by the Father, whether good unto life, or bad unto death.

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:

Rom 2:6
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

For there is no respect of persons with God.

I would think this is also the reason you reject Scripture elsewhere: That no saint in Christ Jesus ever suffers from His tribulation and anguish, that is only upon the unrepentant.

I've heard of some, that preach salvation after the first resurrection of saints at the Lord's return, in order to hedge their bets with more time to repent.

That suspiciously sounds like someone prophecying a 'predawn' warning and wake up call, right before He comes again to judge between His own wheat, and the unrighteous tares only naming His name?

The problem with that fantasy, is that we don't repent because of what we see, or even right before, but only because we repent with godly sorrow for the Lord's sake.

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

There can be death bed repentance, but purposely waiting to right before death, or His coming again? That sounds more like the sorriness of the world, that doesn't want to get caught in the open with their pants down.

In any case, the day and hour of our own death can come just as suddenly unaware, as we know for certain His coming will be.

There is only one single physical death experience for the body that mankind ever passes through - NOT TWO DEATHS before judgment.

Not before judgment no. There is only one death, where the body can only be resurrected unto life, or be condemned by righteous judgment of their works.

You are inventing a second physical death for the body which Scripture denies utterly. And you are inventing a ridiculous distinction between being "raised from the dead" and being "resurrected from the dead". They are the same thing.

This is the same manner of 'urgency' about one's doctrines and prophecies, that I have seen common among all that trust entirely in the doctrine and prophecy to save and justify them.

By their own faith alone, they have convinced themselves that they shall personally escape His righteous judgment upon all works of iniquity alike, that with the righteous Lord is without respect of persons.

Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Such longsuffering of God for repentance ends in the grave. After this death, there is only the judgment unto condemnation.

 

[CrowCross]

True. But we do know who they were: OT Saints.

Mat 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Did King David resurrect?
Was it limited to the contemporaries of that day?

 

[CrowCross]

Perhaps you don't, but I do.

Then who were they?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Scripture is emphatically clear that the first resurrection of the saints at the Lord's return, is the first resurrection of any saints from the dead.

No, the scripture is abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 15:23 that the "First-fruits" was the first group resurrection event, and that "afterward" would arise those who would be raised from the dead at Christ's coming.

It was the same for the order of agricultural harvests in Israel. For the first harvest feast at Passover, there was the small sheaf handful of "First-fruits" barley grain, harvested and presented in the temple along with a single He-Lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12 providing the symbol of the coming Matthew 27:52-53 saints resurrected the same day as Christ, the Lamb of God, in AD 33).

For the second harvest at Pentecost, the wheat harvest was ripe by then (the AD 70 harvest of the "wheat" - and the "tares").

For the third harvest at the "Feast of Ingathering" at the close of Israel's agricultural year, all the rest of the harvests of the field were gathered in (which is the final "harvest" of a resurrection in our future).

Those three main harvest festivals of celebration do not disallow that there were individual "stalks" of grain that could be plucked from the field before those three main harvests, just as there were individuals bodily resurrected occasionally in the OT and the NT. These received the very same type of glorified bodies that all the other "harvests" were composed of - even though they were not part of the three main group "harvests". I'm sure you remember Christ and the disciples walking through the fields and each plucking stalks of grain to eat, before the main harvest.

Exactly. Which is why we don't say they are bodily resurrected with immortal bodies. Since Scripture does not say so.

You aren't reading my statement carefully enough. I wrote that you are incorrect that nothing was said about those raised to life again in the OT and NT. We DO read in scripture what their resurrected bodies were like.

And if you are indeed an OSAS faith aloner, then I still don't see how your coming up with mnore resurrections, or a 70 AD rapture, helps you to believe your own works won't ever be judged by the Father, whether good unto life, or bad unto death.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? You are putting words in my mouth concerning soteriology.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Then who were they?

The Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were the "First-fruits", raised out of those graves on the same day as "Christ the First-fruits" for that "First resurrection" event. And the First-fruits of Revelation 14:4 numbered 144,000. They all came out of the 12 listed tribes found in Revelation 7 - all of them coming from tribes of Israel out of those graves around Jerusalem which were broken open at Christ's crucifixion.

 

[CrowCross]

The Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were the "First-fruits", raised out of those graves on the same day as "Christ the First-fruits" for that "First resurrection" event. And the First-fruits of Revelation 14:4 numbered 144,000. They all came out of the 12 listed tribes found in Revelation 7 - all of them coming from tribes of Israel out of those graves around Jerusalem which were broken open at Christ's crucifixion.

What you have presented is speculation.

 

[Ghada]

I would offer Christ our Holy Father has lovingly has given us "two witnesses " to protect the integrity of the living ,abiding word that works in the heart of a believer . The living word did not die when he sealed any possibilities of new prophecy . Sealed it with seven seals till the end of time

Amen. New revelations and prophecies of Scripture since the last amen in Rev 22, has been the source of much destruction of the faith of God in the churches.

The first witness is in respect to "one word " One word ,change the meaning change the author .You could say spiritual plagiarism violated the first commandment The warning do not add ws broken with Satan .. . ."neither shall you touch it" as false prophecy The cause of the fall .

Well done. Very few actually see that the first transgression of man was immediately preceeded by the first example of adding to the Scriptures.

In this case, it's a carnal ordinance, that God never commanded against. Most acknowledge the adding of liberty to transgress the law, but very few understand the greater danger of taking away from the liberty of the law.

Many holier-than-thou types call it safety rule of zero-tolerance.

The second loving law Revelation 22 do not add or subtract form the perfect , both working as one protecting integrity of the Author .

Most acknowledge adding liberty outside the law to transgress, but very few understand the greater danger of taking away from the liberty of the law.

Many holier-than-thou types call it safety rules or zero-tolerance holiness.

Mankind confusion wondering seeking as if it was future prophecy I think Jesus used Nicodemus a sign and wonder seeker in regard to the most greatest miracle eternal life .He lovingly commanded "marvel "not but rather believe

True again. 'Marvelling' at something is like azwe-struck unbelief. Obedience only follows plainly believing what the Lord commands.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What you have presented is speculation.

No, its not my speculation. The Matthew 27:52-53 saints coming out of their graves that same day as "Christ the First-fruits" was pictured for us all the way back in Leviticus 23:10-12. The handful of barley grain which was the "sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest" taken from the fields at Passover was offered at the same time as a single He-Lamb without blemish. These "First-fruits" and the single He-Lamb without blemish were offered in the temple together, to portray the "harvest" of the Matthew 27:52-53 "First-fruits" saints being raised on the same day as Christ our Passover Lamb.

Even though the Matthew 27:52-53 saints were a comparatively small "remnant of the dead" which came to life again as the "First resurrection" along with "Christ the First-fruits", they were the example of an even greater harvest of resurrected saints yet to come at the next harvest at Pentecost. Which came to pass on AD 70's Pentecost day, precisely in fulfillment of Daniel 12:11-13's prediction for the last, 1,335th day.

 

[Ghada]

Did King David resurrect?

None resurrected, but only made alive again to live on earth, even as others in the Bible, beginning with the son fo the Zarephath widow raised by Elijah.

This in itself shows he was not resurrected bodily as the Lord Jesus. Other men, nor angels, do not resurrect anyone bodily, even prophets and apostles of the Lord.

Especially not old dead bones:

2Ki 13:21
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

He revived to live again on earth.

Was it limited to the contemporaries of that day?

The Scripture does not say who nor how long they were dead, but only that they were OT saints dying in the faith of the Lord.

 

[CrowCross]

The Scripture does not say who nor how long they were dead, but only that they were OT saints dying in the faith of the Lord.

Yup, that's it. People should not make a theology from that single verse.

 

[Ghada]

No, the scripture is abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 15:23 that the "First-fruits" was the first group resurrection event, and that "afterward" would arise those who would be raised from the dead at Christ's coming.

It helps to quote Scripture in order to teach Scripture, and not our own faith and minds.

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

Paul spoke of himself as possibly being one of them remaining alive on earth, at Christ's coming day and hour. Therefore Christ being the firstfruits from the dead, is separated from all them resurrected from the dead at His coming.

Jas 1:18
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

This says several things: Being a kind of firstfruits, is not being the firstfruits, which only now is Christ. Being a kind of firstfruits is all for all born again saints of Christ past and present. It finally shows that being begotten of God is indeed a kind of resurrection, that is now only of the soul and spirit, but not yet of the body like Jesus Christ.

Rom 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

We are not yet raised bodily from the dead in the likeness of Jesus' resurrection, which will not be before His coming again. But like as Jesus was raised from the dead by God, so are we raised by the same Spirit from the death of sins and trespasses, unto the newness of life on earth in Christ Jesus.

The resurrection is not past for any saint on earth, nor any saint separate from their dead bodies and departed into the presence of the Lord.

Those three main harvest festivals of celebration do not disallow that there were individual "stalks" of grain that could be plucked from the field before those three main harvests, just as there were individuals bodily resurrected occasionally in the OT and the NT.

Not resurrected, but only made alive again to live on earth

The son of the Zarephath widow raised by Elijah. Neither men, nor angels, resurrect anyone bodily unto immortality, even prophets and apostles of the Lord.

Especially not by old dead bones:

2Ki 13:21
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

He revived to live again on earth.

I'm sure you remember Christ and the disciples walking through the fields and each plucking stalks of grain to eat, before the main harvest.

Not resurrecting them. Bodily resurrected saints are not eaten by the Lord.

It is we that must eat of His flesh, and drink of His blood, to be begotten of the Father and have His life. Which is only a kind of firstfruits and like a resurrection on earth, though not bodily as Jesus Christ.

The only man recorded as being resurrected from the dead with immortal body, is Jesus Christ. He is also recorded as being raised from the dead.

Others are recorded as being raised from the dead, but not resurrected with immortal bodies.

I wrote that you are incorrect that nothing was said about those raised to life again in the OT and NT. We DO read in scripture what their resurrected bodies were like.

Once again. No Scripture. We only read they were raised from the dead to live again on earth, not resurrected with immortal bodies. We can conclude they did live again in their same bodies at the time of death.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? You are putting words in my mouth concerning soteriology.

No. I'm asking a specific question about your doctrine of salvation and justification, if it is by faith alone, apart from any works you are doing.

I've found many things being taught and/or prophecied by some people, inevitably goes back to that one teaching: That anyone can escape the judgment of their works at the Lord's return. And that their own continued works of the flesh, are not condemned as others not naming Christ.

At this time, I'm wondering of your belief that the tares and wheat have already been judged in the first century, that perhaps therefore, there will be no judgment and separation of the Lord between the His wheat and the tares?

Not only is the resurrection past, but also the judgment?

 

[Ghada]

Yup, that's it. People should not make a theology from that single verse.

It's good to meet a believer that believes in disciplined reading of the words God writes, without spinning them out of control to write way more than what is written.

I have concluded that the Bible is the most abused book on the planet, and not just by those rejecting it as God's word. In fact most of the abuse of God's words come from those claiming to beleive it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of Christ.

I have never seen people spend so much time trying to rewrite an author's words, in order to make that author say something else entirely. All other books of men, especially in religion and philosophy, are read with more sincerity. The readers only want to understand exactly what the author is saying, so they can then accurately agree or disagree with it.

Many people naming Christ actually prefer to change His words they don't agree with, rather than just say they don't agree with His words...

I find such people that change God's words around, in order to say they now agree with Him, do something similar with the words of those who apply standard disciple to reprot only the Book's words. Their reports are also changed around, but only to make them look foolishly disagreeable.

 

[CrowCross]

It's good to meet a believer that believes in disciplined reading of the words God writes, without spinning them out of control to write way more than what is written.

I have concluded that the Bible is the most abused book on the planet, and not just by those rejecting it as God's word. In fact most of the abuse of God's words come from those claiming to beleive it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of Christ.

I have never seen people spend so much time trying to rewrite an author's words, in order to make that author say something else entirely. All other books of men, especially in religion and philosophy, are read with more sincerity. The readers only want to understand exactly what the author is saying, so they can then accurately agree or disagree with it.

Many people naming Christ actually prefer to change His words they don't agree with, rather than just say they don't agree with His words...

I find such people that change God's words around, in order to say they now agree with Him, do something similar with the words of those who apply standard disciple to reprot only the Book's words. Their reports are also changed around, but only to make them look foolishly disagreeable.

Unfortunately no Christian has 100% correct theology...and we all change the bible a little.
But, to take that single verse and make it into something dogmatic is dangerous.

 

[Mr GLee]

None resurrected, but only made alive again to live on earth, even as others in the Bible, beginning with the son fo the Zarephath widow raised by Elijah.

This in itself shows he was not resurrected bodily as the Lord Jesus. Other men, nor angels, do not resurrect anyone bodily, even prophets and apostles of the Lord.

Especially not old dead bones:

2Ki 13:21
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

He revived to live again on earth.



The Scripture does not say who nor how long they were dead, but only that they were OT saints dying in the faith of the Lord.

I would offer can't put no wine (life) in old combiner (dying flesh and blood)

1 Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

To be made alive is to be resurrected. altogether one work

New creature, incorruptible

corruption = "decomposing, putrid, spoiled"

Neither male nor female Jew nor gentile New Creation new rudiments.

.Let there be and it was good

 

[Ghada]

No, its not my speculation. The Matthew 27:52-53 saints coming out of their graves that same day as "Christ the First-fruits" was pictured for us all the way back in Leviticus 23:10-12. The handful of barley grain which was the "sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest" taken from the fields at Passover was offered at the same time as a single He-Lamb without blemish. These "First-fruits" and the single He-Lamb without blemish were offered in the temple together, to portray the "harvest" of the Matthew 27:52-53 "First-fruits" saints being raised on the same day as Christ our Passover Lamb.

So long as something makes sense, then it must be honestly considered. We ought not dismiss anything out of hand, unless it is obvious.

Lev 23:10
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.

Your suggestion is that Christ resurrected with some firstfruits of resurrected saints, being OT only. Christ is resurrected with a partial harvest of OT saints.

The Lord resurrects from the dead, with some OT saints, and waves them before Jersualem while they walk the streets. They could be 24 in number with crowns of gold in Rev 4.

The error:

1Co 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

The Scripture is broken, if others have already been resurrected bodily from the dead.

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

It is Christ the firstfruits of resurrections from the dead, not Christ and/with firstfruits resurrected with Him.

This Scripture is also borken if any person was resurrected from the dead before or with Christ, rather than only afterward. Which is only at His coming again to earth.

Even though the Matthew 27:52-53 saints were a comparatively small "remnant of the dead"

Rom 11:4
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

The remnant were Israel after the flesh, that repented and were grafted in again.

The true teaching is that the firstfruits wave offering unto the Lord on earth, are born again saints: The High Priest Jesus Christ waves His redeemed brethren before all the world, as true witness of Himself.

Rom 8:23
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

The Spirit is the firstfruits for them that repent. Paul and every born again saint has the firstfruits of the Spirit.

Rom 16:5
Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

Them that have the Spirit are made the firstfruits of God on earth.

Jas 1:18
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Being born again is a kind of firstfruits resurrection of the soul and spirit, that is from the dead in sins and trespasses.

Rom 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The old man is crucified and dead with Christ, and the new man is reasied from the death of sins and trespasses, with newness of life on earth.

which came to life again as the "First resurrection" along with "Christ the First-fruits",

This contradicts it's own teaching: Them raised from their graves were at Jesus' death, not at His resurrection. That would be a first resurrection before the Lord.

And so the Scripture again is broken, that Christ is the firstfruits of resurrection from the dead.

they were the example of an even greater harvest of resurrected saints yet to come at the next harvest at Pentecost. Which came to pass on AD 70's Pentecost day, precisely in fulfillment of Daniel 12:11-13's prediction for the last, 1,335th day.

This is the heresy of the resurrection is past.

It also says the Lord is already come again, to harvest them afterward.

It rejects the Lord's coming with power and glory seen by all on earth.

There is only one harvest of resurrected saints reaped unto the Lord:

Mat 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Rev 14:14
And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

 

[TMSO]

Oh, but the high priests were doing this. That was the purpose of the money-changers charging a fee for the exchange of currency every time a temple worshipper from any nation came to Jerusalem to either buy or sell sacrificial animals or items for worship.

Wow. You have created your own little world, and its own economic system that does not exist in reality. The high priests weren't doing any of that. The money changers charged a foreign currency exchange fee. That is not customs. Customs is something that is levied on property brought into another country. It has nothing to do with exchanging money. Another term for customs is duties, as in let's go to the duty free store at the airport. That way we don't have to pay customs when going back to our home country.

No one could use their own national currency. They had to trade in their own nation's coinage for the only approved coinage the high priests would allow for temple transactions - the required Tyrian shekel. And they had to pay the temple money-changers a fee of a certain number of "prutah" coins for this exchange. This raked in enormous profits for the high priests, which is what earned Christ's righteous anger against those who had made His Father's house a "den of thieves".

Again, that has nothing to do with customs. Jesus was being clear that He was talking about actual kings, because it is the kings who levy taxes and customs. The high priests didn't even levy the temple tax. GOD DID. The high priests collect that tax for the upkeep of the temple, and for the priests. And if you don't think God was the one who instituted it, you need to go and read it all again.

I notice you didn't answer any of my questions above concerning your own ideas for the identification of these eight "kings", one of which was then currently still living as John was writing. Do you have any thoughts at all on this that would match your proposed composition date of Revelation in the 90's? It's not good enough to simply label my view as "an aberrant belief" if you have nothing to set in its place.

If you study the early church father's, a prevalent belief was that the one who held back the evil one was Rome. So as long as Rome was around, Jesus was not coming back. One of the church father's saw the irony in praying for the government, and the prolonging of the Roman Empire due to such prayers, while everyone wanted Jesus to return. However, that requires Rome to be gone, and the antichrist to be revealed...

How then do you explain Hannah extolling God in 1 Samuel 1:10 (1 Kings 1:10 LXX) "who gives strength to our kings...", when Saul the first monarch of Israel had not even been born yet? Israel was called a "kingdom of priests" with her "royalty" originally established by God in her high priesthood - not a regular monarch. When disobedient Israel rejected that high priest "king" in favor of a monarch just like all the other nations, this WAS a forbidden thing for that regular monarch to usurp the position of the high priest "king" which had to descend from the Levitical tribe.

I Samuel 1:10 "10 She, [a]greatly distressed, prayed to the Lord and wept bitterly." I Samuel 2:10 "
Those who contend with the Lord will be terrified;
Against them He will thunder in the heavens,
The Lord will judge the ends of the earth;
And He will give strength to His king,
And will exalt the [f]horn of His anointed.”"

Who is His king that He WILL give strength to, and who is His anointed? This seems to be a prophecy about Christ. And, if you read the scripture properly, you know what happened when the job of king and priest were mingled. God's judgment. Why? The two jobs were to ever be separate. The only ones who were/would be both king and priest (high priest) was Melchizedek, and would be Jesus. That is it. Outside of Melchizedek and Jesus there IS NO HIGH PRIEST KING.


However, since you make your claim about taxes and the high priests with the mark, do you have an estimate of how many people were executed for not having tyrian shekels? And was it the high priest who did the executing, or one of the priests?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Not resurrected, but only made alive again to live on earth

There is no difference in being "resurrected" and being "made alive again to live on earth". It takes the power of the Holy Spirit to make a dead body alive again. Christ gave his own disciples the power to do this in Matthew 10:8. "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, RAISE THE DEAD, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."

Any individual raised to life again in either the OT or the NT was raised into a glorified, resurrected body which would never die again.

The Scripture is broken, if others have already been resurrected bodily from the dead.

No, its not broken. The term "First-fruitS" is PLURAL persons - not single stalks of grain picked at various times over the centuries. There were 144,000 "First-fruits" in Rev. 14:4. These composed the "First resurrection" group event along with "Christ the First-fruits". There can be a few individual persons on a case-by-case basis raised from the dead in scripture who don't necessarily have to be part of that group of 144,000 First-fruits resurrected along with Christ.

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

It is Christ the firstfruits of resurrections from the dead, not Christ and/with firstfruits resurrected with Him.

This Scripture is also borken if any person was resurrected from the dead before or with Christ, rather than only afterward. Which is only at His coming again to earth.

No, again, it's not broken. Christ was part of the group of PLURAL "First-fruitS", but He alone was unique in being called "the First-born" and the "First-begotten". This unique "First-begotten" title applies only and always to Christ alone as being the FIRST TO ASCEND in a glorified, resurrected body and be face-to-face with God the Father in heaven.

 

[Ghada]

Unfortunately no Christian has 100% correct theology...and we all change the bible a little.

While I agree we can all at one time or another be in error about the Scriptures, it's entirely another thing to wilfully change Scripture to preach something of our own.

Heretics are not just in error from time to time, but are refusing any and all Scripture, that plainly contradicts their own will.

Two classic examples are preaching faith alone, that Scripture says is dead, and preaching Jesus Christ is not God come in the flesh, when Scripture says the Word was God and made flesh.

But, to take that single verse and make it into something dogmatic is dangerous.

I agree in part, unless a verse cannot be read any other way. Such as the Word was God, and a man is justified by works.

The real danger of destruction is if we begin to reject any such plain verse of Scripture, because God does not agree with us, so that we defile our own hearts and consciences toward God and His Christ.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Wow. You have created your own little world, and its own economic system that does not exist in reality. The high priests weren't doing any of that. The money changers charged a foreign currency exchange fee. That is not customs. Customs is something that is levied on property brought into another country. It has nothing to do with exchanging money.

You don't get it. The Tyrian shekel was used to buy and sell sacrificial items in the temple. Those purchases were not allowed unless the person coming from Judea or other nations to worship in the temple FIRST traded their own nation's currency for the abominable Tyrian shekel. THEN they could buy or sell those sacrificial items for worship. This was required by the high priesthood. It was their system, and the money-changers were their agents of collection.

The annual Temple Tax was also another requirement for the Tyrian shekel to be used. The agents of the high priest went out into the various towns to collect this - it wasn't necessary that it always be paid in person at the Temple location. And the use of the abominable Tyrian shekel coin was not God's idea - it was the high priests' - contrary to God's specific rules against idolatry with these images and inscriptions giving homage to other gods. The high priest "Kings of the earth" had corrupted the practice as originally instituted by God.

If you study the early church father's, a prevalent belief was that the one who held back the evil one was Rome.

You didn't address the topic of my question, since the discussion of the antichrist is not ever said to concern one of the "kings". This is mixing up unrelated topics. Rome was an empire - not a single "king" - and not one of the many antichrists who had gone out from among the believers;' assemblies, as 1 John 2:18-19 described .

Revelation 17 describes 7 individual men as "kings", five of whom had fallen, and one that was currently still alive as John was writing, as well as one "king" who had "not yet come" for his "short space" of being in power. This isn't describing seven successive empires. I asked you what single individual man as a "king" was still living when John was writing, if you think John was writing in the 90's.

if you read the scripture properly, you know what happened when the job of king and priest were mingled. God's judgment. Why? The two jobs were to ever be separate. The only ones who were/would be both king and priest (high priest) was Melchizedek, and would be Jesus. That is it. Outside of Melchizedek and Jesus there IS NO HIGH PRIEST KING.

The problem arose when those who became regular monarchs in Israel wanted to also serve in the high priest role. The high priest was originally supposed to act with kingly authority over Israel, judging difficult issues that arose for their nation. Israel was to be different from the other nations. Israel's kingship WAS her high priesthood originally. The problem was when the people became discontented with that and wanted ANOTHER king just like the other nations. They didn't like their own high priest king anymore, and in rebellion, sought a substitute king.