Psalm 72 - The Kingdom of God Soon to be Established on Earth

[Eleanor]

There is no sense to this 3 Res: So the Gentile nations did not get by without experiencing some of this judgment as well. , That's not what is meant at all.

nor is there 3 res. You're just at another 'theology game' with a minimum of support and a long limb on which stand at the end.

CRA-A-CK!

 

[3 Resurrections]

If you are a preterist, and your statements align with that, why have you in other places said you were amil/idealist? Your views do not fit that at all.

I'm afraid you misunderstood my comment. I said that my friend Red Baker who is a member here is an Amil / Idealist. We have engaged in spirited, friendly disagreement on a regular basis on our previous website which tanked. Even though we are divided on our eschatology, I respect Red personally as one who was very kind to me when we shared a church membership together long ago. We do share a love of the doctrines of grace, which is a unifying belief for both of us. And I believe we both have decided not to pursue a church membership anywhere at this time of our lives.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is no sense to this 3 Res: So the Gentile nations did not get by without experiencing some of this judgment as well. , That's not what is meant at al

Both Paul on Mars Hill and John writing to the Philadelphian church mentioned this world-wide time of testing and judgment that was about to come. Remember that the Jews of the first century were not just clustered all together in the land of Israel alone. There were synagogues and Jewish settlements everywhere in the empire. So, a judgment upon the Jews of that generation would necessarily have to take place in multiple locations, even though the "days of vengeance" were going to fall most heavily upon the nation of Israel and its cities.

Remember also that Nero began a blistering period of persecution for the believers starting at Rome after the AD 64 fire which he blamed the Christians for starting. Daniel 7:25 wrote that the believers would suffer by means of the "little horn" Nero who would "wear out the saints of God" for "a time, and times, and half a time" (3-1/2 years until just before Nero's suicide death in AD 68). This persecution period by Nero was also referred to in Revelation 13:5-7 when he was allowed to "make war with the saints and to overcome them" for 42 months. God allowed this, in order to maximize the number of believers who died and would then share in the AD 70 resurrection when He returned. However, judgment for this persecution of His saints still fell upon the Roman empire with a sharp increase in natural disasters, many foreign wars, famines, "the year of 4 emperors" with civil wars and disruption of government, etc.

nor is there 3 res. You're just at another 'theology game' with a minimum of support and a long limb on which stand at the end.

I would not state this view of 3 separate resurrection events unless there were solid scriptural backing for it. I would love nothing better than to spend the entire day posting on subjects such as this, but I have to balance my workroom schedule with installation deadlines. But since this is another subject than the OP, I'll try to put up a different post with 3 resurrection events as a theme. It truly is the only way that some of the widely-varying eschatology positions could be reconciled with each other.

 

[Arial]

I'm afraid you misunderstood my comment. I said that my friend Red Baker who is a member here is an Amil / Idealist. We have engaged in spirited, friendly disagreement on a regular basis on our previous website which tanked. Even though we are divided on our eschatology, I respect Red personally as one who was very kind to me when we shared a church membership together long ago. We do share a love of the doctrines of grace, which is a unifying belief for both of us. And I believe we both have decided not to pursue a church membership anywhere at this time of our lives.

My apologies for my mix up.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 3 Resurrections,

It's true that Preterism is a difficult transition that most cannot make. I was raised in Christian schools that taught premil dispensationalism from my childhood upwards, and encountering Preterism 12 years ago was quite a shock to my eschatology stance at the beginning. I really appreciate your ability to maintain a respectful disagreement.

Yes, I cannot agree with Preterism. There are too many simple, clear prophetic passages that confirm my belief in premillennialism. I do not agree with dispensationalism. Also our Senior Sunday School Class has been considering the Book of Revelation over a number of years and I endorse the continuous historic view of this prophecy. This has been a remarkable journey for me.

There have been too many posts in this thread for me to attempt to answer including one off-topic altogether. I am happy with what I have posted in the OP and other posts and will allow others to state their own position. Jesus is soon to return to the earth and he will rule as King / Priest on the Temple Throne of David in literal Jerusalem for the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[EarlyActs]

Both Paul on Mars Hill and John writing to the Philadelphian church mentioned this world-wide time of testing and judgment that was about to come. Remember that the Jews of the first century were not just clustered all together in the land of Israel alone. There were synagogues and Jewish settlements everywhere in the empire. So, a judgment upon the Jews of that generation would necessarily have to take place in multiple locations, even though the "days of vengeance" were going to fall most heavily upon the nation of Israel and its cities.

Remember also that Nero began a blistering period of persecution for the believers starting at Rome after the AD 64 fire which he blamed the Christians for starting. Daniel 7:25 wrote that the believers would suffer by means of the "little horn" Nero who would "wear out the saints of God" for "a time, and times, and half a time" (3-1/2 years until just before Nero's suicide death in AD 68). This persecution period by Nero was also referred to in Revelation 13:5-7 when he was allowed to "make war with the saints and to overcome them" for 42 months. God allowed this, in order to maximize the number of believers who died and would then share in the AD 70 resurrection when He returned. However, judgment for this persecution of His saints still fell upon the Roman empire with a sharp increase in natural disasters, many foreign wars, famines, "the year of 4 emperors" with civil wars and disruption of government, etc.

I would not state this view of 3 separate resurrection events unless there were solid scriptural backing for it. I would love nothing better than to spend the entire day posting on subjects such as this, but I have to balance my workroom schedule with installation deadlines. But since this is another subject than the OP, I'll try to put up a different post with 3 resurrection events as a theme. It truly is the only way that some of the widely-varying eschatology positions could be reconciled with each other.

Your answer fails. Just forget trying to cram everything into 70 AD, it's silly. Learn how to use 'the delay doctrine.'

I may be at an advantage here because I write feature film scripts as a side. One of the intriguing parts of the work is not what gets written, but when to time things. The NT sounds every bit like like the end of the world as we know it (the 'form of the world' in I Cor 7) would take place in that generation.

But it did not. Three passages validate this:
'Only the Father knows.'
The 4 possible times of the Master's return, Mk 13
2 Peter 3. The delay is the very reason the chapter was written, and no, there are not secret Judaic messages embedded in symbols. ('stoicheia' was also used about basic Christian elemntary practices in Heb 6).

Jesus' effort in that generation was to get as many Jews out into the mission field as possible, launched by those returning from Pentecost to all their towns. That's why the wrath on Israel in that generation. It had to have teeth. But then there was obviously delay and the mission goes on, by His grace. As Lattourrette's history says, they were surprised when the world did not end, and simply continued on in the mission.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Jesus' effort in that generation was to get as many Jews out into the mission field as possible, launched by those returning from Pentecost to all their towns. That's why the wrath on Israel in that generation. It had to have teeth.

Sure, I agree with this. But do you know the underlying reason why there was such an urgency for the gospel to go into all nations at that time? Paul told those on Mars Hill that this was because God "has appointed a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained..." (Acts 17:31). Paul was not mistaken about the imminent arrival of this particular "day" of judgment back then.

Christ was not mistaken either. He had already told the disciples that they would not have finished going through the cities of Israel personally with their evangelistic efforts before the Son of Man had come (Matthew 10:23). That meant Christ would return in the same generation the disciples were living in.

Although Christ returned as predicted on Daniel's 1,335th day of Pentecost in AD 70 before that generation of His disciples' personal ministry had ended, not everything was crammed into that AD 70 year. The years that composed "the beginning of sorrows" with its wars, commotions, famines, earthquakes in divers places, etc. led up to the time when those armies surrounded Jerusalem in AD 66. Those years of the "beginning of sorrows before the "days of vengeance" began had been filled with the ramped-up activity of the Holy Spirit which had been poured out on all flesh in those days following Pentecost in AD 33.

As Christ had predicted for the "beginning of sorrows", the disciples were beaten in synagogues, imprisoned, put on trial before the Sanhedrin councils, brought before kings and rulers, and some put to death (Mark 13:8-9). All these things came to pass as recorded in Acts and the NT epistles before the end came - the same "end" which 1 Peter 4:7 referred to when he said "the end of all things is at hand."

Hint: there are no Sanhedrin councils for any believer to stand before today, and being beaten in synagogues for our faith is not something that will happen in our future.

There was no "delay" of these predicted events. They came to pass exactly as Christ and the apostles said they would back in the first century.

 

[EarlyActs]

Sure, I agree with this. But do you know the underlying reason why there was such an urgency for the gospel to go into all nations at that time? Paul told those on Mars Hill that this was because God "has appointed a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained..." (Acts 17:31). Paul was not mistaken about the imminent arrival of this particular "day" of judgment back then.

Christ was not mistaken either. He had already told the disciples that they would not have finished going through the cities of Israel personally with their evangelistic efforts before the Son of Man had come (Matthew 10:23). That meant Christ would return in the same generation the disciples were living in.

Although Christ returned as predicted on Daniel's 1,335th day of Pentecost in AD 70 before that generation of His disciples' personal ministry had ended, not everything was crammed into that AD 70 year. The years that composed "the beginning of sorrows" with its wars, commotions, famines, earthquakes in divers places, etc. led up to the time when those armies surrounded Jerusalem in AD 66. Those years of the "beginning of sorrows before the "days of vengeance" began had been filled with the ramped-up activity of the Holy Spirit which had been poured out on all flesh in those days following Pentecost in AD 33.

As Christ had predicted for the "beginning of sorrows", the disciples were beaten in synagogues, imprisoned, put on trial before the Sanhedrin councils, brought before kings and rulers, and some put to death (Mark 13:8-9). All these things came to pass as recorded in Acts and the NT epistles before the end came - the same "end" which 1 Peter 4:7 referred to when he said "the end of all things is at hand."

Hint: there are no Sanhedrin councils for any believer to stand before today, and being beaten in synagogues for our faith is not something that will happen in our future.

There was no "delay" of these predicted events. They came to pass exactly as Christ and the apostles said they would back in the first century.

You still may not be seeing the categories of the delay doctrine. And there was a delay! We just have to sort out which. It is implied by the 3 passages, and certainly the topic of 2 Pet 3. So you need to answer why he is referring to any delay at all.

But the essential category is:
Mt 24A: first cent. Judea
Mt 24B: ("after these 24A things") is world wide judgement. Which we know from 2 P 3 and Rev 21 results in a NHNE.

Mt 24 repeats language from Mt 10, as proof that it was 1st cent. Judean. But Mt24A does not include the worldwide judgement day of , for ex., I Thess., I Cor 15, Rom 2B (the Gentile part), and of course 2 P 3.

So your line exactly as Christ and the apostles said they would back in the first century is either unclear (you meant things other than the worldwide judgment--hopefully you did) or you are unable to form a category in your mind (the essential distinction above). I'm suspecting the latter. Let me know.
A comment on brevity: I don't know how anything as fundamental as a "3rd resurrection" cannot be summarized in one line. Take, for ex., Dispensationalism. Misguided Dr. Ryrie was still, as a Ph.D, able to reduce it to one 'sine qua non' (the one essential): "there are 2 peoples and 2 programs in the Bible." It's wrong, but credit him with one line reduction. What is your 'sine qua non'?

 

[3 Resurrections]

You still may not be seeing the categories of the delay doctrine. And there was a delay! We just have to sort out which. It is implied by the 3 passages, and certainly the topic of 2 Pet 3. So you need to answer why he is referring to any delay at all.

Those in Peter's days in 2 Peter 3:3-5 were the ones saying about that delay, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from creation." Those individuals were being willingly ignorant of their own situation which was exactly comparable to the pre-flood years when the people scoffed at Noah's warning of the approaching flood, right up to the last when the deluge overwhelmed them. Those in Peter's days thought that Christ was delaying His coming, but they were wrong. Christ was going to return in their generation exactly when He had predicted to come - before the disciples' personal evangelism had gone to all the cities of Israel, as Matthew 10:23 had said.

Those days when Peter was writing were the "last days" when the scoffers were ridiculing the urgency of the Apostles' messages concerning Christ's return. They did not believe that Christ was coming in their generation any more than those in Noah's days thought that the flood was coming in their own time frame.

James was saying the same thing about the "last days" in James 5:1-3. The rich men in those days had "heaped treasure together in the last days". Those heaped-together riches would only serve to make those rich men a bigger target for theft and murder by the Zealots in those first-century days, especially after the Zealot rebellion began in AD 66.

Mt 24 repeats language from Mt 10, as proof that it was 1st cent. Judean. But Mt24A does not include the worldwide judgement day of , for ex., I Thess., I Cor 15, Rom 2B (the Gentile part), and of course 2 P 3.

All these references you submitted were related to the closing days of the first century before Christ's return. All of them.

A comment on brevity: I don't know how anything as fundamental as a "3rd resurrection" cannot be summarized in one line. Take, for ex., Dispensationalism. Misguided Dr. Ryrie was still, as a Ph.D, able to reduce it to one 'sine qua non' (the one essential): "there are 2 peoples and 2 programs in the Bible." It's wrong, but credit him with one line reduction. What is your 'sine qua non'?

Sure, I can be brief: The three bodily resurrection events God planned were a fulfillment of the three required OT harvest feast celebrations of Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

Two of those bodily resurrection events have already been fulfilled, exactly on those same occasions in Passover AD 33 and Pentecost day in AD 70 (Daniel's 1,335th day). We believers currently await the third bodily resurrection event to take place during the same time of year the Feast of Tabernacles would have been celebrated back under OT law: probably in a Jubilee year, when we will "return unto our possession". That is why Zechariah 14:16-19 emphasized this single FOT to be remembered in the "year to year" time following Christ's AD 70 return on that year's Pentecost day. The other two formerly-required feasts of Passover and Pentecost were not mentioned in that context, because these were fulfilled by the time that "siege both against Judah and Jerusalem" had come and gone.

 

[EarlyActs]

Those in Peter's days in 2 Peter 3:3-5 were the ones saying about that delay, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from creation." Those individuals were being willingly ignorant of their own situation which was exactly comparable to the pre-flood years when the people scoffed at Noah's warning of the approaching flood, right up to the last when the deluge overwhelmed them. Those in Peter's days thought that Christ was delaying His coming, but they were wrong. Christ was going to return in their generation exactly when He had predicted to come - before the disciples' personal evangelism had gone to all the cities of Israel, as Matthew 10:23 had said.

Those days when Peter was writing were the "last days" when the scoffers were ridiculing the urgency of the Apostles' messages concerning Christ's return. They did not believe that Christ was coming in their generation any more than those in Noah's days thought that the flood was coming in their own time frame.

James was saying the same thing about the "last days" in James 5:1-3. The rich men in those days had "heaped treasure together in the last days". Those heaped-together riches would only serve to make those rich men a bigger target for theft and murder by the Zealots in those first-century days, especially after the Zealot rebellion began in AD 66.


All these references you submitted were related to the closing days of the first century before Christ's return. All of them.


Sure, I can be brief: The three bodily resurrection events God planned were a fulfillment of the three required OT harvest feast celebrations of Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

Two of those bodily resurrection events have already been fulfilled, exactly on those same occasions in Passover AD 33 and Pentecost day in AD 70 (Daniel's 1,335th day). We believers currently await the third bodily resurrection event to take place during the same time of year the Feast of Tabernacles would have been celebrated back under OT law: probably in a Jubilee year, when we will "return unto our possession". That is why Zechariah 14:16-19 emphasized this single FOT to be remembered in the "year to year" time following Christ's AD 70 return on that year's Pentecost day. The other two formerly-required feasts of Passover and Pentecost were not mentioned in that context, because these were fulfilled by the time that "siege both against Judah and Jerusalem" had come and gone.

OK I understand the 1st 2, but the 3rd is gibberish. Why not just mention it in the Rev 20 with the other 2--if it exists? One line please, but if you need to compare to Rev 20, I understand that, since it already mentions 2.

Re 2 P 3: Peter was either in Rome or western Little Asia. why would he detail something over in Jerusalem, yet in the previous chapter talk about the bizarre morality of a group that Judaizers would have stomped out? If you think that morality was that of Judaizers, why didn't Paul ever mention it about them?

I don't think you know what he is saying in the normal sense about the world as a whole. Why reference the total world creation, then the total world flood, and then confine his remarks to Judea? I have been published on the 'stoicheia tou kosmou' and the use in Peter is not in the category of Paul. He is talking about paganism and yes the Law had a similarity to paganism, but that is not what Peter meant. He is guardedly not referring to anything Judaic. Likewise the 'stoicheia' in Hebrews 6 is neither pagan nor Judaistic (how could it be when you are blasting Judaism as such?)

 

[EarlyActs]

Those in Peter's days in 2 Peter 3:3-5 were the ones saying about that delay, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from creation." Those individuals were being willingly ignorant of their own situation which was exactly comparable to the pre-flood years when the people scoffed at Noah's warning of the approaching flood, right up to the last when the deluge overwhelmed them. Those in Peter's days thought that Christ was delaying His coming, but they were wrong. Christ was going to return in their generation exactly when He had predicted to come - before the disciples' personal evangelism had gone to all the cities of Israel, as Matthew 10:23 had said.

Those days when Peter was writing were the "last days" when the scoffers were ridiculing the urgency of the Apostles' messages concerning Christ's return. They did not believe that Christ was coming in their generation any more than those in Noah's days thought that the flood was coming in their own time frame.

James was saying the same thing about the "last days" in James 5:1-3. The rich men in those days had "heaped treasure together in the last days". Those heaped-together riches would only serve to make those rich men a bigger target for theft and murder by the Zealots in those first-century days, especially after the Zealot rebellion began in AD 66.


All these references you submitted were related to the closing days of the first century before Christ's return. All of them.


Sure, I can be brief: The three bodily resurrection events God planned were a fulfillment of the three required OT harvest feast celebrations of Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

Two of those bodily resurrection events have already been fulfilled, exactly on those same occasions in Passover AD 33 and Pentecost day in AD 70 (Daniel's 1,335th day). We believers currently await the third bodily resurrection event to take place during the same time of year the Feast of Tabernacles would have been celebrated back under OT law: probably in a Jubilee year, when we will "return unto our possession". That is why Zechariah 14:16-19 emphasized this single FOT to be remembered in the "year to year" time following Christ's AD 70 return on that year's Pentecost day. The other two formerly-required feasts of Passover and Pentecost were not mentioned in that context, because these were fulfilled by the time that "siege both against Judah and Jerusalem" had come and gone.

To illustrate the paganism further, the line 'things have continued since creation' is from pagan circles, which they resolved by the 4 elements, earth, wind, fire, water. They had trashed the ridiculous gods in favor of these more consistent deities or forces, which they had to appease.

I don't think you would find Jews overlooking the Cataclysm and saying everything has continued the same since creation.

 

[3 Resurrections]

OK I understand the 1st 2, but the 3rd is gibberish. Why not just mention it in the Rev 20 with the other 2--if it exists? One line please, but if you need to compare to Rev 20, I understand that, since it already mentions 2.

John said his prophecies were concerning things that were "at hand" for his own generation. The third resurrection would be far distant to John's generation, so John did not write that prophecy down. The third resurrection was included in the "sealed up" prophecies the 7 thunders uttered, which did concern events further in the future than what was then "at hand". Revelation 20 only mentions the first two resurrections because those events were identified with John's generation and what they could expect coming up in their immediate future.

This is a really simple concept. Three harvests = three bodily resurrection events. A "Harvest" is compared in scripture to a bodily resurrection event. Israel's agricultural year had three specific harvest seasons - the barley harvest at Passover, the wheat harvest at Pentecost, and the multiple crops at the 7th month's Feast of Tabernacles at the end of the agricultural year called "the feast of ingathering". The three bodily resurrection events would each be timed to take place respectively on those same seasons of the year. Very simple.

To illustrate the paganism further, the line 'things have continued since creation' is from pagan circles, which they resolved by the 4 elements, earth, wind, fire, water. They had trashed the ridiculous gods in favor of these more consistent deities or forces, which they had to appease.

Peter was predicting what the Jewish scoffers would be saying in the last days - not the pagans. We know that it would be the Jews saying this, because they would be referencing "the fathers", which were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their own ancestors.

 

[EarlyActs]

John said his prophecies were concerning things that were "at hand" for his own generation. The third resurrection would be far distant to John's generation, so John did not write that prophecy down. The third resurrection was included in the "sealed up" prophecies the 7 thunders uttered, which did concern events further in the future than what was then "at hand". Revelation 20 only mentions the first two resurrections because those events were identified with John's generation and what they could expect coming up in their immediate future.

This is a really simple concept. Three harvests = three bodily resurrection events. A "Harvest" is compared in scripture to a bodily resurrection event. Israel's agricultural year had three specific harvest seasons - the barley harvest at Passover, the wheat harvest at Pentecost, and the multiple crops at the 7th month's Feast of Tabernacles at the end of the agricultural year called "the feast of ingathering". The three bodily resurrection events would each be timed to take place respectively on those same seasons of the year. Very simple.


Peter was predicting what the Jewish scoffers would be saying in the last days - not the pagans. We know that it would be the Jews saying this, because they would be referencing "the fathers", which were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their own ancestors.

Judaism did not use the term elements as the pagans did, nor worship them as the pagans did. There is no connection. I'm very aware of Judaizers' doctrines (as you can see in my book THE COVENANT REVOLT) but this is not about that. Nor have you answered the ch 2 question that must come up..

Jews would not deny the Cataclysm. Why would Peter mention the Cataclysm that predates Jewish fathers and then be talking about those fathers?

 

[3 Resurrections]

I don't think you know what he is saying in the normal sense about the world as a whole. Why reference the total world creation, then the total world flood, and then confine his remarks to Judea?

Because the judgment which would take place in Judea would have world-wide effects, just as the flood in Noah's day. That judgment taking place in Judea would affect the reality in the entire world from AD 70 onward. If the entire Satanic realm was imprisoned in the single city of Jerusalem and destroyed in that one location when God would "cause the unclean spirits to pass out of the land" (Zechariah 13:2), that meant the entire world would no longer be subjected to these creatures from then on. This eradication of the Satanic realm which had been imprisoned inside Jerusalem is spoken of in other scriptures. Likewise, the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven was a fulfilled reality which is still a blessing to all nations of the world at present who can freely enter those open gates in salvation.

It is a little difficult following your train of thought concerning 2 Peter 2. Forgive me if I am not understanding your point exactly. Peter was an Apostle mainly to the Jews, (as Paul's ministry was mainly to the Gentiles.) Peter spoke in 2 Peter 2 to the Israelites of their own history of false prophets among the people, "even as there shall be false prophets among you." Peter predicted the comment which would come from the Iraelites in the last days, saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue..." This mention of "the fathers" and "the promise" is something that only one of Israelite background would bring up.

The connection of the Isrealite people with "the fathers" is also found in Romans 9:4-5. "...Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came..."

 

[EarlyActs]

Because the judgment which would take place in Judea would have world-wide effects, just as the flood in Noah's day. That judgment taking place in Judea would affect the reality in the entire world from AD 70 onward. If the entire Satanic realm was imprisoned in the single city of Jerusalem and destroyed in that one location when God would "cause the unclean spirits to pass out of the land" (Zechariah 13:2), that meant the entire world would no longer be subjected to these creatures from then on. This eradication of the Satanic realm which had been imprisoned inside Jerusalem is spoken of in other scriptures. Likewise, the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven was a fulfilled reality which is still a blessing to all nations of the world at present who can freely enter those open gates in salvation.

It is a little difficult following your train of thought concerning 2 Peter 2. Forgive me if I am not understanding your point exactly. Peter was an Apostle mainly to the Jews, (as Paul's ministry was mainly to the Gentiles.) Peter spoke in 2 Peter 2 to the Israelites of their own history of false prophets among the people, "even as there shall be false prophets among you." Peter predicted the comment which would come from the Iraelites in the last days, saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue..." This mention of "the fathers" and "the promise" is something that only one of Israelite background would bring up.

The connection of the Isrealite people with "the fathers" is also found in Romans 9:4-5. "...Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came..."

If 70 AD was the big change about such creatures, why does Eph 4 celebrate taking captivity captive 2 decades earlier as an event in Christ, another 2 decades earlier.? Such beliefs quickly look very corny, to be frank.

2 Peter 2 is about degenerate grace-abusing people trying to lead Christian churches out in westeran Asia out to Rome. The features show nothing of Judaizing seen all through Paul's letters and almost constant tangling with Judaizers there, ghosting everywhere he went. So if 2 Peter 2 is about that, and 3 is the same people, why are we suddenly immersed in Judaic questions? Answer: we are not.

I don't know anywhere exc. I Cor 5 where Judaizers--if it was from them--are anywhere close on the morality map to what we find in 2 P 2 and Jude.

The apostles in Acts 15 did not see Peter as an apostle to Jews. We should ignore such generalization. He even went to half-Jews before the Roman centurion incident.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If 70 AD was the big change about such creatures, why does Eph 4 celebrate taking captivity captive 2 decades earlier as an event in Christ, another 2 decades earlier.?

Ephesian 4:8-12 celebrated Christ taking a "multitude of captives" out of the grave on the day He was resurrected in AD 33 when He gave those resurrected individuals as gifts to men. Those "gifts" brought out of the grave that day were composed of those serving as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the early church, in order to build up the saints. In other words, that "multitude of captives" given as "gifts to men" were the many Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints acting in those different roles.

2 Peter 2 is about degenerate grace-abusing people trying to lead Christian churches out in westeran Asia out to Rome.

2 Peter 2 includes a discussion of the "doctrine of Balaam" which was a cult making inroads among the believers in those days, founded by Simon Magus of Acts 8 and joined later on by his consort Helen who had come from a brothel in Tyre. She was the "adulteress" in 2 Peter 2:14 ("...having eyes full of an adulteress..."), and she was also the self-styled prophetess nicknamed "Jezebel" in Revelation 2:20 that was teaching God's servants to commit fornication in Thyatira. The church at Pergamos also was plagued by this lascivious doctrine of Balaam.

The apostles in Acts 15 did not see Peter as an apostle to Jews. We should ignore such generalization.

What I had in mind was Paul's statement in Galatians 2:8. "For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles." Of course, both men spoke to both classes of people in those days, but in general, this was the main thrust of each of their ministries. Peter tended to operate within the Jewish circles, and Paul among the Gentiles.

But before both of us get a rap on the knuckles for getting off track of the OP, there is one point I would like to make about Psalms 72 that has not been brought up. This Psalms 72 in the LXX, written by the aging King David concerning his son Solomon, is an indication that Solomon would be instrumental in his days in bringing about the restrictions on Satan's deception of the nations at the start of the Revelation 20 millennium.

Satan is called the "accuser of the brethren" in Revelation 12:10. In Psalms 72:4, King Solomon was going to "bring low the false accuser".

The Revelation 20 millennium began with Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down in 968/967 BC, and lasted until Christ became the True foundation stone, the "chief cornerstone" of the spiritual temple not made with hands in AD 33 on His resurrection day. In other words, the Revelation 20 millennium was composed of a literal thousand years of a physical temple worship system which pointed forward in time to Christ's spiritual temple made of "living stones".

 

[EarlyActs]

Ephesian 4:8-12 celebrated Christ taking a "multitude of captives" out of the grave on the day He was resurrected in AD 33 when He gave those resurrected individuals as gifts to men. Those "gifts" brought out of the grave that day were composed of those serving as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the early church, in order to build up the saints. In other words, that "multitude of captives" given as "gifts to men" were the many Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints acting in those different roles.


2 Peter 2 includes a discussion of the "doctrine of Balaam" which was a cult making inroads among the believers in those days, founded by Simon Magus of Acts 8 and joined later on by his consort Helen who had come from a brothel in Tyre. She was the "adulteress" in 2 Peter 2:14 ("...having eyes full of an adulteress..."), and she was also the self-styled prophetess nicknamed "Jezebel" in Revelation 2:20 that was teaching God's servants to commit fornication in Thyatira. The church at Pergamos also was plagued by this lascivious doctrine of Balaam.

What I had in mind was Paul's statement in Galatians 2:8. "For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles." Of course, both men spoke to both classes of people in those days, but in general, this was the main thrust of each of their ministries. Peter tended to operate within the Jewish circles, and Paul among the Gentiles.

But before both of us get a rap on the knuckles for getting off track of the OP, there is one point I would like to make about Psalms 72 that has not been brought up. This Psalms 72 in the LXX, written by the aging King David concerning his son Solomon, is an indication that Solomon would be instrumental in his days in bringing about the restrictions on Satan's deception of the nations at the start of the Revelation 20 millennium.

Satan is called the "accuser of the brethren" in Revelation 12:10. In Psalms 72:4, King Solomon was going to "bring low the false accuser".

The Revelation 20 millennium began with Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down in 968/967 BC, and lasted until Christ became the True foundation stone, the "chief cornerstone" of the spiritual temple not made with hands in AD 33 on His resurrection day. In other words, the Revelation 20 millennium was composed of a literal thousand years of a physical temple worship system which pointed forward in time to Christ's spiritual temple made of "living stones".

You make way too many private assumptions to spend time on. Don't lose your grip on the center.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You make way too many private assumptions to spend time on. Don't lose your grip on the center.

I'm not. The "center" of all things was the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ that resurrection day. It was the pivotal moment that all history had looked forward to, and which history since then has looked backward to as securing our promised hope. This "FIRST resurrection" of "Christ the First-fruits" and the 144,000 Firstfruits raised that same day is crucial to pin down on the calendar and to study.

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm not. The "center" of all things was the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ that resurrection day. It was the pivotal moment that all history had looked forward to, and which history since then has looked backward to as securing our promised hope. This "FIRST resurrection" of "Christ the First-fruits" and the 144,000 Firstfruits raised that same day is crucial to pin down on the calendar and to study.

Connecting the living stones to Solomon's temple is off-center.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Connecting the living stones to Solomon's temple is off-center.

Solomon's foundation stone of that physical temple was a type of the later "chief cornerstone" which was Christ with his finished crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension on that day. The physical type pointed forward in time to the coming spiritual anti-type. ALL the OT Mosaic rituals and laws did this. Everything - even down to the furniture and what it was composed of - portrayed a spiritual fulfillment by Christ and His actions on our behalf.