Evidence for God from Science

I don't see how the sun could have turned to blood in the 1st century even if the meaning was symbolic. If you want to go that route then the term "generation" has to be symbolic. One cannot make a scripture symbolic merely because it fits his view but I sense thats whats happening here. If the term is symbolic then it cannot be exactlty 40 years, it has to have a different meaning than that. The term literally is 70 years not 40 so theres no way the resurection happened in 70 ad. If we want to put it there just because Nero was evil and he was, then the resurection should have happened during the exile from Egypt during the time of Moses because Pharaoh murdered a lot more Jews than Nero did and the plagues in Revelation fit his time a lot more than they do when Nero lived! The resurection hasn't happened yet but it will.

waynes world wrote:I don't see how the sun could have turned to blood in the 1st century even if the meaning was symbolic. .

Peter said that it did (Acts 2:16-21). That's good enough for me.

waynes world wrote:If you want to go that route then the term "generation" has to be symbolic.

The apostles asked Jesus when the temple would be destoyed. Did he answer their question or not?

waynes world wrote:...so theres no way the resurection happened in 70 ad. ... The resurection hasn't happened yet but it will.

Sigh Does anyone else want to talk to Wayne about this? I give up...

Peter never said such a thing. There was no resurection in 70ad. That idea isn't Biblical. There will be a resurection but not until Isreal returns to its homeland and the exact opposite happpened in 70ad.

Hey Wayne,

We're obviously aren't getting anywhere with the resurrection issue (It doesn't seem to matter how many times I say it, you won't get it), so let's move on. I'm interested in how you would handle these words the Jesus spoke to first Century Christians.

Matt. 10:23 - "Truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.“
I would guess that the Apostles finished going through the cities if Israel a long time ago.

Matt. 16:28 - "Truly I say to you, there are some who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“
Anyone alive today who heard this message in person?

Matt. 26:64 - "You [the high priest] will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven."
If this is the Second Advent, will the First Century high priest see it?

There are many more, but this should be a start...

If you want to go that route thats fine. But its reading into scripture if you ask me.

waynes world wrote:Peter never said such a thing. There was no resurection in 70ad. That idea isn't Biblical. There will be a resurection but not until Isreal returns to its homeland and the exact opposite happpened in 70ad.

Where do you keep on getting the Resurrection from? I can understand you saying Tribulation there but not resurrection.

Who is Babylon in Revelation? Historically Babylon was a Port on the Sea so It could not pertain to Jerusalem... Plus if what you believe in is the case where is the proof of Rev 16:18?

I hold that Babylon is Jerusalem. I copied this from another post of mine.

1.) THE IMAGE OF THE UNFAITHFUL WIFE, THE HARLOT, WAS OFTEN USED OF ISRAEL IN THE OT. Israel is repeatedly called the wife of God (Jer. 2:2, 3:14, Is. 54:5). But she was an unfaithful wife (Jer. 3:20, Hos. 1:2, Ez. 6:9, Ez. 16, Is. 50:1) behaving as a prostitute (Jer. 3:1-2). In the context of Jerusalem's designation as a prostitute, Is. 1:21 is especially noteworthy: "See how the faithful city has become a harlot.“ (Ezekiel Chapters 16 and 23 give a disgusting description of Israel's Harlotry. You will want to avoid reading these chapters to your kids until you are ready to explain some things to them.)

2.) SHE IS THE "GREAT CITY” Rev. 17:18 . I believe that this is the same great city “which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev. 11:8) This is clearly talking about Jerusalem. Our Lord was not crucified in Sodom, Egypt, or Babylon. He was crucified in Jerusalem.

3.) SHE FILLS HERSELF WITH THE BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS AND SAINTS (Rev. 17:6)

Matthew 23:37 — “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee”

Acts 7:52 — “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:”

Herod Agrippa — Ruled Jerusalem from 37 — 44 AD. Close friend of the Roman Emperor Caligula.
• Arranged the murder of the apostle James
• Imprisoned Peter with plans to execute him
• Allowed the people to praise him as a god

4. HER ARRAY AND CLOTHING (Rev. 17:4) - Dressed in purple, scarlet, gold, precious stones and pearls (Rev. 17:3-5) - an almost exact description of the high priest's ephod (Ex. 28:5-6, 36) This combination of fabrics and gems also describes the temple tapestry, which, according to Josephus, was "Babylonian tapestry in which blue, purple, scarlet and linen were mingled." (Wars 5.5.4)

The gold cup she holds (Rev. 17:4) is symbolic of the temple's implements: "The greatest part of the vessels ... were of silver and gold" (Wars 5.4.4.)

Josephus' description of the temple reflects the same opulence: "The outward face of the temple in its front ... was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun's own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for, as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white." (Wars 5.5.6) The inscription on the prostitute's forehead is a perverse image of that on the high priest's: "Holy to the Lord.“

Jeremiah 4:14
O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?

Jeremiah 4:30
And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.

5.) HER DESTRUCTION BY THE BEAST - In other threads, I've already identified the great beast as the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:23) EVEN JERUSALEM'S END RESEMBLES THAT OF AN ADULTEROUS WIFE - DEATH BY STONING: Josephus writes: "The stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was a white color" (Wars 5.6.3) This account is reminiscent of hailstones, weighing a talent each, that rain down on the "great city" in Rev. 16:19-21.

Where do you keep on getting the Resurrection from? Confused I can understand you saying Tribulation there but not resurrection.

if i had to guess, id say wayne was confused on the two camps in preterism, the full and the partial. a full preterist holds that all of revelation has come to pass including our resurrection, while a partial preterist holds that some of revelation is yet to come. wayne seems to think puritan lad is a full preterist or is completely ignorant of the existance of partial preterism.

bizzt wrote:

waynes world wrote:Peter never said such a thing. There was no resurection in 70ad. That idea isn't Biblical. There will be a resurection but not until Isreal returns to its homeland and the exact opposite happpened in 70ad.

Where do you keep on getting the Resurrection from? I can understand you saying Tribulation there but not resurrection.

From the Bible thats where! How about 1 Corinthians 15 especially. I suggest you read the whole chapter. Paul says there is a resurrection. Is he lying? If there isn't one or if its already happened we all are dead in ouur sins. Have you ever read Acts 1 where the angels told the disciples that the Lord will return the same way that he left them? None of that could have happened in 70ad. Israel has to return to its homeland before any resurrection can take place. Just read Daniel and Ezekiel plus Matt24 about the fig tree.

Wayne,

Let me help you out here one more time.

No one said that the resurrection took place in 70 AD. We all believe in a future resurrection. What we disagree on is the timing of the tribulation period as well as whether anyone will be "left behind" after a "rapture". I've tried to explain this over and over again as clearly as possible. Do you understand this yet? Here it is:

Tribulation period, in the Apostle's generation - 70 AD. (Matthew 24:21, 34)
Resurrection, on the "last day" - future. (John 6:39, 40, 44)
Rapture, none.

Does that clarify it somewhat? Bob is correct. I'm a "partial" preterist. It's unfortunate that I even have to use that term, because historically, the term "preterist" refers to partial preterism. Full, or "hyper-preterism" is a new doctrine and is considered heretical. Here is a good article on the difference.

http://www.ligonier.org/articles/Acts1a ... terism.pdf

waynes world wrote:

bizzt wrote:

waynes world wrote:Peter never said such a thing. There was no resurection in 70ad. That idea isn't Biblical. There will be a resurection but not until Isreal returns to its homeland and the exact opposite happpened in 70ad.

Where do you keep on getting the Resurrection from? I can understand you saying Tribulation there but not resurrection.

From the Bible thats where! How about 1 Corinthians 15 especially. I suggest you read the whole chapter. Paul says there is a resurrection. Is he lying? If there isn't one or if its already happened we all are dead in ouur sins. Have you ever read Acts 1 where the angels told the disciples that the Lord will return the same way that he left them? None of that could have happened in 70ad. Israel has to return to its homeland before any resurrection can take place. Just read Daniel and Ezekiel plus Matt24 about the fig tree.

I know this seriously Wayne I do agree with what most of what you are saying however I am just trying to make sure you understand what Puritan is saying as well. He is trying to understand what you are saying so it just becomes more healthy Dialogue if you both can get the same point and THEN continue with the conversation. Just a thought Wayne that is all

I appreciate what your saying but I get frustrated with Puritan Lad's different positions on the end times. He argues that the resurrection happened in 70ad and yet he has one post in which he denies that he said that and repeated himself several times. I enjoy debating with people who have different views than mind. My problem is that too often the respect just is not mutual and some talk about their views as if its the difference between being saved and not saved. Somehow when we stand before God I don't think he will ask us what view on the end times we hold. Its a Christian vs Christian issue that has been going on since the 1st century.

waynes world wrote:I appreciate what your saying but I get frustrated with Puritan Lad's different positions on the end times. He argues that the resurrection happened in 70ad and yet he has one post in which he denies that he said that and repeated himself several times.

OK Wayne. I challenge you to find one single post where I "argue that the resurrection happened in 70ad". I denied saying that because I never said that. Thou shall not bear false witness.

1Cr 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

1Cr 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

First of all Puritan Lad is not talking about the Resurrection... He actually believes that the Resurrection comes at the end. He does not believe that the Rapture took place then the Tribulation. He says there is no biblical Proof for the Rapture. Wayne he is not a Full Preterist meaning he believes the Tribulation has happened but the Resurection is still to come. If we can work from that standpoint knowing the Verses you site can be used both for and against Puritan's Views then as with yours as well then I think we are doing well