I do not think ‘soon’ is relevant. We pray for and look forward to His return to make all things right and always anticipate that He could return anytime…soon. But soon is a thing we cannot measure and ought not.
But see, I don’t believe Jesus “could return anytime.” We may not know the very day or the hour, but we should know the season. We have been foretold many things. For example, we know that Jesus will not return until after Satan has come to Jerusalem claiming to be God. 2 Thes. 2:3-4
There is an assumption there that the temple referenced is in Jerusalem. Can you show via scripture, this is more than an assumption? I would like to be convinced, if true.
Now where does Satan set up his headquarters when he's cast out of heaven in Rev. 12:7-9? We know this from chapter 11. It's where he sits in the temple with his fallen angels. It is Jerusalem, where also our Lord was crucified and where the two witnesses will be killed.
I suggest then you get your fig tree planted and keep an eye on it.They have a habit of bearing fruit every year btw. Also we have seen all the signs that Jesus gives in Matt 24 since the fall of man. And this age which could safely be seen from the Bible as being the time period between his first and second coming, as Jesus and the apostles only speak of two ages---this age and the age to come. There is no mention of an age of tribulation or an age after this age and another age after that. All the signs mentioned, wars, rumors of wars, tribulation, persecution, earthquakes have never ceased and will not until we reach the age to come. The one we see in Rev 21:1-6. We are in this age right now. There is no biblical support for a thousand year earthly reign---which if the resurrection of the dead in Christ and transforming of those who remain alive at his coming, would contain both sinners and the transformed immortal living alongside one another, a very temporal life.
We very much disagree, @Ariel. But people should always be respectful toward one another when they disagree, in my opinion.
Dead bodies return to the dust .
If you cannot see it there or find a way around it, 1 Thess 4 specifically says "we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,..." and Paul is talking about the same even in both books. When this happens, when Jesus returns the fullness of His victory has come. From Gen 3 onward the ultimate intention/goal of redemption is Jesus conquering sin and death. The quote in 1 Cor 15, "Death where is your sting refers to death, not the resurrection process.
Do you not know that death is the result of sin? Those in Christ through faith have his righteousness counted as theirs. All their sins are forgiven now, but they are not actually perfectly righteous yet. When they are made immortal it is because they have also been made perfectly righteous actually, in the consummation. They will not die. Adam was not created to did---I had he not sinned and had access to the tree of life, he would not have died. He was created mortal---able to die. He was not created corrupt ------- he was corruptible. He became corrupted and did die as do all his progeny.
There is no contradiction with my interpretation of those passages. That is not where the problem lies. It is your misinterpretation that would create a contradiction. I know that Paul was dealing with this subject because of the false teachers who said the resurrection had already occurred. So you are also wrong when you say I am not considering that. It does not change the interpretation.
In all my 78 years you are the only person I have come across who believes that. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture that suggests that the first resurrection when those came out of their graves when Christ died. That would be a dramatic event. You would think they would be the one's chosen as apostles and writing the content of our NT. That they would be the one's planting churches still to this day. They would be the preachers we see on our television sets. Instead it was only mentioned in one of the Gospels and never ever mentioned again.
I am pretty sure "changed" means something changed. But I am not going to continue arguing with you about it. Your mind is made up and probably has been for quite some time.
Well, you are right. When I read that back this morning, I see it did come out a bit disrespectful. I assure you that it was just the product of a sarcastic mood (one of my many "thorns" that sometimes gives vent without me running it through the righteousness of God filter) and is not a reflection of how I truly feel towards you---or what you said. My sincerest apology.
Yes, he is speaking about the same event. But you are inserting a translation-type change into the 1 Thess. 4 context for those who are called "alive" who had "remained" on earth until the coming of the Lord. No matter how you slice and dice it, there is no mention whatever of those "alive" persons being changed in that 1 Thess. 4 text. They simply rise to meet the Lord in the air when He returns on that occasion. And we know that ordinary living saints who have not yet died cannot possibly endure standing in God's presence without passing through a resurrection process which changes their physical bodies into the immortal state. That tells us that these "alive" persons who had "remained" on earth in 1 Thess. 4 must have already been made alive (like the resurrected Tabitha / Dorcas that Peter presented "alive" to her friends in Acts 9:41).
Wrong. Paul was using that quote from the OT as a direct reference to the bodily resurrection. When that bodily-resurrection process would happen, Death would have lost its sting, and the Grave would have no victory over the saints who had physically died before then.
Absolutely true. Those are the very points I am making. As I underlined in your statement above, ALL of Adam's progeny was corrupted, and must pass through the physical death process - including the saints. "And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." But the bodies of the saints are the only ones who are recovered from that physical death by God raising them from the grave at His return. For those who are not "in Christ", their physical bodies are never recovered from the grave. As Isaiah 26:14 wrote of the wicked, "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise...".
Yes, there is, whether you realize it or not. If you truly believe as you have stated just above, that all of fallen Adam's progeny will die, then you cannot presume that those saints who have not yet died when Christ returns can somehow escape that death sentence which was passed upon all men. Those "alive" saints who "remain" on the earth until Christ's return are not saints who manage to escape dying altogether. These in 1 Thess. 4 must be those who already had died and were already made "alive" by a resurrection process for them to be able to rise to meet the Lord in the air.
Of course it was a dramatic event for the Matthew 27:52-53 saints to be raised from the dead that same day as Christ. That is why the doctrinal error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was plausible enough to convince some of the discouraged saints that the resurrection was already past. Those Matt. 27 saints were still around in the early church in those days. Those who had seen those many resurrected saints in the city of Jerusalem could not deny their existence and what had happened to them. That "First resurrection" of the "First-fruits" - including "Christ the First-fruits" was truly impressive. But you are wrong that these Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were never mentioned again in scripture.
Surely you are not saying you are too old to learn something new from scripture? I myself am still learning as I read, and hope to continue doing so until the day I die.
No I am not, and I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that I am. It is you who is asserting a "transition type change" into what I said. I simply quoted the scriptures and in the exposition added nothing of any translation type change. We are changed---both the resurrected dead in Christ and those who remain alive when he returns. We are changed from perishable to imperishable. Our mortality (able to die) puts on immortality (unable to die.) End of story, end of debate.
Not the ones who have not yet died when Christ returns. Common sense. Why not? Because Jesus has made them righteous---without the condemnation of sin. "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Why? Because he took their just penalty of their sins on his own body and died in their place.
Do they die when he returns and then are resurrected? When is it that they die?
It does not say they all were. So at the very least it is not equal to the resurrection at Christ's return. It could relate directly to the coming kingdom.
Where is your evidence of this? It would be just grand if people would attach evidence along with these blanket statements of fact.
What I said does not even remotely sound like this intentional misrepresentation of my character that you offer.
NO. There is absolutely no promise of a change given to those who have not yet physically died when Christ returns. You are inventing this in contradiction to the rule that you yourself believe that all of Adam's progeny are to physically die as a result of the fall.
YES. With Christ's future return, the saints die at that return, and are resurrected that same day when their dead bodies are then changed into the incorruptible and immortal state. Whether saint or sinner, nobody while in this mortal body can look upon that level of holiness and live through the experience.
What are you talking about? Every one of those Matthew 27:52-53 saints came out of their graves at Jerusalem on the same day as Christ's resurrection. But you are right that this event was not equal to the next resurrection event at Christ's return, because that was only a "remnant of the dead" which participated in that "First resurrection" in AD 33 (Rev. 20:5). They along with Christ were the "FIRST-fruits" to be raised out of the grave: all 144,000 of those resurrected "First-fruits".
"False assertions"?? Let me quote. "...Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." This was not Gnosticism which denies a bodily resurrection altogether. These men were teaching that the expected resurrection was over and done with by then, and that there would not be another resurrection for the saints who had died after that resurrection event of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints had taken place. This was discouraging for those first-century saints who had seen their own believing kindred die since Christ's ascension, and who were thinking that these dead loved ones would remain forever in the grave, and had "missed the boat", so to speak.
I just gave it to you already, as found in Ephesians 4:8-12. The Matthew 27:52-53 saints (that "multitude of captives" which the ascended Christ led out of the grave that day) were given as "gifts to men". It was incumbent upon every high priest to offer gifts and sacrifices (Heb. 8:3). At His resurrection-day ascension, the newly-anointed Great High Priest Christ Jesus did this when He offered these "gifts to men" (the resurrected "multitude of captives" He had led out of the grave). These all served in the early church for its edification, and for perfecting the saints for the work of the ministry.
You are just repeating yourself. Because you simply like arguing and worrying the same bare bone over and over? I am not going to continue to argue with you about it.
Fortunately, there is nothing wrong with repetition. The reason why I belabor this point is that Paul called the theme of the resurrection one of the foundational "elementary principles of Christ" in Heb. 6:1-2. If one does not have scripture's principles of the resurrection correctly understood, then anything built upon the foundation of that erroneous understanding may very well include error as well. The scriptures on this subject of the resurrection must all reconcile with each other, as I think you would probably agree.
@Arial , @Alive , @Josheb….
Thanks for explaining your understanding.
Edit by Admin. Misunderstanding.
@Carbon …. My post above #36 absolutely was NOT directed to you. Someone else added your name—definitely not I. I’m sorry that you thought I was directing any chastisement toward you.
