The rapture? The comimg of Christ.

[Saul-to-Paul]

I'm not seeing that:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/11/25/ss1/t_concif_1008025






Plus, I'm pointing out the definition: "die-off / pass-away [G599 - apo thnēskō ]"...

... and showing other contexts where the Greek word for "yet shall HE LIVE" is used to speak of bodily-resurrection (examples: Rev2:8 and Acts 25:19).





And pointing out that Jesus said (BOTH): "I AM the RESURRECTION" (verse 25b speaks to this aspect; [G386, from G450], which comes after a person has physically died)... and "AND [I AM] the LIFE" (v.26a speaks to this aspect--and says, "and whosoever LIVETH and believeth in Me SHALL NEVER DIE. Believest thou this?" See the CONTRAST between these?)

Are men dead before they become saved. Yes or no.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Are men dead before they become saved. Yes or no.

That ^ would be the Greek word "G3498 - nekros - adj."... as is used in John 5:25a - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead [G3498] shall hear the voice of the Son of God: ..."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/5/25/t_concif_1002025 (so, in THIS CONTEXT, "yes!"... as THAT is its CONTEXT).




Note that it does NOT say, "die-off / pass-away [G599 - v.]" (as in Jn11:25)... a different concept, see.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

John 10:28
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Does it say there I will give?

I agree with you here.




Jhn 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


Jhn 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


Jhn 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

That ^ would be the Greek word "G3498 - nekros - adj."... as is used in John 5:25a - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead [G3498] shall hear the voice of the Son of God: ..."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/5/25/t_concif_1002025 (so, in THIS CONTEXT, "yes!"... as THAT is its CONTEXT).




Note that it does NOT say, "die-off / pass-away [G599 - v.]" (as in Jn11:25)... a different concept, see.

Are men dead first then saved before they die? Yes or no

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @Saul-toPaul , did you not see my answer in that post of mine you've quoted? I answered, there.









[P.S. Not 100% of believers will "DIE"... example: 1Th4:17... 2Cor5:4... 1Cor15:51... Jn11:26... Enoch in Gen5:24 / Heb11:5...]

Are men dead first then saved before they die? Yes or no

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

^ @Saul-toPaul , did you not see my answer in that post of mine you've quoted? I answered, there.









[P.S. Not 100% of believers will "DIE"... example: 1Th4:17... 2Cor5:4... Jn11:26... Enoch in Gen5:24 / Heb11:5...]

No I did not see your answer there. I saw you side step the question. I'll try again. It's yes or no.
Are men dead first then saved before they die? Yes or no.

 

[Blade]

A large number of Christians have been exposed to this "dispensationalist" or "futurist" interpretation of prophecy called the secret rapture, and have been hopelessly confused.

According to this view, the coming of Jesus will be in two separate events. First, He will come secretly to take the church to heaven, and then, seven years later, He will come in an open demonstration of power and glory. In between those two events, the Antichrist is supposed to come into power and the great tribulation period takes place.

But the truth is that the Bible nowhere speaks of these two separate comings of Jesus. There is no second stage of His second coming that occurs seven years after the socalled "rapture." By the way, that word "rapture" is also an invention of theologians. It can't be found in the Bible in even a single instance. It is a word coined for the second advent of Jesus.

Now here is what we find in the Scriptures: Christ's coming, the resurrection, and catching up of the saints to meet Jesus in the air, all take place at the same time, at the end of the world. This is why Jesus said, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20). Now why would Jesus promise to be with the church until the end of the world if He intended to come seven years before the end to take them out of the world? The promise would have no meaning.

Not worth going into .. one the way you treated those that simply disagree with your personal view. Ok no where in 1st Thess did he talk about caught up (Rapture) at the end of the world. Christ telling them He will be with them even unto the end of the world. You have to ask why He said that? He said I will never leave you never forsake you. We know by reading when Christ sets food on the earth there will be some there that He never left. We say this to comfort each other.. He will never leave you never forsake you.. He is not against you He loves you. He does not judge you nor condemn you. But you took it out of context to them apply it to something else that was never said "at the end of the world".

To think God has to play by our rules huh. Well OT did not GOD take two rapture/caught up and He never had to tell warn anyone. Christ went back to His Fathers house yes? Did He not say if He goes He will come again and receive us unto Him self so 'where" He is we will be. Now if that was it.. maybe one could say "where" would be on earth yet He said "where I go you know". Can't twist that. I have heard by some that are post trib "that is not what you think it means". Yet at that time they understood. How you ask? Well search on Old Jewish Wedding. Wow.. and where did those Jewish people learn all that? Who taught them? Pfft what do I know.

See with in every post like this be it pre mid post something with in each one is always left out. Something being scriptures. See you have to ignore some verses you have to say "what that really means" because today 2024 we still don't fully understand what was being said. No one does. Its like the great falling away. How many times do you read "it also can mean departure". Yeah it does and point of fact that was the original word use in the bible.

Truth .. no one was promised tomorrow we can prepare but never promised. So ask Him don't believe a word I say.. ask Him about this. No pray seek fast go for it.. He will never ever tell you pre mid nor post. So if I am not watching and I do not believe He can come right now to get His Church.. and HE does He will go against my will and take me anyway? See in all this I read what you read.. I can see pre mid and post but I can not prove any of them. Then I cannot be proud as some are and talk as if my personal belief is the right one and yours is wrong. Only if you say Christ is not the way truth and the life. Its not my word to tell anyone what HE really meant....

So I watch and am ready now. I will never miss Him. I just blindly read it.. after reading what Paul or the sweet holy spirit said.. I get great comfort that He is going to come get me so where He is I will be. That has to happen. When? I don't care.. I only have today.. and I know He wants me to be ready now..not to live in a time I may never see.

Maybe respect what others believe? Oh there are some here that are very wise and it would be best to listen to them.. not me.. them

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @Saul-to-Paul ... DIFFERENT CONTEXT!


Recall, in Jn11 Martha was speaking to Jesus about how her BODILY-DEAD brother will live again ("IN the LAST DAY" / "IN the LAST MILLENNUIM")... and the first part of Jesus' response (v.25b) PERTAINS TO THAT (i.e. "resurrection").


____________

Secondly, I said (regarding your phrase "before THEY DIE")...

[I mentioned...] "Not 100% of believers will "DIE"... example: 1Th4:17... 2Cor5:4... 1Cor15:51... Jn11:26... Enoch in Gen5:24 / Heb11:5... "


(so... perhaps revise your question... to have it correspond accordingly... to the biblical text )

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

^ @Saul-to-Paul ... DIFFERENT CONTEXT!


Recall, in Jn11 Martha was speaking to Jesus about how her BODILY-DEAD brother will live again ("IN the LAST DAY" / "IN the LAST MILLENNUIM")... and the first part of Jesus' response (v.25b) PERTAINS TO THAT (i.e. "resurrection").


____________

Secondly, I said (regarding your phrase "before THEY DIE")...

[I mentioned...] "Not 100% of believers will "DIE"... example: 1Th4:17... 2Cor5:4... 1Cor15:51... Jn11:26... Enoch in Gen5:24 / Heb11:5... "

TheDivineWatermark, was you dead before you became saved? Yes or No. (I assuming you believe someone has to be saved before they die to go to heaven.)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark, was you dead before you became saved? Yes or No.

Not in the sense that LAZARUS (a believer / saint) was PHYSICALLY / BODILY DEAD (which was the CONTEXT of what Jesus is talking about in His response to Martha in His words of v.25!)

(I assuming you believe someone has to be saved before they die to go to heaven.)

Yes, of course a person has to be saved IN THEIR LIFETIME (that's what "he that BELIEVETH in Me" means)... it is TOO LATE "after they DIE" (IOW, that is NOT when a person is "converted" to Salvation / to Faith in Christ... as it seems "DavyP" was saying in one of his posts, it seemed to me he was suggesting--No. It is TOO LATE, at that point. No second chances AFTER DEATH.)

Does that help you see my perspective?





I do not agree with the "Amill-teaching's" notion that John 11:25 is referring to the same thing that John 5:25 speaks to. No!

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ TO ADD: (I mentioned how the English [kjv, anyway], in Jn11:25, doesn't really CONVEY accurately the meaning, there... "though he PASS-AWAY"... or, if you'd rather, "though he's PASSED-AWAY"... it means he's physically DIED).




"believeth" takes place while he is alive...

... "THOUGH he pass-away / passed-away" means, if he DIES... since he's a "believer / saint" the following will be true of this person:

"YET SHALL HE LIVE [future tense]" ....(because Jesus [as He says of Himself] "I AM the RESURRECTION")... that believer / saint will be RESURRECTED [defined as "to stand again"]

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Not in the sense that LAZARUS (a believer / saint) was PHYSICALLY / BODILY DEAD (which was the CONTEXT of what Jesus is talking about in His response to Martha in His words of v.25!)





Yes, of course a person has to be saved IN THEIR LIFETIME (that's what "he that BELIEVETH in Me" means)... it is TOO LATE "after they DIE" (IOW, that is NOT when a person is "converted" to Salvation / to Faith in Christ... as it seems "DavyP" was saying in one of his posts, it seemed to me he was suggesting--No. It is TOO LATE, at that point. No second chances AFTER DEATH.)

Does that help you see my perspective?





I do not agree with the "Amill-teaching's" notion that John 11:25 is referring to the same thing that John 5:25 speaks to. No!

Good. Are you still dead? (not in the context of Lazarus)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Good. Are you still dead? (not in the context of Lazarus)

Glad you specified "not in the context of Lazarus" (which is the SAME "context" of Jesus' response OF VERSE 25! speaking of "bodily death" and "bodily resurrection"... RIGHT!)





So, the following is true of me (where I've BOLDED):

2Co 5:14
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.



[and this...]


1Jo 5:9
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1Jo 5:10
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jo 5:11
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jo 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1Jo 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.




[oh yeah... and this...]

"by grace YE ARE *having been* saved" [!!!]




Make sense?

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Good. Are you still dead? (not in the context of Lazarus)

Let's speed this up.

You were dead.
Now you live.
Because you believe.

John 11:25
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

You have partaken in the 1st resurrection. 😁

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

John 11:25
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

You have partaken in the 1st resurrection. 😁

Except THAT is not the CONTEXT of Jesus' words in v.25... (which was about the KIND of DEATH [passed-away] that LAZARUS had just DIED / EXPERIENCED... which was NOT a "spiritual death" kind of death! )



You've been swayed by the "Amill-teachings" on this verse (v.25)! LOL

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ In Rev20:5b (speaking specifically of those in v.4b [SECOND-HALF-TRIB martyrs]), where it says, "THIS is the resurrection the first [ADJ]," it is speaking of their BODILY RESURRECTION after they'd been bodily BEHEADED [/physically DEAD]. lol



But this text is NOT saying these are the first believers to have been resurrected. (That is to MIS-read this text and what it is conveying... not to mention what v.6 conveys along with this verse.)

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Except THAT is not the CONTEXT of Jesus' words in v.25... (which was about the KIND of DEATH [passed-away] that LAZARUS had just DIED / EXPERIENCED... which was NOT a "spiritual death" kind of death! )



You've been swayed by the "Amill-teachings" on this verse (v.25)! LOL

Doesn't change the fact that you were dead and now live. That's the definition of resurrection.

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

^ In Rev20:5b (speaking specifically of those in v.4b [SECOND-HALF-TRIB martyrs]), where it says, "THIS is the resurrection the first [ADJ]," it is speaking of their BODILY RESURRECTION after they'd been bodily BEHEADED [/physically DEAD]. lol

John saw the souls. No mention of resurrected spiritual bodies.

But this text is NOT saying these are the first believers to have been resurrected. (That is to MIS-read this text and what it is conveying... not to mention what v.6 conveys along with this verse.)

To live and reign with Christ for a thousand years is the 1st resurrection. When does someone lives and reigns with Christ?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

John saw the souls. No mention of resurrected spiritual bodies.

But I'm saying it IS MENTIONED.

I pointed out how the SAME WORD is used in Rev2:8 (re: Jesus), which text states, "[which was dead] AND LIVED" (speaking THERE specifically of HIS BODILY RESURRECTION after He was bodily-dead! Same in Acts 25:19! I pointed those out!)


The ones in 20:4a are "STILL-LIVING" saints at that time-slot;

The ones in 20:4b are the saints having been martyred / beheaded ONLY IN THE SECOND HALF (i.e. the LAST SAINTS to have been KILLED prior to the EARTHLY MK age commencing--where they will "reign with Christ" 1000 years... and WHERE Rev5:10 also says [of others] "and they shall reign ON THE EARTH"... and SAME LOCATION that "the 12" were promised that THEY "shall sit on 12 thrones, judgING the 12 tribes of Israel"... That is ON THE EARTH [MK age]... and also "WHERE" verse 19:15b speaks to, same location for those people [/saints / believers] who will ENTER the MK age).

 

[Scribe]

A large number of Christians have been exposed to this "dispensationalist" or "futurist" interpretation of prophecy called the secret rapture, and have been hopelessly confused.

According to this view, the coming of Jesus will be in two separate events. First, He will come secretly to take the church to heaven, and then, seven years later, He will come in an open demonstration of power and glory. In between those two events, the Antichrist is supposed to come into power and the great tribulation period takes place.

But the truth is that the Bible nowhere speaks of these two separate comings of Jesus. There is no second stage of His second coming that occurs seven years after the socalled "rapture." By the way, that word "rapture" is also an invention of theologians. It can't be found in the Bible in even a single instance. It is a word coined for the second advent of Jesus.

Now here is what we find in the Scriptures: Christ's coming, the resurrection, and catching up of the saints to meet Jesus in the air, all take place at the same time, at the end of the world. This is why Jesus said, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20). Now why would Jesus promise to be with the church until the end of the world if He intended to come seven years before the end to take them out of the world? The promise would have no meaning.

"Exposed?" I am not sure what you mean by that. There are plenty of good authors who are well educated in all the interpretations of prophesy scriptures in the past 500 years that have present their case using the rules of heremeneutics for their views on pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation or post-tribulation rapture. Many have done a good job and those who study the texts in question and read these different presentations from scholarly authors have decided for themselves which view they believe is the one intended by the authors of scripture or by the Spirit that inspired these authors. Those that believe they are standing on correct interpretation and can present a case for it, are not "ignorant" if they did not come up with the same view as yours.

If you want to present a case for a post tribulation view, just present it. The pre-tribulation view can be presented with scriptures as well. I lean toward a pre-tribulation view. Howbeit not a "secret one." I do agree that there is nothing in the text to suggest anyone dissappears from view. As a matter of fact the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ must be a visible one or it would not be a resurrection of the body. Those that are alive at that time that are changed are changed in a glorification kind of way and shine like the stars and are bright like the firmament and rise and meet the Lord in the clouds, all of which are visible descriptions not invisible.
The fact that they shine like the stars (Dan 12) and rise is to the praise of the Glory of God's Grace and the manifestation (visible) of the sons of God. A vindication if you will.

One of the main reasons that scholars who lean toward the pre-tribulation view (other than that we are not appointed to wrath and because Jesus said to pray to escape these judgments that will come upon the earth) is that the doctrine of watching and waiting and being ready for the coming of the Lord at any time suggests a pre-tribulation rapture and this doctrine of the imminent return of Christ is violated by a mid-trib or post trib view. So in order that all of the scriptures agree the pre-trib view is still a strong one among scholars, and it's popularity is not due to ignorant unlearned Christians as you suppose. Yes, some are pre-tribulation in their view simply because their church or pastor tells them so, but that is not the reason that it is the prevailing view. It is a prevailing view because in a scholarly article presented in theological academic circles for review using the rules of hermeneutics it continiues to convince the intellectually honest that it is a stronger case than the other views. But there is room for differences of opinions on this. Lets not dismiss those that do not see it the way we do as being "unlearned", deceived, or ignorant becuase that is not the case at all and to suggest so would indicate that you might not have been "exposed" to scholarly books on this subject. Dwight Pentecost does a good job of presenting a scholarly view in his book Things to Come a Study in Biblical Eschatology. And though I do not agree with everything he writes, there is no question that he presents a good case and there are many others like him. Read some of these books and many of your questions will be answered as to other interpretations. You might still be convinced that your view is the correct one but you will probably learn some things, and discover other texts you were not aware of on this subject.

I do agree that the doctrine of watching and praying and being ready for the return of Christ should not be weakened by any view of eschatology. If one begins to look for the Antichrist to be revealed first, before the Christ is revealed from heaven they may have misunderstood something they read and dismissed all of the admonitions to look for his coming for one verse they are misunderstanding. When we put the return of Christ off for other prophesies to be fulfilled first we dismiss everything Jesus taught about living ready for that moment to occur without warning.