FreeGrace

Your denial is based on your extreme bias against ANY evidence that proves an old earth. Jeremiah was describing the coming total disaster of the land and you seem to think those 2 words can be legitimately used to describe creation. That is irrational. I've already told you many many times, but your extreme bias keeps your eyes/ears so tightly closed nothing is getting in. Gen 1:1 describes a complete and perfect universe and earth. Everything is there. Whatever occurred that resulted in an uninhabitable wasteland obivously took out more than just earth. So God put them all back. Not difficult to grasp at all. I can't and won't even try to "explain a mysterious pre-existence of a world with no light, air, heat, stars, dry land". Such a scenario never even existed because a "mysterious pre-existence of a world" never even existed. So you are dealing with nothing but stupid fantasies. You obviously don't want evidence, facts or truth. Oh, yes, I agree. AFTER the earth BECAME AN UNINHABITABLE WASTELAND, God RESTORED what was damaged. Why is that so impossible for you to grasp? Heb 11:3 - By faith we understand that the universe was formed (katartizo) at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Strong's Lexicon katartizó: To restore, to equip, to perfect, to prepare, to mend Original Word: καταρτίζω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: katartizó Pronunciation: kah-tar-TID-zo Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ar-tid'-zo) Definition: To restore, to equip, to perfect, to prepare, to mend Meaning: (a) I fit (join) together; met: I compact together, (b) act. and mid: I prepare, perfect, for his (its) full destination or use, bring into its proper condition (whether for the first time, or after a lapse). Even the NT recognizes what happened to the earth and the subsequent restoration. The same Greek word (katartizo) is used in Mark 1:19 - Going on a little farther, He saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat, mending (katartizo) their nets. You really need to calm down and actually READ what the Bible does say. The word in that verse is NOT the word for "creation" as you keep hoping. In Gen 1:1 the word for "created" is 'bara', and refers to creation out of nothing, just as Psa 33:6,9 say. In Ex 20:11 the word is "asah", which is consistently translated as MADE, and NEVER as CREATE. Is there a learning disability going on or what? I have corrected error every time you say it, yet you persist in your error. That is serious. And more errors. I went back to how the 2 Hebrew words were used in ALL 3 texts, two of which describe total destruction of the land, and Gen 1:2 has NO context. Yet, you fantasize that they describe stages or processes in creation, the total opposite of how they are used in the other 2 texts. That is irrational. Why would any writer need to make a point anyway? It is just a fact that the earth was restored before God created man. The text is clear when one actually honestly understands "tohu wabohu". The time gap was actually clearly understood by Moses, who wrote Genesis and by both Jeremiah and Isaiah who used the same words to describe total destruction. So your phony dates are nonsense. It's not mine in any sense. The time gap belongs to God, who directed Moses to write what he wrote, and then to have Jeremiah and Isaiah to use the SAME WORDS to describe total destruction. You just can't get around that. Which makes your whole approach irrational. I know, you're tired of the TRUTH. I get that. But who are these so-called "we" types? I haven't seen any pushback other than you. The Bible clearly teaches that there will a singular resurrection of the saved and a singular resurrection of the unsaved. Dan 12:2, John 5:29 and Acts 24:15. Do you want to argue against the Bible? And 1 Cor 15:23 couldn't be any more clear: But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Now, for clarity: 1. red words refer to Christ being the FIRST human to receive a glorified resurrection body. Acts 26:23 affirms this: that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” 2. blue words refer to the Second Advent, affirmed by Heb 9:28 - so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. If this refers to a pre-trib event, then when He returns to earth at the end of the trib, that should be called the THIRD ADVENT. But no one does, including your ilk. 3. purple words refer to every saved person in human history. That shouldn't need proof from any verse. It is self evident. So, if you disagree with any of these comments about 1 Cor 15:23, with the supporting verses, please address each point in error and explain why and how my points are in error. Thanks. You give way too much "power" to sin. It was God's plan all along, and since it's all in God's plan, that includes the destruction of the present earth and the new earth in Rev 21. The rest of your paragraph is correct.

My only disagreement with this is the view that the 2 recorded OT dead bodies being "raised to life" and those Jesus and His disciples also "raised to life" (Lazarus, widow's son, the 'many' who came out of their graves at the crucifixion) were "resurrected". Acts 26:23 plainly states that Jesus was the first to "rise from the dead". Since there are recorded events of dead people being raised from the dead, Acts 26:23 obviously refers to Jesus receiving the FIRST glorified immortal body (resurrection body). No one else who was raised from the dead received a glorified immortal body. That means that all of them died again. But all of them will receive their glorified immortal body "when He comes" at the Second Advent. When all other saved people will receive theirs.

All of these 5 points are just opinions. He cannot prove any of his claims from Scripture. His failure to recognize the "man-child" as THE God-man is quite unfortunate, and significantly reduces his credibility on all points.

All of this is accurate, and none of this supports his claim of multiple resurrections. I keep wondering why he does things like this.

None of these 6 verses says anything about either a resurrection or a rapture trip to heaven. And FMS claims the "man-child" in v.5 is a corporate entity, even though the verse clearly describes the God-man, Jesus Christ. Yes, He was resurrected and then ascended to heaven. But such a huge mis-read of Scripture doesn't help his case one bit.

This seems a rather cheap shot. One doesn't need the word "insist" to show the FACT of the point. The verse is in plain language, and no guessing is needed to fully follow and understand what it says. 1. Jesus Christ received the FIRST resurrection body. Acts 26:23 2. All saved humans will be resurrected "when He comes". 3. "when He comes" refers to the Second Advent. Heb 9:28 Only IF words don't mean anything. iow, when one gets "loose" with words, they can come up with any old claim. The words of 1 Cor 15:23 are very clear and straightforward. And FMS doesn't have ANY verses that SAY what he SAYS. OK, then if that were true, Dan 12:2, John 5:29 and Acts 24:15 cannot be true. Dan 12:2 - Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. John 5:29 - and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. Acts 24:15 - and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. The definite article "a" means singular. If there were more than a single resurrection of the saved, as FMS claims, Paul wouldn't have written it in the singular. He would have written, "there will be resurrections". This doesn't make sense. Please re-word for clarity. What do you mean by "generally"? Please don't fudge. Specifically, those who belong to Christ at the Second Advent is what is meant. Actually, the verse couldn't be MORE CLEAR. FMS begins the OP with: Here is the issue's focus. Does First Corinthians 15:23 prove that there cannot be more than one resurretion event at the end of the church age?" But now FMS wants to insert "details that indicate . . .". Yet, he NEVER provided ANY verses in the other thread that supported any of his claims. So, YES, 1 Cor 15:23 proves that there is only 1 resurrection and that one will be at the Second Advent. And that is supported by the FACT that Rev 20:4 describes trib martyrs who were "raised to life and reigned with Christ for 1,000 years". So where are these "details"? He has NO verses that support his claims. Just opinions.

lol, seriously Even though you never provided any verses that say what you say? What is obvious to most is that 1 Cor 15:23 is ONLY about resurrection, and you seem very resistant to what it obviously says. I defended my view thoroughly in that other thread where you provided no verse that says what you say. Not only 1 Cor 15:23 shows only 1 resurrection for the saved, which is "when He comes", meaning at the Second Advent, there are 3 more verses that plainly show a single resurrection for the saved and a single resurrection for the unsaved: Dan 12:2, John 5:29 and Acts 24:15. The original post of this verse was in all red, but I've color coded the parts for easier understanding. In v.22, the blue words refer to the resurrection of believers, which are glorified immortal bodies. In v.23, the green words refer to the FACT Jesus Christ is the FIRST human to receive a glorified immortal body, supported by Acts 26:23 - that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” Orange words refer to every saved person from Adam forward. Because every believer belongs to Christ. Purple words refer to the Second Advent, per Heb 9:28 - so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Does it make sense to think this verse could refer to a pre-trib resurrection/rapture? Of course not. If it did, then there could be NO resurrection at the Second Advent. Yet, Rev 20:4-6 very clearly calls the resurrection of trib martyrs the FIRST resurrection, so that eliminates any possibility of a pre-trib resurrection/rapture. One final FACT: There are NO verses that describe Jesus taking any resurrected saints to heaven. So a pre-trib rapture is impossible.

I proved your statement to be wrong. Why do you ignore John 6:70,71? And the fact that at no time was everyone in Israel saved. There has always been lots of rebellion. Not "ok". You're just trying to confuse verbs and adjectives, that's all. I've already covered all this, but it seems you don't read my posts. noun - ekloge verb - eklegomai adjective - eklektos All are related to the same concept, and are DIFFERENT than the verb in 2 Thess 2:13. As I previously pointed out, I have researched EVERY occurrence of each of these Greek words in the NT, and NONE of them show the word linked to salvation.

The faith that saves involves two aspects. Object of faith: The Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, full Deity, who died on a cross to pay the full sin debt of all of humanity. Purpose or Goal of faith: to be saved/delivered/rescued from the lake of fire. So, to the question of where is 'saving faith' comes from, the salvation plan comes from God. It is His plan. In order to be saved, man must understand the object of faith, and the purpose or WHY of faith. The claim that God "gives the faith to be saved" is rather misleading, if not outright false. That statement suggests or outright claims that in order to believe, God GIVES the ability to believe, or something like that. The only problem with that is it isn't taught in Scripture. In fact, Rom 10:10 states that "man believes from his heart (mind, intellect)". That is where belief occurs. God created humanity with a conscience with which to understand right and wrong, per Rom 2:14,15. That gives man the ability to recognize right from wrong, allowing man to make choices. Man is fully ABLE to believe because the Bible says that man REFUSES to believe, and both are a choice that man makes.

3 hours ago, Luther said: You're not going to find a verse where the unsaved are elect, in other words. And I proved there are, such as Judas, in John 6:70,71. Your theology can't explain WHY Jesus was God's Chosen (elect) One. The problem is all on your side. I proved that Eph 1:4 says nothing about being chosen for salvation, but rather for service. And the word "us" is defined in v.19 as "us who BELIEVE". I've already proved that this verse isn't about being chosen for salvation but for service. I even color coded it for ease of understanding. Why didn't you address that? The word "chosen" here is UNRELATED to the Greek word used for election. That word as a verb is "eklegomai" whereas the word in 2 Thess 2:13 is "haireomai". Further, the verse is very clear about WHAT is being chosen. The METHOD of how one is saved: THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. There's that pesky word "belief", which smacks of choice of the believer. Remember, the Bible says that men REFUSE to believe. I gave you the verses. That proves that unregenerate men CAN believe, because they chose to REFUSE to believe. Can you honestly say that you can REFUSE to do something that you know you CANNOT do? That would be idiotic. A quadriplegic (paralyzed both arms and legs) cannot REFUSE to get out of bed on their own power simply because they are UNABLE to do so. Have you researched EVERY occurrence of the verb eklegomai, the noun ekloge and the adjective eklektos in the Bible? I have. And there are NO verses that say what the Calvinists say. I hope that gives you pause. Wow. You really know how to ignore the glaring point here. God chose believers to be holy and blameless. Who God chooses is believers and He chooses them all to live lives of holiness. Service. But go ahead and ignore the obvious point all you want. Of course not all. He saves ONLY believers. Here's another verse that haunts Calvinists: 1 Cor 1:21 ". . . God was pleased . . . to save those who believe". No translation in the English had "God was pleased . . . to save the elect/chosen/etc". Only for clarity, of course. 😉

Couldn't resist jumping in here. Seems that you think God's will is iron clad or something. Have you never read this? 1 Tim 2:4 - who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. We know that not all men will be saved. The Greek word for "desire" means "to will". 1 Tim 2:4 says his desire is that all men will be saved. Let's keep this balanced. Oh, here we go; RE-defining words to fit one's theology. Context drives how the word "all" is meant. There are many verses that have "all men", and I've heard plenty of Calvinists say the words mean "all types of men (people). Rather slick. However, in the original Greek, there is just "pas" which means 'all', and there is no "men". So in those verses, it would seem that Jesus died for "all kinds of". When the word "men" isn't in the Greek, it shouldn't be in the English either. So when "all" is alone, and there is NOTHING ELSE that would influence the scope of the word, it surely does mean all of humanity. There are NO verses that say in plain language that Christ didn't die for everyone, or that Christ only died for some/the elect/etc.

I do indeedy! Because of the points I made as to who were described as "elect": Jesus, nation of Israel, and angels. None fit the description of needing salvation except the nation of Israel, and we know from all the OT prophets that the whole nation was never saved. Further, we have Judas Iscariot, of whom Jesus said, in John 6:70 - Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” No way Judas was saved, as the Bible makes clear. Election to service fits the entire nation of Israel, Jesus, the Chosen One, angels per Heb 1:14 and even Judas. Just proved the opposite above. "will show"?? Many pastors claim that "true" belief WILL result in fruit. However, no verse teaches that. Rather, just note what Jesus actually said to the 11: THAT you SHOULD go and bring forth fruit. That is the purpose of election, but producing fruit is never guaranteed, contrary to popular opinion. Amazing statement, because it obviously does. Here are both verses: v.11 - Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: v.12 - not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” These verses are directly connected. The point is clear: God's purpose in election (v.11) was that "the older will SERVE the younger". Please don't try to deny what is so very clear. Do you understand that the "children of promise" refers to the choice of BELIEVING what God promised? Not election. But God DID elect the nation to carry His message to the world. (service) Nope. Same as Eph 1:4 - For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. The red words state that God chose/elected "us". The "us" is defined clearly in v.19 as "to US who believe". So the verse plainly says that God chooses/elects saved people. Not that He elects people to be saved. Calvinism has it backward. The blue words reveal the purpose for God choosing believers; "to be holy and blameless", which refers to lifestyle or sanctification. This is obviously about service. Every believer is chosen to serve God. The election goes way farther than just that. I don't disagree that the Jews were to keep the Law, but God already knew they couldn't, which shows that the PURPOSE of the Law was to lead them to the Messiah, who would die for their sins. Gal 3:26 Rom 10:17 - Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. v.18 - But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” I'm not interested in "replacement theology" since it isn't found in the Bible. Salvation by faith in the Messiah was preached by Paul. This doesn't refute anything I've said. Nothing of what you posted that I deleted is relevant to the doctrine of election. I already gave you all the verses that support my view. If I misunderstand any of those verses, please show me where and how I misunderstand. That was said in the OT and obviously refers to Jews. I've already explained this verse above. It does not say what Calvinists think it says. You might as well say "the elect were elected before the world began". Or, "the chosen were chosen before the world began". Just going around in circles. As I already proved, the word "us" is clearly defined as "believer" in v.19. So, v.4 says, "God has elected believers . . . to be holy and blameless (service, not salvation) btw, by definition, "believer" is a saved person. So Eph 1:4 cannot mean what Calvinists claim the verse teaches.

Always the best way to go! 👍 This is one of the Calvinist "5 points", under "election". However, having many years of study myself, I can confidently say that election has never been about salvation. In every verse that mentions the purpose of election, it is always about service. Consider who is described as "elect" in Scripture: 1. Jesus Christ, the Chosen One Isa 42:1 2. the nation of Israel Amos 3:2 3. angels 1 Tim 5:21 Jesus could NOT have been chosen for salvation. He was chosen to be "the suffering SERVANT". That is service. It is clear from all the OT writings that many among the nation of Israel were never saved. The nation was chosen to share the Law with Gentiles. And all angels were "sent to serve those who inherit salvation", which is service (Heb 1:14). Rom 9:12 specificially mentions "service" in the verse that states "the purpose of election". Another Calvinist "point". The claim is that God regenerates those He chose for salvation so that they WOULD believe the gospel. Again, there are no verses that state that regeneration precedes salvation, or is needed before one can be saved. Rather, in Eph 2:5 regeneration (made alive) is equated with "being saved". made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions —it is by grace you have been saved. The blue words define/explain the red words. The point is; they go together. iow, you can't have one without the other, and the Bible never says that. Then, in v.8 we see the order clearly: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— Plainly said, salvation is THROUGH faith. That proves which is first; faith. Problem with "ordained to eternal life" (red words above). Acts 13:48 doesn't say that in the Greek. English translations have either 'ordained' or 'appointed', but neither are correct. The Greek word is 'tasso', comes from military usage for lining up in order, to arrange (as in a military formation). Also, the voice of the verb is the same in the middle and passive voice, and the only way to determine which voice is meant is by context. What are voices? Active voice means the subject acts on someone/thing. Middle voice means the subject is acting on self, and the passive voice means an outside cause acts on the subject. Here, the form can be either middle or passive. So let's look at context. Is God mentioned anywhere in the context? No. But we do have a clue: v.44 - On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. So 'tasso' in v.48 indicates that "almost the whole city" arranged themselves or lined up in order to hear Paul. Since God isn't mentioned, we can't just assume this is a passive voice, esp when the context actually shows a middle voice action on the part of nearly the whole city. They lined themselves up to hear Paul. The obvious reason is choice. The gospel promise creates a choice for the hearer. To believe it or not. If the unregenerate are NOT capable of believing, then there is no choice, and that means that God is actually just a puppet master who pulls strings to make certain (elect) puppets do certain things that other (non-elect) puppets cannot do. The Bible NEVER even suggests such a thing. Every man is fully accountable. Do you realize that if the Calvinist claim were true, then no one is accountable, for no one would have the ability/capacity to believe. Yet, Rom 1:20 says that "man has NO excuse". This means that everyone has the abillity/capacity to believe or choose to believe the promise. This is also seen by the fact that both Acts 14:2 and 19:9 say that "men REFUSED to believe". This obviously is a choice. And to have a choice, there HAS TO BE options. At least 2. Regarding the gospel promise, there are just 2: believe or reject. Since the Bible says that man refuses to believe, we know that man is ABLE to believe. Wouldn't that be silly if unregenate man was unable to obey the command? Why bother commanding if one knows that the command cannot be obeyed? God is not irrational. And commanding what man cannot do is irrational. Makes no sense. Rather, if any person was able to "completely obey the commandments", they would have earned eternal life and Jesus Christ wouldn't have needed to come to earth and be a sacrifice for the sins of man. Man could actually save himself by earning eternal life. Rom 2:7 - God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 8 - To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But, then Paul goes on the clarify the reality in Rom 3:9 - To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 10 - As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. 23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God No one has EVER "kept the whole law". See verses above. This is correct. King David, as a mature believer, raped and murdered. Believers continue to sin. And faith is a choice. Man is able both to believe and to refuse to believe. Great verse on eternal security! I have consistently found that when Calvinists quote this verse, they always leave out the very next verse, so I'll provide it for context and the ANSWER that v.44 asks. v.45 - It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. First, the red words show that God has "taught all" meaning everyone. But that doesn't mean everyone pays attention. Just like in any classroom. Some pay attention, others doodle, others daydream, and others sleep. But no one has an excuse because God HAS REVEALED HIMSELF to all. Rom 1:19 - since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. This is what God "has taught all men"; through creation. Therefore, "people are without excuse". Again, choice. Back to v.45: blue words are about listening and learning. But that's a choice, as I've already noted. Not all students in a classroom pay attention. A choice. Purple words are the result of paying attention; coming to Jesus. So v.45 answers the question about who will come to Jesus. It's all about choice. Not exactly. Remember the Bible says that "men REFUSED to believe" what Paul preached. They clearly heard him, but they refused to believe the message. There is nothing in John 5:24 about hearing CAUSING believing, which is how Calvinists think. The Bible is clear that men choose to pay attention or not, to believe or refuse to believe. This is about objectivity and willingness to hear (choice). Red words indicate a believer already, saved. Blue words indicate what believers do. Orange words indicate unbelievers, who have chosen NOT to listen or learn.

How's this: There will not be a rapture of anyone according to the Bible. No different than what you just posted. If there is a verse that clearly teaches a rapture, don't just cite a book and chapter, please include the very verse that you believe teaches a rapture. First, there is NO mention of a resurrection OR rapture in Rev 12. Second, being "caught up" isn't either. Rev 12:5 - She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. To be clear, there is NO "man-child". The Bible reads "male child". The description of this male child "who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter" is none other than Jesus Christ, who WILL RULE the nations during the Millennial Reign after returning to earth. Yes, Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection. But this has nothing to do with human beings. There is nothing about believers "removed from the earth". More imagination. Nonsense. All my evidence comes straight from the Bible; chapter and verse, unlike yourself. You have claims and an imagination. And I've definitely not shrunk away from any of your claims or questions. How is any of this related to either the resurrection or a supposed rapture? For over 25 years, I've been reading through the NT from Acts-Rev monthly. How many times a year do you read through the NT? Once again, there is no rapture before the tribulation, and only resurrection after. Are you praying for a pre-trib rapture? Since the Bible doesn't teach about one, is that really praying "according to His will", per 1 John 5:14? I've probably read all the promises way more than you have. How is this relevant to the discussion of resurrection/rapture? The subject is "selective rapture". So does any of this relate to that? There will be no escape. Or the Bible would have clearly said so. Where is this "rapture" that you believe in? If you can't provide a verse that clearly teaches what you believe, there is no reason to believe in what you have no evidence for. "see"?? Where, specifically? Why can't you just spit out the chapter and verse(s) that you are "seeing"?? Excuse me but so far, you've provided none. So you didn't need to use "more". Which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. No, that is the ONLY resurrection that the Bible teaches. I've given you many verses that specifically note only one resurrection for the saved and one for the unsaved. Your idea is only a theory without any evidence. OK, where has the Father "warned His people about" this "selective rapture"? And all without ANY evidence. Therefore, it doesn't exist. Nice sentiment, but it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. There is no purpose and no rapture. The ONLY WAY to "read Rev 12 CAREFULLY" is for you to provide specific verses that lead you to the conclusion about this "corporate man-child" and "catalyst". What I clearly notice is your total lack of any biblical evidence for your theories. Still don't see any of your non-biblical words. Unlike your theory, the Bible speaks of a "male-child" who will "rule the nations with an iron scepter", which is none other than the King, Jesus. Irrelevant to the thread's OP. Without any evidence from Scripture, there is no reason to accept any of this. So, how would you "seek that this man-child be raptured". How does that work? Quite the imagination, since there are no verses that support what you claim. This is hilarious! You call me "short sighted" and have "ignorant disbelief" when you CAN'T PROVIDE ANY VERSES that support all that you are claiming. That's rich. You are asking me to believe what isn't found in Scripture. For all your claims of chapters, you CAN'T cite ANY verses that say what you say. This is how I verify the truth of what people claim: Acts 17:11 - Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true. I've applied this verification method to what you claim and it is clear that what you teach is not true. The Berean verification method has thoroughly discredited your claims.

There are many many examples of people doing just that. How can you not be aware of that? So I'm not supposed to read your posts? To turn from wicked ways is a change of mind, which is what the literal Greek word means. I sure do. Many people believe Acts 2:38 teaches that salvation is by turning from sin. Many many pastors preach that.

To live with God forever and be rescued from the LOF is about belief. Of course. No argument. But God expects NOTHING but belief in the finished work of Christ on the cross in order to give the free gift of eternal life to the believer. Once a child of God, God does expect His children to ACT like His children. Of course. But let's not put the cart before the horse. Yes. But this isn't about salvation from the LOF. What is "repentance"? A change of mind about who the man Jesus actually is: God's Son, the Messiah. If you think that turning from sin results in salvation, you will be sadly mistaken. To turn from sins is a human effort, which does NOT save. And this is not salvation. Of course. And all this is about growing up spiritually. But one must be born again before they can grow up.

Let's be clear. Thinking doesn't earn a thing. And that is the biblical point about earning wages, for example. No one pays someone for just thinking. They pay someone for THE RESULTS from that thinking. As to believing being a "work of righteousness" where is that stated in the Bible? What IS stated is that man is credited with righteousness FOR believing, which is totally different that what you claim. This verse doesn't supoort your claim. What we believe isn't a "work of righteousness", just as Titus 3:5 indicates. Paul SAID, "NOT BY works of righteousness, which WE have done". Rather, our salvation is "according to His mercy". Do you know what 'mercy' means? It means NOT getting what we have earned and deserve. All of these verses support my view, and not yours. I really wonder why you quote verses that don't say what you claim and support what I believe.

The Bible doesn't say, but obviously he would go to where all dead saints went in the OT. I haven't used only 1 chapter. Here they are again: Dan 12:2, John 5:29 and Acts 24:15, all saying that there will be A resurrection for the saved and A resurrection for the unsaved. And all agree with 1 Cor 15:23, 1 Thess 4:13-17, 1 Cor 15:52 and Rev 20:4-6 regarding just ONE resurrection for all saved people. That's 7 verses/passages. What does the 'baptism' in Eph 4:5 refer to? Please explain. Well, one can, but . . . that would demonstrate a lot of confusion. 1 resurrection means just ONE resurrection. We're not talking like the Trinity: One God but 3 Persons. Just one resurrection, and all believers will be resurrected at the Second Advent, which proves that NO resurrected believers will be taken to heaven. One is free to believe whatever you want, but such thinking is very confused. And contradictory. Regarding resurrection, I'm not interested in Rev 14, where the word isn't even mentioned. Doesn't matter. I've shown the verses that plainly say that there will be one resurrection of all the saved. You haven't proved it. And the Bible doesn't say it. If your opinions were true, they would "render not true" 1 Cor 15:23. But because of 1 Cor 15:23, your opinions are not true. That's just a lot of presumption. The warning is about the Second Advent. Not some secretive pre-trib rapture. All of this refers to the Second Advent. It does not support your theories. Maybe not to you, but certainly for most everyone. Why did Jesus perform miracles? To PROVE (evidence) He was God. How can anyone be "convinced against his will"? That is an impossibility. Please explain why I would need to. Why do I need to? What I HAVE shown you is that there will be just ONE resurrection of all saints, and all at the same event, the Second Advent, which is what 1 Cor 15:23 says. Why does that matter? And why bring up something that you haven't even addressed before? Have you asked me to show otherwise? No. I don't need to. Irrelevant to the singular resurrection of the saved. There is no connection to the singular resurrection of the saved. So I don't need to. This doesn't even come close to explaining what is meant by a "corporate enoch". And you haven't provided ANY verses that support such a notion. Do you have any idea what this verse is referring to??? Certainly not end times or resurrection. Since the Bible SAYS it is apointed once for man to DIE in Heb 9:27, it seems that Enoch and Elijah would be the obvious ones. That's enough. Don't condescend me as if I am unable to see what you are claiming even though you CAN'T provide any clear verses that support your claims. That's just a cheap defense. What I say is "made up" is the claims that you can't support with verses that say what you say. I do what the Bereans did with Paul's preaching, and your claims simply don't add up. I don't have opinions. I have clear verses from the Bible that persuade me. Well, what exactly persuades you, since you don't have verses that say so in plain language? Is that so? Then why can't you provide plainly worded verses that say what you say? Why do you quote totally unrelated verses?? Paul was referring to the Exodus generation and their failures. Not even close to resurrection in any sense. Much less about rapture.

However, do you believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone, or only for some? That was my point.

Actually, it's not. As I supposed. Are you aware that adding "cost", "discipleship" (spiritual growth) and "real commitment" you have INSERTED works into the gospel? Again, by adding "turning from sin" and "obdedience" you are clearly adding works to the gospel. Here is a rather theological tangle of ideas. Calvinists believe that Christ did NOT die for everyone, Arminians believe that salvation can be lost, and MacArthur uses "cheap grace" and "easy believism" in a very pejorative way. In fact, the majority of evangelical churches HAVE added works to the gospel, some subtly and others not so subtely. I agree that we should absolutely get back to the Bible and preach faithfully from it. Salvation is a free gift. Rom 6:23. That means it is NOT earned or deserved. Yet all that has been added here involves human effort. So if what has been added does result in salvation, it is NO LONGER a free gift. It means man MUST DO something MORE than simply believe (trust) in the finished work of Christ on the cross for salvation. There are about 25 verses that plainly state that salvation/eternal life are by faith/believing without anything else ADDED. In John 5:24 Jesus said whoever believes/trusts (present tense) HAS (present tense) eternal life. This clearly means that from the MOMENT of saving faith in Christ. Then, in John 10:28 Jesus said, "I give them (believers) eternal life, and they shall never perish". So eternal security (OSAS) is guaranteed from the MOMENT one believes in the finished work of Christ. Those who either don't understand grace or don't like the idea of it, resist these verses and ADD a list of human efforts to the gospel. What is the result? People think they are saved because they became obedient, were committed, etc. No. When any kind of works, no matter how noble, are added to the gospel, there is NO grace. This is what Paul said in Rom 11:6 - But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. The same is true for 'faith plus works', which seems to be what your point is; we are saved by faith plus works. When a jailer asked Paul what he MUST DO to be saved, Paul's answer was quite clear: BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL BE saved. If there were any kind of works involved, Paul would have correctly added them to his answer. Believing is trusting. No human effort involved at all. That is grace. Discipleship, obedience, etc are all COMMANDED once a person has been born again. We are to grow up spiritually, we are to be obedient. And the result of faithful obedience will be eternal reward. Rev 22:12 - “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. iow, some believers will receive reward, and others will "lose their reward", per 1 Cor 3:15 and 2 Cor 5:10.

Of course, everyone is free to believe what they want, but why not just believe what the Bible says? Enoch STILL doesn't have a resurrection body. He's waiting, along with "those who belong to Him", as 1 Cor 15:23 says in very plain language. I'm not talking about one chapter. I've shown 4 verses, spanning the OT - NT that SAY there will be A (singular) resurrection for the saved and one for the unsaved. And just one verse; 1 Cor 15:23 tells us EVERYTHING we need to know about the resurrection of the saved. The firstfruits of Rev 14 are evangelists who were evangelized by the Two Witnesses. And even those 144K will NOT be resurrected until Christ returns to earth. Where is this imagined "indication of an unannounced secretive snatching away" from the gospels? If you have evidence, please share. So far, all I've seen from you is opinion. I've always read all of the verses that you quote, and frequently comment that they are irrelevant to the subject of resurrection. And you've shown NO verses about any "secretive snatching away". Since Adam, of course there have always been multiple believers on earth. What is your point with Enoch? For me, the point is; since Enoch hasn't physically died yet, he will be one of the Two Witnesses during the Tribulation, since the Bible SAYS in Heb 9:27 everyone is destined to die ONCE. So he has yet to die. Along with Elijah. You keep making up stuff. Now you imagine "a corporate Enoch". What in the world does that mean and why would there be one? Or is this just another excuse to believe that there will be multiple resurrections? If you don't have a clear verse on this, it's just another opinion. If there are "plain words" in Matt 24 that support what you are saying, why not just QUOTE them when you make the claim? I don't believe what you post. I believe what the Bible SAYS. So if you want to convince me of something, you need to quote a verse that SAYS what you SAY. Like I do. Imagination running wild. Give me a verse or passage that SAYS what you SAY. These "what if . . ." scenarios are hilarious. I don't deal in the "what if's . . .". I deal in the "what is . . .". iow, reality, as STATED in the Bible. Please corral that imagination of yours. There is no such thing as an "early pre-trib selective rapture". Or the Bible would have SAID SO. You haven't given ANY evidence of what you believe, so where are your sources? Some wild haired pastor, your own imagination, or what, exactly? Please stop. Unless and until you provide actual evidence from Scripture, I'm not interested in your imagination. Has nothing to do with your imagination. Do you not realize that the word "beseeching" means to 'pray'? So you think individual believers can pray for this imagined rapture? Dream on. Hardly. Most believers will be martyred during the Tribulation. Those that are left will be a rather small group. Of course not. And I suspect that the hard core (nosed) pre-tribbers will have their faith shaken very badly when they realize they are in the trib! I feel very sad for them. You really mean that what the Bible teaches "does not make good sense"?? It makes PERFECT sense. God is PERFECT. What He wrote is PERFECT. Ain't no rapture to heaven. Or there would be a verse about it. And you haven't shown any. Of course they are in heaven. They are all the saints who have already died, from Adam forward. And it sure will be a GREAT multitude. These aren't just trib martyrs. They are every saved person in history who has already died. So no, Rev 19 does not prove your imagination that "some saints are taken to heaven". Every saved person who dies will be "at home with the Lord" per 2 Cor 5:6,8. But that isn't a resurrection nor a "rapture". When the poor man Lazarus died, was he raptured to Abraham's bosom in Luke 16? No. Jesus said he DIED and the angels carried him to Abraham's bosom. That's what happens when a saint dies. They are escorted to heaven. In the OT all saints when to Hades, to Paradise a compartment in Hades. <<< This is rather bizarre. What do you mean by what "Jesus pioneered to be"?? What Jesus came to DO was be the ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice for the sins of mankind. And that sure DOES "include the eternal redemption that He alone accomplished". So your statement is quite puzzling.>>> <<<Don't forget John 1:12 as well. And 1 John 3:1.>>> I certainly will not. Let's see them. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, (John 1:12) This is about the unspeakable privilege given, to be born of God! How each one born of God goes on to GROW in God's life remains to be seen. Rather it's quite SPEAKABLE!! We need to shout it from the rooftops! Rather, please be clear: we will never be "raptured". No resurrected believer will be taken to heaven, or there would be verses that say so. This is merely your imagination, since you have no evidence at all for it. It's more than a possibility. It is a promise. Do you understand and can explain what John meant by "abiding"? Ditto for "remain in Him". Apparently you seem unaware of the fact that "when He comes", being the Second Advent when "those who belong to Him" will all be resurrected at that event, the King will hold the Bema, or JSC, per 2 Cor 5:10 and every believer will be evaluated (judged) on ALL that they have done on earth, "whether good or bad". This is WHEN believers will be shamed "when He comes". Not when he appears but when they APPEAR before the King on the Bema. Won't you feel ashamed to have ignored the clear message of 1 Cor 15:23 when you finally realize, in eternity, that there is no 'rapture'? I look forward to your explanation of what "abiding" means. Do you know when a believer is teachable? Or does all this occur automatically? Let's see what you understand about "abiding".

You gave no reasons. And what you give here is contradictory. You mention "THEIR singing" which comes from heaven, but the verse SAYS "A voice". That doesn't match. Further, why are you now trying to force Rev 4 into chapter 14? Well, you're right here. The idea of resurrected believers traveling to heaven is only an imagination. Because there are NO VERSES that describe such a trip. And 1 Cor 15:23 FORBIDS such an idea. Every believer who died BEFORE the Second Advent gets to heaven by escort of angels. And NONE are in resurrection bodies, because those aren't issued until the Second Advent. What do you mean by "the Spirit's burden"? Imagination. Do you understand what "die" means here in this verse? Many believers live by the flesh and they still are walking around. So what do you think it refers to? So does that mean you don't link "rapture" with a trip to heaven? Why are you being so vague? "rapture will transporrt our physical bodies" WHERE?? I wish you to notice that God is omnipresent. That includes all 3 Persons. What is the point you are trying to make here? Yes, it sure is. So at least you are unwittingly admitting that you have no evidence that my view of 1 Cor 15:23 is in error. But with all your pushback and your own imaginations, demonstrates that you don't believe the plain words of the verse. No, you did not give any such evidence. Christ doesn't "grow in the saved" as if some kind of seed. The believer is to grow spiritually, to maturity. But it's not automatic. lol, says the one who ignores 1 Cor 15:23. Quite the imagination. Saying "rapture ALIVE" implies there are dead raptures, which is ridiculous. The only believers who will be, not "transfigured", but as the Bible says, "changed in the twinkling of the eye" per 1 Cor 15:52, are the believers who will be still alive on earth "when He comes", meaning the Second Advent. I highly recommend using biblical words, and not words that have no biblical link. OK, but it's STILL just one single resurrection of ALL believers, which will occur at the Second Advent. 1 Cor 15:23 doesn't permit any other view or imagination. There are no other times of resurrection. Only one. Or the Bible would indicate more than one. Jesus spoke ONLY of a single resurrection by the indefinite article "the". Your statement demonstrates clearly that you ignore 1 Cor 15:23. It is very clear. There are no verses that show believers being resurrected at different times, nor does 1 Cor 15:23 allow such imagination. No pretrip resurrection. Period. Pray tell, when do these imagined resurrections occur? What a very odd statement. It isn't my "rationale", but the very plain and clear words of 1 Cor 15:23, which SAYS so. Like the Bereans of Acts 17:11, I SAY what the Bible SAYS. Rather, "those who belong to Him" refer to EVERY saved person in humanity. Didn't you already indicate that the 144K were resurrected when Jesus comes back? There is no "alternative" to 1 Cor 15:23. I'm just amazed at your BOLD resistance to what that verse so very clearly states. There is only 1 resurrection of the saved. Here are 3 verses that show ONLY 1 resurrection of the saved and 1 of the unsaved: Dan 12:2, John 5:29 and Acts 24:15. So I'm not only focusing on 1 Cor 15:23. Here are 4 verses that speak of resurrection in the SINGULAR. And Jesus only spoke in the singular about resurrection. So I have all the evidence and you have none for your multiple resurrection imagination. v.5 refers to the FIRST converts of the Two Witnesses. They won't be resurrected until the Second Advent. v.14-20 compare God's judgment and wrath against mankind in the second half of the tribulation to a grain harvest (ie, bowl judgments 16:1-21) and a grape harvest (ie, Armageddon in 19:11-21). However, there are a multitude of views of how to understand ch 14. Personally, I am not bothered by admitting I am not convinced of what anyone says about it. It just doesn't matter. What I DO know is that there will be just one resurrection of the saved and it will be at the Second Advent. There will be NO "rapture" where resurrected believers are taken to heaven. Just answered above, and am not concerned about ch 14. It may simply be a text out of chronological order. Doesn't really matter. When these events start to occur, the book of Revelation will become much more clear. We'll have to live through it to see what the various contexts refer to. Nothing in the Bible is "arbitrary". And there are various views of how Revelation is sequenced. I'm not bothered by such details. I know the overall schedule. This question is not clear. Are you thinking of two "short time" events?? Again, there is JUST ONE resurrection of the saved, according to 1 Cor 15:23. Are you not aware that 1 Cor 15 is THE chapter on believer resurrection? What do you believe about Heb 9:28? That EVERY mention of "coming" in regard to Christ refers to the Second Advent? I know nothing of this "corporate man-child" that you imagine. Since most evangelicals believe the tribulation will be 7 years total, which 3.5 years are you referring to? I can't answer questions that are vague. ? I've always been taught and believed that the "woman" is Israel and the "man-child" is Jesus Christ. If that is incorrect, what does it matter? Why would I have to? The Bible is clear about the resurrection of the saved. The majority will have already died and their bodies are in the grave, and they are in heaven and will return with King Jesus at the Second Advent. See Rev 19b. The believers still alive at the end of the tribulation will be changed per 1 Cor 15:52. No I don't, because the Bible doesn't say that. In fact, the Bible is clear that there will NOT be any resurrected saints up in heaven. That is called the Second Advent, when all believers will receive their immortal glorified bodies and then reign/serve the King in His Millennial Kingdom. On earth. Of course it's allowed. And encouraged when someone has an erroneous view about the Bible. I was taught a pretrib rapture to heaven from my youth, but when I really got serious about what the Bible says (Bereans), I realized I had been taught wrong. So I repented (changed my mind) of that view and now believe what the Bible SAYS and not what man tells me. Nonsense. No one WILL "mater all the facts given". For example, I have given you very clear facts about resurrection, all found in 1 Cor 15:23. But, have you repented of your multi resurrection view yet? No. I didn't say there was. I was referring to Rev 14. Hm. Are you paying attention? And 15:23 very specifically shows that there will be one resurrection, which is when He comes, and all believers will be in attendance. Of course no one has any right to dictate what God does or can do. I do not believe the soul will be transformed because I haven't read it in the Bible. What have I dismissed? If you are going to throw out accusations, please at least include what I'm being charged with. Paul is simply making the distinction between the physical and immortal bodies. iow, between the physical body with the resurrection body. I am quite informed that there will not be equality in heaven. Some will be greatly rewarded and some will "suffer loss", per 1 Cor 3:15. Of course it does. But aren't you getting rather off track here? Again, way too vague to answer. What "other stages inbetween"? And you need a verse or paragraph to support your answer, so I'll know it comes from the Bible and not your imagination. I'm waiting for any evidence that our souls will be transformed. Here Paul is referring to eternal rewards. How would you prove this claim? Claims are cheap, but proof is costly. OK. This says nothing about a resurrection or trip to heaven. How can you "agree basically" when 1 Cor 15:23 SAYS that there will be one resurrection of all the saved at the Second Advent. There will be NO "early" and later resurrections. Imagination. This doesn't make any sense. You've got "early raptured" "and resurrected" "and raptured ones". You've mentioned "raptured" twice. I have no idea what your point is. "eventually"????? Actually, the Bible doesn't say where the judgment seat will occur. Why do you say it will be "in the sky"? What verse says that? Or, is that your imagination talking?

I inserted "heavenly" to indicate what should be understood is not the physical Mount Zion in Israel. But these saints are raptured to the heavens. On whose "authority" are you "claiming" what should be understood? Prove it isn't refrerring to the REAL Mount Zion in Israel. And you think this refers to a rapture? That would be reading INTO Scripture what isn't there. And 1 Cor 15:23 plainly SAYS that there will be a (singular) resurrection "when He comes" (Second Advent, per Heb 9:28) for ALL believers in history "those who belong to Him". So far, you haven't proven that any of what I understand of 1 Cor 15:23 means something else. Since 1 Cor 15:23 FORBIDS your ideas about resurrection, it is obviously a reference to the coming wrath of God with the harvest being God's wrath. That is . . . when you you consider all of the context. Please define what you mean by 'rapture'. What occurs when someone is "raptured"? I do believe that 1 Thess 4:13-17 is the singular resurrection of all believers at the Second Advent. But the (full) context of Rev 14 shows the 'harvest' to be God's wrath on the earth. I certainly did not say anything about "it is all guess work". And I don't have an alternate interpretation. That would be you. Because of the clarity of 1 Cor 15:23, there is ONLY ONE resurrection, which will be for ALL believers, and will occur at the Second Advent. There can be no other understanding. The wording is very clear. Nothing to "interpret". No symbolism, no metaphors, no figures of speech. But here's the deal. There is NO "following to heaven". No verse describes Jesus leading resurrected believers to heaven. And 1 Cor 15:23 doesn't permit such an idea. All believers will be resurrected at the Second Advent, and NOT be led back to heaven. They will STAY on earth and serve/reign with Christ during the Millennial reign. I know what the Bible says, and therefore I am beyond convinced that NO believer will be resurrected and then taken to heaven. So, how would I "do damage to Christ being the Son of God", when He certainly IS the Son of God? Your question is quite puzzling. Don't forget John 1:12 as well. And 1 John 3:1. Considering the whole context, the message is to "receive in meekness the Word of God that is already IN you". iow, obey what you already know. The phrase "which is able to save your souls" is NOT an evangelistic phrase for going to heaven, but was the common way in the first Century to mean "save a life". iow, believers who live obediently lives will not fall under God's discipline that includes physical death, as seen in 1 Cor 11:30, Acts 5, and 1 Cor 10:1-12 James wasn't referring to regeneration. He wrote to SAVED JEWS. Already regenerated. Not even the concept is there. Maybe you are thinking of spiritual growth. If so, then say that, which IS found in the Bible. 1 Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, No, we shouldn't when the obvious meaning is spiritual growth, not drenched. Nope. This isn't about drenched, which is synonymous with saturated. The much better words are "spiritual growth" which is a process that takes time, just like physically growing up to maturity. The goal of spiritual growth is spiritual maturity. New believers are described as "babes in Christ", or babies. They need to grow up. Not get drenched. As much as you keep trying to legitimize your fav word, it fails to communicate properly. When we already have biblical words, that's what we should use. To saturate is to drench. Doesn't work in the Bible. It's confusing rather than communicating. Believers should be told to grow up spiritually, rather than be drenched with Christ. No, he was NOT drenched with Christ. That doesn't even sound normal. He was spiritually mature. Not drenched in any sense. Of course not. And no one is "so full of Christ" anyway. One is either "Christ-like or not". One is either filled with the Holy Spirit or not. The Bible does not use "volume amount" language here. It's all or none. However, spiritual growth is gradual and progressive. Just like growing up physically. Of course I do. He wants all believers to be in fellowship with Him (1 John 1) and to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) so the good they do will be considered 'divine good', which pleases God. Believers who are not in fellowship (lack of confession of sin) and are grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit can STILL produce morality, but it is not divine good, but only human good. And to God, human good, that which is produced by man's human nature, STINKS to high heaven, according to Isa 64:6. The words "filthy rags" in the literal Hebrew means "used menstrual rags". 😳 It is NOT weird to speak of being filled with the Holy Spirit, but the other descriptions are NOT biblical words, so we don't need them. They just add confusion and allow the speaker to use them however they want. Stick with biblical words. Then everyone is on the same page. Are you meaning the muscle that pumps blood? Why not rather just say believers need to open their eyes and ears to what God's Word says? Kind of a loaded question, or an open ended one. For salvation, YES I do think that. For spiritual growth, the believer must understand how to be purified/cleansed from their ongoing sins, and then know how to be filled with the Holy Spirit for spiritual growth. Because the wording is NOT biblical and leads to much confusion. Your continued attempt to use your favorite word is "all wet". 😉 No the Bible does not say anything like that. When you say 'saturate' I say 'drench'. Totally synonymous. I always prefer to stick with biblical words. And Trinity is fine because the Bible calls The Father God, the Son God and the Holy Spirit God. 3 Persons in the Trinity.

Please explain from Paul's writings HOW/WHY my understanding doesn't align with Paul's. Sorry to have to inform you, but all this is jumbled up. Your first to the 3rd line refers to unbelievers. But I'm NOT talking about the resurrection of unbelievers. Neither did Paul in 1 Cor 15:23. Or, if he did, please be specific as to chapter and verse numbers. Let's make it simple and just call "the dead" unsaved people. However, Paul never described the resurrection of unsaved people, so NOTHING in 1 Cor 15 refers to the unsaved. So why are you talking about the unsaved dead? What for? The red words above refer to all believers who have already died and are now in heaven, awaiting their resurrection body. The blue words refer to those believers who are still alive when the Lord returns. Their living mortal bodies will be CHANGED into an immoral glorified body, just like the resurrection bodies of the saints who have already died and their mortal bodies are in the grave. Not one bit of the above very poorly edited info is helpful. I'm able to copy and paste from biblehub.com as one reads from a book; not veritically as you have done. It's not that difficult to summarize and get to the point. After trying to follow your copy and paste, I was unable to determine ANY point you may have been trying to make. So what that "dead" is an adjective? It is preceded by the definite article THE, so in the Greek it is "THE dead". since "dead" is an adjective, we have to ask, "the dead" WHAT?? And from the context, IT SHOULD BE QUITE OBVIOUS what Paul is referring to; PEOPLE. ie: THE dead people. Without question 1 Cor 15:52 is describing the singular resurrection of ALL the saved people in history. If you aren't able to understand that from the text, context, and the verse itself, I see no point in further discussion. Here is the verse again: in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. Why in the world would anyone think that God would raise the unsaved in an "imperishable" state? C'mon. That surely doesn't make any sense. ONLY saved people will be raised imperishable. This non sentence was hanging all by itself in your post. It makes no sense. A "dead body" IS IS IS called a "dead body". Obviously. The difficulty is in the fact that you unfortunately think that 1 Cor 15:52 refers to unbelievers/unsaved. With that sort of misreading/misunderstanding, it is not possible to have a productive conversation with you.

I certainly believe and understand what Moses wrote in Gen 1:2 and I know why Jeremiah quoted from what Moses wrote while describing the coming total disaster of the land in Jer 4. But you don't. You have put your faith in English translations of Gen 1:2. Moses didn't know any English. Regardless, your response to my question is quite bizarre. What does my question have to do with what verse describes Jesus taking resurrected saints to heaven? The resurrection of all believers isn't even close to "the end". There will still be 1,000 years of human history. And after the Millennial reign of the King, there won't even be an "end". Those rather familiar with Revelation know all that. But, once again, you just dodge the FACT that you know there is no verse that supports a pretrib "rapture".