Question for those who believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture

[TMS]

That is how I basically came at it. I found out I was a dispensationalist before I even knew what that was.

To me it is clear God has dealt differently with different people at different times. In some ways, it is no different to how I raised my children. Different ages required different measures.

Dispensationalism was systematized and promoted by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the mid-19th century. It began its spread in the United States during the late 19th century through the efforts of evangelists such as James Inglis, James Hall Brookes and Dwight L.

It did not exist in the apostles day.
God uses different measures at different times but God does not change. As a whole God has one standard and one way to be saved.

He isn't more merciful and gracious today, then he was yesterday.

God's character is love and that principle does not change.

The same God loved Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Peter, Paul, you and me in the same way.

Does God change the goal posts at different times?. Do we gain salvation by works for a time, then by grace for a different time?

Dispensationalism is an evil invention.

 

[Genez]

When Jesus returns ....Will it be to raise the saved and got back to heaven?

Jesus "raised" Lazarus from the dead.
But, Lazarus was not resurrected.
Lazarus when raised, he was reestablished back into his earthly body, but only to die again later.

....will it be a secret?

The Rapture will be in secret, up above in the clouds.
In contrast, his return to earth will not be in secret- Then every eye will see Him.

...will it be before or after the tribulation?

He will return to put an end to the Tribulation.
At that time, he will slaughter all the enemies of Israel who were coming against her.

That's how it rolls ....

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The very first verse you quoted said those who pierced Him will see Him. How can that happen unless the coming was 1st century?

In Acts 3 (after Jesus' resurrection and ascension), Peter, speaking to "ye men of Israel," says to the people, "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob... hath glorified His Servant Jesus; whom YE delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate... But YE denied the Holy One and the Just... And KILLED the Prince of life..."

Further down, in v.17, he says, "... I wot that through ignorance YE did it, as did also your rulers."


Then in v.19, Peter says, "Repent YE therefore, and be converted, THAT YOUR sins may be blotted out..."


Continuing into chapter 4, v.1 says, "And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came unto them, Being grieved that they TAUGHT THE PEOPLE, and PREACHED through Jesus the resurrection from the dead...," and then goes on to say, in v.4, "Howbeit MANY OF THEM WHICH HEARD THE WORD *BELIEVED*; and the number of the men was about five thousand."





So here we see in Acts 3 and 4, that at least "5000" men (whom Peter had said were a part of who it was that "KILLED the Prince of life") repented of their view of "who Jesus was/is" when Peter spoke to them (thus had their sins "blotted out")... and therefore will be among the [at least] 5000 sets of resurrected eyeballs who will "SEE Him" (Rev1:7) at the time surrounding His Second Coming TO THE EARTH (Rev19 time-slot; Rev1:7).


Simple.






[Rev1:7's "EVERY EYE shall SEE Him" = "the MANIFESTATION of the presence / parousia of Him" 2Th2:8b (Rev17:14 / 19:16)]

 

[Cameron143]

In Acts 3 (after Jesus' resurrection and ascension), Peter, speaking to "ye men of Israel," says to the people, "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob... hath glorified His Servant Jesus; whom YE delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate... But YE denied the Holy One and the Just... And KILLED the Prince of life..."

Further down, in v.17, he says, "... I wot that through ignorance YE did it, as did also your rulers."


Then in v.19, Peter says, "Repent YE therefore, and be converted, THAT YOUR sins may be blotted out..."


Continuing into chapter 4, v.1 says, "And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came unto them, Being grieved that they TAUGHT THE PEOPLE, and PREACHED through Jesus the resurrection from the dead...," and then goes on to say, in v.4, "Howbeit MANY OF THEM WHICH HEARD THE WORD *BELIEVED*; and the number of the men was about five thousand."





So here we see in Acts 3 and 4, that at least "5000" men (whom Peter had said were a part of who it was that "KILLED the Prince of life") repented of their view of "who Jesus was/is" when Peter spoke to them (thus had their sins "blotted out")... and the, refore will be among the [at least] 5000 sets of resurrected eyeballs who will "SEE Him" (Rev1:7) at the time surrounding His Second Coming TO THE EARTH (Rev19 time-slot; Rev1:7).


Simple.

More likely it is speaking of the Roman soldiers, and if this were the only reference to the concurrent timeline, I might be inclined to agree. But 3 references in 7 verses seems like God is making a point. This, as well as plenty of entries in the gospel of Jesus speaking of the current generation, I'm inclined to believe the time-frame is 1st century.

But the most convincing evidence for me is the reality of what actually took place in 70AD, and the similar structures of and outlines of Deuteronomy and Revelation. They are dealing with the same subject...the old covenant. One initiates it and sets the terms and sanctions. The other reiterates the covenant and tells of the coming destruction for failing to keep the terms of the covenant, and gives a path forward.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Well, somewhere else in this thread you mentioned (again) Revelation 1, verses 1 and 3. But as I see it, one shouldn't leave off verse 19 when considering this matter.

IOW, "19 WRITE
[1] the things which thou hast seen,
[2] and the things WHICH ARE [i.e. chpts 2-3],
[3] AND the things which must take place AFTER THESE [i.e. AFTER "the things WHICH ARE"]"

(it is this THIRD LISTED-item which corresponds with 1:1a "[TO SHEW UNTO...] things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]..." --NOT things which would unfold upon the earth over the course of some near-2000 years, as the Historicists have it; NOR things which must take place immediateLY [or other ADVERBS like 'soon'] as the Preterists have it. )



____________

As for the matter of the phrase, "this generation" (in the gospels), let the readers see again my posts concerning the PLACEMENT of Lk21:32's verse "TILL ALL shall have taken place" coming after v.24's "OF LENGTHY-DURATION items"

 

[Cameron143]

^ Well, somewhere else in this thread you mentioned (again) Revelation 1, verses 1 and 3. But as I see it, one shouldn't leave off verse 19 when considering this matter.

IOW, "19 WRITE
[1] the things which thou hast seen,
[2] and the things WHICH ARE [i.e. chpts 2-3],
[3] AND the things which must take place AFTER THESE [i.e. AFTER "the things WHICH ARE"]"

(it is this THIRD LISTED-item which corresponds with 1:1a "[TO SHEW UNTO...] things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]..." --NOT things which would unfold upon the earth over the course of some near-2000 years, as the Historicists have it; NOR things which must take place immediateLY [or other ADVERBS like 'soon'] as the Preterists have it. )



____________

As for the matter of the phrase, "this generation" (in the gospels), let the readers see again my posts concerning the PLACEMENT of Lk21:32's verse "TILL ALL shall have taken place" coming after v.24's "OF LENGTHY-DURATION items"

But something did happen soon thereafter that you ignore.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[Rev1:7's "EVERY EYE shall SEE Him" = "the MANIFESTATION of the presence / parousia of Him" 2Th2:8b (Rev17:14 / 19:16)]

I had meant to also INCLUDE 1Tim6:15 with these, "Which IN HIS TIMES He SHALL SHEW [OPENLY MANIFEST]..." (where the end of this verse corresponds with the other verses I referenced there).

I believe all of that is yet "FUTURE"

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

But something did happen soon thereafter that you ignore.

Well, if you are referring to the wording in verse 1 (Rev1:1), the word "soon [adverb]" is not used, but rather, [what John is going to be "SHOWN" is said to be] "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"


(and that "SHEW YOU" doesn't start till 4:1 "AFTER THESE things [i.e. AFTER chpts 2-3's "things WHICH ARE"] I looked, and..." and then that verse concludes with Him saying, "Come up hither, and I WILL SHEW YOU things which must take place AFTER THESE things"... [i.e. after "the things WHICH ARE," which things ARE NOT said OF THEM that THEY are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS," by contrast])



When one then COMPARES "the beginning of birth PANGS" with the SEALS of Rev6 (and sees they are the SAME ITEMS), then one can consider the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse, where the "70ad events" are said to take place "BEFORE ALL THESE" beginning of birth pangs (i.e. [before all the] SEALS), per v.12 of Lk21. So there's that







[IOW, understanding the "sequence" completely NEGATES the idea that the "70ad events" is what Rev (and MUCH of the Olivet Discourse, except for about 12 verses) is about]

 

[TMS]

Jesus "raised" Lazarus from the dead.
But, Lazarus was not resurrected.
Lazarus when raised, he was reestablished back into his earthly body, but only to die again later.


The Rapture will be in secret, up above in the clouds.
In contrast, his return to earth will not be in secret- Then every eye will see Him.



He will return to put an end to the Tribulation.
At that time, he will slaughter all the enemies of Israel who were coming against her.

That's how it rolls ....

I don't read that in the bible.

Jesus said he will come again, second coming, and we shall be with the Lord forever more.

Joh 14:2-3
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Those mansions in Heaven are prepared by Jesus for us to be with Him.

I don't see any verses about a secret rapture.
It will be a surprise to those that are not prepared.

When Jesus comes judgement is finished
There is no second chance after probation closes. His reward is with Him.

Rev 22:11-12
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Notice how it says "and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

Nothing about 2 or 3 second comings.

 

[Cameron143]

Well, if you are referring to the wording in verse 1 (Rev1:1), the word "soon [adverb]" is not used, but rather, [what John is going to be "SHOWN" is said to be] "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"


(and that "SHEW YOU" doesn't start till 4:1 "AFTER THESE things [i.e. AFTER chpts 2-3's "things WHICH ARE"] I looked, and..." and then that verse concludes with Him saying, "Come up hither, and I WILL SHEW YOU things which must take place AFTER THESE things"... [i.e. after "the things WHICH ARE," which things ARE NOT said OF THEM that THEY are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS," by contrast])



When one then COMPARES "the beginning of birth PANGS" with the SEALS of Rev6 (and sees they are the SAME ITEMS), then one can consider the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse, where the "70ad events" are said to take place "BEFORE ALL THESE" beginning of birth pangs (i.e. [before all the] SEALS), per v.12 of Lk21. So there's that







[IOW, understanding the "sequence" completely NEGATES the idea that the "70ad events" is what Rev (and MUCH of the Olivet Discourse, except for about 12 verses) is about]

Actually, the book of Revelation deals directly with the events of 70AD. You have a new covenant introduced and an intercovenental period where the old passes and the new is fully revealed. You're missing the whole point of the book. It was written to bless those and help those who were getting ready to go through the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[Re: Rev1:7 "and they also which pierced him"] More likely it is speaking of the Roman soldiers, and if this were the only reference to the concurrent timeline, I might be inclined to agree.

A couple of things to CONSIDER (re: the BOLD ^ ) :


-- Zec 12:10 says,
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.


"WHO" is the "THEY" referring to in this verse? ^ ; not the Roman soldiers... right?;




--John 19 confirms this, where, though v.34 states, "And ONE of the soldiers with A SPEAR pierced his side...," a few verses later says, "And again another scripture saith, THEY shall look on him whom THEY pierced." (even though v.34 states specifically that "ONE of the soldiers with A SPEAR pierced his side..."); So, IOW, though it was ONE SOLDIER who, using A SPEAR, "pierced" Him, scripture seems to apply it to others who IN AGREEMENT were onlooking or had consented to His crucifixion (i.e. the ones mentioned in the Zech12:10 passage ['they,' specifically])






[note: I do believe Rev1:7 refers to His Second Coming to the earth Rev19 time-slot, rather than the John 19:34 time-slot (the Cross) now past]

 

[Cameron143]

A couple of things to CONSIDER (re: the BOLD ^ ) :


-- Zec 12:10 says,
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.


"WHO" is the "THEY" referring to in this verse? ^ ; not the Roman soldiers... right?;




--John 19 confirms this, where, though v.34 states, "And ONE of the soldiers with A SPEAR pierced his side...," a few verses later says, "And again another scripture saith, THEY shall look on him whom THEY pierced." (even though v.34 states specifically that "ONE of the soldiers with A SPEAR pierced his side..."); So, IOW, though it was ONE SOLDIER who, using A SPEAR, "pierced" Him, scripture seems to apply it to others who IN AGREEMENT were onlooking or had consented to His crucifixion (i.e. the ones mentioned in the Zech12:10 passage ['they,' specifically])






[note: I do believe Rev1:7 refers to His Second Coming to the earth Rev19 time-slot, rather than the John 19:34 time-slot (the Cross) now past]

Those in the passage are no doubt 1st century Jews who later were saved. But even if you don't believe those that pierced Him refers to Roman soldiers, you just asserted here and earlier, that it was referring to 1st century individuals.
Also, pierced doesn't only mean spearing. The nails pierced Him as well.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Actually, the book of Revelation deals directly with the events of 70AD.

So what you are saying, is that you do NOT agree that:


--Luke 21:8-11 is speaking of "the beginning of birth pangs" (exactly like Mt24:4-8 & Mk13:5-8 also do);


--and that verse 12 of that chapter (Lk21) states clearly "But BEFORE ALL THESE..." (i.e. BEFORE all of the "beginning of birth pangs" vv.8-11 JUST TALKED ABOUT), BEFORE ALL THOSE, the events of vv.12-24a,b [the 70ad events] MUST TAKE PLACE FIRST (*BEFORE* all of those items in vv.8-11);


--and that "the beginning of birth pangs" (Mt24:4-8... Mk13:5-8... AND Lk21:8-11) ARE "the SEALS" of Rev6 (SEALS 1-5);


--and that, the "end / outcome" of the 70ad events is spelled out in v.24a "and they shall be led away captive into all the nations"; but by contrast, the "end / outcome" of "the beginning of birth pangs" (and those "birth pangs" which FOLLOW ON from "the beginning of" them) is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE, in that, Matt24:29-31/Isaiah 27:9,12-13 speaks of their being "GATHERED" ("one by one") to worship the Lord in the holy mount, AT JERUSALEM" (IOW, the one being BEFORE all the beginning of birth pangs; the other being AFTER the beginning of birth pangs and those pangs which follow on from "the beginning" of them--i.e. COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ENDS / OUTCOME / results)

You have a new covenant introduced and an intercovenental period where the old passes and the new is fully revealed. You're missing the whole point of the book. It was written to bless those and help those who were getting ready to go through the destruction of Jerusalem.

I completely disagree, based on the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse (and the parts of Rev which DO PARALLEL that, namely the SEALS [BEING "the beginning of birth PANGS"], which SEALS are at the START of the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time period that Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 speaks to), and which will unfold and lead up to His "RETURN" to the earth (Rev19). Not "soon [adverb]" (from when written), per these verses I've underlined [/explained earlier].







____________

On a slightly different note: who do you believe it refers to, where Rev2:13 says, "wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you..." ?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ To go along with my Post #173, I recommend that the readers take note of Jeremiah 32 (read the whole chapter, but see vv.6-12, noting its key words), and I will just quote verse 14 here,

Jer 32:14
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open; and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days."








After you read the entire chapter (including this ^ v.14), then I recommend reading these two commentaries on that chapter :

-- Gaebelein - Jeremiah 32 Gaebelein's Annotated Bible (biblehub.com)

-- William Kelly - Jeremiah 32 William Kelly Major Works Commentary (biblehub.com)










Then CONSIDER just why Jesus had stated, in Matt23:38-39, "Behold, your house is LEFT unto you desolate. FOR I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, henceforth, TILL ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (similar language from a particular OT section of scripture: "not see... UNTIL [/unless]...");

... and note that Lk21:24b says, "AND Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN OF the Gentiles [Rv11:2 also] UNTIL..."

 

[Musicmaster]

Yes they were but were they given to Israel or the Church?

I repeat though, I don't hold to replacement theology. Sometimes working out the precise understanding of what the word means takes a lot of questioning and thinking and more questions and more thinking and then even more thinking.

That's a good question. Let's look at what Jesus said:

Matthew 10:5-6
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The original twelve, therefore, were not given over to the Church. I don't see that anywhere. The Gospel the twelve continued to preach was the Kingdom Gospel, which required repentance and water baptism. They remained in Jerusalem rather than to go out into all the world as commanded because the Kingdom Gospel was set aside on account of Israel's continued rejection of Christ when stoning Stephen. That was the straw that broke the proverbial Camel's back for the Lord. Within a few years after that the Lord confronted and blinded Saul, through whom was launched the Gospel of Grace that brought about the body of Christ.

So, when asking about the apostles having been "given over to the Church," that language isn't in scripture so far as I have ever found, at least to the extent that the nation and tribes to whom the LORD was married, that never changed.

Replacement Theology comes in two basic forms:

1) Total replacement, and
2) Partial replacement.

In the evil system of total replacement, Israel remains cast aside, with the "Church" replacing her, even though Paul warned against that form of pride, pointing out that she can be graft back into the vine, but some out there choose the evil of human pride in this regard.

In the system of partial replacement, they spiritualize everything to the extent that Gentiles are made into "spiritual Jews," which is indeed a valid concept, but not the one operating to the extent that Israel is not at all distinctive in relation to whom the LORD joined Himself in marriage, which was ONLY to the bloodline nation of Israel.

Only Paul was the assigned apostle to the Gentiles, and I have doubts that his name is one of the names on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem given that he was a murderer of the saints, and therefore his considering himself the least among the apostles and the brethren. His acute awareness of his past sins as a murderer, that kept his view of himself in check, so to speak.

So, yes, the apostles became the builders of the "ecclesia" that is translated as "church" in many places. The unfortunate aspect of that is the overly simplistic application of that term as always inclusive of Gentiles to the extent that replacement theology has a foothold in the minds of those who routinely fail to rightly divide the word of truth, instead believing what those false teachers of theirs teach them from their filthy pulpits.

The Gospel of Grace, as you know, is the means by which distinction are erased, but only in this age of grace. In the tribulation, that Kingdom distinction will once again become established, with Gentiles having to become Jews in order to be saved, just as it was before the cross, as pointed out in Esther 8:17.

Modern folks don't like anything not being what they think it should be, claiming they believe in the Bible when in fact they only believe in the fanciful thinking from the minds of false teachers and themselves for how they WANT things to be, and by golly, it HAS to be that way....right? To heck with what scripture says when they can allegorize it into oblivion, having no absolute basis for keeping their allegories on the track of truth. They claim that comparing scripture to scripture is how they keep it all on track, never minding that incongruent comparisons cross each other off into falsehoods.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

He will be also returning with His angels....
To clear the earth of all unbelievers before the Millennium begins.

​

Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ​

Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.​

​

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. ​

But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night ​

the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house ​

be broken into." Matthew 24:40-43​

That passage is NOT about the Rapture.

That is about the second coming.
The planet will be cleared of all unbelievers before the Millennium is to begin.

Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ​

Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.​

grace and peace ..............

I never meant to convey the the idea that I thought that was the rapture. If I did, then I apologize.

No, that gathering up in that time at the end of the tribulation is not at all the rapture of the saints, as some do believe.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Many of the dead raised up will remain being of Israel. Israel had both an earthly and a heavenly calling. They were called out from among the nations of the earth and given earthly promises, e.g., a kingdom (which will culminate in the Millennial Kingdom), and preeminence among the nations (Deuteronomy 28.1, 13). They also have a heavenly calling, described in Hebrews 3.1 that began with Abraham, cf. Hebrews 11.8-10. Abraham anticipated (ἐκδέχομαι) a heavenly city. How much he knew of it is unknown, but he looked for a heavenly city. The new Jerusalem of Revelation 21 will be that city set down upon the new earth.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

After you read the entire chapter (including this ^ v.14), then I recommend reading these two commentaries on that chapter :

-- Gaebelein - Jeremiah 32 Gaebelein's Annotated Bible (biblehub.com)

-- William Kelly - Jeremiah 32 William Kelly Major Works Commentary (biblehub.com)

Then CONSIDER just why Jesus had stated, in Matt23:38-39, "Behold, your house is LEFT unto you desolate. FOR I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, henceforth, TILL ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (similar language from a particular OT section of scripture: "not see... UNTIL [/unless]...");

... and note that Lk21:24b says, "AND Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN OF the Gentiles [Rv11:2 also] UNTIL..."

It's too bad commentaries don't agree with one another in many, many places. If they did, then they might possibly be on the level of scripture, but they are not. Many of them were written by liberal theologians with beliefs from the pits of Hell.

What's so easily overlooked is that as is written in what you quoted, that it is not UNTIL Israel confesses the blessedness of He who comes in the name of the Lord. So, no, we Israelites were not written off entirely as the demonic doctrine of replacement theology would have many to believe.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Well I did use 2 Cor 11:2 from many Biblical sources online that the Body of Christ is the Bride to Christ the Head, but can't find any that support your theory. However, I did find one that agrees that spiritual Babylon is ancient Jerusalem, but the others I checked say these are 2 different locations and purposes. Not a matter of eternal salvation either topic, so I'll leave it at that. Thx though, your ideas got me into my research mode🙌 and away from landlady duties, for the moment.

Biblical sources? I pointed out that the LORD had already been married to Israel, not the Church...never to the Church. The Church is His BODY. How can one's own BODY also be his BRIDE? How does one marry Himself? I've heard of guys out there marrying goats and even their dinner plates, but never their own body...

So, if you would, please explain what I quoted from the OT scriptures of the Lord being married to Israel, handing her a write of divorcement, and yet later still referring to His being "married" to her? Numerous times it is revealed the Lord's marriage to Israel, and yet many today seem to think that He is going to become a serial polygamist just as many of them are within their subsequent marriage(s) after divorcing for unscriptural reasons, such as "incompatibility." Many out there living in sin think themselves qualified to overlay the scriptures with their own sinful viewpoints, with some even writing commentaries published on the market.

MM

 

[homwardbound]

Those bodies were not resurrected.
For if they had been? Their bodies would have never died again.

Just like with Lazarus coming out of the tomb...
They were resuscitated. Lazarus died again.

Brought back to life, only to die again.

Only the Church at present can be resurrected, to receive a body that can never die.

Before shown that by a good teacher, I was confused about that matter as well.

I see to disagree with you only to agree to disagree, as we all grow, thanks it is on our own to each of us to trust God the Father of the risen Son thank you Father