In Genesis 5:24, it states that Enoch “was no more, because God took him,” and notably, the passage does not explicitly say that he died, unlike the repeated pattern “and he died” for others in the genealogy. Some Christian traditions hold that no human beings are in heaven prior to the resurrection, except for Jesus Christ. Given this, how do such Christians interpret the case of Enoch? - Do they understand “God took him” as implying a form of death that is simply not described in the usual terms? - Or do they interpret it as a unique exception that does not contradict their broader theological view? - Are there denominational differences in how this passage is understood? I am particularly interested in interpretations that remain consistent with the view that humans do not enter heaven before the final resurrection.

In Matthew 27:52–53, it is stated that “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised… and appeared to many in Jerusalem,” which seems to suggest a physical (possibly glorified) resurrection. Additionally, Ephesians 4:8 says that when Christ “ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men,” which some interpret as Christ liberating the righteous dead and bringing them into a heavenly state. - Which Protestant denominations (if any) hold the view that Christ raised Old Testament saints in glorified bodies and took them to heaven at or after His resurrection/ascension? - How do these traditions interpret these passages in support of that view? - and do they also believe this lot received rewards in heaven after Christ ascended on high and are these people the first fruits of the resurrection as written in the New testament. - did these saints do it with a glorified body since they appear as did Jesus appear to the twelve and others? - Conversely, which Protestant traditions reject this interpretation, and what alternative explanations do they provide?

An occasion on which we see the disciples worshiping Jesus is described in Mtt 28:17 : > Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. That happened after the Resurrection. Even though Jesus had appeared to three of them in glory during the Transfiguration, they did not worship him, but only got frightened (Lk 9:28-36; Mk 9:2-8; Mtt 17:1-7 ). Matthew goes on to say in 17:9 > As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” Of course, we also see Jesus being worshiped after his miraculous walk over the waters , in Mtt 14:32-33 : > And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” One reason why the disciples did not worship Jesus in public before the Resurrection could be that it would appear blasphemous to an onlooker. But the Gospels do not mention whether the disciples wanted to worship Jesus in public before the Resurrection and whether he prohibited them . My question therefore is: Did Jesus forbid the disciples from worshiping him in public before the Resurrection ? Inputs from any denomination are welcome .

In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul writes: >“The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (ESV) In context, Paul is contrasting Adam and Christ, particularly in relation to life and resurrection. The phrase “life-giving Spirit” seems to attribute to Jesus a role that, elsewhere in Scripture, is closely associated with God (i.e., giving life; cf. Genesis 2:7, John 5:21). From a Bible Unitarian perspective, Jesus is understood as a fully human Messiah and not ontologically divine. - How is the ability to give life explained without attributing divinity to Christ? - How is this reconciled with other passages where giving life appears to be a uniquely divine prerogative?

In passages describing the resurrection and the return of Christ, angels are sometimes described as gathering people. For example, Gospel of Matthew 24:31 says that the Son of Man will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds. Meanwhile, First Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:16–17 describes the dead in Christ rising first, followed by the living believers being caught up. My question is: **Are angels described in scripture as gathering the dead in Christ from their graves, the living believers from the earth, or both?**

In passages such as First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:45–49, Paul the Apostle contrasts the first man, Adam, with the second man, Christ: >“The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit… Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”
(1 Cor 15:45–49) This seems to suggest that humanity bears the image of Adam in a physical or natural sense (“man of dust”). My question is: In what sense do Christians bear the image of the second man, Christ? - Is this image spiritual (e.g., regeneration, righteousness, new nature)? - Is it future, referring primarily to the resurrection body?

In John 11, Jesus calls Lazarus out of the tomb by name, and he comes back to life. This seems to imply a personal and direct calling from Jesus. In Christian eschatology, during the resurrection of the dead, will all believers be called in a similar personal manner, or is Lazarus’ case unique? Are there biblical passages or theological interpretations that suggest a general principle about how believers are resurrected and whether each will be individually addressed by name?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

James Fodor released a new video on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying that the disciple hallucinated and the hallucinations were part of a shared social process that has been shown among faith and non-faith contexts, Jesus's body was reburied, the disciples were biased to believing His Resurrection and socialisation factors may explain the existence of belief despite counter evidence. From a Christian perspective how would you respond to his claims?

Expressing this idea is difficult to relate. And I don’t understand the true significance of it. It seems that if Jesus destroyed his temple and which was “put back together” in three days. And to borrow a science quote from astronomer Carl Sagan: > If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Did God/Jesus create/recreate the universe through the crucifixion and resurrection? Just thinking about it seems way to deep and over my head.

In Protestant eschatology, it is commonly taught that when Christ returns, believers who are alive at that time will have their mortal bodies transformed into glorified, heavenly bodies (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:51–53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17). My question is: What happens to those who are alive but not saved when Christ returns?

I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins? I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with? So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.

In Luke 20:36, Jesus says: *“Those who are worthy of the resurrection from the dead into glory become immortal, like the angels, who never die nor marry.” (TPT)* And in Matthew 22:30 He adds: *“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (ESV)* Some translations use the wording “become like angels.” Does this mean that believers will be transformed into the same form as angels — perhaps even having wings — or is Jesus only referring to other aspects of angelic existence (such as immortality and not marrying) rather than physical form?

According to Mormon doctrine, Resurrected beings have physical bodies that can only be in one place at one time, which is why the Holy Ghost remains a spirit, so that he can dwell in the hearts of men: > "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son > also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a > personage of Spirit. **Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in > us.**" (D&C 130:22 , *emphasis added*) It appears to me that some form of power or ability is *lost* at the resurrection. An essential power that only spirits have, which resurrected beings do not, hence the necessity of the Holy Ghost remaining a spirit. It seems somewhat paradoxical to me that we would have anything to *lose* at the resurrection–if anyone understands what I'm trying to communicate by phrasing it that way... Obviously the Holy Ghost is going to be resurrected at some point (I feel it's safe to assume so at least), at which point in time he will forfeit the power that makes his role in the Godhead essential, and receive a resurrected body. My question is, what exactly is this power that the Father and Christ cannot wield as resurrected beings? Or where do I err in my pondering or phrasing of my question?

The Holy Spirit speaking through the pen of apostle John said those who share in the first resurrection will have power while those who share in the second resurrection will not have any kind of power but will be priests and prophets for the Most High. >Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. I understand the Spirit is urging believers to do their best to be part of the first resurrection but what kind of power will God give those who partake in the first resurrection?

I was doing some research on the age the dead will be raised-in and came across a publication by Saint Thomas Aquinas who suggests that the dead will be raised in their prime age (i.e. 30-33 because it is the age of prime), and also the fact that Jesus was raised back to life at 33. Is this correct, and is there any biblical basis to support this apart from the example of Jesus? >"All will rise again in the age of Christ, which is the age of thirty-three years... This is the most perfect age — when the body has reached its full growth, and yet has not begun to decline. Therefore, in the resurrection, all will be restored to the age of that perfection which Christ had when He rose again." — Thomas Aquinas, [*Summa Theologiae, Supplement*, Q. 81, Art. 1](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5081.htm)

Revelation is apocalyptic language and is often interpreted as the most difficult book of the bible to understand. However, I find there are valuable details that should inform our understanding of eschatology. For example, Revelation 20:4-5 states: >**4** I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. **5** (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. While this text includes language that should not be taken literally (like the 1000 years often meaning "a very long period of time" in the Hebrew culture of the time), this still informs us of two things: 1. There **must** be a resurrection that kicks off the millennial kingdom, as those resurrected individuals must reign during the millennium. 2. This resurrection is made up of those who have lost their life due to their testimony of Christ. I understand that Full Preterists claim the millennial kingdom began in 30 AD. However, I do not understand how they interpret the first resurrection of those who died for their testimony of Christ (no one had yet died for their testimony of Christ). I believe 1 Thessalonians 4:16 further addresses this issue: >For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. I've heard the argument that the first resurrection is the resurrection of our spiritually dead souls to the life of salvation, but both Revelation 20 and 1 Thessalonians 4 allude to the "dead in Christ". If we are speaking of spiritual death, then we must assume you can be spiritually dead (unsaved) in Christ.

In Luke 16:22-24 we read > The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to > Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where > he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus > by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and > send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, > because I am in agony in this fire.’ in which Jesus supports the notion that people go to Heaven or Hell soon after their death, what is reinforced in Luke 23:43 > And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in > Paradise.” Then the Apostles Creed of the Catholic Church says > He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead; > He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the > Father Almighty; from there He will come to judge the living and the > dead. Which suggests, on the contrary, that the judgment and destiny of the dead is pending until the second coming, which also contradicts the promise of “being in Paradise on the same day,” since Jesus spent the next three days in Hell. But the Catholic Church routinely invokes the intercession of saints in its prayers, starting with Mary herself Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. So, if the dead are already in Heaven or Hell, it means that they have already been judged, so who are left to be resurrected and judged? When are the dead judged?

There is a multitude of saints who came back to life minutes or hours after Jesus rose from the dead as the first born. Where did they go because I do not believe Jesus would let them die again after declaring victory over death to them when he descended to the heart of the earth. *Mathew 27:52-53* >And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. *Ephesians 4:7-8* >But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Paul is technically saying that Jesus led captivity captive or in simple terms, death became a slave of Jesus. So where did those people go because the fact that they could appear and disappear meant those were wearing heavenly bodies? **Edit:** We do not know the manner by which these saints were raised and hence we cannot know what the word **appeared** meant in that context but for me to **appear** is to **suddenly manifest visibly**. When scripture says an **an angel appeared to Mary, what is that to you?**

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul states the Gospel that saves: that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. I have heard multiple versions of this when people teach people how to be saved, often in these two ways: 1. believe Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again so you could be saved (no mention of the third day, just that he rose again) 2. believe Jesus died for your sins and rose again so you could be saved. Notice how the third day was not mentioned, nor the burial in the second one. Why are they omitted? If one believes in either of those two for salvation, are they still unsaved? Romans 6 seems to claim that Jesus was buried so we could be saved, too. Why would Jesus wanna make us believe in a timeframe to be saved? Yes, we should believe it, but do we have to believe the 3rd day part to BE saved?