|
Post by stormyknight on Mar 13, 2019 14:49:30 GMT -6
That's why I said "technically it could be called a resurrection". When we refer to it we call it 'the rapture'. The rapture would include all those who died in Christ. Does that make sense? This is just how I have it in my head...at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Mar 13, 2019 15:13:23 GMT -6
Now here is a question I'd love to see an answer to =P Please just follow with me as I am not proposing this is right, I am just thinking.
If the 1st resurrection ONLY applies to the following: 1. Those who are beheaded (Martyrs) 2. Those who did not worship the beast (Must be a believer during the last kingdom) 3.Did not receive the mark of the beast (Must live during the last kingdom)
Then Christians outside the time of the last kingdom that comes will not reign with Christ for 1k years. That is, believers from Christ till before the last kingdom comes correct? As we see the requirements in the verses below.
So, if I don't see the last kingdom, and I die tomorrow, I am part of the "rest of the dead that does not come to life till after Christ 1k year reign. Now, if that is true, then would I be part of the great white throne judgement in verse 15 below after the 1k reign of Christ as I could be found in the book of life. As the verse states anyone that is not found will be in hell but also implies anyone found written in the book would not go to hell. Such confusion. But I am reminded of 1 Cor 15:23 How would someone who belongs to Christ and not be part of the: 1. Those who are beheaded (Martyrs) 2. Those who did not worship the beast (Must be a believer during the last kingdom) 3.Did not receive the mark of the beast (Must live during the last kingdom) How would that person still be raised then? It is almost as if one is against the other. Unless the beast doesnt need to be here for you to worship it and you can always worship it in your heart. That would allow for someone to not worship it and still fulfill #2. Now, I have my own ideas on it but I wanted to ask you. You just love to raise issues don't you ... (and please note: I am NOT saying which thoughts are correct cause I do not know)
You have several interpretations that can be applied here and depending which "set" your denomination believes in -- usually determines the one you agree with.
One group believes in "Soul Sleep" -- which basically means -- that when a Believer dies -- "they sleep until they are resurrected".
Another Group believes when the believer dies their soul immediately goes to be with the Lord (or in Heaven) and they will remain there until their Body is resurrected.
There are other viewpoints -- kind of in the middle of these two primary ones. Note: the unbelievers kind of have the same deal -- where they either sleep until judgement or where they immediately start phase one of the judgement before entering the final judgement.
Then you have the groups that believe in multiple resurrections..... and do not forget to specify if this is a return to life resurrection or an imperishable resurrection.
For example Jesus had a resurrection (and many dead saints were raised with Him Matt 27:50-53)
You have OLD Testament resurrections (these were just coming back to life - and apparently would die again?)
Elijah resurrected the son of a widow in Zarephath (1Kings17:7) Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman(2Kings4:8) New Testament resurrections (these were just coming back to life - and apparently would die again?) Jesus resurrected the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11) Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43) Peter raised a female disciple named Tabitha from the dead at Joppa (Acts 9:36) Paul raised Eutychus from the dead at Troas (Acts 20:6)
According to Paul - (1 Corinthians 15:51-53) -- “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” -- many feel this exchange of perishable to imperishable -- is a resurrection...
Then you have 1 Thessalonians 4:16 -- which many on this site feel is the key rapture verse (and yes, resurrection)....
My personal feeling (and who am I - take with a grain of salt) -- the resurrection in Revelation 20 -- is "FIRST" only in the sense that it completes the tribulation period. Then further explains how everything will play out in the "End Times" -- including the "second death" whatever that will be.....
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Mar 13, 2019 19:30:23 GMT -6
this topic seems to have diverged to the topics of First Resurrection and Second Death, which was sort of what that video was talking about mike. You had moved that thread to the Resurrection thread. The last few posts are not addressing the topic of this thread and which was talking about the book of Life and the names written in it or not. Do we want to move this topic of First Resurrection and Second Death to a thread in the Resurrection section?
|
|
|
Post by venge on Mar 14, 2019 8:08:03 GMT -6
Now here is a question I'd love to see an answer to =P Please just follow with me as I am not proposing this is right, I am just thinking.
If the 1st resurrection ONLY applies to the following: 1. Those who are beheaded (Martyrs) 2. Those who did not worship the beast (Must be a believer during the last kingdom) 3.Did not receive the mark of the beast (Must live during the last kingdom)
Then Christians outside the time of the last kingdom that comes will not reign with Christ for 1k years. That is, believers from Christ till before the last kingdom comes correct? As we see the requirements in the verses below.
So, if I don't see the last kingdom, and I die tomorrow, I am part of the "rest of the dead that does not come to life till after Christ 1k year reign. Now, if that is true, then would I be part of the great white throne judgement in verse 15 below after the 1k reign of Christ as I could be found in the book of life. As the verse states anyone that is not found will be in hell but also implies anyone found written in the book would not go to hell. Such confusion. But I am reminded of 1 Cor 15:23 How would someone who belongs to Christ and not be part of the: 1. Those who are beheaded (Martyrs) 2. Those who did not worship the beast (Must be a believer during the last kingdom) 3.Did not receive the mark of the beast (Must live during the last kingdom) How would that person still be raised then? It is almost as if one is against the other. Unless the beast doesnt need to be here for you to worship it and you can always worship it in your heart. That would allow for someone to not worship it and still fulfill #2. Now, I have my own ideas on it but I wanted to ask you. You just love to raise issues don't you ... (and please note: I am NOT saying which thoughts are correct cause I do not know)
You have several interpretations that can be applied here and depending which "set" your denomination believes in -- usually determines the one you agree with.
One group believes in "Soul Sleep" -- which basically means -- that when a Believer dies -- "they sleep until they are resurrected".
Another Group believes when the believer dies their soul immediately goes to be with the Lord (or in Heaven) and they will remain there until their Body is resurrected.
There are other viewpoints -- kind of in the middle of these two primary ones. Note: the unbelievers kind of have the same deal -- where they either sleep until judgement or where they immediately start phase one of the judgement before entering the final judgement.
Then you have the groups that believe in multiple resurrections..... and do not forget to specify if this is a return to life resurrection or an imperishable resurrection.
For example Jesus had a resurrection (and many dead saints were raised with Him Matt 27:50-53)
You have OLD Testament resurrections (these were just coming back to life - and apparently would die again?)
Elijah resurrected the son of a widow in Zarephath (1Kings17:7) Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman(2Kings4:8) New Testament resurrections (these were just coming back to life - and apparently would die again?) Jesus resurrected the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11) Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43) Peter raised a female disciple named Tabitha from the dead at Joppa (Acts 9:36) Paul raised Eutychus from the dead at Troas (Acts 20:6)
According to Paul - (1 Corinthians 15:51-53) -- “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” -- many feel this exchange of perishable to imperishable -- is a resurrection...
Then you have 1 Thessalonians 4:16 -- which many on this site feel is the key rapture verse (and yes, resurrection)....
My personal feeling (and who am I - take with a grain of salt) -- the resurrection in Revelation 20 -- is "FIRST" only in the sense that it completes the tribulation period. Then further explains how everything will play out in the "End Times" -- including the "second death" whatever that will be.....
Your text in REDI like to have people think for themselves and to study to show thyself approved. Too many are spoonfed. Too many seek outside the Bible to doctrines of demons, fables, stories with itching ears. We are to read and study diligently. Well, I would point to Ecc 12:7 God decides where the spirit goes. But when we look at the parable of the rich man, when the poor man died, the angels came and took him. When Lazarus died his body was buried. Then in hades, his soul pleaded. Rev 6:9 even shows souls crying out. The souls were taken up and placed "under the alter" of God. 2 souls under the alter. 1. those who had been slain for the word of God (The ones beheaded and martyrd) 2. those who had the testimony they had upheld (didn't take a mark, didn't worship the beast etc..)
Important to note, the earth has no been judged yet and for it to be judged, there needs to be God's wrath.
This belongs to those that had the testimony that they upheld.
This part of the same verse is treating the cries from those slain.
I would say the part mentioned that the dead will be "raised" and likewise, those that are alive and remaining...would make it a resurrection from perishable to imperishable as well. The timing of it is another question =P
If the Bible states it is the first resurrection, it is the first agreed? The Bible is infallible. But there can only be 1. We cannot call the rapture a 1st resurrection and have another 1st resurrection. Either they are the same or we are missing something. The difference lies in God's wrath being poured out. Whether you are pre trib, mid trib, post trib, pre wrath whatever...most of us would agree it happens before the bowl judgements. That is because that magical verse that says His sheep are not for His wrath. So without dragging this on more...if the 1st resurrection happens in chapter 20 which is believers and you are taking this chronologically as I assume, then who goes to the wedding feasts in chapter 19 if the 1st resurrection hasn't happened yet?
|
|
|
Post by mike on Mar 14, 2019 8:54:27 GMT -6
Venge, Agree with almost all of what you said. Had you considered the first resurrection began 2000 yrs ago and isn't completed yet? Jesus is the firstfruits, no one should argue that point. It's possible those OT saints who rose we're also included in that portion of the harvest of first fruit, but not completely necessary to make the point.
If we look at Leviticus and the harvest we can draw a comparison to the harvest and how we will be harvested. First part was a wave offering, next the main harvest, last the corners for the poor. All one harvest, just in portions. Could the resurrection be the same?
EDIT - Exo 23:16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, [which is] in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. 19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God.
Lev 23:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
Lev 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Mar 14, 2019 12:32:01 GMT -6
If the Bible states it is the first resurrection, it is the first agreed? The Bible is infallible. But there can only be 1. We cannot call the rapture a 1st resurrection and have another 1st resurrection. Either they are the same or we are missing something. The difference lies in God's wrath being poured out. Whether you are pre trib, mid trib, post trib, pre wrath whatever...most of us would agree it happens before the bowl judgements. That is because that magical verse that says His sheep are not for His wrath. So without dragging this on more...if the 1st resurrection happens in chapter 20 which is believers and you are taking this chronologically as I assume, then who goes to the wedding feasts in chapter 19 if the 1st resurrection hasn't happened yet?
Nope, do not agree....
There has to be a "starting point" in order to be classified as first (cause Christ resurrection is really FIRST) SO either the Bible has an error ... OR we simply do not understand it... My solution (which may or may not be right) .... is the First Resurrection since Tribulation started.........
|
|
|
Post by venge on Mar 14, 2019 15:00:53 GMT -6
If the Bible states it is the first resurrection, it is the first agreed? The Bible is infallible. But there can only be 1. We cannot call the rapture a 1st resurrection and have another 1st resurrection. Either they are the same or we are missing something. The difference lies in God's wrath being poured out. Whether you are pre trib, mid trib, post trib, pre wrath whatever...most of us would agree it happens before the bowl judgements. That is because that magical verse that says His sheep are not for His wrath. So without dragging this on more...if the 1st resurrection happens in chapter 20 which is believers and you are taking this chronologically as I assume, then who goes to the wedding feasts in chapter 19 if the 1st resurrection hasn't happened yet? Nope, do not agree....
There has to be a "starting point" in order to be classified as first (cause Christ resurrection is really FIRST) SO either the Bible has an error ... OR we simply do not understand it... My solution (which may or may not be right) .... is the First Resurrection since Tribulation started.........
Then you are contradicting the Bible which is infallible. Is that not a core belief on this forum one must hold to? The bible is infallible Pretty sure that's what it said. Lets check. Yep, its the first one. I made it big incase anyone missed it. It is a literal resurrection and not figurative because we learn that some of them resurrected were the: . Others maybe were raised, but not from perishable to imperishable. No where does the Bible elude or state to that notion. The resurrection we are speaking of is our final one. And this, is called the first. EDIT: I should add, I don't mean to come off aggressive kjs. I am passionate about the Bible and believe its structure and words are infallible. It is man that messes up meaning and translation.
|
|
|
Post by venge on Mar 14, 2019 15:06:01 GMT -6
Venge, Agree with almost all of what you said. Had you considered the first resurrection began 2000 yrs ago and isn't completed yet? Jesus is the firstfruits, no one should argue that point. It's possible those OT saints who rose we're also included in that portion of the harvest of first fruit, but not completely necessary to make the point. If we look at Leviticus and the harvest we can draw a comparison to the harvest and how we will be harvested. First part was a wave offering, next the main harvest, last the corners for the poor. All one harvest, just in portions. Could the resurrection be the same? I read that. Seems like those who follow that idea believe that are preterists. 70 AD was when Christ came and resurrected those who were beheaded and in the future will be another resurrection. Could the resurrection be the same? I don't know =P I have opinions on the matter but I will be honest, I am not even 80% confident. I believe the answer lays in the bible but we need to find it. I started in genesis in Dec. I am in Isaiah now. Let you know if I find anything
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Mar 15, 2019 8:07:12 GMT -6
Nope, do not agree....
There has to be a "starting point" in order to be classified as first (cause Christ resurrection is really FIRST) SO either the Bible has an error ... OR we simply do not understand it... My solution (which may or may not be right) .... is the First Resurrection since Tribulation started.........
Then you are contradicting the Bible which is infallible. Is that not a core belief on this forum one must hold to? The bible is infallible Pretty sure that's what it said. Lets check. Yep, its the first one. I made it big incase anyone missed it. It is a literal resurrection and not figurative because we learn that some of them resurrected were the: . Others maybe were raised, but not from perishable to imperishable. No where does the Bible elude or state to that notion. The resurrection we are speaking of is our final one. And this, is called the first. EDIT: I should add, I don't mean to come off aggressive kjs. I am passionate about the Bible and believe its structure and words are infallible. It is man that messes up meaning and translation.
Ok, venge -- scream and shout all you wish....
But you have had MULTIPLE resurrections recorded in the Bible (I even listed some of them) -- the majority of these have been returning to an earthly life.
BASED on how the TEXT reads "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." -- seems to imply an return to an earthly life......
IF that is the case -- then how can it be FIRST since several examples show other people have been resurrected BEFORE this future event.
NEXT
If you feel the text reads these folks (ie. the ones beheaded) were resurrected and given their imperishable bodies and that is the resurrection they experienced.
Then you need to explain how Jesus Christ's resurrection is NOT the First.... IN Revelation 1:4 - "Jesus is ...the firstborn of the dead"
Guess your saying these people were raised before Jesus Christ.
BUT THE REAL KICKER
The word that was translated "FIRST" is the Greek word prótos --- which has many meanings such as "Chief, principal, most important, and yes First and before"....
Just because an TRANSLATION gives a particular word into the translating language (in this case English) does NOT mean the translators are using the correct word according to how the writer meant it to be used.
So there is nothing that proves without a doubt that "FIRST" was meant here as being the first time ever and ever.... Cause as we see in the BIBLE
IT is NOT the first resurrection (back to earthly life) ever recorded.... AND it is not the first resurrection (into imperishable body) ever recorded....
AND Translating errors are very common....
The doctrine you are quoting "The bible is infallible" -- completes with "The bible is infallible in its original languages" -- NOT in it's translated language.
(For the record The Roman Catholic Church in its Second Vatican Council -- which many Protestant denominations continued on in their doctrine statements; SAYS
biblical inerrancy strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture)
There are SOME like the King James Only movement ascribes inerrancy only to the King James English translation made from the Textus Receptus.
I will not cover here in this post -- but a quick google search can quickly show multiple translation errors in every Bible Translation.....
|
|
|
Post by venge on Mar 15, 2019 8:53:37 GMT -6
Kjs Lol, I’m not screaming or shouting! You did make me smile though. I like your energy, youre just as passionate as I so let’s discuss.
I acknowledge that the original Greek is infallible and have posted such elsewhere that translation and men make errors.
The transcription of the word meaning first does not suit well with the other meanings because and only because there is a second resurrection. It distinguishes between the two.
Now, I realize the dead have been raised but they do not qualify or we would be seeing it say the third, the 4th, the 10th resurrection. This resurrection also is not mortal as you said it may be as it is stated in this resurrection the second death has no power. It is putting on immortality. Oh death, where is thy sting? That rings a bell.
I am on my phone so can’t copy and paste all your comments. Hopefully I answered the important ones.
And I was being honest when I said that I enjoy your passion. You have a fire in you like a bright torch. Keep it burning!!
|
|
|
Post by rt on Mar 15, 2019 8:59:25 GMT -6
Read more: board.unsealed.org/thread/1839/revelation-17-8?page=4#ixzz5iFg5bmRwHave you considered that it is not the first one as in ordinal value? But rather the first kind or type of resurrection as in classification? Those who are IN Christ are part of the first kind of resurrection- those who make up the body of Christ AKA those considered to be part of the Church age. While subsequent resurrections are of a different kind, those who belong to the kingdom but are not considered part of the body of Christ, the Old testament believers and those who die within millennial reign who are believers. Jesus was raised as the firstborn or the first one, the church will also be resurrected/raptured, the two witnesses will be resurrected at some point during the 70th week, the tribulation martyrs also will be raised as part of the body. I believe that part of the reason that the book of life is opened after the millennial reign because there will be those believers who will have died during it, that will be resurrected at that time, and I think this is also when the OT saints will be raised as well. Again I spell this all out in my study here: unsealed.boards.net/thread/283/resurrection-harvest
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Mar 15, 2019 11:25:28 GMT -6
May I interject here? Am I mistaken, venge , or are you saying the resurrection at the end of the thousand years is the first resurrection? "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."
I just want clarification, if you don't mind, because that is not what those three verses say. They are talking about those beheaded, did not worship the beast/image, or receive it's mark. The second death has no power over them, because, they, like us, have chosen to follow Jesus Christ. The rest of the dead that do not come back to life until the thousand years are complete, which in my understanding would be the billions of people that have lived and not known Jesus. They will, at that time, be given the choice, to follow or not.
"Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.…" Rev. 20:4-6
I'm thinking that the word "first", going by what kjs posted, would be better translated 'chief' or maybe 'an important'. I'm speculating here when I say this.. but perhaps the idea is that the rapture is just that, Jesus Christ coming to snatch us away. Like I stated before, not all those individuals will be dead at the change to immortal. But those stated above, beheaded, etc., are all resurrected, and it's the first big resurrection, so the principal resurrection. Yes, there have been other resurrections before this as well as what one might call raptures, Enoch, Elijah included. But this is the first big/mass resurrection. Another even bigger resurrection will occur at the end of the thousand years at the Great White Throne judgement. Perhaps the rapture cannot be called a resurrection because not everyone will be dead when it happens.
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Mar 15, 2019 12:58:39 GMT -6
Try seeing if this fits. (using several synapsis by several here). The event of the next Thousand years, which is year "6000" is titled the First Resurrection. It is made up of both Barley (First Fruit Witnesses) and the Wheat. Both of these are "gathered" this fits with description of both 1Thes and 2Thes. Paul does not call it a gathering in 1Thes. He calls its it a changing. The Gathering is the event that happens after the WHeat and Tares have grown up together in this millennial age 6000. The First Fruit Witnesses minister to the apostate. When that Field is Ripe, it is reeped. THis is the First Resurrection (Daniel 12), I also called this the Marriage. The Bread is complete, the Body of Christ. The other group is destined for the Winepress.
It is this WINEPRESS Bowl event where we see Jesus and His Kingdom members collected for the Great Battle (of which those in that Tribulation/Day are treaded upon). Everything put under His Feet. This is why all the blood references. The parables of the vineyards applies here. Woe to those of this 2nd Death! But Rev 7 and CH 14 and look at Ch 21, tells us that myriads and myriads come to be healed! and then the Supper can commence. Tabernacles is complete, and we bring in 7000th year. A year of Rest(ing) in the Lord. The Kingdom is not complete during the 6000th year cycle. That would not make sense with what we are shown in Genesis.
Another tidbit of the term Second Death. We must die to ourselves, right? This describes what I am now considering those of the First Resurrection, whish are two element themselves: Barley and Wheat 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
So the Second Death is the Day of the Lord Day of Judgement They were not dead to sin, but were alive to sin for unbelief. How did Jesus die? By shedding blood. These that come out of the Winepress have to shed there blood also (?) Jesus turns blood into wine. Blood is one of three testifiers. Most of the bowl judgement are about things turning to blood. John says this of blood:
7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. Make me think this is connected somehow to the 3 frogs as counter testifyers.. The bowls are about blood, about water drying up and about spiritual demons/sores deception to have taken the Mark etc. BTW, there are two witnesses that testify in the 3rd Bowl
4Then the third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of waters; and they became blood. 5And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; 6for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it.” 7And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.” Within this Bowl event there are three testifiers total Blood, water and Spirit (altar)
Challenge me on this TimeFrame.. FirstFruits is a spring event that leads to a Summer Growing season and the Wheat is then Harvested, gathered fruits of the field, then Wine is not made until the fall. Fall is the Feast of Tabernacles, which once the Wine is harvested ALL can then Tabernacle.. Day 6 of creation is about the beast/creepy crawlies and animals of the earth, he made in man in His image...think about that one! but it will all go thru its process until the year 7000 which is the only time that true Rest can be accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by venge on Mar 15, 2019 13:35:30 GMT -6
RT: I had not thought of it as a classification. That is interesting you brought that up. I will concede, it is possible being put that way. Being 2 seperate events would allow a first and second to be classified differently then a mortal resurrection. God works through us all to think things others haven’t yet. I will have to read more scripture with that in thought and see if I can find anything myself.
Stormy knight: The resurrection of Rev 20 (1st resurrection) does not happen After the bowls. I am placing it at the 7th Trumpet per Rev 11. That places the first resurrection in line with rewarding the saints when Christ begins to reign in Rev 11. Exactly when the first resurrection begins per Rev 20. At Christ reign (7th Trumpet) therefore backing up 1 Cor 15 which says “at the last trump” when the resurrection happens. Thereon, all 3 back up each other perfectly.
Edit: I should add, the parable of the weeds. When he gathers the wheat into his barn and afterwards burn the weeds follows the above without any mistakes. In all 3 of 4 cases, the wicked are burned afterwards. Also fitting perfectly
|
|