> General Discussions
Revelations 1:7
lauriellen:
thanks marques, i know you are not 'sniping' me personally, and my point is not to understand 'when' the end or second comming will happen....i guess i have just really misunderstood the 'sequence' of events. kat stated above "There is "a resurrection" or one resurrection for both, "the just and unjust." " and she stated that " Christ returns and the Elect will be resurrected and meet/join with Him in the air. They are in the 'first' resurrection, so they come first. But there is also a resurrection of all the dead back to life, at that time. " its the 'AT THAT TIME" that has me confused. i think i understand 'WHAT' is going to happen, i just don't think i understand the 'WHEN' or 'chronology' of what is going to happen.
ray states in LOF 16A page 23 "Remember there are TWO resurrections--One to life with Christ in His Kingdom, and Another to the great white throne/lake of fire/second death, Judgement." i understood this to mean TWO seperate judgements at two different times.
Rev 20:6 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.
this scripture seems to compliment ray's statement of 2 resurrections ('first indicates a second to follow) with a time period of 1000 years in between.
this doesn't seem to agree with what Kat stated above. I am not saying Kat is wrong, i just want to make sure i understand this right. I have never read or heard taught that ALL OF THE DEAD would be resurrected at the second comming. I had always understood that the rest of the dead would not be ressurected until a later time at the white throne judgement.
please bare with me as i try to learn this. thanks
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: lauriellen on November 13, 2010, 07:19:12 AM ---thanks marques, i know you are not 'sniping' me personally, and my point is not to understand 'when' the end or second comming will happen....i guess i have just really misunderstood the 'sequence' of events. kat stated above "There is "a resurrection" or one resurrection for both, "the just and unjust." " and she stated that " Christ returns and the Elect will be resurrected and meet/join with Him in the air. They are in the 'first' resurrection, so they come first. But there is also a resurrection of all the dead back to life, at that time. " its the 'AT THAT TIME" that has me confused. i think i understand 'WHAT' is going to happen, i just don't think i understand the 'WHEN' or 'chronology' of what is going to happen.
ray states in LOF 16A page 23 "Remember there are TWO resurrections--One to life with Christ in His Kingdom, and Another to the great white throne/lake of fire/second death, Judgement." i understood this to mean TWO seperate judgements at two different times.
Rev 20:6 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.
this scripture seems to compliment ray's statement of 2 resurrections ('first indicates a second to follow) with a time period of 1000 years in between.
this doesn't seem to agree with what Kat stated above. I am not saying Kat is wrong, i just want to make sure i understand this right. I have never read or heard taught that ALL OF THE DEAD would be resurrected at the second comming. I had always understood that the rest of the dead would not be ressurected until a later time at the white throne judgement.
please bare with me as i try to learn this. thanks
--- End quote ---
The scriptures do not state "all" the dead being raised at the same time. We know that salvation comes to each "in his own order".
The point I was attempting to make was about keeping a proper prospective. Knowing how many will be resurrected doesn't change what we need to be doing now.
Ray hasn't taught, in depth, about every aspect concerning the end of this age. That includes the resurrection. The only thing we can give you is speculation, and you don’t want that.
Marques
Kat:
Hi Lauriellen,
I made assumptions that I can see may not be what Ray teaches. So I will say that I should not have made those speculation. Sorry for any confusion I have created. Boy I have really been putting my foot in my mouth lately ::)
mercy, peace and love
Kat
G. Driggs:
Remember when Ray taught us what Jesus meant when He said "...you have left your first love".
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
I just thought it was interesting that that word "first" in Rev. 2:4 is the same word used in Rev 20:5 and 20:6.
G4413
πρῶτος
prōtos
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first (G4413) resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first (G4413) 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.
So if the word "first" is being used the same way as in Rev 2:4 then it wouldn't be talking about when, but rather the importance of God's Elect being resurrected ready to rule with Him. Remove the spurious part of Rev 20:5 and it makes perfect sense.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 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'm not trying to teach, as the definition of the word "first" in them verses says it all. If it wasn't for Ray teaching me about that word, I wouldn't have known it otherwise.
G.Driggs
octoberose:
Thank you for all the replies. My husband and I have what I think is probably food poisoning for the past couple of days so I've been off the computer. I remembered tonight I had a question out here and the answers always go in a way I don't expect. Lauriellen, I too have tired to understand the end times in some kind of orderly fashion. I want an outline, some formula that I can check off. But everything I try to make simple is NOT. Why do I keep thinking a intricate and complex God is anything but Intricate and Complex? Revelations, frankly, unsettles me. I don't see it all, I can barely grasp it in my brain. It maybe should be clear to me that God is not leading me down this path right now- I have other things to do and learn, like obedience, faith, and sacrificial giving to others. I do not, DO NOT, want to be one that the Lord says he never knew.
By the way, Kat, you are remarkable in every way and when you say something, I listen. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version