Harry: << The point is that not everyone holds to our exact views. I was throwing some things out for discussion that I have encountered and was wondering how my friends on the list might respond. I am sorry that I have offended some and have caused others to respond with smokescreen accusations. I was just hoping that someone who may have encountered these views as well might share a deeper understanding on the subject. I was just hoping to learn, guess I have. >> I understand that not everyone hold our views. However, unless considering those views somehow furthers the present "thread" or discussion they may only serve to sidetrack us. I don't recall anyone writing that they had been offended. Please don't overreact to what I wrote. It just seemed unusual to me, and also seemed to be taking us further and further away from the original issue we were addressing. A "deeper understanding" about all of the views you presented may amount to no more than the following: 1. The word "resurrection" is often abused or misunderstood. Just because someone uses the word does not mean it is necessarily a legitimate usage. Some "resurrections" are not at all what Rev. 20 is referring to, but rather "resuscitations". In such cases the one restored from death to life lives to die again. The Scriptural accounts of people being raised from the dead including Lazarus fall into this category. That will not be the case with those who experience "the first resurrection" of Rev. 20. Therefore, when these "views" are brought up we are not talking about the same thing. 2. The discussion is not helped if we focus on the numeric description of the resurrection in such a way that we look for the very first account of resurrection, and then begin counting up. If we follow that approach, we would end up with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. resurrection, none of which is supported by Scripture. This is not intended to represent the very first resurrection in history in the sense of the first person ever resurrected. Nor is it intended to be a reference to the resurrection of a remnant or small sample, but rather a "general" resurrection of all the dead saints who were not previously resurrected. It is a culmination of the resurrection promises and prophecies in Scripture. None of the views you brought forward seemed to satisfy the demands of the passage, nor the thrust of the context, nor the place of this passage in Revelation. That is why Carlo and I failed to see a good reason for them to be interjected into our discussion of that passage. Perhaps if you still want those views considered they could be addressed one at a time as a new thread with you presenting the evidence or argument for that view as you understand it. John T. Jeffery SSG, PAARNG BFV Maint Sect SGT "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" TF Saber, HHC 1-172nd AR BN 2nd BCT, 28th ID APO, AE 09362-9997 Ar Ramadi, Iraq DNVT 318-521-2222 (BMO's Office) http://ironsoldiers.army.mil/newsletters/index.htm -- Read the Sound of Grace pages at http://www.soundofgrace.com To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... To view our online archive go to our web page at http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace