The problem with that interpretation is that the opening of the graves at the time of Jesus’ resurrection was already in the past when the NT writers spoke of the first resurrection as a future event, so they simply cannot be the same event.
Did you consider the other scriptures I quoted?
also
1 cor 1520 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Many translations say sleeping but considering what Paul said in Romans ch 8 slept is the only thing that fits.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
Jesus only comes to earth twice, the first time to set up his Church ( the kingdom of God )and at the last day to gather his elect.
It makes sense to me that Jesus took his first fruits with him other wise what in the world is Paul talking about in Romans 8?
What was it talking about in Hosea 6?
Mat 27:53
The people who came out of their graves after the resurrection?
Rev 7:4 tells us exactly who these first fruits are.
So if the first fruits are from the tribes of Israel there is no way that Christians could be in the first resurrection.
So if nothing fits the idea of the Christians waiting for the first resurrection then maybe we need to start looking at it in a different light.
“Actually I have saw nothing in the apostles writing to indicate they were talking about a first resurrection but only a resurrection..”
There sure is evidence of that. They mention the same events associated with the first resurrection, Christ descending from the heavens, the last trumpet, Christ’s army in the clouds, etc. Unless you have evidence that all those events are going to happen multiple times, then we have to assume they were speaking of the first resurrection described in Revelation.
“Jesus only comes to earth twice, the first time to set up his Church ( the kingdom of God )and at the last day to gather his elect.
It makes sense to me that Jesus took his first fruits with him other wise what in the world is Paul talking about in Romans 8?”
Well, it’s certainly possible that the ones resurrected along with Jesus at the opening of the graves were the ones Paul was talking about, but that doesn’t make them part of the first resurrection.
I think the key here is that just because they are called the “first” and “second” resurrections, and those are the only resurrections we have a lot of specific teaching on, does not necessarily mean God never resurrects anyone else in separate events. The first and second resurrections are not the only resurrections, they are just the only general resurrections, of entire classes of people, rather than specific acts of resurrections, such as the one that happened when Christ rose again. We are taught about the first and second more specifically because, for most people reading the Bible, those are the only resurrections they will ever have to worry about being a part of.
“So if the first fruits are from the tribes of Israel there is no way that Christians could be in the first resurrection.”
Christians are grafted in as heirs to the promise, so God sees us as Israel. The firstfruits are said to be of Israel, but they were beheaded for their witness of Christ, so they are obviously not religiously Jewish, they were/are Christians.
“So if nothing fits the idea of the Christians waiting for the first resurrection then maybe we need to start looking at it in a different light.”
Well, we had better hope that we are waiting for the first resurrection, otherwise we don’t have much hope. Those who are part of the second resurrection are judged on their works, and no man can possibly be judged righteous based on his works, as Paul quite thoroughly explained. This is why the second resurrection is also called the resurrection of the unrighteous or the resurrection of the wicked.