An Analysis on the 144,000 in Revelation

[FreeGrace2]

So in disregard to all else other than the chronology issue of an agreed truth based on Scripture and an irrefutable truth that cannot be changed and stands for all time. Being, that the first resurrection precedes the thousand year Kingdom of Christ - or to use my own words as I stated them, "So then, the difficulty, seeing as your answer is already clear - is how can there be a rapture and a meeting the King that precedes the trumpet sound (the last trumpet) that heralds His entry into the seat of His government and His 1000 year Kingdom."

That statement of mine and your statement to upholding Revelation 20:5 are at odds.

How so? It seems you agree with me on the believers' resurrection at the Second Advent. I do take issue with your question: "how can there be a rapture and meeting the King...". For me, there is no "rapture", certainly not in the way probably every believer thinks of it.

iow, there will be no trip to heaven after receiving the glorified body. I prefer the word "gathering", which occurs in Matt 24 and 2 Thess 2:1.

Yet we are agreed on the claim itself. That is a peculiar fact.

I still only see agreement. I guess I'm slow.

So, where am I going then?

To make it easy I'll cite your last post here:
pr
And you are right - I haven't yet started to refute your position because I wanted to uphold your chief premise which is cited to be found in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. and Revelation 1:7 - to cite two examples of the suddenness and certainty that Christ will return and there will be the first resurrection and the rapture of the saints that are alive at His coming. These being often expressed as proved in Matthew 24:31.

The annoying part [I feel sure of it] is that I don't intend to refute your position in the way you appear to require.

I don't recall requiring anyone to refute anything. I do challenge others to prove me wrong, if they can. I then have said: I don't want to be wrong any more than you do.

So here is the annoyance then:

Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” In that day the Lord will whistle for the fly which is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee which is in the land of Assyria. And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures. In that day the Lord will shave with a razor which is hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also. In that day a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep; and because of the abundance of milk which they give, he will eat curds; for every one that is left in the land will eat curds and honey. In that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns. With bow and arrows men will come there, for all the land will be briers and thorns; and as for all the hills which used to be hoed with a hoe, you will not come there for fear of briers and thorns; but they will become a place where cattle are let loose and where sheep tread. Isaiah 7:10-25

I asked about chronology for a reason - not to establish just one fact of Matthew 24 which very clearly speaks about the end of the age.

So, AS we are all very clear about the prophecy of Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judah - because we cite it as the prophecy of the birth of Emmanuel (God is with us) - and yet this prophetic word of Isaiah is also to be fulfilled in the time of Ahaz as a promise of God's support regarding the threat from King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel. One prophetic word divided into two prophetic events in time and place. Only God can do that - and that is precisely how the book of Revelation is given in the Alpha and Omega designation - in the opening words spoken by John Revelation 1:4, in the words of Christ Revelation 1:8 and by angels Revelation 4:8.

Unless we lay hold of that character then it seems unlikely to myself that neither will we be able to lay hold of plain truth given to us in time and space. What then the purpose of being plain, brother to those brethren who have reduced prophecy to mere symbolism?

I'm aware of the "double prophecy" in Isa 7. But I don't see an "annoyance" with it.

I guess you haven't played all your cards yet. Maybe I'll see the annoyance when you do that.

My interest in end times is basically to get the timeline right. I see too many get in the weeds over details that I don't see the significance of.

When I study Rev 6 and the "4 horsemen", it seems to me I'm seeing prophecy being fulfilled in current events.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." - Mat 13:10-13 KJV

Tats parabolic langiage

thats different from prophecy.

In the OT God tells us the reason he gives prophecy is so we can know he is the one true God.

The only reason people try to make a parable of prophecy is because when they take a literal interpretation of prophecy they do nt like what it says, it goes against their belief system.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

YES, the symbolism that Christ speaks in His Revelation pertain to actual LITERAL events/peoples/nations/angels.

I find that based on the Gospel of Christ, Genesis and the Holy Spirit inspired words of the Apostles that the 144K is a symbolic number.

The Born Again Spirit Glorified Nation of ISRAEL is the Body of Christ as the LORD and His Holy Apostles declare to us today.

The earthly nation of Israel will be revived ONLY at His Second Coming and not before = Matt ch23 & Zechariah ch14

The only reason you say that is it goes against your belief system.

I am sorry you do not like the fat God will keep his promise to Israel. But he will.

 

[DavidTree]

The only reason you say that is it goes against your belief system.

I am sorry you do not like the fat God will keep his promise to Israel. But he will.

Yes HE will and I never denied God's Word or His Promises.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! Look, your house is left to you desolate.
For I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

You do not believe the very words of Christ?

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Are you saved and Born-Again by the Spirit? or are you a pretender?

Are your own words which you press to be reckoned more valuable than obedience to Christ? I am not listening to you. I told you before hand. Why can't you receive even a childish meaning. What have I to do with you?

Brethren who believe they have the authority to examine another's confession of faith in Christ on no more ground than being refused are set to stumble into a pit of their own making.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I disagree. Jesus moved into a locked room. That ain't no mortal body. His resurrection was the first one (firstfruits) where a glorified body was given.


Consider Acts 26:23 - that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”


Obviously He wasn't the first to "rise from the dead". There are examples in the OT and many in the gospels, before Jesus died.


The key is whether one receives an immortal body, (imperishable) as Paul puts it.


1 Cor 15:54 - When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

I doubt it. On one hand, His resurrected body must look vastly different than His original one since His own disciples and Mary Magdalene didn't recognize Him at first glance; on the other hand, He was having breakfast with Peter by the sea, that shows this body still took calories - or should I say, earthly sustenance. He was called first fruit because He ascended to the Father in heaven - where immortality is of absolute certainty, while other resurrected people would still die someday.

How do you know that it was a vision? Read the text.


Matt 17:2 - There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.


This is not debatable. Jesus WAS transfigured right before their very eyes.

The Bible says that they WERE there. And they talked with Jesus.

And then they were NOT there anymore, and Jesus was back to normal. "When they lifted up their eyes, they saw NO ONE but Jesus only." (Matt. 17:8) What they saw was a temporary VISION. Yes, it was a real vision, Jesus did transfigurate like Moses on Mount Sinai, but it was just temporary.

 

[DavidTree]

Are your own words which you press to be reckoned more valuable than obedience to Christ? I am not listening to you. I told you before hand. Why can't you receive even a childish meaning. What have I to do with you?

Brethren who believe they have the authority to examine another's confession of faith in Christ on no more ground than being refused are set to stumble into a pit of their own making.

Your confession is "What have I to do with you"

Jesus says: "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

My words never judged you nor brought false accusation against you.
Yet something is eating away at you where there is no love.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Your confession is "What have I to do with you"

Jesus says: "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

My words never judged you nor brought false accusation against you.
Yet something is eating away at you where there is no love.

Then I will either be justified or else condemned. What have I to do with you?

 

[DavidTree]

Then I will either be justified or else condemned. What have I to do with you?

Well, if your genuinely saved, we are inseparably connected to One Body and that Body is Christ.
"Above all, love one another deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."
That is what we have to do with each other.
Peace

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Prophecy is not symbolic

He set the precedent by literally fulfilling All prophesied concerning him in his first advent.

Prophecy MUST be symbolic, because you don't know what you don't know. It is necessary to use what is current to demonstrate what is in the future, to use what you're familiar with to explain what you're NOT familiar with. God uses a set of consistent code language to express the future in every prophet's vision, like water representing gentile nations and land representing safe sanctuary, you just have to figure out what they are.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Well, if your genuinely saved, we are inseparably connected to One Body and that Body is Christ.
"Above all, love one another deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."
That is what we have to do with each other.
Peace

Spare yourself any further effort. The very fact that you cannot know whether I am saved or not is all you need to know that the love you speak of cannot have any meaning other than in a form of words. This is a forum not a church. And I am standing on the edge of a ravine. I told you that beforetime also. Start to take what people say to you literally if they say stark things and stop this American nonsense of always imagining that others are using figurative language as a mechanism to say what you please. Shalom

 

[DavidTree]

Spare yourself any further effort. The very fact that you cannot know whether I am saved or not is all you need to know that the love you speak of cannot have any meaning other than in a form of words. This is a forum not a church. And I am standing on the edge of a ravine. I told you that beforetime also. Start to take what people say to you literally if they say stark things and stop this American nonsense of always imagining that others are using figurative language as a mechanism to say what you please. Shalom

Forum or other, does not matter to the Lord or me - Shalom Aleichem

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Anyone who has the Holy Spirit is married to Him.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

You know, this debate is meaningless. In the end, the Bride is New Jerusalem and Christ is the eternal light that illuminates the city, while all God's people are walking in it. Remember how Jesus rebuked the scribes who came up with the ridiculous hypothesis of seven brothers marrying one woman? Up there in heaven there's no pagan idols and no sins, we don't "marry and give in to marriage" anymore. Whether you're a guest or the bride, everyone will truly be forever united with Christ in one body.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

My interest in end times is basically to get the timeline right. I see too many get in the weeds over details that I don't see the significance of.

When I study Rev 6 and the "4 horsemen", it seems to me I'm seeing prophecy being fulfilled in current events.

Revelation is NOT written in chronological order, both the white horse and the beast from the sea are the Antichrist, which is Satan's incarnate on earth. In Genesis, Joseph had TWO dreams about his brothers bowing down to him, and then pharoah had TWO dreams about 7 years of harvest and 7 years of famine; in Daniel, there were King Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the Babylonian statue and Daniel's vision of the four beasts, both were about the reign of gentile nations over Israel. In Deuteronomy, Moses set a basic principle that two or more witnesses are required to establish a claim, and this principle was applied in Genesis and Daniel. It won't be a surprise if this principle is also applied in Revelation.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

How so? It seems you agree with me on the believers' resurrection at the Second Advent. I do take issue with your question: "how can there be a rapture and meeting the King...". For me, there is no "rapture", certainly not in the way probably every believer thinks of it.

iow, there will be no trip to heaven after receiving the glorified body. I prefer the word "gathering", which occurs in Matt 24 and 2 Thess 2:1.

In a sense you firm up where my disagreement comes from - on the other hand you exclude yourself from its essential meaning because you refuse the precept of a rapture in the strict caught up into the clouds of the air sense of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Yet you cite Matthew 24 which speaks of being gathered in by the angels from the four winds.

No need to ask any further. Your position doesn't support the necessary claims to allow me to write any further on that subject of the first resurrection and its corresponding rapture - which you refer to as a gathering. Linguistically Matthew 24:31 is a different Gk expression than is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and means to bring together rather than to catch up - of course Matthew 24:31 speaks about the theatre of gathering - in meaning - being "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

I'm aware of the "double prophecy" in Isa 7. But I don't see an "annoyance" with it.

I didn't say there was an annoyance with Isaiah 7 as an object of annoyance - rather myself as the source. Still I have to give some American brethren the hand of acknowledging their skill in deflecting every meaning and refusing even the simplest things unless they are acknowledged first.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

In a sense you firm up where my disagreement comes from - on the other hand you exclude yourself from its essential meaning because you refuse the precept of a rapture in the strict caught up into the clouds of the air sense of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Yet you cite Matthew 24 which speaks of being gathered in by the angels from the four winds.

No need to ask any further. Your position doesn't support the necessary claims to allow me to write any further on that subject of the first resurrection and its corresponding rapture - which you refer to as a gathering. Linguistically Matthew 24:31 is a different Gk expression than is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and means to bring together rather than to catch up - of course Matthew 24:31 speaks about the theatre of arrival in meaning, being "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

I've been debating with folks around here on the timing of all these predictions in the Olivet Discourse. It's really frustrating that two strongholds of narratives are built up, one by the dispensationalists, the other by the preterists. Dispensationalists have their doctrines developed around "abomination of desolation", they defined that term as the future Antichrist setting up his image in a third temple in modern day Israel and forcing the whole world to worship him, therefore everything is about the future; Preterists, on the other hand, are using "this generation shall not pass" as their proof text to mark an end on 70AD, and everything in the Olivet Discourse must be prior to that.

However, in the broader context, the discipled asked two questions - "when will these things (destruction of the holy temple) happen?" and "what are the signs of His coming?" And Jesus answered BOTH. In my opinion, "abomination of desolation" is actually referring to Daniel 9:26-27 in the 70-week prophecy, and the only valid and clear indication of "when" is given in Luke 21:24 -

"And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Therefore, Jesus was covering about both 70AD and the end times, but I wonder what your opinion is on the application of this prophecy.

 

[Jocund]

how do I n=know?

becausen when moses led the people out of Israel. He told them they were goin got the and God promised them

What passages are you referring to? Clearly not the promises to Abraham and his seed.

Prophecy also states they will repent, and when they do, God will remember the land and remember his promise (this is long after the cross) and when that happens, he will restore them to the land e promised them.

So the land becomes theirs in coownership when they become Christian? That would still mean the promise is Christ's. That would still mean the heir to the promises is Christ and those in Christ.

This is not about salvation,

We weren't talking about salvation. We were talking about the promises, which are Christ's per Gal 3.

If christians on the land, then why is the land been ruled by Rome, Islam and the enemies of God for the last 2000 years??

Rome was a Christian empire when they converted, so I'm not sure why that came up, but are you proposing that the promise must be fulfilled in present day? Not even the Talmudic Jews believe that the promises are fulfilled in present day. The point is that if Christians controlled the land, the land promise would be fulfilled per Christian scripture.

A lot of this will depend on whether you perceive there to be a specific timeline for fulfilment of these promises.

I beg of you to look at what your saying, and listen to what people are telling you. What you are saying makes God into a liar

You have at the very least simmered your tone down to "your position makes a liar out of God" And insofar as you have done that, I appreciate it.

makes absolutely no sense

The promises go to Christ. What doesn't make sense about that?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Rome was a Christian empire when they converted, so I'm not sure why that came up, but are you proposing that the promise must be fulfilled in present day? Not even the Talmudic Jews believe that the promises are fulfilled in present day. The point is that if Christians controlled the land, the land promise would be fulfilled per Christian scripture.

A lot of this will depend on whether you perceive there to be a specific timeline for fulfilment of these promises.

"Christian empire" is an oxymoron. It was all pagan worship disguised in a Christian facade.

 

[Jocund]

"Christian empire" is an oxymoron.

You know, I never thought about it quite like that but you're right. The holy Roman empire perhaps should have called itself a kingdom due to Christ. It's a funny little disconnect in language I suppose. Can an emperor have a king?

It was all pagan worship disguised in a Christian facade.

Well, the empire was multicultural. There were still pagans permitted in the lands early on. A great example of that was that ship from early Christian Rome that carried Christian cargo but had pagan workers on the boat (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/roman-cargo-ship-0016510).

There were many pagan practises that may have been integrated into the local Christian traditions, but that by itself doesn't make it "pagan worship in disguise". Paul talks in great detail about how an idol is nothing in itself. There is not necessarily any harm in having pagan aspects brought into Christianity so long as they don't contradict it. In that way people can still honour father and mother. That would include things like names of children, etc. We still see plenty of people named Helen in the world today. The holy Roman empire did a great service for Christianity and especially in terms of defending against Moslem invaders.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Well, the empire was multicultural. There were still pagans permitted in the lands early on. A great example of that was that ship from early Christian Rome that carried Christian cargo but had pagan workers on the boat (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/roman-cargo-ship-0016510).

There were many pagan practises that may have been integrated into the local Christian traditions, but that by itself doesn't make it "pagan worship in disguise". Paul talks in great detail about how an idol is nothing in itself. There is not necessarily any harm in having pagan aspects brought into Christianity so long as they don't contradict it. In that way people can still honour father and mother. That would include things like names of children, etc. We still see plenty of people named Helen in the world today. The holy Roman empire did a great service for Christianity and especially in terms of defending against Moslem invaders.

It was a strange "marriage" of Christian doctrines and pagan practice, that's what the name "Pergamus" implies in those 7 letters in Revelation. When Christianity became the "official religion", there were all these pagan worshippers who attended church and brought their golden calves into the church.