The 144,000 on mount Sion.

May 15, 2014 | PhilipFreneau

[PhilipFreneau]

The 144,000 on mount Sion

It is written that the 144,000 were standing on mount Sion with the Lamb:

    "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)

It is assumed the 144,000 were those who were sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel in Revelation 7. I will attempt to answer these questions: 1) where; 2) who; and 3) when.

To establish the audience and time contexts, St. John was writing to first century Christians, and it was stated many times that the events he was writing about were to "shortly come to pass," or words to that effect. Even in the last chapter the angel of Jesus states the events "must shortly be done," "the time is at hand," "behold I come quickly," and "surely I come quickly."

I will not attempt to spiritualize John's words. I will assume he meant exactly what he wrote: heaven when writing of heavenly things; earth when writing of earthly things; a short time when writing of a short time; and a thousand years when writing of a thousand years. When he writes figuratively, or in mysteries, I will assume he intended his words to relate to things that could be understood by his audience, the early Church, since that intent was conveyed in these verses:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shewunto his servants things which must shortly come to pass… (Revelation 1:1)

   ". . . Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." (Revelation 22:10; see also Daniel 12:4,9)

John did not specifically state where the 144,000 were located (heaven or earth,) but he did state they were "redeemed from the earth," and were "singing before the throne:"

   "And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which wereredeemed from the earth." (Revelation 14:3)

Mount Sion is referenced several times in the New Testament, with this as the likely context:

   "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant..." (Hebrews 12:22-24)

Therefore, mount Sion is a heavenly place where we find the city of the living God--the heavenly Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem is also referred to in the Revelation as the "holy city, New Jerusalem;" the "beloved city;" and "the bride, the Lamb's wife." It is also referred to in Hebrews 12:23 as the Church, the term used by many Christians, including me.

Note Paul used the words, "ye are come unto mount Sion" rather than "ye will come unto mount Sion." Therefore mount Sion and the heavenly Jerusalem (the Church) existed at the time Paul wrote the epistle, which was about mid-first century.

With that context in mind, the following passages further identify the heavenly mount Sion:

   "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient,the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are achosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" (1 Peter 2:5-9 )

   "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. Forthey stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:31-33)

   "For through him we [Jews and Gentiles] both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:18-22)

We see in these epistles the heavenly mount Sion is also the location of the holy temple, which was built upon the foundation of the holy apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone, and with Christians forming part of the building and framework. The scriptures relating to mount Sion are tied together by 1 Peter 2:

   Sion - 1 Pet 2:6; Heb 12:22; Rom 9:33; Rev 14:1

   Stumblingstone - 1 Pet 2:8; Rom 9:33

   Cornerstone - 1 Pet 2:6; Eph 2:20

   Temple, Priesthood - 1 Pet 2:5,9; Eph 2:21

In the epistles the reference to the holy temple at mount Sion is past or present tense.

Other references to the holy temple in this context include:

   ". . . the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." (1 Cor 3:17)

   "The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven . . ." (Psalms 11:4)

   "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. . ." (Psalms 127:1)

   ". . . Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (Zechariah 6:12-13)

The last verse needs some clarification. David made it clear in Psalms 11:4 that the "Lord's throne is in heaven." Therefore, when the Lord "rules upon his throne" it is from his throne in heaven. Note also in the passage that Jesus (the "Branch") not only builds the temple and rules from his throne, but also serves as a priest upon his throne, not in the temple. The following two verses clarify Christ's role as a priest:

   "As [God] saith also in another place, Thou [Christ] art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 5:6. The other place is Psalms 110:3)

Christ serves as High Priest in this manner:

   "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands. . ." (Hebrews 9:11)

We shall see later that the 144,000 became priests after their redemption and serve Jesus, the High Priest, in his holy temple (Rev 20:4, 6.)

Jesus as the chief cornerstone of the holy temple at heavenly Sion (or, Zion) was also prophesied by Isaiah, which was one of the references used by Peter and Paul:

   "Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." (Isaiah 28:14-18)

In Matthew 21:42 Jesus quoted David (below) who also prophesied that Jesus would become the chief cornerstone:

   "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." (Psalms 118:22-23 )

And Isaiah wrote of the stumblingstone in another chapter:

   "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." (Isaiah 8:14)

Anyway, the prophets described the Church in the same manner as the apostles.

Mount Sion, being a heavenly place, helps explain the coming of the "King" in these verses…

   "Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt." (John 12:15)

   "… My kingdom is not of this world…(John 18:36)

Mount Sion as an earthly place would make sense only if Jesus had an earthly kingdom, which Jesus clearly said was not the case.

When (or, in what time frame) was heavenly mount Sion created? I am unsure, except that it existed at the time of Paul's epistles to the Romans, Ephesians and Hebrews, and the time of Peter's 1st epistle. I speculate it began on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2,) or upon Christ's ascension to the Throne of David, as explained by Peter (Acts 2:25 -36.) On that day the power of the Holy Spirit was given to a multitude. This was also the first time the word "church" was used in the scripture (v. 47), outside of two brief references by Jesus in Matthew.

One other point: it is likely the pouring out of the Holy Spirit from the Day of Pentecost forward is the same as this:

   "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." (Revelation 22:1)

Recall that Jesus spake of "living water" in this manner:

   "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John 7:38)

The context, provided in the next verse (7:39), points to the Day of Pentecost:

   "(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:39)

Therefore, it is safe to assume the Church (the heavenly Jerusalem on mount Sion) was created on, or just prior to, the Day of Pentecost. The conversion of the first Gentile, Cornelius, did not occur until later (Chapter 10,) on the day in which the "tabernacle of David" was raised from its ruins (Amos 9:11, Acts 15:16.)

Anyway, I believe we have established that mount Sion is the heavenly location of the holy city New Jerusalem, which is the Church.

***

Now, back to the 144,000 on mount Sion, who are they?

   "…These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruitsunto God and to the Lamb." (Rev 14:4)

Paul used the term "firstfruits" in referring to the resurrected Christ:

   "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." (1 Cor 15:20)

   "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (1 Cor 15:23)

Paul also used the term in reference to being among the first to receive the Holy Spirit, while anticipating the first resurrection and redemption:

   "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also,which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:22-23)

And James, speaking to the scattered twelves tribes, said this:

   "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18)

But they had yet to be redeemed, since it was about mid-first century. Therefore, it appears the 144,000 on mount Sion are those which were redeemed at the first resurrection, and consisted of at least the apostles and the early Church. The 144,000 also appear to be those from the tribes of Israel that were sealed as the servants of God in Revelation 7:1-8. They are also referenced here:

   "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." (Revelation 20:4)

Note the highlighted words: thrones and judgement. If you recall, Jesus gave future judgement over the twelve tribes to the twelve apostles:

   "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28)

But Paul implied that the saints would judge the world:

   "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? . . ." (1 Cor 6:2)

All the earliest Christians were considered to be saints, so there is no contradiction. We also know there were at least 10,000 saints that served the Lord before the days of Christ:

   "And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them." (Deuteronomy 33:2)

And I would not rule out the patriarchs, prophets and other men of faith from the Old Testament days that were sleeping:

   "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 8:11-12)

Taken together with the early Christians, we can now speculate, with some degree of accuracy, who took part in the first resurrection. Recall the resurrection in Daniel 12:1-2 mentioned only Daniel's people: the children of Israel:

   "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)

Therefore my implication of a Patriarch-Israel (only) first resurrection is biblical.

The following verse explains the significance of being part of the first resurrection:

   "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." (Revelation 20:6)

They became the priests who serve the High Priest, Jesus Christ. The scriptures imply the apostles judge the twelve tribes of Israel, while the other saints judge everyone else. Jesus judges no man (John 8:15.)

The 144,000 possibly included all the surviving remnant of the children of Israel (the "just" ones) that the apostles and prophets spoke of. It does not seem likely that any of the remnant the Lord preserved would continue following Judaism, nor does it seem likely they would survive unscathed under the tyranny of Pharisaic Judaism.

***

So now we have a good idea where mount Sion is located--in heaven--and we have a good idea who the 144,000 are: the apostles, saints, early Christians, and holy men of old. But "when" were the 144,000 standing on mount Sion?

Both major references to the 144,000 (Rev 7:1-8 and Rev 14:1-5) appear to occur chronologically just prior to the destruction of the mysterious "Babylon the Great." There are many reasons to believe Babylon the Great was the Jerusalem of 70 A.D. These are only a few:

1) The angel of Jesus declared the events would "shortly come to pass." Chronologically, nothing occurred at that time in history with the magnitude of the destruction of Babylon the Great except the destruction of Jerusalem.

2) Babylon the Great's sins were virtually identical to those of Jerusalem; both had the blood of the prophets on their hands, as follows:

Babylon:

   "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints,and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." (Rev 17:6, Babylon)

   "And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:24, Babylon)

   "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev 18:20, Babylon)

Jerusalem:

   "Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luk 13:33-34, Jerusalem)

   ". . . I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." (Luke 11:49-51, Jerusalem)

   "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22, Jerusalem)

Both cities committed whoredom:

   "For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judgedthe great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." (Rev 19:2, Babylon)

   "Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,… Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them; Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness. And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy." (Ezekiel 16:2, 35-38, Jerusalem. There are many references to Jerusalem's and Israel's whoredoms.)

Both cities were made desolate:

   "… for in one hour is she made desolate." (Rev 18:19, Babylon)

   "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." (Matthew 23:38, Jerusalem)

Babylon lost the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, similar to Jerusalem in the days of the Babylonian captivity:

   "Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle." (Jer 25:10 KJV)

   "And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." (Rev 18:22-23 KJV)

One other very important point: Moses prophesied in some detail in Deuteronomy 28 about the destruction of Jerusalem; and his prophesy occurred approximately 1500 years prior to the event. Additionally, nearly all, if not all the other prophets foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in one manner or another.

Yet, outside the references to the destruction of Jerusalem by Christ in the Gospels, there is hardly a whisper about it after Christ's resurrection, either before the destruction or for many years thereafter. That was the most significant, "man-caused" event in the history of the world up until that time--even until this time--and there was nothing written about it by the apostles or followers of Christ? Not even a, "See, I told you so!"? Not even by St. John? Nothing? Where were the Christians?

Now, let's assume that John did NOT write the Revelation in A.D. 90-95 (as one person, Irenaeus, and a "bandwagon" of historians implied;) but that John wrote the book earlier during the reign of Nero (as other historians have implied) which was prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now, everything makes sense! Instead of a book that can and does mean anything and everything, depending solely on the imagination of the reader or interpreter; we have a book that provided both general and specific warnings to some of the early Christian Churches in the Roman Empire just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, as were the angel's instructions to John:

   "What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (Revelation 1:11)

Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that John was prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem when writing about Babylon the Great. If that be the case, the 144,000 were standing on the heavenly mount Sion in or about 70 A.D.

***

But what about the 144,000 also being redeemed from earth "at thefirst resurrection" as I implied earlier? That is not so far fetched if we take the words of Jesus literally:

   " And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the cloudswith great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, andshall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven . . . Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." (Mark 13:26-27, 30 KJV)

Therefore, at the sound of a (heavenly) trumpet, Jesus came with great (heavenly) power and with his (heavenly) angels to gather together his elect, which was the first resurrection; and this happened at a time within the generation of those who were alive during Christ's ministry. This is better understood to be the time of the destruction of Jerusalem when the earlier verses of Chapter 24 are considered in context. Matthew 24:1-33 can be readily shown to point to the destruction of Jerusalem both in terms of the gospels and the historical record of the time.

To reinforce the understanding that "this generation" meant the generation of Jesus and his apostles:

   "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

   "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27)

   "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Matthew 10:23)

And we have this supporting verse from 1st John:

   "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard thatantichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists;whereby we know that it is the last time." (1 John 2:18)

In every other case where Jesus used the phrase "this generation" he meant "his" generation--the generation alive during his ministry and at his crucifixion. These are some, but not all, of those verses:

   "But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation." (Luke 21:32)

   "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." (Luke 11:51)

   "And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?" (Luke 7:31)

   "And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8:12)

   "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Matthew 23:34)

Therefore, the First Coming of Christ and the First Resurrection happened around 70 A.D.; and the firstfruits of the resurrection--the 144,000 redeemed from the earth--were standing on heavenly mount Sion with Christ, shortly thereafter.

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>So? Being both a postmillenialist and a preterist does not mean you are not a preterist.<<<

Are you really that thick-headed? The definition of Preterist means that all scripture is fulfilled. Postmillennialists, like myself, do not believe that.

>>>No, what you are defining is full preterism. Preterism is not limited to that definition.<<<

Yes it is. By definition, preterism means exactly that.

Jeesh! LOL!

Philip

[Boogieman]

“That is, they are forever in heaven with the Lord.”

Ah, remember, we have gone over this point before. You’re a literalist, so you can’t read “in heaven” into those verses. They’ll be with the Lord, but the verses don’t specify where that will be. Better be consistent with your interpretive principles, because if you insist on being wrong, at least you can aspire to be consistent.

“Besides, that is the “first resurrection” of AD 70, appropriately named in Revelation 20: not the second or general resurrection, also mentioned in Revelation 20.”

I agree, that is the first resurrection, when all dead Christians are resurrected, and all living Christians are transformed and go to the Lord as well. You say that happened in 70 AD, yet nobody bothered to record this event, and somehow there has never been an interruption in the presence of Christians on Earth.

“Certainly you can come up with a better argument than that in your pretense that I am not a Christian.”

You’re the one making the argument, when you say the first resurrection has already happened. You are still here, so you must have missed the boat on the first resurrection, and therefore, you are not a Christian. If the first resurrection has happened, then as you have told us in your last post, the Christians are with the Lord forever.

Revelation tells us that, for those who are part of the first resurrection, the second death (the lake of fire) has no power over them. The converse then must be true. Those who are not part of the first resurrection are at risk of hellfire. Do you believe that Christians are at such risk?

[Boogieman]

“Yes it is. By definition, preterism means exactly that.”

No, that is not what the definition says, but since you insist on such a silly denial, let’s post the definition for the rest of the forum to see how wrong you are:

“Preterism is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ’s birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled.

Preterism is most dramatically contrasted with Futurism, the view that most prophecies regarding the End times, and passages referring to Last Days, Great Tribulation, and Judgment are still future and will immediately precede the return of Christ. Proponents of preterist views generally fall in one of two categories: Partial Preterism or Full Preterism.
Partial Preterists

Partial Preterism, the older of the two views, holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a “judgment-coming” of Christ were fulfilled circa 70 AD when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. It identifies “Babylon the great” (Revelation 17-18) with the ancient pagan City of Rome or Jerusalem.”

Cont’d at: http://www.theopedia.com/Preterism

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>At this point, it is just funny that he is so obstinate on the matter. It’s as if a poster were running around saying “Joseph Smith found some golden plates that reveal the ‘restored gospel’” and “Jesus Christ visited the Americas!”, but then refusing to admit they were a Mormon. I can’t fathom what he thinks he is accomplishing by it, besides destroying his own credibility.<<<

Will you ever get tired of posting snarky, childish comments; or is it in your blood?

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Well, let everyone else ask me then, and maybe I’ll clue them in.<<<

You certainly go out of your way to avoid defending your new-age doctrines.

[Boogieman]

“You certainly go out of your way to avoid defending your new-age doctrines.”

Funny, I have no problem defending my beliefs (which aren’t in any way “new-age”), while you refuse to even admit to holding your beliefs.

[Boogieman]

“Will you ever get tired of posting snarky, childish comments; or is it in your blood?”

I meet snark with snark. Stop inviting it upon yourself, and folks might stop dishing it out to you.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Ah, remember, we have gone over this point before. You’re a literalist, so you can’t read “in heaven” into those verses. <<<

I never said I was a "literalist." That label is claimed by the dispy/futurist crowd, of which you are a part.

>>>They’ll be with the Lord, but the verses don’t specify where that will be.<<<

Actually, it does:

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air . . ." (1 Th 4:17 KJV)

I suspected you were experiencing reading comprehension difficulties.

>>>Better be consistent with your interpretive principles, because if you insist on being wrong, at least you can aspire to be consistent.<<<

You must be talking to yourself.

>>>I agree, that is the first resurrection, when all dead Christians are resurrected, and all living Christians are transformed and go to the Lord as well. You say that happened in 70 AD, yet nobody bothered to record this event, and somehow there has never been an interruption in the presence of Christians on Earth.<<<

Who was left to record it, if all were resurrected, except for the millions slaughtered by the Roman Armies, and those who had fled to Pella? Again, who was left to record it?

Don't you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies. What about John? It is claimed he lived to the end of the century. Why did he not write even a whisper about it?

I'll tell you why. That was not John, but a false apostle claiming to be John (we were warned about false apostles.) St. John was resurrected along with his fellow Saints.

>>>You’re the one making the argument, when you say the first resurrection has already happened.<<<

I am in good company. Jesus prophesied in several ways that he was coming in his own generation. I believe I mentioned some of them in my article.

>>>You are still here, so you must have missed the boat on the first resurrection, and therefore, you are not a Christian.<<<

That is truly a cult-like, red-herring argument.

>>>"If the first resurrection has happened, then as you have told us in your last post, the Christians are with the Lord forever.<<<

Only the saints, the earliest Christians, and holy men of old were resurrected in the first resurrection. Do you think you are a saint? LOL!

>>>Revelation tells us that, for those who are part of the first resurrection, the second death (the lake of fire) has no power over them. The converse then must be true.<<

That is true. Therefore, I recommend you clean up your act and quit slandering Christians, or you might not be found worthy to avoid the second death.

>>>Those who are not part of the first resurrection are at risk of hellfire. Do you believe that Christians are at such risk?<<<

True Christians? No. Of course, Jesus gave us examples of those who would be rejected, including some who claimed righteousness (e.g., the self-righteous.) Perhaps you recall some of those examples by the Lord.

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>I meet snark with snark. Stop inviting it upon yourself, and folks might stop dishing it out to you.<<<

The following quoted statment was your first post on this thread: a snarky comment directed at me, but not to me.

“Forget it. Philip starts with the a priori assumption that most everything in Revelation happened in the past, never mind that Revelation itself demonstrates that this could not be true. You might as well talk to a wall.”

So you meet snark with snark? You dishonesty is telling.

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Funny, I have no problem defending my beliefs (which aren’t in any way “new-age”), while you refuse to even admit to holding your beliefs.<<<

Certainly you do, and they are most certainly NEW AGE?

Wait! You do believe in the so-called rapture, don’t you?

Philip

[Boogieman]

“I never said I was a “literalist.” That label is claimed by the dispy/futurist crowd, of which you are a part.”

Oh well, excuse me for using the wrong term. The point still stands that you can’t, by your own stated principles of interpretation, read “in heaven” into those verses. For proof of your stance, I submit, from the OP:

“I will not attempt to spiritualize John’s words. I will assume he meant exactly what he wrote: heaven when writing of heavenly things; earth when writing of earthly things; a short time when writing of a short time; and a thousand years when writing of a thousand years. “

“Actually, it does:

“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air . . .” (1 Th 4:17 KJV)

I suspected you were experiencing reading comprehension difficulties.”

No, the verse say they will meet the Lord in the air, not that they will remain with the Lord in heaven. You’re not following your own principles. Meet means meet, not stay. Air means air, not heaven. Be consistent.

“Who was left to record it, if all were resurrected, except for the millions slaughtered by the Roman Armies, and those who had fled to Pella? Again, who was left to record it?”

Since the Bible says the entire world will witness the second coming and first resurrection, and not only the Christians, there would have been plenty left to record it.

“Don’t you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies.”

Not really. Countless cities have been destroyed throughout history, and it’s rare to even have one eye-witness record. It would be more unusual, for the time, if we had an abundance of such records.

“I’ll tell you why. That was not John, but a false apostle claiming to be John (we were warned about false apostles.)”

Now I’m going to have to take a page from your playbook and say: prove it!

“I am in good company. Jesus prophesied in several ways that he was coming in his own generation. I believe I mentioned some of them in my article.”

Jesus never said that it already happened, only that it would happen. You are the one interpreting a time frame into his words as to when it would have happened. Jesus gave us no date.

“That is truly a cult-like, red-herring argument.”

Nope, it’s simple logic. If the first resurrection has happened, as you say, then the Christians are with Christ forever. If you are still here, then you either can’t be correct about the resurrection, or you aren’t a Christian. You can’t play it both ways.

I understand you may want to dismiss the argument by calling it names, but that is only because you have no logical response to the argument.

“Only the saints, the earliest Christians, and holy men of old were resurrected in the first resurrection. Do you think you are a saint? LOL!”

Yes, all Christians are saints, as the Bible says. Also, again, the verse in Thessalonians makes none of those limitations, so you are again violating your own principles of interpretation in an attempt to wish away something inconvenient to your cherished ideology.

“Therefore, I recommend you clean up your act and quit slandering Christians, or you might not be found worthy to avoid the second death.”

Well, by your own argument, you can’t be a Christian. They’re all with Jesus now, according to you.

“True Christians? No.”

Well, since being part of the first resurrection is the only sure way to avoid such a risk, you again confirm that your interpretation wouldn’t allow there to be any Christians living today. If the first resurrection has happened, and the first resurrection is the only way to avoid such a risk, and if all true Christians are not at such risk, then all true Christians were part of the first resurrection, and there must be none left. QED.

[PhilipFreneau]

You copied from "theopedia":

>>>“Preterism is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ’s birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled."<<<

That is not the definition I am familiar with, nor is it the definition sasportas supplied in an earlier post. This is it:

"Wikipedia: “1) Interpret prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. 2) Daniel is interpreted as events that happened in the second century BC while Revelation is interpreted as events that happened in the first century AD. 3) Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. "

I don't certainly don't believe like that. It must be another new-age interpretation. You and your fellow new-agers need to get your stories straight.

BTW, part of your definition is accurate. The Latin word, praetor, means past. Therefore, the word preterist, in a biblical sense, means all prophecies have been fulfilled, exactly like the Wikipedia definition claims.

Therefore, I am no preterist. I, like other postmillennialists, believe in a future, general resurrection. Preterists don't believe that.

But keep sniping. Maybe you will distract everyone enough to keep them from realizing how weak your belief really is.

Philip

[Boogieman]

“Certainly you do, and they are most certainly NEW AGE?”

Which exactly of my beliefs are new age?

“Wait! You do believe in the so-called rapture, don’t you?”

Well, I believe that, at the first resurrection, living Christians will be glorified and translated bodily to the afterlife, without tasting death. Some folks mistakenly call that a “rapture”, and they usually try to make that out to be a separate event and place it outside the Biblical timeline. I don’t subscribe to those ideas though.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>... you refuse to even admit to holding your beliefs.<<<

I forgot to mention that I posted my belief along with many, many lines of scripture to initiate this thread. Don’t you think you claim that I will not “admit my beliefs” is a little weak?

Ironically, you will not admit that your “belief” is new-age.

Philip

[Boogieman]

“That is not the definition I am familiar with, nor is it the definition sasportas supplied in an earlier post. This is it:

“Wikipedia:”

Ok, from your preferred source, wikipedia, here is the same basic information included in their entry:

“Partial preterism

Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a “judgment-coming” of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70[30] or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.[31][32] Some partial preterists identify “ Babylon the Great” (Revelation 17–18) with the pagan Roman Empire, though some, such as N.T. Wright and David Chilton, identify it with the city of Jerusalem.[30][33] Most interpretations identify Nero as the Beast,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][a] while his mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor’s head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell.[41] However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero committed suicide in AD 68, and identify the Beast with another emperor. The Catholic Encyclopedia has noted that Revelation was “written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, probably in AD 95 or 96”.[42] Many Protestant scholars agree.[43][44] The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.[45]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Schools_of_preterist_thought

Can you stop playing games now and admit that you fit the definition of a partial preterist quite well? Or do you need a third definition to prove it to you?

[Boogieman]

“Don’t you think you claim that I will not “admit my beliefs” is a little weak?”

No, not at all. You are a preterist, yet you refuse to admit it, even after being shown how your own statements dovetail with the well-known doctrines of preterists. The claim looks pretty strong to me.

“Ironically, you will not admit that your “belief” is new-age.”

You haven’t even said what of my beliefs is supposed to be “new age”, so of course I won’t admit it. I don’t have any such beliefs. If I do have some, go ahead and point out where I have stated them, just like I pointed out your preterist statements.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>>Oh well, excuse me for using the wrong term. The point still stands that you can’t, by your own stated principles of interpretation, read “in heaven” into those verses. For proof of your stance, I submit, from the OP:

“I will not attempt to spiritualize John’s words. I will assume he meant exactly what he wrote: heaven when writing of heavenly things; earth when writing of earthly things; a short time when writing of a short time; and a thousand years when writing of a thousand years. “<<<

I did not spiritualize John's words. Paul wrote the passage we are discussing. But it is minor point. If you don't believe that they are in heaven, that is your problem. I have no problem believing all the Saints: the earliest Church members: are in heaven; and that air and clouds in the passage are symbolic references for heaven. It is a major part of my faith that the righteous have been, and will be, resurrected to heaven.

>>>The verse say they will meet the Lord in the air, not that they will remain with the Lord in heaven. You’re not following your own principles. Meet means meet, not stay. Air means air, not heaven. Be consistent.<<<

Where does it say they returned to earth? In any book?

But I see you avoided the "underlying Greek" I mentioned. This is how it goes: according to Strong's Concordance, the Greek word for "so" in 1 Thess 4:17 is #3779. Let's look at a few other verses that use that particular Greek word. The words/phrases with the underlying Greek word #3779 are highlighted in red:

   Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

   Mat 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

   Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

   Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

   Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

   Mat 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

   Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

In every case, it means the same. Like I said, they will not be returning to earth. They are forever "in the air" serving the Lord as priests and kings in his eternal kingdom.

>>>Since the Bible says the entire world will witness the second coming and first resurrection, and not only the Christians, there would have been plenty left to record it.<<<

Actually, it says in the Revelation "every eye" will see him. It says nothing about the entire world, that I am aware of. If it did, it would only be those in the first-century Roman Empire.

Now all we have to do is determine what John meant by "every eye," in his highly symbolic literature. John hints at the tribes of Israel with the old testament tribal word, "kindreds." Young's literal translation reads:

   "Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!" (Rev 1:7 YLT)

Young's states that "kindreds of the earth" actually means, "tribes of the land." Matthew 24 uses similar language:

   "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Mat 24:30-31 KJV)

You do believe Matthew and Revelation are writing about the same event, don't you? If so, then one member of each tribe seeing Christ return is all that is really necessary to fulfil the prophecy, unless one believes in something out of character for prophecy fulfillment (e.g., every eye on earth--all six billion of them--seeing him.)

>>>“Don’t you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies.”

Countless cities have been destroyed throughout history, and it’s rare to even have one eye-witness record. <<<

So, the destruction of the seat of Jewish faith, the slaughter of millions, the levelling of an entire city, the divorcement of the former "wife" of the Lord, and rejection of the Laws of Moses as a way to atone for sins, was not worth of even a line of inspired Word of God? You can fool some people, but not all. John wrote an entire book about it, and it is called the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

BTW, Do you have any proof of what you just wrote?

>>>Now I’m going to have to take a page from your playbook and say: prove it!<<<

Back at ya! Prove that John is an apostle. No one can. Therefore, the didactic claims by futurist/dispensationalist writers that John lived to be 100 are little more than hearsay (and wishful thinking.) It is much more reasonable to assume that when John was riding on horseback at full gallop, as one of the Church Fathers wrote, it was during the time of Nero, when John would be in his 60's, rather than in the time of Domitian, when John would be in his 90's.

>>>Jesus never said that it already happened, only that it would happen. You are the one interpreting a time frame into his words as to when it would have happened. Jesus gave us no date.<<<

Of course he did, on several occasions, in different ways. Well, let me add a condition: he explained when he was coming, in the general sense, as defined in every language dictionary in the world. The only place your statement is true is in the new-age "Premillennial/Dispensational Dictionary," created out of thin air by the doctrine founders.

These are some of the time references Jesus gave us. I will explain so you can follow along.

In the first two, Jesus said that some of his disciples would still be alive when he returned:

   "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)

   "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1 KJV)

In this one, Jesus said he would avenge (the persecutions and murders of) his elect speedily, not 2000 years in the future:

   "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:7-8 KJV)

In this one, Jesus said to his disciples, the hour is now, not 2000 years away:

   "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25 KJV)

Here, Jesus is instructing his disciples before sending them out to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He tells them that they will not have time to visit all the cities of Israel before he returns:

   "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:22-23 KJV)

Just so you know that his apostles also anticipated an imminent return, this is Paul:

   "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." (2 Th 2:1-2 KJV)

Only in the minds of a futurist would the phrase "the day is at hand" means 20 centuries. LOL!

The following are the most convincing. They are almost identical in the first three Gospels:

   "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Mat 24:34 KJV)

   "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." (Mark 13:30 KJV)

   "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)

In every other case where Jesus used the term "this generation" (many times,) it was in normal, every-day language that we are accustomed to, meaning, simply, his current generation. He used "this generation" the same way in those three verses.

Almost forgot, in the Revelation there about 30 near-time references, such as "shortly come to pass," "the time is at hand," and "seal not" the sayings of the book.

>>>If the first resurrection has happened, as you say, then the Christians are with Christ forever.<<<

So, you don't believe Daniel when he writes about a partial resurrection of believers and non-believers?

   "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)

I don't understand why you cannot see something so simple.

>>>If you are still here, then you either can’t be correct about the resurrection, or you aren’t a Christian. You can’t play it both ways.<<<

So you believe in a first resurrection, but not a second? Then why did Christ call it a "first resurrection?" Why not simply, "the resurrection?" Were those idle words?

>>>I understand you may want to dismiss the argument by calling it names, but that is only because you have no logical response to the argument.<<<

Sure…

>>>Yes, all Christians are saints, as the Bible says.<<<

Where does it say that? I can't wait to read your response.

[Another snarky "saint." What is this world coming to?]

>>>Also, again, the verse in Thessalonians makes none of those limitations, so you are again violating your own principles of interpretation in an attempt to wish away something inconvenient to your cherished ideology.<<<

You are spiritualizing the scriptures if you believe any of those of the first resurrection are returning to earth.

>>>Well, by your own argument, you can’t be a Christian. They’re all with Jesus now, according to you.<<<

Another in a long list of red-herrings.

>>>Well, since being part of the first resurrection is the only sure way to avoid such a risk, you again confirm that your interpretation wouldn’t allow there to be any Christians living today.<<<

There will be a second resurrection, when all us will bow before the Lord Jesus and confess our sins. Do you think all of them (all of us) will be condemned?

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Which exactly of my beliefs are new age?<<<

Since you have been keeping them secret, maybe all of them. You do believe in a thousand year reign of Christ on earth, don't you?

>>>Well, I believe that, at the first resurrection, living Christians will be glorified and translated bodily to the afterlife, without tasting death. Some folks mistakenly call that a “rapture”, and they usually try to make that out to be a separate event and place it outside the Biblical timeline. I don’t subscribe to those ideas though.<<<

So, the so-called "raptured saints" will not return to reign on earth with Christ for 1000 years?

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>No, not at all. You are a preterist, yet you refuse to admit it, even after being shown how your own statements dovetail with the well-known doctrines of preterists. The claim looks pretty strong to me<<<

My beliefs are on the table for all to see. I have started MANY new threads this year, and have defended all of them----with SCRIPTURE!

You do know that it is you who have been hiding your beliefs, while trying to turn a biblical debate into a kindergarten-style name-calling session. That must be one of the tactics written in the dispensational/futurist playbook, because it happens so often. It may be even modelled after the smear techniques written in the socialist/communist playbook; e.g., modelled after Saul Alinsky. That would be a good research project: to compare the two smear tactics.

>>>You haven’t even said what of my beliefs is supposed to be “new age”, so of course I won’t admit it. I don’t have any such beliefs. If I do have some, go ahead and point out where I have stated them, just like I pointed out your preterist statements.<<<

I personally think you are a closet dispensationalist. Prove me wrong.

BTW, have you ever read the article, "The Dispensational Origins of Modern Premillennialism and John Nelson Darby", by Jack Van Deventer?

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>> Ok, from your preferred source, wikipedia, here is the same basic information included in their entry:

“Partial preterism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Schools_of_preterist_thought

Can you stop playing games now and admit that you fit the definition of a partial preterist quite well? Or do you need a third definition to prove it to you?<<<

Postmillennialism (from Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism

"In Christian end-times theology, (eschatology), postmillennialism is an interpretation of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation which sees Christ's second coming as occurring after (Latin post-) the "Millennium", a Golden Age in which Christian ethics prosper. The term subsumes several similar views of the end times, and it stands in contrast to premillennialism and, to a lesser extent, amillennialism."

"Postmillennialism holds that Jesus Christ establishes his kingdom on earth through his preaching and redemptive work in the first century and that he equips his church with the gospel, empowers her by the Spirit, and charges her with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) to disciple all nations. Postmillennialism expects that eventually the vast majority of men living will be saved. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men and of nations."

I believe all of that, except I believe in an additional resurrection: a first resurrection that precedes the "millennium," exactly like it is written in Revelation. More on postmillennialism …

"After an extensive era of such conditions Jesus Christ will return visibly, bodily, and gloriously, to end history with the general resurrection and the final judgment after which the eternal order follows."

I believe he will return, and every knee will bow before him; but I believe the Church and this earth will last forever, as written:

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)

"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." (Ecc 1:4 KJV)

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2 KJV)

So, with slight shades of difference, I am a Postmillennialist.

Now, will you stop playing childish games and debate the scriptures?

Philip