Tony could we make a connection between the First-fruits offering during the Spring feasts and Passover, and the resurrection of the “First-fruits” in Revelations 12? Could this event then take place during Passover and spring feasts? Would Yah want us to see this connection for a possible timeframe.
Are you implying that the 144000 are going to be raptured prior to the second coming?
If so, there would be:
1- the rapture of the 144000 first, then sometimes after (how long?)
2- the rapture of the rest of the saints (the dead in Mashiah first and then those who are still alive) at Yeshua's return, prior to the pouring of Yah's wrath.
The second one is about the actual number of the overcomers!
In your teaching, you seem to hold to a litteral interpretation of the actual number of 144 000, correct?
If so, would you also interpret the part where it says: "These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins" as being litteral as well?
Hey FX, this may be semantics so forgive me, but I do not like the term rapture for what it all means. So I won't use it haha. As stated in the teaching I believe the 144,000 are the first fruits of the Resurrection. I believe they will be resurrected at the beginning of the tribulation, which I believe is the three and a half year. Before Messiah returns. I believe the general resurrection is later, probably pre-wrath, but don't know for sure. The focus of the entire tanak and the New testament is the resurrection, not a rapture. Those who are changed are simply those who happen to be alive at the time of the resurrection. The focus is the resurrection.
Christians focus too heavily on the rapture. The Bible focuses on the resurrection. Second coming is also a loaded term. Not trying to be evasive, so here's what I mean. Some people think of second coming as when he comes for the quote unquote rapture. Others feel second coming is when he comes to destroy his enemies. That is a big area of confusion. 90% of the time when the Bible uses the word coming with respect to Jesus it is talking about him coming to gather the saints together which is the resurrection. Which I believe to be pre-raphed. Yes 144,000 literal people. As for the virgins I believe it is primarily talking about spiritual purity in virginity which is having never participated in idolatry. Some may be literal virgins but I do not believe that is a requirement. I think it's more of a spiritual application.
We have a thematic connection with the Christians here: you both believe in a pre-trip rapture!!
Hahahah!!!!
My current understanding is different on the issue as I see the resurrection of the saints taking place when Yeshua returns on Yom Teruach, right before the cups of wrath are pourred on the nations.
As for the virgins, praise Yah, there's still hope then!
But does that mean we need to join the Jehovah's witnesses?
At this point, all I can say is I don't know you and I don't appreciate your attitude. Stop writing to me about Isaiah 66. You apparently did not listen to what I was saying. I explicitly used the Isaiah 66 verse as a proof text to support my assertion that the woman is Israel not that the man-child of Isaiah 66 is the man child of Revelation 12 Go back and listen to what I said. Furthermore in episode 8 I spend a few minutes talking about how the man child of Isaiah 66 is not the man child of Revelation 12. Also I have an entire video that I did a few months ago it's on my substack where I look at Isaiah 66 and I go at length to say improve why Isaiah 66 man-child is not Revelation 12 man child. So at this point you are bothering me and getting on my nerves. Because I don't know who you are. And you are not approaching me correctly. Would you like to change how you were approaching me?
Also if you so vehemently disagree with me, then stop reading my material or listening to me. I will not put up with you constantly messaging me about what you don't agree with. We probably will not agree on everything. I can tell we actually agree on many things, but your attitude is not good. I have other people who disagree but we have a good brotherly dialogue. If you want to do that then I welcome you. But if you continue to be belligerent I will cut you off from sending me these messages. It amazes me how worked up you are about something we already agree with because you didn't pay attention.
I actually enjoy hearing from people who disagree with me. Especially people who have dug into the word as it appears you have. It helps me stay on track. But I will not be badgered. And I will be approached with a better attitude. I am in discussions with someone else now. Who disagrees with me but is humble and not badgering me. If you want to continue to have me read information you send me then tone it down.
Tony could we make a connection between the First-fruits offering during the Spring feasts and Passover, and the resurrection of the “First-fruits” in Revelations 12? Could this event then take place during Passover and spring feasts? Would Yah want us to see this connection for a possible timeframe.
Absolutely! The question is which one? :)
If it's the end of the ages maybe Tabernacles the autumn fruit harvest would fit.
It absolutely does!
OK, so maybe the first fruits resurrection comes in the spring, and the big major harvest/resurrection comes in the fall
Howdy Tony,
Thanks for your teaching. Very interesting!
Two questions come to mind.
The first one is about the "rapture"!
Are you implying that the 144000 are going to be raptured prior to the second coming?
If so, there would be:
1- the rapture of the 144000 first, then sometimes after (how long?)
2- the rapture of the rest of the saints (the dead in Mashiah first and then those who are still alive) at Yeshua's return, prior to the pouring of Yah's wrath.
The second one is about the actual number of the overcomers!
In your teaching, you seem to hold to a litteral interpretation of the actual number of 144 000, correct?
If so, would you also interpret the part where it says: "These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins" as being litteral as well?
Just curious!
Be blessed!
FX
Hey FX, this may be semantics so forgive me, but I do not like the term rapture for what it all means. So I won't use it haha. As stated in the teaching I believe the 144,000 are the first fruits of the Resurrection. I believe they will be resurrected at the beginning of the tribulation, which I believe is the three and a half year. Before Messiah returns. I believe the general resurrection is later, probably pre-wrath, but don't know for sure. The focus of the entire tanak and the New testament is the resurrection, not a rapture. Those who are changed are simply those who happen to be alive at the time of the resurrection. The focus is the resurrection.
Christians focus too heavily on the rapture. The Bible focuses on the resurrection. Second coming is also a loaded term. Not trying to be evasive, so here's what I mean. Some people think of second coming as when he comes for the quote unquote rapture. Others feel second coming is when he comes to destroy his enemies. That is a big area of confusion. 90% of the time when the Bible uses the word coming with respect to Jesus it is talking about him coming to gather the saints together which is the resurrection. Which I believe to be pre-raphed. Yes 144,000 literal people. As for the virgins I believe it is primarily talking about spiritual purity in virginity which is having never participated in idolatry. Some may be literal virgins but I do not believe that is a requirement. I think it's more of a spiritual application.
Howdy Tony,
Thanks for your reply.
We have a thematic connection with the Christians here: you both believe in a pre-trip rapture!!
Hahahah!!!!
My current understanding is different on the issue as I see the resurrection of the saints taking place when Yeshua returns on Yom Teruach, right before the cups of wrath are pourred on the nations.
As for the virgins, praise Yah, there's still hope then!
But does that mean we need to join the Jehovah's witnesses?
Just kiddin'!!!
;-)
Blessings
Hallelu'Yah
🪔🌾🌾🌾🌾🍞
At this point, all I can say is I don't know you and I don't appreciate your attitude. Stop writing to me about Isaiah 66. You apparently did not listen to what I was saying. I explicitly used the Isaiah 66 verse as a proof text to support my assertion that the woman is Israel not that the man-child of Isaiah 66 is the man child of Revelation 12 Go back and listen to what I said. Furthermore in episode 8 I spend a few minutes talking about how the man child of Isaiah 66 is not the man child of Revelation 12. Also I have an entire video that I did a few months ago it's on my substack where I look at Isaiah 66 and I go at length to say improve why Isaiah 66 man-child is not Revelation 12 man child. So at this point you are bothering me and getting on my nerves. Because I don't know who you are. And you are not approaching me correctly. Would you like to change how you were approaching me?
Also if you so vehemently disagree with me, then stop reading my material or listening to me. I will not put up with you constantly messaging me about what you don't agree with. We probably will not agree on everything. I can tell we actually agree on many things, but your attitude is not good. I have other people who disagree but we have a good brotherly dialogue. If you want to do that then I welcome you. But if you continue to be belligerent I will cut you off from sending me these messages. It amazes me how worked up you are about something we already agree with because you didn't pay attention.
I actually enjoy hearing from people who disagree with me. Especially people who have dug into the word as it appears you have. It helps me stay on track. But I will not be badgered. And I will be approached with a better attitude. I am in discussions with someone else now. Who disagrees with me but is humble and not badgering me. If you want to continue to have me read information you send me then tone it down.