How can 144,000 be a literal number?

by Pleasuredome 36 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AGuest

  Please see my response above, directly under the opening thread. It ended up there. Sorry... and peace to you!
• 

  peacefulpete

  A guest...as you explained you have "changed your mind" a few times now. Was each change of mind the result of cautious objective analysis or the result of an emotionally attractive theology? You have to answer that for yourself. As for your response...Apparently you feel that discrimination motivated by mercy is not discrimination. Very much like "Affirmative Action" in America? Any role that race plays in this selection process makes the choosing racially discriminating. As a society we in America have decided that this discrimination is tolerable to achieve a greater goal of equal distribution of wealth and education. Has God some similar logic for his actions? Or was it simply a matter of having made an unfortunate promise to Abraham that he is forced to make good on dispite the ethical problems associated with racism? You have made clear that racial purity is not a requirement for inclusion into the 144k, but rather "religious" purity is paramount. As long as there is "a drop of Abraham's blood" in the person they may be chosen as the elite. How would you define this "false religion"? Is it not your belief that the Jews were guilty of great sin by disregarding Jesus' death? Are not all practicing Jews then involved with "false religion"? Or have these Jews(looselyspeaking) become Christians? What sect? Is modern Rabbinic Judaism "true religion"? By what standard? Surely not Bibical as they do not practice Aaronic sacrifices in a temple. If faithful Jews are members of the "great Crowd" as well as the 144k and religiously we can not identify a standard for "false religion" then how is it that these two groups are distinguished?
• 

  AGuest

  Yikes! You don't a LOT of questions, do you? (Peace to you!)

  (Deep breath) - Okay, here goes... you ask:

  A guest...as you explained you have "changed your mind" a few times now.

  Changed my mind... hmmm... no, I don't think so. My "mind" was always steered to finding (or rather, knowing) God. I just think my "search" was honed.

  Was each change of mind the result of cautious objective analysis or the result of an emotionally attractive theology?

  Depends on when you're asking about: going to the 'Borg... well... I think there was emotion involved. Some "stuff" was occurring in my life which made it easy for me to "buy" what they were selling: the "truth". On leaving them, it was due purely to a voice that led me. Which voice I still hear today... and still leads me.

  You have to answer that for yourself.

  Why for myself? Can I not answer it for those who inquire as well?

  As for your response...Apparently you feel that discrimination motivated by mercy is not discrimination. Very much like "Affirmative Action" in America?

  You assume discrimination to be a "bad" thing. And you assume that God does not discriminate. You err in both: discrimination can be a "good" thing (why not let everyone drink and/or drive, no matter their age?)... and while He is not PARTIAL, God does indeed discriminate: those who do His will vs. those who don't; those who have faith vs. those who don't; at one time, Israel vs. the nations... and more.

  Any role that race plays in this selection process makes the choosing racially discriminating.

  If you think that fulfilling His promise to Abraham by setting aside 144,000 seats is discriminating... well, okay. It does say that God is not partial and God does not lie; however, it does not say that God does not discriminate. I would think the fact that no women... no children... and no non-Jews... were included among the twelve would lend credence to that. What of it?

  As a society we in America have decided that this discrimination is tolerable to achieve a greater goal of equal distribution of wealth and education.

  Have "we"? And is America the only "standard"? What about all of the other nations and their standard(s)?

  Has God some similar logic for his actions? Or was it simply a matter of having made an unfortunate promise to Abraham that he is forced to make good on dispite the ethical problems associated with racism?

  That is was unfortunate is your... opinion. That God shows mercy to whomever HE wishes to show it... for whatever REASON... is His... perogative. You have made clear that racial purity is not a requirement for inclusion into the 144k, but rather "religious" purity is paramount. I think you and I define "religious purity" differently. I don't see "religious" ANYTHING playing a part in it. I do see some exclusionary provisions, though: Those who 'wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb' vs. those who don't/didn't. Those who have faith vs. those who don't/didn't. Those who are thirsting vs. those who are/weren't. Those who did "good" to Christ's brothers vs. those who didn't. Those who 'belong' to the Christ vs. those who don't. The list goes on and on and on and on... There are the haves... and the have-nots. However, WHO the haves are... are who they are NOT... may... in some cases... be IRRELEVANT. Again, the MERCY thing. For mercy... is UNdeserved kindness: it cannot be bought... or won. It is not and cannot be 'deserved.' That is WHY it is MERCY. As long as there is "a drop of Abraham's blood" in the person they may be chosen as the elite. How would you define this "false religion"? First, there is no "elite". That is man's word, not God's. And that a drop of Abraham's blood would suffice in that those named "from among the sons of Israel," are, in fact, Abraham's seed, by means of being Israel's seed. Is it not your belief that the Jews were guilty of great sin by disregarding Jesus' death? In general, yes. Individually, of course not. For those who threw in their "lot" to impale him and have his blood "upon the heads of [their] children," yes. For those who did not, no. For it was JEWS who first said, "We have found the Messiah." It was JEWS who were first included in the New Covenant. Salvation... is THROUGH the Jews. Are not all practicing Jews then involved with "false religion"? All who practice ANY religion... are involved in false religion. Or have these Jews(looselyspeaking) become Christians? Okay, you'll have to clarify - WHICH Jews? What sect? I think you must go back and reask your last three questions, including this one. Because as they are stated, they do not make sense to me. Is modern Rabbinic Judaism "true religion"? I guess if you are a Rabbinic Jew, you would think so. However, if you belong to the Christ, you would know that such could not be. (Matthew 23:10) By what standard? Is modern Rabbinc Judaism "true religion"? None, that I am aware of. Surely not Bibical as they do not practice Aaronic sacrifices in a temple. I would not know. I believe they simply read from the Torah and follow the Talmud, these days. I am not sure and would be foolish to speak of it. If faithful Jews are members of the "great Crowd" as well as the 144k and religiously we can not identify a standard for "false religion" then how is it that these two groups are distinguished? AHH! NOW I see what you are asking! Dear one, for MAN, there are two (2) ways to be a Jew: 1. Primarily, by one's ETHNICITY (a direct descendant of Judah/BenJahMin, which is whom Jews hail from); OR 2. Secondarily, by the practice of the RELIGION of the Jews... Judaism. However, to GOD... he is not a Jew who is one ON THE OUTSIDE... but he is a Jew... who is one ON THE INSIDE. Thus, whether one is BORN a Jew, directly from the line of Judah, or whether one CONVERTS to Judaism... is of no consequence. To GOD... one is "Jew" by means of having faith in Christ, the Messiah. Such one proves themselves to have the "Law" (of love, one which the entire Law Covenant was based)... written... NOT on stone tablets... but on the HEART. And even among Abraham's seed... from among the 12 tribes of Israel... there are those who PROVE themselves Abraham's seed. True, by the BLOOD... but ALSO by the SPIRIT! That is why THEY... have a "better" ransom: their flesh AND their faith prove who they are! But the "nations"... prove THEMSELVES to be Abraham's seed... by means of FAITH... thus, by means of SPIRIT. Those from among Abraham's seed, by means of BLOOD... who exercise FAITH... are counted among those who "render sacred service" in the temple of God. It is as follows: Christ, the "firstfruits" from the dead. Israel (144,000), the "firstfruits" from among mankind. The "nations" (including those of Abraham's seed - by blood - who are NOT included in the 144,000)... as the remainder of the harvest There is no discrimination, because (1) ALL of Israel WILL be saved, either as: 1. One of the 144,000 2. One of those of out of EVERY nation, tribe, tongue and people 3. A SUBJECT of the kingdom ruled by those above, with Christ Thus, God, who cannot lie... made a promise: that by means of his (Abraham's) seed, ALL the nations of the earth would bless themselves. Indeed, by means of the blood of His Lamb, the "Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the WORLD," ALL Israel... will be saved. Romans 11:1-12, 21-24, 25-27 I hope this answers your questions. And I bid you peace... YOUR servant and a slave of Christ, SJ
• 

  DJ

  Hi Shelby,

  Thanks for your reply. I am not sure but I think that I may have read in a thread where you stated that you are of Jewish heritage. Could it be that you are still one of the 144,000? I know that you were an annointed one in the jw's right? Do you still consider yourself one of the 144?

  Thanks. dj/Donna
• 

  Kenneson

  Rev. 7 conspicuously omits the tribe of Dan from the list reducing the tribes to 11 instead of 12. The double portion of Joseph doesn't mean his tribe became two to replace Dan. It means he received two pieces of land while the others only one ( Gen. 48:22; Ezek. 47:13) Where in Scripture does it say that Dan was replaced? This poses a problem to those playing the numbers game. I don't see the numbers as literal, but rather as symbolical. The use of the traditional element of the (12?) tribes makes the impression of choseness. The 12,000 from each tribe intensifies the sense of choseness; a remnant survives, a minority is loyal. Membership in the tribes is also symbolical because membership in the Jewish people is not primaily a matter of birth (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). The use of numbers, however, does denote a special group within all the faithful. (Rev. 7:4, 9) They do not simply follow the Lamb, but follow him wherever he goes (unto death). They are "first fruits" to God and the Lamb. Rev. 14:4 This denotes a sacrificial term (Exod. 23:19; Deut. 12:6). This level of meaning suggests an association with the souls under the altar (Rev. 6:9) and the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony to Jesus (Rev. 20:4). The 144,000 are depicted then as an ideal group representing those who lose their lives because of their faith and who will be rewarded by participation in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6). See also 1 Cor. 15:20-23. So, then, the symbolical 144,000 are all martyrs as distinct from the great crowd which no man was able to number (Rev. 7:9)
• 

  AGuest

  "And I HEARD the number of those who were sealed, 144,000 sealed... out of every tribe of Israel:

  Out of the tribe of Judah (1)...

  Out of the tribe of Reuben (2)...

  Out of the tribe of Gad (3)...

  Asher (4)

  Naphtali (5)

  Manasseh (Joseph) (6)

  Simeon (7)

  Levi (8)

  Issachar (9)

  Zebulun (10)

  Joseph (Ephraim) (11)

  BenJahMin (12).

  Looks like 12 tribes to me. As for Dan, please read about them in Chapter 18 of Judges.

  Peace to you.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Kenneson

  A Guest,

  Yes, I see 12 names there. You are also correct in stating that Joseph was divided into two tribes. Thanks for making it clearer. Instead of reducing the tribes to 11 as I stated, Dan, not listed in Rev. 7 increases the tribes to 13.

  Let's see if I get this correctly. Jacob had 12 sons, who were the heads of so many great families, which altogether formed a great nation; everyone of these families was called a tribe. But Jacob on his death bed adopted Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph as two tribes of Israel, Gen. 48:5. Instead of 12 tribes, there were now thirteen, that of Joseph being divided into two. However, in the distribution of lands to the people made by Joshua, by the command of God, they counted but twelve tribes, and made but twelve lots. For the tribe of Levi, which was appointed to the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, had no share in the distribution of the land, but only some cities to dwell in, and the firstfruits, tithes and oblations of the people (Num. 35:2; Josh. 13:7,8, 14, 33.)

  Where in Judges 18 does it say the tribe of Dan was annulled? Ezek. 48:1,2 still lists Dan as a tribe. So why isn't it in Rev. 7 but Levi is?
• 

  Farkel

  : "...and no deceit can be found on their lips."

  Whoops! That lets the WT GB out! Then again, maybe the "deceit" part of that verse is symbolic, but the "lips" part is literal! And just how does one define "found?" (Clintonesque!)

  Farkel
• 

  DIM

  all this debate is pointless, Paul was screwed up on ancient opium when he wrote this book, so it is OBVIOUS that it is all meant in the spiritual sense.
• 

  DJ

  Dear Aguest,

  I asked this earlier in this thread but got no response from you so I am asking once again. Hopefully, you will see it this time. I recall reading in a post by you which stated that you are from the tribe of BenJahMin...I also see that you take the 144,000 as a literal number. I also recall that as a jw you were one of the annointed. true? I suppose that it is fair to conclude that you claim to be still.....one of the literal 144,000 from the trible of BenJahMin. True? I also noted that you prefer BenJahMin over the classic English of Benjamin. This is a similar pattern to your dislike of the name of Jesus because it is English and you deny that the Greek Scriptures were written in Greek, originally but you clain Aramaic.....Where do you get this stuff? I am sure that you will say God but I must ask if you've gotten this stuff from a web-site called 'fossilized customs'? They also claim that the name of Jesus is bad because it comes from Zeus, which is what you have said also......?? I am confused by you. dj