Who are the 144000

try not to take the Bible literally would be my admonishment to you.

Bren

On

Post by Terence Nesbit
I'm trying to understand and clarify some things concerning the 144000 that
is described in revelations. The 144000 can't be those living on earth and
still be considered to be from the 12 tribes of Israel. The two terms are
not synonymous. I don't believe that this number relates to those that have
been conceived either. And, they don't need to be marked. The reason I say
that the members of the 144000 do not need to be marked is because they are
already gone by that day. Another reason they do not need to be marked is
because they are of the chosen people.

--
****************************************
Are you a redhead? want to join with others
and talk about it...get tips...share? ..do
you live in B.C. Canada? then please
join my BCRedheads group.
Send a blank email to
BCRedheads-***@yahoogroups.com

****************************************

t***@acenet.net.au

2007-08-29 04:19:56 UTC

I looked up my Collegeville Bible Commentary (Collegeville is a
Catholic interpretation, and appears to be based in Collegeville,
Minnesota). In it I found the comment

- "Interpreters are divided over the identity of the 144,000. Some
think they REPRESENT the righteous of Israel. Others argue that they
REPRESENT the Christians, who could also speak of themselves as the
"twelve tribes" (as in Jas 1:1). Such a JEWISH Christian TRADITION may
underlie this passage in Revelation."

Note - the capitalisations are mine.

We need to be clear about a couple of things - frirst the imagery
would come out of Jewish tradition, since the apostles were Jews to a
man, born and bred. So even if John, assuming Revelation was indeed
written by him, were to be given a vision, it would both be given to
him in terms a Jew could relate to, and he would write in ways with
which a Jew had been trained.

Secondly the term is used to represent the righteous. It does not
have a literal meaning. Somewhere else in the same book we read that
"no-one could count all the people" who were in front of the throne.

Any attempt to put a literal meaning to the number is doomed to fail.
It has no more literal meaning that the often repeated term "forty
days and forty nights" which in Jewish thought simply meant a
reasonably long period of time.

When Jehovah's Witnesses insist that it means literally 144,000, they
completely ignore the context in which the writer was writing ie. a
Jew steeped in Jewish thought. He was not writing in the terminology
of a mid nineteenth century man.

Terence Nesbit

2007-09-04 01:21:20 UTC

Wait, hold it. Why do you assume that all of the apostles were Jewish? I
don't believe that the Bible states this one way or the other. The Bible
does state that Jesus crossed a sea, or body of water, and recruited on the
other side. The Bible also states that he sent people out to other places
in pairs of two, those that were not disciples. We also know that Jesus'
death opened heaven to non-Jews. it makes no sense to have 12 disciples of
Jewish faith. Slaves came from all walks of life.

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
Secondly the term is used to represent the righteous. It does not
have a literal meaning. Somewhere else in the same book we read that
"no-one could count all the people" who were in front of the throne.
Any attempt to put a literal meaning to the number is doomed to fail.
It has no more literal meaning that the often repeated term "forty
days and forty nights" which in Jewish thought simply meant a
reasonably long period of time.
When Jehovah's Witnesses insist that it means literally 144,000, they
completely ignore the context in which the writer was writing ie. a
Jew steeped in Jewish thought. He was not writing in the terminology
of a mid nineteenth century man.

I agree that the number that will be raised up will be considerably more
than 144000, but I do not believe that the 144000 is not significant. Some
people think that this number will come from somewhere other than the 12
tribes that comprise it in Revelations. It won't.

It really could not be insignificant if it is used to scare persons from
believing. Whether that fear comes from not understanding, or someone
purposely misleading saints, the only way to address the problem is to
clarify what is meant. Belittling the number does not do this. Nor do
movies that stress the number without knowing who it represents.

Although we may never know who it actually represents, perhaps someone will
realize that although the number 144000 does not relate to all, it isn't a
cap on who will enter heaven.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-04 01:21:25 UTC

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
Any attempt to put a literal meaning to the number is doomed to fail.

Please provide substantiation for your presumption.

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
It has no more literal meaning that the often repeated term "forty
days and forty nights" which in Jewish thought simply meant a
reasonably long period of time.

I'm always somewhat amazed at the naivette of those play with
one aspect of Scripture without ever imagining how it applies to
all the other aspects when it is consistently applied. For instance,
why believe that Christ was in the wilderness of temptation for
40 days? Or why believe He was rasied on the 3rd day? Why
believe He was rasied at all? After all, if you are going to play
loosy goosy at one juncture, why not at another? In removing
the literal rendering of Scripture, you of_a_necessity make
yourself the final authority in the what is real and what isn't.
This is the lie of Satan in his vain promise, "You shall be
like God."

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
When Jehovah's Witnesses insist that it means literally 144,000, they
completely ignore the context in which the writer was writing ie. a
Jew steeped in Jewish thought. He was not writing in the terminology
of a mid nineteenth century man.

And just what does this have to do with a literal rendering of
the 144,000? After all, was Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy a literal
70 weeks or was it too, as you imagine, figurative? In that the
first 69 weeks have been literally fulfilled -by Israel- then what
justification does one have to deny the continued literal
fulfillment? Christ in Mt 24 and Lk 17 & 21 refers to Daniel's
prophecy yet to be finalized. Israel was anticipating the
Messiah, but not the suffering One nor were they taking note
that the 70th week, "The Time of Jacob's Distress" as
Jeremiah noted, the time of the "Great Tribulation" as Jesus
noted, must first be fulfilled. Zephaniah, a small three
chapter prophecy, wonderfully and concisely speaks to
this time when Israel is humbled and purified and brought
to the enlightenment and acceptance of their Messiah.

No, you are wrong my friend, in thinking that Hebraic
theology supports your dismissal of the literal interpretation
of Scripture, especially the book of Rev, which you
correctly note as being highly Jewish in nature. The
error that you have made, however, it is that one must
be well versed in OT prophecy and the fulfillment of
the covenants made with ISRAEL, the nation, to
understand the application of revelation.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-05 02:12:38 UTC

Post by Terence Nesbit
I agree that the number that will be raised up will be considerably more
than 144000,

And what is your basis for such a conclusion. This is how heresies
start. You assume an interpretation of scripture without any
justifiable support. To deny that the passage speaks literally of
12,000 from each of the 12 tribes is in a way, a smudge on the
providence of God. If He had meant 200,000, why would it not then have
been revealed to be 200,000? But if you do not accept the inerrancy of
scripture, then you can make anything say just about anything you want
it to. This is designer theology.

Post by Terence Nesbit
but I do not believe that the 144000 is not significant. Some
people think that this number will come from somewhere other than the 12
tribes that comprise it in Revelations. It won't.

It is singular, Revelation! As for the rest that you say, ????

Post by Terence Nesbit
It really could not be insignificant

double negatives are confusing

Post by Terence Nesbit
if it is used to scare persons from believing.

Scare who from believing and when?

Post by Terence Nesbit
Whether that fear comes from not understanding, or someone
purposely misleading saints, the only way to address the problem is to
clarify what is meant. Belittling the number does not do this. Nor do
movies that stress the number without knowing who it represents.

How hard is it to know when the passage so clearly declares it?

Post by Terence Nesbit
Although we may never know who it actually represents,

Where is there any figurative "tips" in this passage? When John uses
figurative language to describe what he is seeing, he constructs his
discriptions with tags such as, "like unto," "appearing as," etc. Your
presumptive heremeneutic dismisses the standard grammatical rules,
especially biblically when the writers do either typify something or
use something in their culture to describe something that is outside
of their experience.

Post by Terence Nesbit
perhaps someone will
realize that although the number 144000 does not relate to all, it isn't a
cap on who will enter heaven.

WHAT? Where do you find this has any relation to who enters heaven and
who does not? The 144,000 are elect and yes, they are predestined to
glory, but that is not the context of the chapter. They are on earth
to declare the gospel to the world during Daniel's 70th week after the
true church has been caught up into heaven (Rev 1:19 & 4:1 as
explained by the Johannian useage of the ingressive aorist).

t***@acenet.net.au

2007-09-05 02:12:41 UTC

.=2E

I'm trying to understand and clarify some things concerning the 14400=

0 that

is described in revelations. The 144000 can't be those living on ear=

th and

still be considered to be from the 12 tribes of Israel. The two terms=

are

not synonymous. I don't believe that this number relates to those th=

at have

been conceived either. And, they don't need to be marked. The reaso=

n I say

that the members of the 144000 do not need to be marked is because th=

ey are

already gone by that day. Another reason they do not need to be mark=

ed is

because they are of the chosen people.

Post by Terence Nesbit
other side. The Bible also states that he sent people out to other places
in pairs of two, those that were not disciples. We also know that Jesus'
death opened heaven to non-Jews. it makes no sense to have 12 disciples =

Post by Terence Nesbit
Jewish faith. Slaves came from all walks of life.

I agree that the number that will be raised up will be considerably more
than 144000, but I do not believe that the 144000 is not significant. So=

Post by Terence Nesbit
people think that this number will come from somewhere other than the 12
tribes that comprise it in Revelations. It won't.
It really could not be insignificant if it is used to scare persons from
believing. Whether that fear comes from not understanding, or someone
purposely misleading saints, the only way to address the problem is to
clarify what is meant. Belittling the number does not do this. Nor do
movies that stress the number without knowing who it represents.
Although we may never know who it actually represents, perhaps someone wi=

Post by Terence Nesbit
realize that although the number 144000 does not relate to all, it isn't a
cap on who will enter heaven.

n relation to your comment regarding the Jewishness of the Apostles, I
copeied the following from WIkipaedia.

"Twelve Apostles
=B7
The Twelve Apostles ( , apostolos) were men who, according to
the Synoptic Gospels and Christian tradition, were chosen from among
the disciples (students) of Jesus for a mission. According to the
Bauer lexicon, Walter Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT:
"=2E..Judaism had an office known as apostle ( )". In Islam, the
Qur'an called The Twelve Apostles " ".

The Gospel of Mark states that Jesus initially sent out these twelve
in pairs (Mark 6:7-13, cf. Matthew 10:5-42,Luke 9:1-6), to towns in
Galilee. Literal readings of the text state that their initial
instructions were to heal the sick and drive out demons, and in the
Gospel of Matthew to raise the dead, but some scholars read this more
metaphorically as instructions to heal the spiritually sick and thus
to drive away wicked behaviour. They are also instructed to: "take
nothing for their journey, except a mere staff - no bread, no bag, no
money in their belt - but to wear sandals; and He added, "Do not put
on two tunics." (NASB), and that if any town rejects them they ought
to shake the dust off their feet as they leave, a gesture which some
scholars think was meant as a contemptuous threat (Miller 26). Their
carrying of just a staff (Matthew and Luke say not even a staff) is
sometimes given as the reason for the use by Christian Bishops of a
staff of office, in those denominations that believe they maintain an
apostolic succession.

Later in the Gospel narratives the Twelve Apostles are described as
having been commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, regardless
of whether Jew or Gentile. Although the Apostles are portrayed as
having been Galilean Jews, and 10 of their names are Aramaic, the
other 4 names are Greek[1], suggesting a more metropolitan background.
That the Twelve Apostles and others closest to Jesus were all Jewish
Christians is clearly implied by Jesus' statement that his mission is
directed only to those of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24) and by
the fact that only after the death of Jesus did the apostles agree
with Paul that the teaching of the gospel could be extended to
uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 15:1-31, Galatians 2:7-9, Acts 1:4-8,
Acts 10:1-11:18).

***********************************************

I might add that when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, the 3000
converts were Jews, many of whom spoke different languages.

Christ Himself said He was sent to the Jews, and the original
Jerusalem council was so Jewish in thinking that Paul had to argue
quite strongly that they should not impose Jewish customs upon the
gentile converts.

And Peter had to be given a vision before he could be convinced the
Christian message was to be taken to the gentiles. Had he rubbed
shoulders with non-Jewish fellow apostles for three years, this would
hardly have been necessary.

I'll stick to my assertion that the original apostles were all Jews.
That Phillip or Bartholomew might be a Greek name doesn't mean much -
one of tjhe main bones of contention in Jewry of that time was
conflict between traditional and hellenised Jews.

t***@acenet.net.au

2007-09-05 02:12:41 UTC

On Sep 4, 11:21 am, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, you are wrong my friend, in thinking that Hebraic
theology supports your dismissal of the literal interpretation
of Scripture, especially the book of Rev, which you
correctly note as being highly Jewish in nature. The
error that you have made, however, it is that one must
be well versed in OT prophecy and the fulfillment of
the covenants made with ISRAEL, the nation, to
understand the application of revelation.

I don't believe Christ was in the wilderness for literally 40 days.
And if Christ were to be crucified and resurrected today, I would say
he was raised on the second day, in line with my modern way of
expression. If a man died this Friday, and came back to life next
Sunday, I'd say he was resurrected two days later. The Gospel
writers wrote on the third day, or three days, as that was the way
the Jews thought and expressed their sense of time.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-10 00:03:32 UTC

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
If a man died this Friday, and came back to life next
Sunday, I'd say he was resurrected two days later. The Gospel
writers wrote on the third day, or three days, as that was the way
the Jews thought and expressed their sense of time.

And thus you reveal your ignorance of Hebraic culture and
equally thus reveal your ability to interpret Rev 7. In the
Jewish culture sundown was the beginning of the day, not
our cultural norm that holds that it is the end of the day. If
you then accept this, you will see that from the Jewish
perspective, Christ was resurrected on the third day. Any
Bible encyclopedia would have pointed that out, and as
far as commentaries go, encyclopedias are on the bottom
shelf.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-10 00:03:32 UTC

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
I don't believe Christ was in the wilderness for literally 40 days.

Then maybe the whole messianic personhood was a metaphor
as well. Again, when you begin chosing what you will believe
and what you won't, you make yourself the final authority in the
cosmos even as Adam did in the garden. And please, don't
reply saying that you're not chosing what to believe and what
not to believe. When you dismiss the literal, the normative
reading of the text, you place yourself above scripture in
predetermining what it actually is saying. Your interpretive
methodology denies that language has any real value. Yet
you reply with the presumption that we are going to read what
you wrote normally. If I was to press your position to remain
consistent to itself, then when you state that you don't believe
that Christ was in the wilderness a literal 40 days, then I should
interpret what you state clearly as being metaphorical. But
that would be nonsensical according to normal grammatical
rules.

Your system is akin to a square winged airplane. You impose
your own set of rules but they don't fly when applied any more
than that square winged airplane is going to get off the ground.
A theological system, just like an aeronatical system, must
conform to what is. Your system of interpretation sways on
the ocean of relativity with no shoreline in sight.

j***@gmail.com

2007-11-06 03:58:40 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
I don't believe Christ was in the wilderness for literally 40 days.

Then maybe the whole messianic personhood was a metaphor
as well. Again, when you begin chosing what you will believe
and what you won't, you make yourself the final authority in the
cosmos even as Adam did in the garden. And please, don't
reply saying that you're not chosing what to believe and what
not to believe. When you dismiss the literal, the normative
reading of the text, you place yourself above scripture in
predetermining what it actually is saying. Your interpretive
methodology denies that language has any real value. Yet
you reply with the presumption that we are going to read what
you wrote normally. If I was to press your position to remain
consistent to itself, then when you state that you don't believe
that Christ was in the wilderness a literal 40 days, then I should
interpret what you state clearly as being metaphorical. But
that would be nonsensical according to normal grammatical
rules.
Your system is akin to a square winged airplane. You impose
your own set of rules but they don't fly when applied any more
than that square winged airplane is going to get off the ground.
A theological system, just like an aeronatical system, must
conform to what is. Your system of interpretation sways on
the ocean of relativity with no shoreline in sight.

lsend...I find this 144000 subject facinating, however I don't think
your aggressive tone is warranted. If you consider yourself versed on
this subject then please share with the forum. Don't attack others
for their opinions. As Christians, or just anyone for that matter, we
should work toward knowledge and teamwork among other traits. Not
close-minded thinking and a you-are-wrong-I-am-right attitude. Offer
suggestions not arguments. Passion for beliefs can sometimes be
regarded as personal attacks on other people or groups. If we can
discuss and not argue we could eliminate most of these problems.

**Rowland Croucher**

2007-08-29 04:19:59 UTC

See http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2265.htm (Understanding the Book of
Revelation)

Briefly: the whole church - 12 patriarchs and their descendants plus 12
apostles and their spiritual descendants.
But don't make the mistake the JWs did of making this figure literal -
143999 plus one.
--

Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-30 02:10:14 UTC

What is Rev 6-19? It is the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy concerning
Israel. It is NOT about the Church. The 144,000 is exactly as the
text
reads, 12,000 Messianic Jews from each of the 12 tribes. In the OT
when questioned as to whether or not there were any believers left in
the nation, God's answer was that He had kept 7,000. Why is it so
hard
to believe that He hasn't kept to Himself, 12,000 from each of the
tribes?

The standard rule of interpretation is to read the passage normally
unless
there are indicators that the language is figurative. There is no
good
reason not to read this passage normally unless you bring your pre-
conceived notions to bear on it. This is what "Replacement Theology"
does in trying to repudiate Israel as an elect nation by allegorizing
the covenants and the prophetic passages concerning Israel.

You want a really good book on the topic? Read "Israelology, the
missing link in Systematic Theology," by Arnold Fruchtenbaum.
1000+ pages

Terence Nesbit

2007-09-04 01:21:21 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Hold it. Perhaps you have had a conversation or conversations that have
angered you, but that is not my point. I agree that their are 12,000 from
each tribe. What I do not believe is that they are among the living near
the end of time. They do not endure the wrath of the demon incarnate, nor
are they placed into a position to be tempted by him - however that him
becomes manifest. They are raised up, and I seem to have noticed a lot of
rain these last few years, and a lot of flooding. And, if the seven
churches are considered, the last church is practically no longer existent,
because one must believe in God in order to reach heaven, as opposed to the
time when heaven was attainable by those that did not know him (even if
reached only after Jesus' death). There could be no lukewarm church without
this point, although Revelations states that one existed. The sixth could
be just as specific, although I have no qualms with the creation of the
Jewish state, which is a very important player in the end times, because it
is surrounded, which means the people exist.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-05 02:12:38 UTC