What Fraction of People Will Make it to Heaven?

[jgh7]

I've read in the bible that many will not enter the gates of Heaven. I was wondering what others think about this statistically speaking. So that's what this poll is for. If you have some verses or ideas backing up your opinion, feel free to give them.

[Left Site]

I'm sorry, BusB, I don't understand your POV and can't give any more responses because I don't understand.

I wish you a pleasant life.

I have some Good News!!!

Being wrong about a particular belief does not condemn us or anyone.

Wrong belief, however, can lead to our doing things which do weigh against our prospect of salvation. It is not the wrong belief which condemns us but what we do because of the belief.

Jehovah allows us wrong belief as a test. By it's discovery we are either shown humble (meek) or haughty (prideful).

Now, that same thing holds true whether we are speaking of an individual or of an organization which governs individuals of similar faith. Whether an individual or an organization governing individuals, we must be humble enough to accept correction.

The problem is that when we have thrown our hopes into an incorporated organization that complicates our willingness to see where we are wrong and make appropriate changes to what we believe. As an individual member believing an incorporated organization to be God's organization, we buck our personal responsibility with the excuse that we are to wait on the organization we trust to make the needed changes and we use that as an excuse to deafen our ears.

Here is the problem: What is an incorporated organization? Can the corporal really be God's? Or, is the corporal tied too tightly to the needs of the flesh to be free so as to be able to be completely God's?

A corporation is a corporal entity. This is why Paul did not highlight the organization of flesh, but instead highlighted the one of the spirit at Hebrews 12:18-24

18 "For YOU have not approached that which can be felt and which has been set aflame with fire, and a dark cloud and thick darkness and a tempest,
19 and the blare of a trumpet and the voice of words; on hearing which
voice the people implored that no word should be added to them. 20 For the command was not bearable to them: And if a beast touches the mountain, it must be stoned.
21 Also, the display was so fearsome that Moses said: I
am fearful and trembling.
22 But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels,
23 in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect,
24 and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling, which speaks in a better way than Abels [blood]." (NWT - 1984)

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, we believe only 144,000 of the humans that have ever lived will go to heaven (Rev 14:1)

Further reading
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... to-heaven/

How many JW are there now and have ever been? A lot more than 144,000

[Benoni]

All will be saved... 1 Corinthians 15:22-24

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

[onewithhim]

I only posted that verse to get a response from you and onewithhim, being as many a Witness have told me that verse does indicate they are in heaven.

You did not post the scripture at all, onewithhim did, and you accused her of using the verse out of context with the Greek, which she did not ( post 68 by onewithhim)

Onewithhim was replying in post #68 to my having posted Revelation 5:10 at the very end of my post #67.

I was not saying she was failing to keep true to the grammar in both English and Greek for how the Greek word "epi" was translated. I plainly said it was acceptable to translate the genitive case "epi" as "over."

I was commenting on the fact that the belief that the 144,000 live in heaven cannot be attached to that verse apart from violating the grammar in both English and Greek. The same holds true when one uses it to try to prove the 144,000 will live on earth. But the point is that it does not matter whether we translate it as "upon" or "over." The same idea can be drawn from both as to the jurisdictional area of their reign. So why bother to insist it must be translated as "over" unless you do think it proves they go to live in heaven?

I don't see anything about it that ought to have been offensive. However, I certainly do apologize to her if she was offended. That was certainly not my intentions.

I think what is happening is summed up in the fact that it is not easy for anyone to find a religious conviction is wrong. But that is our individual test which we must pass. No one will make it just by virtue of being on a membership role with an organization. Our allegiance first and foremost is to God..

I draw attention to that rendering (of "over") to make the point that the Bible doesn't necessarily say that Jesus and his co-rulers will be ruling from a place literally on this planet. Many people use that verse to prove they WILL be actually ON the earth. So I just want to show that their point is not necessarily true, and JWs' post was excellent in explaining just what Rev.5:10 really is talking about. I admit that I did see it also as showing that the kings and priests will reign from heaven, but since this discussion I am grateful for JWs' explanation that it does not tell us the location of the rulers, but "to the area over which they exercise authority."

Excellent.

[Left Site]

I only posted that verse to get a response from you and onewithhim, being as many a Witness have told me that verse does indicate they are in heaven.

You did not post the scripture at all, onewithhim did, and you accused her of using the verse out of context with the Greek, which she did not ( post 68 by onewithhim)

Onewithhim was replying in post #68 to my having posted Revelation 5:10 at the very end of my post #67.

I was not saying she was failing to keep true to the grammar in both English and Greek for how the Greek word "epi" was translated. I plainly said it was acceptable to translate the genitive case "epi" as "over."

I was commenting on the fact that the belief that the 144,000 live in heaven cannot be attached to that verse apart from violating the grammar in both English and Greek. The same holds true when one uses it to try to prove the 144,000 will live on earth. But the point is that it does not matter whether we translate it as "upon" or "over." The same idea can be drawn from both as to the jurisdictional area of their reign. So why bother to insist it must be translated as "over" unless you do think it proves they go to live in heaven?

I don't see anything about it that ought to have been offensive. However, I certainly do apologize to her if she was offended. That was certainly not my intentions.

I think what is happening is summed up in the fact that it is not easy for anyone to find a religious conviction is wrong. But that is our individual test which we must pass. No one will make it just by virtue of being on a membership role with an organization. Our allegiance first and foremost is to God..

I draw attention to that rendering (of "over") to make the point that the Bible doesn't necessarily say that Jesus and his co-rulers will be ruling from a place literally on this planet. Many people use that verse to prove they WILL be actually ON the earth. So I just want to show that their point is not necessarily true, and JWs' post was excellent in explaining just what Rev.5:10 really is talking about. I admit that I did see it also as showing that the kings and priests will reign from heaven, but since this discussion I am grateful for JWs' explanation that it does not tell us the location of the rulers, but "to the area over which they exercise authority."

Excellent.

Yes, that was a very good post Jehovah's Witness made on that. I was actually surprised to see that they knew that. I had planned on revealing it to them but JW beat me to it. Foiled my plan! Oh well, I was glad to find they do know that. Not being a Jehovah's Witness I pick up ideas from them from a distance and so am not always up to date.

That is humble of you to admit you saw Revelation 5:10 that way. I used to see it that way also. Learning is progressive for us all. The important thing is humbly cutting away our biases so that we can keep learning. And that is a life long chore.

[tam]

Peace to you!

There are more reasons than just Revelation 5:10 to believe that the reign is upon the earth (the most common rendering of the word 'epi' would be upon; but at the very least translating it as 'over' does not contradict the reign being upon the earth).


- The Holy City (the New Jerusalem) comes down out of heaven.

- the parable of the sheep and the goats has all the nations gathered before Christ when He comes. So He is here on the earth when that happens, because THEY are here on the earth when that happens.

- Paradise (the garden of eden) will once again be upon the earth (as it was at the start). IN paradise is the Tree of Life. (Rev 2:7) The Tree of Life is Christ. (He is also in the Holy City - the New Jerusalem - which City comes down out of heaven.)


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

There are more reasons than just Revelation 5:10 to believe that the reign is upon the earth (the most common rendering of the word 'epi' would be upon...).

We have already established that Revelation 5:10 cannot reasonably be used to establish the location of the kingdom, so no it cannot be used to indicate that the reign will be on/upon the earth at all.

See above,

JW

[tam]

[Replying to post 87 by JehovahsWitness]

Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my post.


More than just Rev 5:10 indicate that the reign is upon the earth. Since there is other support for this reign being upon the earth, there is no reason why the word 'epi' should not be rendered as its first and most common (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 1909&t=KJV) rendering: upon.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my post.

More than just Rev 5:10 indicate that the reign is upon the earth.

Perhaps you misunderstood mine. It cannot reasonably used at all, so "more than just" is inaccurate. "More than just" in the English language indicates X can be used but are also additional elements to be added to that which is already counted as valid. My point is that X is not the first of others, it cannot be used at all.

To illustrate: If I say "There is more than just chocolate to eat here" it means there is chocolate to eat but there will also be other things. If there is no chocolate you cannot say "there is more than just chocolate to eat here" That would make no sense

If you say there is "more than just Revelation 5:10" it means we can count Revelation but there are other additional verses to prove the point which is not the case. If we discard Revelation as support then we cannot say "there is more than just Revelation.

Hope that helps,

JW

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 86 by tam]

I fully agree with you that the 144,000 will live and reign as king/priests right here on earth. When one digs deep enough into the Old Testament they find that to be the only conclusion possible.

And there are other ways to understand the New Testament verses which seem to indicate otherwise.