The 144,000 in JW theology

[Wootah]

My understanding only 144,000 JWs go to heaven in total over the sum of human history.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... to-heaven/

Is that correct?

There are 9 million JWs worldwide (rounded up).

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... w-many-jw/

Will the vast majority of them not go to heaven and be annihilated? What happens to the JWs that don't make the 144, 000?

[JehovahsWitness]

... the fact remains, none of the 144,000 are ever referred to as females, but as males (See post 227 (and 230))...

Post #227 does not establish that scripture refers to the 144,000 as men.

Your claim in 227 that Revelation 14:3a refers to people male sex is refuted HERE by proving that the original Greek which means no hu(man) ie no person , no one. It is not a reference exclusively to mâles.
viewtopic.php?p=1055167#p1055167

Since you repeat something that has already been debunked, I will repeat the answer ...



DOES REVELATION 14:3a ESTABLISH THE 144,000 ARE ALL MALES

Revelation 14:3-4
3 And they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne, and before the four living creatures, and the ancients; and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand...

So what does "those hundred and forty and four thousand, who were" refer to if it isn't men, when it's "man" that preceds it?

[T]he reference to no "man" in verse 3a in Greek (oudeis) is just a general pronoun meaning no one (no person) and is not gender specific

It doesn't say "men and women," or "mankind. or "humans" or any other inclusive term, but singles out one sex, "man."

Yes it does (see above)

[JehovahsWitness]

... the fact remains, none of the 144,000 are ever referred to as females, but as males (See post ...230).....

All post #230 does is establish that translators are more or less evenly divided between rendering REV 14:4b the Greek "men" or humans/ mankind . Arguably even those that tender it "men" are using it in general terms as in "peace to men of goodwill" using "men" as a synonym for "human". In any case, without begging the question, one cannot claim that the verse refers to the 144, 000 as "males".

[JehovahsWitness]

... As I told you before, even the JWs themselves regard all 144,000 as males.

Are you claiming the official Jehovahs Witness teaching is that the 144, 000 are made up exclusively of resurrected males?




Please clarify


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
viewtopic.php?p=1055249#p1055249

[onewithhim]

... the Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the 144,000 are males:

Not literal males, no. Jehovahs Witnesses understand that presenting the 144,000 as men is merely a metaphor for resurrected spirit creatures (who are not characterised by biological sex) ie in reality they are neither male nor female but spirits .

Pretty neat ploy the JWs use here. When a concept doesn't agree with JW theology simply redefine it so it does.

Ploy? JWs' way of looking at things harmonizes with all Scriptures. If all 144,000 co-rulers were men, where does that leave the many women who were considered "holy ones" in the New Testament?

Where it always has. As second class members of their society.

From the earliest years of ancient times, women's status were defined by their relationship to men. A woman was in second place to the man never the first. Since early historical times, women have been considered not only intellectually inferior to men but also a major source of temptation and evil. Early Roman law described women as children, forever inferior to men. The "double standard" certainly involves more than biology; it is also a product of the historical domination of women by men. In ancient western civilizations, cultures like Romans; the status of women were clearly defined as inferior to men either through script law, or custom that is understood and obeyed by everyone in these cultures. Rome was founded as a patriarchal society, women were the property of their fathers later their husbands.
source

Jesus' mother Mary is certainly one and is now in heaven with her Son. Your way of looking st it is worse than a "ploy." I think you really believe your nonsense.

Of course you do because that's what you've been taught, but the fact remains, none of the 144,000 are ever referred to as females, but as males, (See post 227 (and 230)), leaving absolutely no reason to think any are women, no matter how holy one considers them.

As I told you before, even the JWs themselves regard all 144,000 as males.

"Jehovah's Witnesses understand Jesus’ words at John 3:3—"except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"—to apply to the 144,000 who are "born again" as "anointed" sons of God in heaven"
(Source:"Look to Jehovah for Comfort". The Watchtower: 10. November 1, 1996)

.

Miles, you've either paid no attention to we JWs' explanations, or you have decided that you just don't agree. That's fine. Nobody wants to force you to agree. We'll just go on from here and live and let live. The 144,000 include women, and that remains a fact no matter what you or anybody else says. Let's just leave it at that. I know personally many women who have the heavenly hope.

.

[Difflugia]

In any case, without begging the question, one cannot claim that the verse refers to the 144, 000 as "males".

Neither your difficulties with Greek nor disagreements with scholars can somehow transform arguments that you don't like into question begging.

A very lucid description of the problem is given by R. H. Charles in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (v. II, pp. 8-9). Like you, he contended that theologically the 144,000 should represent both genders:

Now, first of all, it is admitted, so far as I am aware, on all hands that the 144,000, whether identical with the 144,000 in vii. 4-8, or representing the élite of the saints composed of Christian ascetics (Bousset, Moffatt), must embrace both men and women. That παρθένοι can be used of men is of course acknowledged. So far all is clear.

The problem, he acknowledged, lies in the unmistakable nature of the text (emphasis in original):

But when we start from these premises and try to explain οὗτοί εἰσιν οἳ μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν we are plunged into hopeless difficulties. For, if we take these words literally, it is obvious that they cannot be used of women. Nor indeed can they be applied to women in any intelligible sense, whatever the metaphorical meaning may be that we attach to the words. Had the writer wished, he could easily have found a phrase applicable literally and metaphorically alike to men and women, such as οἳ ἐν τῇ πορνείᾳ οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν. πορνεία is used metaphorically in xiv. 8, xvii. 2, 4, xviii. 3, xix. 2, and πορνεύω in xvii. 2, xviii. 3, 9 in the sense of idolatrous worship. Such a clause could be used both of men and women, in a literal or metaphorical sense, and the same idea could have been expressed in other ways.

Since Charles, like you, couldn't accept that the author was exclusively referring to men, his conclusion was interpolation:

Hence we conclude either that men alone are referred to in the text, or that this passage is interpolated. Since we cannot accept the former alternative, we are forced to adopt the latter, and the task devolves upon us to settle, so far as we may, the ground of the interpolation, its extent and meaning.

So, Charles writes, either the Revelator was exclusively referring to men or the Bible used to be different than it is now. Which solution do you prefer?

[JehovahsWitness]

So, Charles writes, either the Revelator was exclusively referring to men or the Bible used to be different than it is now. Which solution do you prefer?

Your false dichotomy is irrelevant; You post it does not address whether "anthropos" of Rev 14:4b should be properly translate as "mankind" or "men".

Neither your difficulties with Greek nor disagreements with scholars can somehow transform arguments that you don't like into question begging.

Since either are perfectly acceptable translations I see no reason to suggest choosing one over the other is somehow in conflict with Greek scholarship.

As for whether to take the 144,000 as literal or metaphoric "males", Jehovah's Witnesses favor the latter; and we are confident that this conclusion is in harmony with scripture. Not least because spirits (not humans) are presented as living in heaven and biblically spirits are not physical, they do not reproduce sexually and and are not catagorised by biological sex. If others choose to disagree that is of little concern to us. In any case that question is not a matter of language but of interpretation, so there is no reason to suggest it boils down to a lack of scholarly knowledge of the original Greek.

[Miles]

... As I told you before, even the JWs themselves regard all 144,000 as males.

Are you claiming the official Jehovahs Witness teaching is that the 144, 000 are made up exclusively of resurrected males?
Please clarify

Sure. I claim Jehovah's Witnesses understand Jesus’ words at John 3:3—"except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"—to apply to the 144,000 who are "born again" as "anointed" sons of God in heaven."

As sons, none of the 144,000, whether resurrected, persecuted, stimulated, or prefabricated could be females. Sons are simply not females: Sons are males. Daughters are females. Simple as that despite your sad attempt to argue otherwise, "sons of God" is not to a reference to biological sex but a metaphoric designation for all God's spirit adopted children (whether male or female)."

In fact, looking at Genesis 6:1-2, "sons of god" in biblical vernacular expressly excludes females.

Genesis 6:1-4
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

....................

FURTHERMORE, let it be noted that the "born again" as "anointed" are nothing but qualifiers that modify "sons" and don't change the relationship between "the 144,000" and "sons," leaving the unmodified version of the remark as:

". . . apply to the 144,000 who are sons of God in heaven."

Which tells you what? It tells you that the 144,000 are without exception---because none is mentioned---males. Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all 144,000 are males. It says so right in their very own publication: "Jehovah for Comfort". The Watchtower: 10. November 1, 1996



.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you claiming the official Jehovahs Witness teaching is that the 144, 000 are made up exclusively of resurrected males?
Please clarify

Sure. ...

Then you are wrong. The official Jehovahs Witness teaching is NOT that the 144, 000 are made up exclusively of resurrected males. You will never be able to find any statement issued by our Governing Body or on our official website that JWs believe only biological males can go to heaven when they die or that the 144, 000 are made up exclusively of resurrected males. This is not debatable, this is a fact.

Have I made myself clear? I Will restate this clearly in case there is any confusion : Jehovah's Witnesses DO NOT TEACH that only biological males can go to heaven when they die. Would you like to respond to the statement in blue or do you concede that statement (in blue) is TRUE?







JW

[JehovahsWitness]

IS IT A JEHOVAH'S WITNESSS TEACHING THAT ONLY BIOLOGICAL MALES CAN GO TO HEAVEN?

Those referred to as “my brothers” are spirit-anointed men and women, who will rule with Christ from heaven. (Rom. 8:16, 17) - The Watchtower March 15, 2015 p. 26 par 7 ,

By looking at the following scriptures, you will see the names of a few of the men and women who will rule with Jesus in his Father’s Kingdom.​—Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 15:39-41; John 19:25.- The Watchtower December 1, 2010 p. 30

... God has lovingly drawn a sizable portion of these spiritual heirs with Christ from among women. As to their spiritual standing with God and Christ, there was “neither male nor female” while they were on earth, and in heaven there is no sex principle or distinction. - Watchtower September 15, 1971 p. 570

Women who are counted worthy of God’s approval will share with men the same reward of everlasting life​—many even enjoying life in heaven, where “there is neither male nor female.” (Galatians 3:28). - Watchtower Feb 15th, 2007 p. 14 par. 8

This meant that women could now share with men the wonderful hope of becoming joint heirs with Christ Jesus in the heavenly kingdom. Some women were now in line to become kings and priests and reign with Christ Jesus along with the rest of the 144,000 Kingdom associates. This, however, would not be as women, but as glorious spirit creatures in the heavens. (Rom. 8:16, 17; Rev. 20:6; 14:1) Down to this day, among the remnant of the 144,000, there are faithful women in the New World society who have this grand hope. They have been anointed with the holy spirit as members of the body of Christ, and, as such, have become “sons of God” along with anointed male members of the remnant. - Watchtower Mar 15th, 1964 p. 180 par. 9

From this it follows that the 144,000 holy ones of the Most High God will be kings with Christ for a thousand years without successors. It is said of these: “These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 14:4) Being bought from among mankind, they were once ordinary men and women just like all the rest of mankind, but from this fact earth’s inhabitants over whom these 144,000 will rule as kings have nothing to fear. God's Kingdom of a thousand years has approached, pub Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society , 1973 Chapter 5 p. 69 par 10

[Difflugia]

So, Charles writes, either the Revelator was exclusively referring to men or the Bible used to be different than it is now. Which solution do you prefer?

Your false dichotomy

Not my dichotomy, but that of at least one scholar.

is irrelevant;

Along with the opinion of scholars, it seems.

You post it does not address whether "anthropos" of Rev 14:4b should be properly translate as "mankind" or "men".

Now you're grasping at straws.

While I already quoted a lexicon that explains how the exact context of 14:4 is read despite your unsupported denial, it doesn't matter. If 4a excludes women, then it hardly matters whether the larger selection pool in 4b includes women. So on the one hand we have scholarship that 14a refers only to men and scholarship that 14b should be read as applying to "men" rather than "humanity." If either is correct, the 144,000 in Revelation 14:4 are men. On the other hand, we have your insistence that because it's possible that they're both wrong, that's how we should read the text.

Since either are perfectly acceptable translations I see no reason to suggest choosing one over the other is somehow in conflict with Greek scholarship.

"Possible" and "perfectly acceptable" aren't really the same thing. In contrast to your one-line Strong's definition, here's the full definition from LSJ that describes the various contexts in which ἄνθρωπος appears, including the specific one that I quoted for when it appears with forms of γυνή:

ἄνθρωπος, ἡ, Att. crasis ἅνθρωπος, Ion. ὥνθρωπος, for ὁ ἄνθρ- :— A man, both as a generic term and of individuals, Hom. etc., opp. gods, ἀθανάτων τε θεῶν χαμαὶ ἐρχομένων τʼ ἀνθρώπων Il. 5.442, etc.; πρὸς ἠοίων ἢ ἑσπερίων ἀνθρώπων the men of the east or of the west, Od. 8.29; even of the dead in the Isles of the Blest, ib. 4.565; κόμπος οὐ κατʼ ἄνθρωπον A. Th. 425, cf. S. Aj. 761. A..2 Pl. uses it both with and without the Art. to denote man generically, ὁ ἄ. θείας μετέσχε μοίρας Prt. 322a; οὕτω.. εὐδαιμονέστατος γίγνεται ἄ. R. 619b, al.; ὁ ἄ. the ideal man, humanity, ἀπώλεσας τὸν ἄ., οὐκ ἐπλήρωσας τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν Arr. Epict. 2.9.3. A..3 in pl., mankind, ἀνθρώπων.. ἀνδρῶν ἠδὲ γυναικῶν Il. 9.134; ἐν τῷ μακρῷ.. ἀνθρώπων χρόνῳ S. Ph. 306; ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γίγνεσθαι depart this life, Paus. 4.26.5, cf. Philostr. VA 8.31. A.2.2.b joined with a Sup. to increase its force, δεινότατον τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἁπάντων D. 53.2; ὁ ἄριστος ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὄρτυξ the best quail in the world, Pl. Ly. 211e; freq. without a Prep., μάλιστα, ἥκιστα ἀνθρώπων, most or least of all, Hdt. 1.60, Pl. Lg. 629a, Prt. 361e; ἄριστά γʼ ἀ., ὀρθότατα ἀ., Id. Tht. 148b, 195b, etc. A.2.2.c τὰ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων πράγματα ‘all the trouble in the world’, ib. 170e; γραφὰς τὰς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐγράφετο Lys. 13.73; αἱ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων πληγαί Aeschin. 1.59; πάντα τὰ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων κακὰ ἔλεγε D.C. 57.23. A..4 joined with another Subst., like ἀνήρ, ἄ. ὁδίτης Il. 16.263; πολίτας ἀ. D. 22.54; with names of nations, πόλις Μερόπων ἀνθρώπων h.Ap. 42; in Att. freq. in a contemptuous sense, ἄ. ὑπογραμματεύς, ἄ. γόης, ἄ. συκοφάντης, Lys. 30.28, Aeschin. 2.153, 183; ἄ. ἀλαζών X. Mem. 1.7.2; ἄ. ὑφάντης Pl. Phd. 87b; Μενίππου, Καρός τινος ἀνθρώπου D. 21.175; ἄ. βασιλεύς Ev.Matt. 22.2. A..5 ἅνθρωπος or ὁ ἄνθρωπος alone, the man, the fellow, Pl. Prt. 314e, Phd. 117e; ὡς ἀστεῖος ὁ ἄ., with slight irony, ib. 116d, al.; with a sense of pity, D. 21.91. A..6 in the voc. freq. in a contemptuous sense, as when addressed to slaves, etc., ἄνθρωπε or ὤνθρωπε sirrah! you sir! Hdt. 3.63, 8.125, and freq. in Pl., but in Trag. only S. Aj. 791, 1154; simply, brother, POxy. 215.1, Diog.Oen. 2. A..7 slave, ἂν ἄ. ᾖ Philem. 22; ἄ. ἐμός Gal. 14.649; ὁ ἄ. τῆς ἁμαρτίας or ἀνομίας 2 Ep.Thess. 2.3; ἄ. τοῦ Θεοῦ 1 Ep.Tim. 6.11; but τιθέναι τινὰ ἐν ἀνθρώποις make a man of, of a freed slave, Herod. 5.15. A..8 ἄ. ἄ. any one, Hebraism in LXX Le. 17.3 (cf. ἀνήρ VI. 8); ἄ. like Germ. man ‘one’, 1 Ep.Cor. 4.1, al. A..9 Medic., name of a plaster, ἡ διὰ σάνδυκος ἄ. καλουμένη Aët. 15.43. A.II as fem., woman, Pi. P. 4.98, Hdt. 1.60, Isoc. 18.52, Arist. EN 1148b20; contemptuously, of female slaves, Antipho 1.17, Is. 6.20, etc.; with a sense of pity, D. 19.197.—Prop. opp. θηρίον, cf. ἀνήρ; but opp. γυνή, Aeschin. 3.137; ἀπὺ ἀνθρώπου ἕως γυναικός LXX 1 Es. 9.40, etc.

One might say that there's a bit more nuance to that definition. I'll also draw your attention to the fact that one of the texts in which the ἄνθρωπος/γυνή combination refers to men and women is the Septuagint. It's been noted that Septuagint Greek had a rather profound influence on the Greek of the New Testament.

If others choose to disagree that is of little concern to us.

Obviously.