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]

And from the Wikipedia article:

"The members of the Governing Body who exercise teaching authority over Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide claim to be among the anointed 144,000, and also consider themselves as a group to be the faithful and discreet slave of Matthew 24:45 and Luke 12:42."

This is true. How does that support your claim that JW s believe the 144,000 are all [literal] males?

It doesn't.

Good because it seemed to me you were trying to suggest Jehovahs Witnesses believe that the 144,000 are literal males.

It merely points up the error that "presenting the 144,000 as men is merely a metaphor for resurrected spirit creatures," because members of the Governing Body claim to be among the anointed, and they're hardly "resurrected spirit creatures." Or is this one of their claims as well, that they are, in fact, resurrected spirit creatures?

There is no error. Anointed in Jehovahs Witnesse lexicon means selected as in chosen/designated, it doesn't mean already dead and resurrected and given a spirit body so you are presently (while on earth) no longer human. So somebody that claims to be anointed is not claiming to be a spirit, they are claiming to entertain the hope to be one one day.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Revelation 14:4 is a prophetic picture, a metaphor for the entire group that will one day all be united with Christ. Certain profess to have that hope, the members of the governing body are indeed among that number (who hold such a hope and claim to be "anointed").

[Difflugia]

Granted but in 14:4b the writer does not contrast anthropon with women;

That's right. If you excise the first half of the verse, it's hard for the second half to contrast with it. The conclusion must be that the author only thinks about a half-verse at a time. As I said before, that's possible, but that's not a bet I'd take.

rather it is pointed out that this group X were selected from among anthropon . In short, 144,000 "men" are a subgroup of a larger pool of selection.

Yes. "These" (masculine plural pronoun) 144,000 were selected from among men. I don't know how you think that's an objection.

Obviously it is not saying they are "men" selected from women

That's right. It's saying "these" were men selected from a larger pool of potentially eligible men.

and while it possible that certain males were rejected, if only males were selected then the larger group of non-selected individuals obviously included both men and women. Thus the "non-elect" amounts to both men and women and humankind /mankind becomes a more logical reading. It amounts to the difference between ".. some fish selected from the marine life" rather " some fish selected from ... fish". Given that there are only fish in the selection, the non-selected group MUSTcontain all other marine life.

So, if I want five perfect cherry candies and I select five of "these" from among the cherry candies, then the "cherry candies" from which I selected my five perfect ones MUST contain the lime, orange, and lemon candies? I see where you're going with that, but it's not how people use language.

[JehovahsWitness]

and while it possible that certain males were rejected, if only males were selected then the larger group of non-selected individuals obviously included both men and women. Thus the "non-elect" amounts to both men and women and humankind /mankind becomes a more logical reading. It amounts to the difference between ".. some fish selected from the marine life" rather " some fish selected from ... fish". Given that there are only fish in the selection, the non-selected group MUSTcontain all other marine life.

So, if I want five perfect cherry candies and I select five of "these" from among the cherry candies, then the "cherry candies" from which I selected my five perfect ones MUST contain the lime, orange, and lemon candies? I see where you're going with that, but it's not how people use language.

Whether they were chosen from "among the cherry candies" is the question. If you have five cherry candies selected from ... "candies" (the equivalent of the verse) we really do not have enough to be dogmatic on whether they were selected from ... "other cherry candies" or a variety of candies. We certainly dont have the needed contrast "cherry and lime" (men and women) to favor the less common reading. In the absence of said Liddell and Scott indicator, mankind (general)) is the logical fallback.

(If you came from the store with only cherry candies, unless you stipulated you came from The Cherry Candy Store, it would be understood you selected them from a wide variety) That is just how language works.

[Difflugia]

Whether they were chosen from "among the cherry candies" is the question. If you have five cherry candies selected from ... "candies" (the equivalent of the verse)

Women and men. Lime candies and cherry candies. You keep trying to change how the verse reads to make your point. It doesn't even say "144,000 of men from among men," but "144,000 of them from among men." You're trying to make it sound unnatural, but it's extremely telling that you have to alter the structure of the verse to do so.

we really do not have enough to be dogmatic on whether they were selected from ... "other cherry candies" or a variety of candies. We certainly dont have the needed contrast "cherry and lime" (men and women) to favor the less common reading.

When "men" and "women" appear together, male people and female people is the more common reading. You're asserting that there's not enough contrast, but you're apparently already forgetting your need to explain away the meaning of "defiled themselves with women." You're arguing that the author wrote a contrast that on the one hand is clear enough that you have to explain it away, yet is "certainly" not enough to influence our reading of ἀνθρώπων? Even if we accept that the author meant "women" and "people" by γυναικῶν and ἀνθρώπων respectively, they're still "people" that can be virgins by never having "defiled themselves with women." That camp is pretty solidly populated by men rather than women.

I'm guessing this is another debate where you're going to keep making the same unsupported assertion over and over until I give up.

In the absence of said Liddell and Scott indicator, mankind (general)) is the logical fallback.

The "Liddell and Scott indicator" is the words for "women" and "men" together. We have the presence of that, so we don't have to worry about the case of its absence.

(If you came from the store with only cherry candies, unless you stipulated you came from The Cherry Candy Store, it would be understood you selected them from a wide variety) That is just how language works.

Thanks for the lesson. The next time I select from among cherry candies that have never been defiled by touching lime candies, I'll know you won't understand me.

[JehovahsWitness]

You keep trying to change how the verse reads to make your point. It doesn't even say "144,000 of men from among men," but "144,000 of them from among men."

I suppose that would depend on the translation. Lets go back to the text (KJV)

REVELATION 14:4 KJV

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb

These [144,000] were redeemed from among [men or mankind??]

They are from the earth (verse 3b) and we know there are two biological sexes living on earth, so the 144,000 were either selected from an already elite group of a single sex or from the wider pool that included both sexes.

• These [purple candies] were chosen from [a variety of candies or from a preselected group of purple candies?]

• These fish were selected from [a bag of fish or a bag of fish/ squid/ lobster and other marine life?]

• These [144,000] were redeemed from among [a group of men or mankind (ie a group which includes men and women)??]

Its really not that complicated. Even if we were to infer a literal biological sex on the 144,000 (which we Jehovah's Witnesses do not do) the question remains the same, and is not resolve by the wording od 4b itself (which is why translators are more or less evenly divided).

[JehovahsWitness]

The "Liddell and Scott indicator" is the words for "women" and "men" together. We have the presence of that, so we don't have to worry about the case of its absence.

No we don't. There is no contrasting partnership and without begging the question there is no mention of men.

[Difflugia]

Its really not that complicated.

This part of your answer is correct.

The "Liddell and Scott indicator" is the words for "women" and "men" together. We have the presence of that, so we don't have to worry about the case of its absence.

No we don't. There is no contrasting partnership and without begging the question there is no mention of men.

The "women" and "men" was in English for convenience. The definition, as I mentioned elsewhere and as one would reasonably expect, specifies the Greek words in question.

Prop. opp. θηρίον, cf. ἀνήρ; but opp. γυνή, Aeschin. 3.137; ἀπὺ ἀνθρώπου ἕως γυναικός LXX 1 Es. 9.40, etc.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Miles in post #230]

Wow! After a perfectly sound answer from JehovahsWitness you still labor at length to dismiss those responses. I shake my head. I trust that those that are looking on here will review JehovahsWitness's response to Miles.

[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? 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.

.

[Miles]

... 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)

.