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?

[2timothy316]

I do speak with people and I listen to their views and I sometimes ask their opinions but I do not rely on others to define what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal, I must and do face those decisions myself and the Bible is my reference not humans.

Yet that is not what I see you doing. I see a bunch of judging based on your dogma and wanting others to trust you on what is right and wrong.

I do not ask anyone to trust me, I ask only that they doubt organizations and the "statement of beliefs" and their rules and regulations and their self serving "we are the ones" attitude.

Most JWs want to live on Earth forever on a paradise. Yet you say this is wrong even though the Bible says that the earth will endure forever with righteous people on it. The Bible gives a limited number of those that will be Jesus as rulers in Heaven. But you define that as wrong too. While you say you don't rely on others for what is right and wrong you sure do want others to depend on you.

For what I read in your replies to me and others, your dogma takes center stage. Which is in reality just an opinion.

What dogma? that the word of god is my statement of beliefs? that I have no need for human authorities? that I do not stoop to made up rules? my refusal to accept that I need intermediaries? that I need "elders" to explain the truth? that I cannot rely on God's word but must rely on other people?

If that's my dogma then so be it.

Yes, that is your dogma. Your rules you stated above are not scriptural, as you gave only your words but nothing from the Word of God.

So you think the word of God is not sufficient? we do need some additional help? some clarification? a custom translation of the Bible perhaps?

There is the problem. You're asking what I think is sufficient.
Here is what the Bible says what Jesus sent and what he thinks is sufficient for his disciples.
"And he [Jesus] gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ." - Eph 4:11-13

If people just needed the scriptures why did Jesus send all these types of people, namely shepherds and teachers to build up the 'body of the Christ'? To shepherd who and teach what? What does it mean to 'build up the body of the Christ'?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think it true though that there was a) No "statement of beliefs"

What do you mean a statement of belief? (The first century Christians obviously had a set of beliefs or they would not have been distinguisable as a community from Pagans)

I mean a written creed, a statement of faith (which might not be a single unified document) that adherents accept as uncontestable truths, in this case beliefs like the sound "Jehovah" must be used or that blood transfusions are wrong, using voting rather than the drawing of straws to elect a leader and so on.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think it true though that there was a) No "statement of beliefs"

What do you mean a statement of belief? (The first century Christians obviously had a set of beliefs or they would not have been distinguisable as a community from Pagans)

I mean a written creed...

And who established a written "creed" is necessary for a religion to be organised? (Show me a scripture to support this position) ...sounds like you adhere to some kind of "Catholic dogma" as to what is a religion.


Scripture please,


JW

[Sherlock Holmes]

I do speak with people and I listen to their views and I sometimes ask their opinions but I do not rely on others to define what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal, I must and do face those decisions myself and the Bible is my reference not humans.

Yet that is not what I see you doing. I see a bunch of judging based on your dogma and wanting others to trust you on what is right and wrong.

I do not ask anyone to trust me, I ask only that they doubt organizations and the "statement of beliefs" and their rules and regulations and their self serving "we are the ones" attitude.

Most JWs want to live on Earth forever on a paradise. Yet you say this is wrong even though the Bible says that the earth will endure forever with righteous people on it. The Bible gives a limited number of those that will be Jesus as rulers in Heaven. But you define that as wrong too. While you say you don't rely on others for what is right and wrong you sure do want others to depend on you.

For what I read in your replies to me and others, your dogma takes center stage. Which is in reality just an opinion.

What dogma? that the word of god is my statement of beliefs? that I have no need for human authorities? that I do not stoop to made up rules? my refusal to accept that I need intermediaries? that I need "elders" to explain the truth? that I cannot rely on God's word but must rely on other people?

If that's my dogma then so be it.

Yes, that is your dogma. Your rules you stated above are not scriptural, as you gave only your words but nothing from the Word of God.

So you think the word of God is not sufficient? we do need some additional help? some clarification? a custom translation of the Bible perhaps?

There is the problem. You're asking what I think is sufficient.
Here is what the Bible says what Jesus sent and what he thinks is sufficient for his disciples.
"And he [Jesus] gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ." - Eph 4:11-13

If people just needed the scriptures why did Jesus send all these types of people, namely shepherds and teachers to build up the 'body of the Christ'? To shepherd who and teach what? What does it mean to 'build up the body of the Christ'?

None of that speaks of a current centralized authority or of job titles or a perpetual hierarchical clergy.

It does agree with Luke

Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’

Which is precisely what happened.

This is referring to the events that immediately followed the resurrection, it does not institute some continuous process that's ongoing today.

The apostles for example are all dead, and so are those referred to as "evangelizers" or "shepherds" this is speaking of what Christ did at that point in time.

Just as miraculous healing stopped with the apostles too, we don't see public displays of blind people regaining their site or lame people regaining the ability to run and hop about.

Does the JW organization have apostles today? prophets today?

[tam]

Peace to you,

"This is the basis for "universalism" JWs and most other groups do not grasp it, yes JW's do not teach eternal punishing but they do not teach that every single human will receive eternal life.

Jesus didn't teach every single human will receive eternal life either. Read Matthew 25:46. If Jesus didn't then why should we?

Christ didn't teach that only some Christians could eat and drink His flesh and blood, and that most Christians are not permitted to eat and drink His flesh and blood. John 6:50, 53-57; Matt 26:26-28, Matt 28:20. If Christ didn't then why do you?

Christ didn't teach that there are two different hopes for Christians either. If Christ didn't then why do you?


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

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think it true though that there was a) No "statement of beliefs"

What do you mean a statement of belief? (The first century Christians obviously had a set of beliefs or they would not have been distinguisable as a community from Pagans)

I mean a written creed...

And who established a written "creed" is necessary for a religion to be organised? (Show me a scripture to support this position) ...sounds like you adhere to some kind of "Catholic dogma" as to what is a religion.


Scripture please,


JW

I'm sorry I don't understand you, asked me what a statement of beliefs was and I said it was the same as a creed.

The early church had no written statement of beliefs, no list of "you can do this but not that, you must use this name but not that" if they did none have survived nor is there a record of it having ever been quoted from.

These rules and regulations are added by humans, their incessant desire to control others, by these organized groups, they are a yoke, the same as the yoke the Pharisees were rebuked by Christ for burdening their citizens.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'd be delighted to explore this further, some sources would be appreciated.

Like you my sources are the bible and the bible alone. Are you asking for scriptural support for the above?

(I am confident you are not asking me to refer you to "experts or authorities")

my refusal to accept that I need intermediaries? that I need "elders" to explain the truth? that I cannot rely on God's word but must rely on other people

Please clarify what you are asking for when you request "sources".



JW

If the Bible is the source then yes, what chapter and verse do you use to establish the list of bullet points.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm sorry I don't understand you...

You said they didn't have a written creed and implied because of this they were not an organised religion. I am questioning the premise that the Apostolique church NEEDED a written creed to be considered an organised religion.

ie prove from the bible you need a written creed to be considered an organised religion.

JW

[2timothy316]

I do speak with people and I listen to their views and I sometimes ask their opinions but I do not rely on others to define what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal, I must and do face those decisions myself and the Bible is my reference not humans.

Yet that is not what I see you doing. I see a bunch of judging based on your dogma and wanting others to trust you on what is right and wrong.

I do not ask anyone to trust me, I ask only that they doubt organizations and the "statement of beliefs" and their rules and regulations and their self serving "we are the ones" attitude.

Most JWs want to live on Earth forever on a paradise. Yet you say this is wrong even though the Bible says that the earth will endure forever with righteous people on it. The Bible gives a limited number of those that will be Jesus as rulers in Heaven. But you define that as wrong too. While you say you don't rely on others for what is right and wrong you sure do want others to depend on you.

For what I read in your replies to me and others, your dogma takes center stage. Which is in reality just an opinion.

What dogma? that the word of god is my statement of beliefs? that I have no need for human authorities? that I do not stoop to made up rules? my refusal to accept that I need intermediaries? that I need "elders" to explain the truth? that I cannot rely on God's word but must rely on other people?

If that's my dogma then so be it.

Yes, that is your dogma. Your rules you stated above are not scriptural, as you gave only your words but nothing from the Word of God.

So you think the word of God is not sufficient? we do need some additional help? some clarification? a custom translation of the Bible perhaps?

There is the problem. You're asking what I think is sufficient.
Here is what the Bible says what Jesus sent and what he thinks is sufficient for his disciples.
"And he [Jesus] gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ." - Eph 4:11-13

If people just needed the scriptures why did Jesus send all these types of people, namely shepherds and teachers to build up the 'body of the Christ'? To shepherd who and teach what? What does it mean to 'build up the body of the Christ'?

None of that speaks of a current centralized authority or of job titles or a perpetual hierarchical clergy.

So what was good for them back then is not good for us today?
"But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue." Acts 15:2
Sounds like Paul and Barnabus were going to centralized authority to to get something clarified. What should have Paul done?

In the Bible God's people have always had centralized authority. Going all the way back Enoch, Noah and Moses. After that there was the levitical priesthood.

So you're not going to win the argument that there shouldn't be a centralized authority on the Earth using the Bible. The only argument left is which one is actually working for Jehovah God and his Son Jesus.

It does agree with Luke

Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’

Which is precisely what happened.

This is referring to the events that immediately followed the resurrection, it does not institute some continuous process that's ongoing today.

Says who?

This is where you're going to have to pick between your dogma and doctrine or choose a Bible scripture to back yourself up. Where in the Bible does it say for Christ's followers to end organizing themselves?

Because what I read is that Jesus said, “where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” (Matt. 18:20)

Hebrews 10:25 says not to forsake, "our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near."

1 Corinthians 14:33 says, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people."

Do you have scriptures that can undo all of these?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm sorry I don't understand you...

You said they didn't have a written creed and implied because of this they were not an organised religion. I am questioning the premise that the Apostolique church NEEDED a written creed to be considered an organised religion.

ie prove from the bible you need a written creed to be considered an organised religion.

JW

Ah, very well.

Well requiring "members" to agree to a written set of rules is one of the traits of what I loosely refer to as "organized religious institutions" along obligations and duties.

The early church so far as I can tell had none of these traits, were the Christians back then "organized" in any way? perhaps, I don't know but they bore likely no resemblance to the kind of structures and money making empires we see today.

The JW's for example "disfellowship" people in secret meetings, perhaps you've read Crisis of Conscience?