The Kingdom of Heaven

[Elijah John]

Does (or will) the Kingdom of Heaven transcend the walls (metaphorical) of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Will those outside of the Watch Tower organization be part of the Kingdom? Will they inherit "eternal life in Paradise on Earth"?

Why or why not?

[2ndRateMind]

I would say 144,000 people chosen by God. The bible says they must be born again (Christians). The rest is up to the Almighty, we trust he will chose those he sees as "good" in his eyes; have nothing to add.

Uh huh. That's a reasonable stance, but it merely defers the question most religions claim to answer, namely: what must I do to be saved? Surely Jehovah's Witnesses have some sort of a position on this, or else, what is the point of them?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

No we take the number to be literal, not the other features.

Why is that?

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses take the number 144,000 to be literal but not other features of this group mentioned in Rev 14:1?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p825066




RELATED POST

Where do Jehovahs Witnesses get the idea that only 144,000 will go to heaven?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p890333

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Hmmm. But this avoids the question. I want to know why you think the number literal, but the rest metaphorical or figurative? What determines which is which? Or is this just a matter of personal preference and individual interpretation of scripture? And let it not be thought that I am necessarily against that. 'In my Father's house are many mansions'*.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*John 14:2 KJV

[JehovahsWitness]

I would say 144,000 people chosen by God. The bible says they must be born again (Christians). The rest is up to the Almighty, we trust he will chose those he sees as "good" in his eyes; have nothing to add.

Uh huh. That's a reasonable stance, but it merely defers the question most religions claim to answer, namely: what must I do to be saved? Surely Jehovah's Witnesses have some sort of a position on this, or else, what is the point of them?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, we believe one must apply the verse below in order to be saved:

ACTS 16:30-31
Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?� They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.�

Further reading: What is salvation?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... salvation/

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Hmmm. But this avoids the question. I want to know why you think the number literal, but the rest metaphorical or figurative? What determines which is which?

No I believe the second paragraph sufficiently provided the rational as to the question of why we take the number to be literal while the other details as figurative.

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses take the number 144,000 to be literal but not other features of this group mentioned in Rev 14:1?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p825066

Regards,

JW

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Hmmm. But this avoids the question. I want to know why you think the number literal, but the rest metaphorical or figurative? What determines which is which?

No I believe the second paragraph sufficiently provided the rational as to the question of why we take the number to be literal while the other details as figurative.

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses take the number 144,000 to be literal but not other features of this group mentioned in Rev 14:1?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 066#825066

Regards,

JW

Well, I've read it again, but still can't see what determines that 12*12000 should be taken literally, as opposed to 144,000 male virgins with Jehovah written on their foreheads, which should be taken figuratively. But I'm content to let that pass, if you are. For now, I'm headed for bed, and look forward to continuing this interesting discussion, tomorrow.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 56 by 2ndRateMind]


QUESTION: If the bible (and particular the book of Revelation) contains both literal details mixed with metaphor, symbolism, idoms (and idiomatic expressions) and allagory, what determines which is which?

ANSWER: Context and the application of reason and critical thinking skills.

To illustrate: Jesus spoke of his followers as "sheep". We are now faced with a question: Are we to understand his followers were literally farm animals and not human or was this a metaphor? We know from other parallel accounts Jesus was presented in the gospels as having human followers, some of whom were married, had businesses and were spoken of as displaying thinking ability and characteristis that indicate they were not animals. Indeed why would Jesus (unless he were mad) spend so much time trying to teach farm animals Hebrew scripture? if Jesus followers were literal sheep they could not have been able to do any of the things he (Jesus) is reported to have commissioned them to do.

We reasonably must thus conclude the passage is a metaphor not to be taken literally

Above is an example of examining the context and applying critical thinking skills to come to a decision about a particular passage. Of course not all passages are that simple but the same methodology applies. Look at the passage, examine the implications of a literal as opposed to a non-literal reading, Does one or the other render the passage nonsensical? Which is most in harmony with other parallel elements; which would harmonize with other explicitly stated bible teachings.

CONCLUSION: The bible is indeed a mixture of various literary techniques. The best thing a reader can do is follow Jesus' own words "Let the reader use discernment".

RELATED POSTS

Metonymy [part le speech]

Further reading
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... phors.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... e-and.html


RELATED POSTS

What does Literal / Non-literal mean ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p868419

How does one determine what is or is not literal?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p890395

Did Jesus ever use hyperbole?
viewtopic.php?p=1056274#p1056274

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical listeralists"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p868428

Does Genesis indicate Adam and Eve literally had no way of grasping what the Word "good" meant?
viewtopic.php?p=1040394#p1040394

Was the biblical flood story mere allegory?
viewtopic.php?p=1048372#p1048372

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLICAL LITERALISM

* bible interpretation

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 56 by 2ndRateMind]


So let's try and apply the techniques above in post #57 ] to the following passages:

...what determines that 12*12000 should be taken literally, as opposed to 144,000 male virgins with Jehovah written on their foreheads, which should be taken figuratively.

Male virgins literal or figurative?

• Are there any other bible passages that indicate whether all spirit anointed Christians are male? (compare Acts 1:14; 2:1-4)
• Since Peter, one promise personally with a place in heaven, was evidently a married man before he became a disciple, is it reasonable to conclude that all those going to heaven will be literal virgins?
• Are there any bible passages that speak about "virginity" or sexual purity in a symbolic/metaphoric sense? (James 4:4; Revelation 17:5; Philippians 2:15)
• Does taking the idea that all heaven bound christians are literaly male harmonize with other related texts? (Gal 3:28) If not what would be a more reasonable conclusion to come to?

Literal decendants of Abraham (Israelites)?

• Does the notion of symbolic "Israelites" exist in the Greek scriptures? (Romans 2:28)
• Since the Apostles witnessed the spirit anointing of non-Israelites which reading would logically harmonize with the above?

marked on their foreheads: literal or figurative?

• Was Jesus or any of the Apostles that he personally promised with heavenly life literally marked on their foreheads?
• How did Jesus specifically say his disciples would be identified (see John 13:35; Mat 7:24)
• While the first group of spirit anointed (heaven bound) Christians did miraculously see flame like appearances above their heads, what can we deduce from the fact that this left no literal mark on them?

Above are just some of the scriptures and rational (application of critical thinking) that enables the reader to come to a logical conclusion as to whether the passages in question should be read literally or figuratively.


JW

RELATED POSTS

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses take the number 144,000 to be literal but not other features of this group mentioned in Rev 14:1?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 066#825066

[onewithhim]

As for the moral of the story, it would be far more more telling if you and JW realised it for yourselves. It's a bit like the punch-line of a joke - if someone needs to explain it to you, it loses much of it's impact. So I am loath to explain it, unless you absolutely insist. Much better for you to ponder for yourselves who is really in Heaven, Steve, or the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Best wishes, 2RM.

OK. Yes, I insist.

Anyone in heaven would have to be a witness of the Most High God, whose name is Jehovah (Psalm 83:18, KJV), and which name appears 7,000 times in the Bible as The Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Jesus himself was said to be "the faithful and true witness" of his Father (Revelation 3:14) . So the rejection of "Jehovah's Witnesses" completely eludes me as to the reason for that rejection. From Scripture it is as clear as day the those who are God's witnesses, as Jesus was, would be the only ones going to heaven. Is this too complicated for you?

Please explain your "punch-line."

Oh dear. If I must, but if I do, I insist you answer my question in return.

The moral of the story is that everyone deserving gets to go to heaven, even Steve, who may have any religion, or none. And that we get the heaven we deserve. And Jehovah's Witnesses (who, in my experience, are as good as anyone else, if a trifle on the earnest side) will get that heaven too. It's just that they limit the scope of their heaven by insisting they (or only 144,000 of them, I am unclear which) will be the only ones saved. Presumably then, God will humour them, and ensure they are not disillusioned. One way to do this would be by putting them in some heavenly Kingdom Hall without doors or windows. Steve, on the other hand, who makes no such stipulation about qualifications for salvation, and has not limited his afterlife prospects in that way, gets to enjoy the fullness of Heaven in the entirety God wants for all His children, of any religion, or none, while the Jehovah's Witnesses get to witness of Heaven only what they want and expect to witness.

Now, my question is, why does it matter what we call God? Jesus called Him 'Abba', father. Others call Him Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, JHWH, Elohim, Adonai, God of Gods, Lords of Lords, Lord of Hosts. And others still, myself included, prefer the simple, general, incontrovertible combination of name and conceptual description: 'God'. Do you really think He will deny someone heaven on grounds that, despite their love for Him, and His for them, they call Him some certain particular name when He prefers some other, different name?

Best wishes, 2RM.

First, please tell me, 2ndrate, What is the purpose for everyone going to heaven?

To answer your question, I can't fathom anyone refusing to use His name for any reason. His personal name appears in the Scriptures around 7,000 times, and He actually said that He wants us to use it.

"Yes, tell them [the Israelites], 'Jehovah, the God of your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations." (Exodus 3:15, Living Bible)

Jesus undoubtedly used it, and he indicated as much, esp. in John's Gospel. It seems pretty clear to me:


"I have revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world....I made known to them your name and I will make it known." (John 17:6,26,
New American Bible)

He certainly wouldn't go against his Father's wishes that His name be used.


There are many gods that men worship. Shouldn't the true God be honored by actually using His name?

"Even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is one God,
the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord,
Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist." (I Corinthians 8:5,6, New American Bible)

God plainly identifies Himself in the Scriptures. The King James Version leaves the Divine Name in its translation 4 times out of 7,000.

Exodus 6:3
Psalm 83:18
Isaiah 12:2
Isaiah 26:4


Anyone using another name is showing that they don't really know who God is.

[onewithhim]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe many millions (maybe eventually billions) of people, many of whom may never have previously heard of Jehovah will be given the opportunity of living forever in paradise.

Jehovah's Witnesses based the understanding that only 144,000 individuals from the earth will be resurrected to heavenly life on Revelation Chapter 14:1. We understand this number to be literal.

I am not sure how you would reconcile these two statements. Do not rush to answer; it does not greatly matter to me. It just seems to be an inconsistency that ought to matter to you.

For ease of reference:

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 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. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Revelations 14:1-5 KJV

Just as an interesting aside, do you also literally believe that only literally virgin males with the name of God literally written on their foreheads, presumably tattooed for permanence sake, are eligible for heaven?

And that women are automatically exempt from that happy state?

I don't greatly approve of tattoos, and I am not at all sure heaven would be heaven without the gentle and fair sex.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You are thinking that to be "saved" means "go to heaven." That is not the way we see it. There are a certain number that are going to heaven to rule with Christ over the earth. Billions on Earth will be "saved" ALSO, though not in heaven. They will live on the earth in paradise conditions. (Rev.20:6; Psalm 37:9-11,29)

No, we do not take Rev.14:1-5 literally. Revelation is mostly signs and symbols, with the numbers being the only actually literal thing. The 144,000 are virgins in the sense of being spiritually pure---no false religious beliefs or practices. Peter was not a literal virgin and yet he is most certainly in heaven now. Many women are anointed to go to heaven. Weren't there women in the Upper Room when the congregation was anointed with Holy Spirit? (Acts 1:14)