Is there a resurrection after the first, sure; Rev 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them." I might add that we know there is a first resurrection, and we know there are more then one. A resurrection of the 144k before the new world, the resurrection of the unrighteous during the 1000 years, and the righteous after the 1000 years.
We have tried hard to come to a conclusion, so really it seems we are stuck. May be best as you say not to argue endlessly. May be enough to write our arguments, and then it is to everyone to decide if it is what we want to believe. So my argument why there will not be any resurrection during the 1000 years is: (But l am not dogmatic.) Revelation 20:5 says that the rest come to life after the 1000 years. Why I don't think this to be impossible: Before the flood people lived almost 1000 years. When someone righteous died in those days, other righteous had to live with that loss for hundreds of years. Like in the case with Abel. So it would not be unique if people during the millenium had to wait to the end of 1000 years to see the resurrection. The second argument is that Jesus said people will not marry or get married in the resurrection. That would be most logic to be true after the millenium. So that's what sounds more plausible for me.
I can't believe that such things still need to be explained. The first judgment that takes place when Jesus comes concerns the living. They will have to answer to the Judge for what they will have done till that moment, and first and foremost how they will have helped Christ's brothers. If they are deemed ok, they will be allowed to keep living on earth for 1 000 years and more if their names aren't blotted out of the book of life in the meantime. If they aren't ok, they're gone forever (Mat. 25:46). Those who are dead have paid for their former sins when they died. They therefore don't need to be judged again regarding their past lives but they will be judged at the end of the Millenium according to their actions during said Millenium. The Millenium is destined to make mankind go back to perfection and become Sons of God back again. As a result, it's totally nonsensical to think that the righteous ones will come back to life after the Millenium. They may be righteous but they will still need time to reach perfection. The Bible says that there will be new rolls opened and that the nations will need to be taught and healed. Won't the righteous ones need to be taught and healed too ? Those who will pass the final test will be somehow like Adam, a perfect being having to make a choice regarding God and His purpose for mankind. Even the righteous ones will have to pass that test successfully since they were imperfect when they proved to be righteous in their former lives. There are no reasons to think that they'll fail that future test but since the conditions will be totally different, they must pass it too. The lake of fire is necessarily symbolic since even Death and Hades are thrown into it. Interestingly, the false prophet and the wild beast will be thrown alive into the lake of fire. It means eternal destruction, eternal oblivion, etc. The final judgment after the final test is based on how the humans will have acted during the Millenium (they will have to prove that they have changed), those having been killed as a punishment and having had therefore their names blotted out of the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire, which means that they will fall into eternal oblivion. Those whose names will then be in the book of life will obviously be alive and will keep living forever. The Second Death means that the people who are thrown into it are dead and will remain so forever. Therefore, it's obvious that the expression "the dead" in Rv 20:12 means all mortal humans, living or dead (who died at Armagueddon and up to the final test) at that time, because those who have their names in the book of life are said not to be thrown into the lake of fire (they'll therefore be alive, won't they ? Why should they be dead ?). It can't be the righteous ones only either because, in addition to what has already been explained above, the verses show that those who don't have their names in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire (if they're thrown into the lake of fire, they're therefore wicked, aren't they ?). I repeat it again although that's a statement of the obvious but the latter ones are, therefore, unrighteous. The only difference being that the wicked ones will be, in all likelihood, already dead, having died during the final test (unless you think that some wicked ones won't follow Satan into the final rebellion and be killed later by Jehovah..??? That idea doesn't make sense either). Besides, here again, "the dead" can't be those who are now sleeping into death since the dead have paid for their sins. It must necessarily mean something else. It's obvious like 2+2=4. In Rv 20:15, the dead aren't said to be killed or punished. The only criterion is whether their names are in the book of life or not. They're judged in verse 12 and 13 and verse 15 describes the sanction.
Jesus was talking about the anointed ones, not about those in Adamic death. Were Lazarus or those whom Jesus and the apostles resurrected forbidden to be married and have children ? Even the WT changed their minds, at last, about it recently. Edit : Robert's article about it, in case you didn't have the opportunity to read it : http://e-watchman.com/last-watchtower-comes-around-sort/
So are you saying the chapter of Rev 20 is not linear chronologically? From what I read 12-15 occur after Satan is destroyed at the end of the 1000 years. As well I read a resurrection in verse 13, and unless you say this isn't after the 1000 years then why does the very next scripture say death is done away with? Therefore you have a resurrection and then the very next thing that happens is death is no more? This can't be during the 1000 years. Explain... I know this is an understand that permeates the society, but I don't find this idea in scripture, unless you can point it out to me. Reality would tell me that if you can be faithful like Job through this world what reason do you need to prove that again, you think even after being perfect there's a chance Job would fail? Then why even the need for him to be resurrected during the 1000 years? We should all realize that even though mankind will be allowed to grow without Satan around for those 1000 years they will still know that he is coming. During that whole time they will have that in the back of their mind. The point in this is what does Jehovah say? I don't find that written. But considering perception it's my opinion that the faithful in the past don't need to prove anything, and they don't need to be perfect and then tempted, they proved themselves perfect in imperfection, what need is there to grow to perfection and then be tempted again, none... I see no connection to Adam and the need to prove oneself after perfection before gaining life eternal, I don't see this idea in scripture. Again, these ones proved themselves in imperfection in service to Jehovah while imperfect. What need is there for them to prove themselves in a perfect state? Regardless, this issue is just two sides of an argument, the reality comes down to the chronology and whether there actually is a resurrection after the 1000 years like chapter 20 says. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) "And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds." I would like to know how you counter the fact that all the unrighteous are killed in verse 9 and even Satan is destroyed in 10, and it's not till 12 that these dead are described but yet you say they include unrighteous? The unrighteous are destroyed at verse 9. Perhaps you can explain that... I have to say that's the first question in this whole discussion that's even got me thinking. Verse 15 says that anyone not found in the book of life is thrown into the lake of fire, however the verse just before in 14 tells us that death and the grave are thrown into the lake of fire, therefore verse 15 can't be speaking of anyone going to the grave, because the grave no longer exists at 15, so therefore this is the one scripture as it pertains to mankind that is symbolic of eternal destruction. This would be all of mankind, and means the final decisions have been made on all those whom have ever lived. This is only because death and the grave had been done away with in the scripture just before in 14.
I would also like to add that the whole subject of verses 4-5 is of a physical resurrection. Those not receiving the mark of the beast and are part of the first resurrection receive a physical resurrection. Keep in mind those who are to rule with Christ physically came to life in verse 4, and the same exact wording is used in 15, just in a future tense; "And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years." Came to life=First resurrection Come to life=Later resurrection
Hi Joshua: I am serious when I ask, "Why if Satan is described as being "abyssed" in the first part of Rev. 20, and we are "assuming" that this corresponds with the 1,000 years of the Kingdom, why does it mention in verse 3 "nations"? Will the Kingdom of God be divided up into "nations". Also, is the "abyss" the same as Gehenna or the "lake of fire"? If it is, then how does Satan get out of it to tempt people at the end of the 1000 year Kingdom of God? I thought that if you were in Gehenna that that meant the Second Death or eternal distruction. There seems to be a flaw in this understanding. Please explain. I don't think that we have the proper understanding of Rev. 20 yet and both explanations (yours and Utuna's) seem to have obvious flaws in them. I certainly am not going to say that I absolutely know what is being said here either, as it is very cryptically written and it's understanding is a challenge. But, I think with such varied perspectives, I think if everyone works with cooperation that a better understanding could be had. Now I know that at one time you probably thought more along the lines of Utuna and the Watchtower and so did I, but when you looked at it with a fresh perspective, you were able to see something quite different. I am just asking you to do that again. I think as varied as out thinking is on the Bible, much is also the same. But with such diverse perspectives we can play with different ideas and possibly with the help of God's Holy Spirit, we could finally nail a precise understanding. Now I think that you already think you have it and so does Utuna. But if you can put that aside for awhile, could we just explore a little and see what we find? Could verses 1-3 be talking about another time period when Satan is temporarily "abyssed". I know it is 1000 years, but being "abyssed" must be something different from being thrown into the "lake of fire", or Satan couldn't get out to "tempt" the faithful at the end of the 1000 years. frank
We have discussed this on here before at great length, and I'm pretty sure where most stand on this, but I will give you a synopsis. Satan is only imprisoned for the 1000 years, he will still be alive during his captivity. If he were killed instead that would mean he would have to be created again at the end of the 1000 years and Jehovah would never create evil. Jehovah does not tempt anyone, let alone create in order to do so. (James 1:13) Satan made himself the tempter. Keep in mind that the beast in Rev 17 goes into and out of the abyss, and as well at the fifth trumpet the abyss is opened with creatures emerging from it. The abyss is simply a fall from a previous state and in Satan's case a prison for an extended stay (in our understanding of time), but we do read that a day in heaven is like a thousand years here. "The English word "abyss" derives from the abyssimus (superlative of abyssus) through French abisme (abîme in modern French), hence the poetic form "abysm", with examples dating to 1616 and earlier to rhyme with "time". The Latin word is borrowed from the Greek abussos (also transliterated as abyssos), which is conventionally analyzed as deriving from the Greek element meaning "deep", "bottom" with an alpha privative, hence "bottomless"." (Wiki) Nations=Mankind alive at any given moment. One must determine at what point in the stream of time you are before you can determine who is alive or dead to be a part of the given nations at that time. To be honest, and without presumptuousness I have yet to see a valid scriptural rebuttal to the literal reading. I don't mean this in a way that only I have the right understanding, but simply I believe the chapter speaks for itself without the need for interpretation. So therefore I see my understanding as simply what it says, not an interpretation, but maybe everyone doesn't agree with that, idk. I do however see the idea that "dead" is metaphoric to try and keep everyone resurrected during the 1000 years as an interpretation, because that is not the literal reading. You know I only believe something that fits the chronology, and without the proper timeline you can understand nothing, so the reading that there is a resurrection after the 1000 years does in fact fit the rest of the chronology of scripture as well... You are correct, at one time I had no reason to believe any other way then the way Utuna does. In fact at one time that's exactly what I believed, keep in mind I had studied all of this for many years before coming across Roberts site. Your latest posts have been a little more down to earth, and shows more perspective and recognition of surroundings, I appreciate that, it makes things more fun on here when we actually attempt to understand what each other are saying first. I am always open to be wrong, that has been my goal from the moment I started my work at Dan 12:11, to find and to search where I'm wrong. That's the question you want to ask, not if your right.... I answered that above, Satan is not dead during those 1000 years, he will be alive but imprisoned for Jehovah would not recreate such evil, let alone tempt mankind at all, by a creation for that sole purpose. Satan made himself the tempter, recreating him for that purpose would mean Jehovah was responsible for the evil, and that would never happen.
Hi Joshua: I understand that you are convinced of your latest understanding of Rev. 20, that is not in question. I am just asking that you disconnect yourself from that understanding like you did with your previous understanding that you shared with other JW's and the Watchtower. Could the 1000 years that Satan is abyssed be different than the 1000 years of the Kingdom. I know that it is the simplest thing to do to "assume" that they are concurrent. My question about the word "nations" was because I don't think that in the Kingdom of God we will be referred to by the word or idea of "nations", so this word being used may be a clue that this time period is during a time when people "are" naturally referred to as the nations because that is how they are divided in Satan's system of things, not God's. It is an interesting coincidence that there is a 1000 year period during the time that people were referred to as nations that Satan could have already been abyssed. The hallmark of Satan and his system of things is large empires, in fact that is a good summation that the Bible uses in referring to the large empires through time in Satan's system....the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman and finally the Anglo-American which is a combination of the British Empire and the latter British/American Empire. They were all governed by Satan himself. But, from the time of the fall of the Western part (the most dominant) of the Roman Empire in the fifth to sixth century and the rise of the British Empire in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries there is a period of about a thousand years. This would fit the description of Revelation 20:1-3, 7-10. It is not said in the scripture but perhaps this was a penalty to Satan for his treatment of the Christ and the early Christian congregation, which for all intent and purpose was gone by about the fourth/fifth century. Then, Satan is let out of the abyss after the 1000 years and he immediately goes about performing his practice of large empires and brings out the British Empire and goes about what is described in verses 7-10. It is interesting to note that Gog and Magog is a reference to Armageddon, which is not at the end of the 1000 years of the Kingdom, but is a reference to the battle between the earthly forces of Satan the Devil and Christ and his Kingdom. I will leave it at that for he moment. You can either choose to entertain the idea, or caste it out without even thinking about the points that I have made. I admit that this could be on the wrong track but in the same respect, I think the idea has merit and support in the scriptures. You'll notice that I jumped from verse 3 to verses 7-10 in my commentary. This is because I think these two sections of Rev. 20 are linked whereas the other sections are talking about another time period and situation. Rev. is not always present linearly but is sometimes disjointed in it's presentation of time periods. I think this is an example of that. frank
20:3 "so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while." 20:5 "(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended)" 20:6 "but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years." 20:7 "Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison," Look at the "the" in these verses. In verse 6, which 1000 years is it talking about, the one in verse 5 or in verse 3 or verse 7? What if these scriptures didn't have the word "the" in them? Could you at that point infer it is a possibility they may not be the same? You certainly would want to consider that just to be sure, but what if they all say "the"? With that simple singular word "the" it pulls together each discussion of the 1000 years. When this chapter says "the 1000 years" then you first have to think that they are all talking about the same 1000 years. In order for them to be speaking of two different time periods you would have to directly connect the word "the" to another location in scripture. Since the 1000 years show up in verses 3,5,6,7 you could infer these 1000 years to anything you want, so in order for that not to happen you have to first understand they are all speaking of the same event unless you can show without doubt where each and every 1000 year would go and which one goes with which time and it has to be directly connected to the word "the". "The" is a singular word, and all of the locations in Rev 20 that mention 1000 years also mentions "the", while without this word it would change it's meaning. Let's say the word "a" was used instead. If any of these locations said "a 1000 years" then one would need to go further into trying to determine if any of the occurrences of 1000 years are connected in any way. That would be the first step. This is not needed because of the word "the". Now if one is to believe the chapter is divided up into different time periods, it cannot come from the chapter itself, for there must be other books that must support this with actual day counts. Daniel is usually the book that describes the time frames between the events in Rev, so unless you could go to another book and find out the time periods between events, you are implying a personal information, and you must return to the literal. If we want to allow scripture to explain itself, the only place you can start is with the literal reading, and then at that point if another scripture leads you away with absolute proof then you can clarify your understanding, but until that is the case the literal has to be right. If we look at scripture with a belief, we will always be able to find our belief in scripture just by braking up the chapter, changing times when events occur and separating out events, then you can make it overlay on any theory you would like. The only way to understand prophecy is to believe what it says unless another scripture that is connected beyond any doubt clarifies it's definition, such as a word being metaphoric. Also you must obey the laws of time, In chronology things must flow. With your idea even, if you say the first 1000 years in 3 is the same as the the one in 7, then you just skipped over two others, and there is nothing to say that verse 7 is only connected to verse 3 and not 5 & 6. In fact you must understand that the 1000 years are all the same event for they speak of each other, and unless you can connect each separate 1000 years to another location in scripture and can discount the other mentionings of it from that same location you must go back to the basic understanding. You see, I haven't come to the literal reading because I haven't addressed all of these questions or that I haven't thought of them, it's because I've just come back to the literal reading of 20 every time because I haven't been able to show the timeline it presents is not as it says anywhere else in scripture... As to the nations, you put to much into the word, let me give you an example. After everything, after the new city from heaven comes down, after Satan is destroyed and death is destroyed and there are only righteous left, Jehovah still calls them nations; Rev 21:24 "And the nations will walk by means of its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it."
Yes I have read those articles, but I don't see it that way. Here is what Jesus said: (And he included Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to those who will be resurrected in this context. So I don't see that these scriptures were unambiguously about the anointed. Besides that there would otherwise be the problem the Sadducees asked about.) Matthew 22: 23 On that day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection,+ came and asked him:+ 24 “Teacher, Moses said: ‘If any man dies without having children, his brother must marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.’+ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us. The first married and died, and having no offspring, he left his wife for his brother. 26 The same thing happened with the second and the third, through all seven. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 So in the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her as a wife.†29 In reply Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God;+ 30 for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are as angels in heaven.+ 31 Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, who said: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’?+ He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.â€+ 33 On hearing that, the crowds were astounded at his teaching. Mark 12:24Jesus said to them: “Is not this why you are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?+ 25 For when they rise from the dead, neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are as angels in the heavens.+ 26 But concerning the dead being raised up, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account about the thornbush, that God said to him: ‘I am the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob’?+ 27 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living. You are very much mistaken.â€+ Luke 20: 34Jesus said to them: “The children of this system of things* marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.+ 36 In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised up, even Moses made known in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah* ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’+ 38 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.â€
Hi Jan The answer to whether Jesus was speaking about the heavenly resurrection or the earthly is in the Luke 20 account you quoted. The ministry of Jesus was focused on gathering prospective members of the heavenly kingdom. Matt 15: 24 - He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.†The disciples Jesus and his followers gathered during his 3.5 year ministry would have been offered the heavenly hope, which is why the mother of James and John asked Jesus if he would give her sons a place beside him to his left and right. The kingdom was his focus. So Jesus answered the Sadducees’ question regarding the earthly resurrection, but also the heavenly one as well. Luke 20: 34-38 – 34 Jesus said to them: “The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God’s children by being children of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised up, even Moses made known in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ 38 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.†Let’s start with the earthly reference Jesus gave to the Sadducees. He said Jehovah was the God of the living, because even though Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead at the time Jehovah spoke to Moses, He spoke of them as if they were still alive. This meant that they would be resurrected in the future on earth, contrary to what the Sadducees believed. That is the point Jesus was making from verse 37. Now prior to verse 37, verses 34-36, Jesus gave details of the heavenly resurrection, the hope his 12 disciples and others had held out to them. We know these verses are solely for the anointed because Jesus said in verse 35, about those “counted worthy of gaining that system of things.†Think about this. We know that in the earthly resurrection, there is no such thing as being “counted worthy†of that resurrection. We know that in the book of Acts, Peter said there will be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. You do not have to be “worthy†or righteous to be resurrected on earth. But we know that is the case for the heavenly resurrected. Only righteous, “worthy†Christians will be resurrected to heaven. Secondly, Jesus said they are like the angels, and do not marry. Of course, angels do not marry. Those going to heaven will have similar spirit bodies to angels and don’t marry, so the issue of being married formerly to several people at various times when on earth is irrelevant. Besides, the anointed will be married to Jesus as soon as they are raised to heaven. Thirdly, Jesus said that they cannot die anymore. That is immortality. Paul says in 1 Cor 15 that those resurrected to heaven have put on “incorruption†and “immortality†where death is swallowed up forever. Those who live on the earth, are human and need to eat, drink and be faithful to live forever. They are not immortal. They can die or be destroyed. Anointed cannot die after they are resurrected, or in the words of Jesus: “Neither can they die anymore." Londoner
Londoner, yes I know that Jesus included in his answer those who will be resurrected to heaven. But I still see it to include also all who will be resurrected, including the patriarchs. Let's ask ourselves ( if these scriptures do not suffice) can you find any scripture that says people will positively get married and marry in the resurrection? I haven't found that. We have only the above mentioned scriptures. Paul also wrote when you die, the marriage dissolves. So you cannot by scripture prove that the resurrected would marry or get married.
Hi Jan I forgot to include these scriptures in my earlier post. Sorry! The following scriptures prove that those in the New System will be having children. To have children with Jehovah's approval and blessing, you will have to be married - period! Isa 65: 22-23 - They will not build for someone else to inhabit, Nor will they plant for others to eat. For the days of my people will be like the days of a tree, And the work of their hands my chosen ones will enjoy to the full.[SUP]23 [/SUP] They will not toil for nothing, Nor will they bear children for distress, Because they are the offspring made up of those blessed by Jehovah, And their descendants with them Isa 66: 22 “For just as the new heavens and the new earth that I am making will remain standing before me,†declares Jehovah, “so your offspring and your name will remain.†Londoner
Who are those spoken of in the following two verses? Use scriptures to answer; Not what you or someone else interprets. “‘I know your tribulation and poverty—but you are rich—and the blasphemy by those who call themselves Jews and really are not, but they are a synagogue of Satan.†(Rev 2:9 NWT) “Look! I will make those from the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews yet are not, but are lying—look! I will make them come and bow before your feet and make them know that I have loved you.†(Rev 3:9 NWT) If those who are anointed, or claim to be anointed, which tribe are you from? (Rev 7:4-8) Before you respond. I already have these scriptures considered. "For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. (Rom 2:28-29 NWT) “You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise.†(Gal 3:26-29 NWT)
Hi Tsaphah, The tribe of Joseph and the congregation of Philidelphia. Sounds like a awesome place to be. Have a great day. Joe
theirs that anointed thing again I'm a person that has no love of earthly things and I hear people talk about anointed. but the bible talking says many are called few are chosen.. My opinion is that way more than 144000 people got an invitation but some strayed . I don't really think anointed is an accurate term. just because someone got an invitation that doesn't mean they will actually stay faithful to jehovah until death. Paul spoke of this saying I do not claim to have attained it yet but this thing I do I put out of my mind the things of the past and hurry forward! because I want to reach my goal and that is the high calling of Christ to the heavens! Paul was invited and chosen for a great earthly work you can bet that those of us who Jehovah grants eternal life to will hear a lot from Paul in the new earth.
Interesting comment, belongtojah. There was no tribe of Joseph, although Jacob blessed Joseph in Egypt before he died. There was the half tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph. (Nu 1:10) And, the tribe of Dan is not mentioned in Revelation. There is much speculation on this point. When researching Martin Luther and his break from the Catholic Church, in his third thesis of the 95, written in 1517, Luther said, “CHRISTIANS FORM A PRIESTHOOD, ALL HAVING EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, EQUAL LIBERTY OF MIND AND CONSCIENCE, AND ALL HAVING THE RIGHT AND BEING IN DUTY BOUND TO INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES ACCORDING TO THE LIGHT GIVEN THEM.†I wondered where the idea of the “holy priesthood†and 144,000 “priests and kingsâ€; special class started within Jehovah’s Witnesses. When did Russell and the later leaders determine that only Jehovah’s Witnesses would make up the remainder of the 144,000 who would fit the scriptural “qualificationsâ€? (1 Pe 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6) In verse 9 of Peter’s letter, he uses the term “people†which in Greek is laos, meaning: 1. a people, people group, tribe, nation, all those who are of the same stock and language. 2. of a great part of the population gathered together anywhere. This does not distinguish between men or women. It is the collective body of all who make up that group. So why are there only “men†who make up the “body of elders†and the “Governing Boardâ€? There are many sisters that I know of who claim to be “anointedâ€. Why are they excluded from the body and decision making of the organization? In this view, the new Israel of God is the old Israel of God, it strikes a discordant note compared to the Greek scriptures. Jacob’s order of blessings: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin. (Ge 49:2-28) The order of listing in Revelation: Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin. (Rev 7: 5-8) Manasseh replaces Dan, and apparently Joseph replaces Ephraim. Are we to understand these tribes to be figurative?
Hi Tasaphah, There in lies the importance of realizing that that Israel of God is not natural Israel but spiritual Israel. Just because some one claims to be christian that does not make them a part of the group that are called and chosen (out of the Israel of God). The anointed who will rule with Jesus are chosen out of the Israel of God. All who believe are part of this Israel of God. From amoung these are the ones who are anointed. This is a spiritual thing and not a physical thing, Joe
Praying/ Talking to Jesus Taken from Wescott and Hort's (NWT master Greek Text) literal translation of Greek scriptures; John 14:13, 14 "and what likely you should ask in the name of me this I will do, in order that might be glorified the Father in the Son; "if ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do." Here is the way Franz (sole WT 'translator') tweaked this important scripture; "Also, whatever it is that you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." Now, can we see how other translations render this verse? "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." John 14:13,14 NIV " Whatever you ask the Father in my name, I will do- that the Son may bring glory to the Father. And if you ask me anything in my name, I will grant it." Phillips NT in Modern English (a Bible I very much appreciate and love reading; found it in a used book store for 3 bucks) I quote these scriptures as a prelude to helping other Witnesses see the real truth WT for years succeeded in killing and burying precious truths from Christ. The foremost , as I will say again; is the oneness anointing of the spirit of Jehovah, Christ, and us; followers who receive the spirit rebirth. The whole point ; lesson; of John 14 is the need to become , through faith first....one with Jesus, and the Father through this spirit, so that they come right inside our hearts and mind; just as he did his Son while on earth. Let me close with more from Phillips at John 14:8.... "The Phillip said to him, ' Show us the Father , Lord, and we shall be satisfied.' "Have I been such a long time with you, " returned Jesus,, "without your really knowing me Phillip? The man who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say,' Show us the Father?' "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The very words I say to you are not my own. It is the Father who lives in me who carries out his work through me. "Do you believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? But if you cannot, then believe me because of what you see me do. I assure you that the man who believes in me will do the same things that I have done, yes, and he will do even greater things than these, for I am going away to the Father. " Whatever you ask the Father in my name, I will do- that the Son may bring glory to the Father. And if you ask me anything in my name, I will grant it." "If you really love me, you will keep the commandments I have given you and I shall ask the Father to give you someone else to stand by you, to be with you always. I mean the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, for it can neither see nor recognize that Spirit. "But you recognize him, for he is with you now, and will be in your hearts. I am not going to leave you alone in the world- I am coming to you. In a very little while the world will see me no more, but you will see me, because I am really alive and you will be alive too. When that day comes, you will realize that I am in my Father, that you are in me, and I am in you." In quoting these few passages, I hope to re-acquaint some searchers who appreciate they are starting to pay much more attention to everything Jesus taught, and see the delusion we were under for so long; WT was God's teacher; not Christ. Christ's role as mediator, Brother, and our Lord who will come right inside of us, and teach , comfort, and indeed speak in our mind the things we need to learn, just as Father did for his Son...is a reality even now for the anointed Sons of the Kingdom. In this way, we are given the helper, the spirit of Truth. All who learn of this, and have faith it can happen for them just as Jesus promised, can experience the greatest blessing of their life.