Can any of these "priests" be women?
in short, yes
Have You Ever Heard This Explanation Why 144,000 is a Literal Number?
by Had Enough 37 Replies latest jw friends
-
plmkrzy
-
AGuest
Absolutely... and may you have peace!
When God speaks of "earthling man"... He is speaking of the SPECIES... versus the gender. That is why I love language so much: many of us have NO idea how certain words have more than one meaning, connotation and/or application.
"Man"... can denote a single male... or a species, which includes females. For "woMAN" simply means "man with a womb." We, too, are "man", in the most basic sense, and Christ made no distinction: it was Paul (?) who gave us knowledge of the separation... and that was because he was a Roman. And Roman law differentiated between men and women... male and female.
For those who doubt, I ask you: did God not bless women, even harlots, just as He blessed men? Did He not save Rahab's household just as He saved Noah's and Cornelius'? Did He not pour out His spirit on men servants AND women servants? Did not the Christ tell the woman at the well to go call a man, rather than having a man call her? Did he not appear first to women... due to the great faith of such women, in the fact of the lack shown by men? Did God not appoint Deborah as a judge... the same as Samson? And so on and so on.
EVERYTHING that was "separated" before Christ... is brought TOGETHER again... IN Christ. Eve did not crave Adam nor did he dominate her BEFORE their error. Christ, then, "heals" that error... and all others... so that what USED to separate us... from God and each other... had been "reconciled."
It is the FEAR... of men of the FLESH... their insecurities... inadequacies... and suffering ego... that holds on to such separate distinctions. Men of the SPIRIT... have no such fears... as love... casts ALL fear... even the fear of having women... and children... among them... OUTSIDE. For woman are not to be feared... but loved... even as Christ loved the congregation... and gave up his life for it. If, then, Christ called the men "brothers" and "friend,"... what are the men to call the women?
May those who have ears... hear... and get the sense of it:
God... is NOT partial: "There is neither Jew nor Greek,...slave nor freeman... male nor female... for you are ALL... ONE... in union with MISCHAJAH JAHESHUA."
I bid you peace.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
-
Farkel
: Absolutely... and may you have peace!
Of course they (women) can! Jesus was closer to Mary Magdalene than he was to any of his apostles, if the Gospels are to be believed.
Maybe he even boinked her. Who knows? If he didn't, he should have. Any Rabbi during the time of Christ (and Jesus was called "Rabbi") would have been considered weird if he didn't have a wife. A little study of Jewish history would help those of you who don't know this simple fact. Even if Jesus WAS unmarried throughout his life he had two problems 1) He was ignoring the God-given mandate to multiply and fill the earth, and 2) He was ignoring a tradition of Rabbis to be married that goes back to Moses.
No wonder he was suspect. By the way, it wasn't the Jews who had him killed. It was the Romans who had him killed. The gospels were re-written after-the-fact to make the Jews look bad and the REAL bad guys (like Pontius Pilate) to look either good or just stupid. This was all orchestrated by Constantine.
Read all you can on this subject. Once you do, you will realize that I'm not making up this stuff.
Peace and best and wonderful wishes to you, my little sistah!
Farkel
-
Kenneson
A Guest,
It just seems strange to me that the "virginity" of those undefiled by women is explained by you in symbolical terms (they did not commit spiritual adultery with the religions of the earth) , yet you still hold to a literal 144,000. Is there anything in Rev. 7 and 14 that you take literally other than that number?
-
willy_think
All Gods people of the tribes of Israel (12 x 10) x All Gods people not of the tribes of Israel (12 x 10) x all (10) = All of Gods people. (144,000)
(12*10)(12*10)(10) = 144,000
-
AGuest
peace to you both!
Daddy-O (and the greatest of love and peace to you, my dear "brutha'"!), my Lord did indeed have great affection for Mary the Magdalene, who was the sister of Martha and the leper Simon/Lazarus. He did not, however, "boink" her for to do so would have constituted taking her as a "wife"... which wife he would soon abandon. He already had his mother to be cared for, and had he "married" Mary, he would have either left her a childless widow (which meant that one of his fleshly brothers would have HAD to marry her and produce a child in his stead... and none of them, as of yet, had put faith in him, so Mary would have faced being returned to the "law" of the Jews...), OR left her a widow with a child... or children... all of whom would have had to be cared for. But by whom? Again, my Lord's fleshly brothers had not yet put faith in him, and his mother Mary couldn't care for herself. Thus, although he was TRIED like us... in ALL respects... his "greater" love for Mary precluded him from ruining her future by means of enjoying a brief interlude at the present.
Now, some might say, "'Tis better to have loved... and lost... than to not have loved at all." Which may be true. But love... is not always manifested by the flesh. My Lord's love for my sister, Mary, and her's for him... surpassed the flesh. Mary was well-acquainted with the "love" demonstrated by earthling man through the flesh... and this was different. Because it based first on SPIRIT... so that love in the flesh was not entirely necessary. Not all people who love each other need to sleep with each other. Although most wish to do both, because we are flesh AND spirit... many people "boink" without love... and love... without "boinking."
Since my Lord was more spirit than flesh (by means of having GOD's spirit in him)... his spirit was able to "conquer" his flesh... for the greater good of Mary. As a parent, I am SURE you can understand how one can "sacrifice" what one wants for the love of another.
Dearest Kenneson... may you have peace, as well. Everything in the Revelation is literal, albeit not everything is stated in terms familiar to THIS world, the physical realm. We who are physical tend to think that a word has either only one meaning... or the meaning we have been taught to ascribe to it.
There is the misunderstanding that the Revelation is "symbolic," due to the misrendering of certain words that give the impression it was presented in "symbols." It was not. It was given to John in SIGNS... by the archangel, Michael. What's the difference? Well, for example, when my Lord said "When you see such and such, then you will know such and such." What was to be SEEN... was literal... but it presented a SIGN... of something else. For example, trees putting forth their leaves represent to US... the season of spring. Yet, when my Lord said to his disciples that they would see such things, it was to serve as a SIGN of what was coming, in fulfillment of what he had told them. Back to the Revelation.
The number 144,000 is literal. God made a promise to Abraham that his (Abraham's) seed would be a "people for a special possession." He ratified that promise by means of a covenant at Mt. Sinai, which, at that time, ALL of Israel... and those who were with them... agreed to. They ALL said, "Yes!"
Now, by saying "Yes!" they were also obligated to instill in their children that same agreement (and to some degree, they did and still do, because the Jews of today, individually and as a group, still consider themselves God's "chosen people," yes?). However, PART of that agreement... was to welcome "Messiah" when he arrived. Unfortunately, rather than welcome him... they called for his death.
(No, this is true, dear Daddy-O, for while it is true that the Romans actually had him impaled, the Jews instigated it and could have stopped it but didn't. It was the Jews who judged and condemned him... and delivered him up to BE killed. It was they who called for his impalement, rather than his release in the stead of the criminal Barsabbas. He was free from guilt, for he had transgressed no one and no law. But, based on what he TAUGHT... he seemed a threat their entire way of life, their belief system... which was ROOTED in judgment and condemnation... in self-righteousness and hatred of those not "like" them. So, according to his insinuation, their position was God's "chosen people," was non-existent: they COULDN'T be... if they conducted themselves as they were. This insulted them... just as it does the "Jews" of today... the WTBTS. THEY consider themselves the "trooth"... and anyone who disagrees... no matter who they claim "sent" them... even God... MUST be silenced).
However, there were those who were NOT Jews who received "Messiah," and showed themselves to be Jews... on the INSIDE. In SPIRIT... versus in flesh. Because of their FAITH, then, God turned His attention AWAY from the Jews... who, by the action/ inaction with regard to the Christ... demonstrated a LACK of faith... and determined to replace "apostate" Israel... with people from the "nations."
The number of Abraham's seed... Israel... was "as the grains of sand." So that when God finally REJECTED Israel... who originally was to make up a "royal nation," that "number" had to be filled. God has purposed to fill it by (1) 144,000... "from among the sons of Israel,"... so as to fulfill His PROMISE to Abraham (because not ALL of Israel lacked faith; not ALL of them rejected Messiah)... AND... a "great crowd which NO man was able to number." That is why Paul said that "a dulling of sensibilities has occurred on behalf of Israel... UNTIL THE FULL NUMBER OF THE NATIONS HAS COME IN." Paul... unlike the 12 who were "witnesses... in all of Judea and Samaria (where the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah (Jews) and 10-tribe kingdom of Israel (Samaritans) resided)... was an "apostle... to the nations." That's why Revelation 5:9, 10 tells us that the "kings and priests" were bought from EVERY nation, tribe, tongue and people.
As regards the 144,000 being "virgins"... to US, humans, a virgin is a man or woman who has not had sexual relations... has not joined themselves to another in the FLESH. Spirits cannot join flesh... for they have none. In fact, the Nephilim had to put ON flesh in order to have relations with the daughters of men. THEY... "join"... by means of SPIRIT. Thus, just as a man and woman who join in the flesh become "one FLESH,"... those who join by SPIRIT... become "one SPIRIT."
Thus, while HUMANS are "virgins" because they have not "joined" in flesh with another man or woman... the 144,000 are "virgins"... in that they are not JOINED... in SPIRIT... with any other god. For HUMANS... a "virgin" is clean.... pure... "untouched" by another man or woman. For the 144,000... these did not become "joined" to others gods... but remained "true" to the Most Holy One of Israel. Thus, when Messiah found THEM... at whatever point in mankind's history this occurred for them, they followed HIM. True, they may have become "unclean" by means of "rubbing up against" false religion (i.e., the disciples following Judiasm), but separated themselves and QUIT touching the "unclean thing" as soon as they recognized it, and then were "cleansed" by the blood of the LAMB, so as to be returned to "virgin" status.
The "great crowd," however, were "unclean" by nature... due to never having been IN the Law Covenant, which, by means of the "blood of sprinkling,"... would have "cleansed" them. These, then, "wash" THEIR "robes" in the blood of the Lamb, as well, which blood cleanses more than the blood of bulls and goats, and as a result, they are constituted as CLEAN... and thus, also in a "virgin" state.
TOGETHER, these... the "little flock" of Jews/Israel... and the "other sheep" of the NATIONS... become ONE flock... with ONE shepherd, Christ. TOGETHER... these are the "bride" of Christ... which "bride" MUST be a "virgin"... versus an "unclean woman"... or "harlot".
When reading the Revelation, then, one cannot presume to interpret what is there solely in human/fleshly terms. One HAS to realize that they are things "of the spirit," GIVEN by the spirit... of God... BY MEANS of the Spirit... that is Christ... THROUGH a spirit... the archangel Michael... to the spirit of a man, John. (Revelation 4:1, 2) Such interpretation, then, must come from God, as they are God's "things"... and thus, things... of the SPIRIT.
Again, I bid you peace!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SJ
-
AGuest
The word of my Lord, which has been given me by means of holy spirit, is that the term "firstfruits," denotes more than just the first of the harvest: it also denotes the BEST of the harvest. And that is what is meant with regard to the 144,000 "from among the sons of Israel." Having not "defiled" themselves by following other gods and their religions, these are the "best" from among Israel.
If, then, one simply offered up the first of the harvest without regard for the QUALITY of the offering, one was not necessarily doing anything of note. It was the offering up of the BEST of the harvest that constituted something. For even the FIRST "fruit" of a harvest can be poor, rotten, infested. If, then, the entire harvest was "poor"... the offeror had to choose the BEST... and offer that up.
Thus, the BEST from among mankind... the Son of God... in whom there was no uncleaness or rotteness or infestation (or leaven) of any sort... was offered up. Thus, HE is called "Christ... THE Firstfruits."
1 Corinthians 15:23
I, SJ, have spoken this to you just as I have heard it from my Lord and Master, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, the Son and Christ of the Most Holy One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whose name is JAH... of Armies.
I bid you peace.
-
VM44
Well he said its very simple....the scripture talks about the Lamb and the 144,000. It doesn't say Lambs as in more than one....No, it says Lamb referring to the "literal number of one Lamb".
Hence, the 144,000 is a literal number!
That is a reason?
The audience should be insulted to have to listen to stuff like this!
--VM44