Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 170

Thread: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,956

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You keep claiming the 12 tribes are mentioned in Revelation 7. I keep highlighting that the 12 tribes are not mentioned as Dan is not included.
    You then say this is because of idolatry, but which ignores everyone that your claim is about land, in which case Dan MUST be mentioned as Land has nothing to do with idolatry.
    Yes, I say that this is all about the 12 tribes of Israel, and all about the total land package distributed to Israel when they were 12 tribes. That is a fact. That is true even before we come to the place of trying to interpret it. And that's why we can't get past "go" in this conversation.

    Secondly, I've been insisting that the names given for the 12 tribes of Israel are incidental to the above fact I just mentioned, that which particular tribes represent the 12 land inheritances is incidental to the fact there were originally 12 tribal land inheritances. No matter which name is affixed to the particular land inheritances, they still encompass the same total land territory. And no matter what tribes are omitted, the Jewish People today consist of *all* of those original tribes. What tribes mentioned has a symbolic significance, rather than an actual ability to exclude a particular hereditary stock. The Jewish People today are the descendants of the entire collective package of the original 12 tribes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    All prophetic mentions of Land include Dan.
    So this is about spirituality NOT Land, which you note but REFUSE to accept.
    Yes, I reject that because for me it's not true. Whenever the 12 tribes are mentioned they hearken back to the original mandate of possessing the entire land inheritance of Israel. In this case, spiritual values and the value of an actual land inheritance can be synchronized. My own property inheritance is dissipating as we speak. It is not "spiritual" of me to not care about this. However, it is what it is!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Add to this the FACT that you refuse to acknowledge that tribal lines were known 1000 years after you claim they would cease to be relevant and it becomes clear that you are NOT interested in the truth unless it fits within your criteria of what it is about.
    Please provide an example of what you're talking about, with respect to actual boundary lines being mentioned in the Bible at various times. Please don't expect me to make the leap with you that Anna saying she is from the tribe of Asher means there are still boundary lines for Asher! People have had genealogies to places that may not even exist any longer!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As you have refused repeatedly to acknowledge the truth that tribal lines were well known and relevant to people at the time of Revelation, then this also means you refuse to allow this to guide you in how you interpret Revelation 7, so there is no point in discussing this with you.
    You have yet to provide real evidence that it is true, in the time of Jesus, that Israel was divided up into tribal boundaries. In my view they were largely viewed as originating from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. But they were all merged and descended from all 12 tribes. The land inheritances may have existed to some degree, but I find no evidence of particular tribes or tribal boundaries still existing at the time John wrote his Revelation.

    So no, this conversation has become a waste of time. You just want me to take your word for it, based on the fact Anna had a genealogy and Jesus had a genealogy? Ridiculous! I don't even want to satisfy your criteria for truth!

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, I say that this is all about the 12 tribes of Israel, and all about the total land package distributed to Israel when they were 12 tribes. That is a fact. That is true even before we come to the place of trying to interpret it. And that's why we can't get past "go" in this conversation.
    You do keep saying it and until you STOP saying it, because it is NOT - there really is little point you posting erroneous claims further.
    I'll try to keep it REALLY SIMPLE. 12 tribes of Israel, when speaking about land inheritance REQUIRES the tribe of Dan to be included!
    Is that simple enough?
    Every single scripture which speaks about land inheritance of the 12 tribes ALWAYS includes Dan. This is true for BOTH the original division AND a future (prophesied) division.
    So you are claiming something which NOT a single scripture supports.
    This is YOUR personal speculation.

    Secondly, I've been insisting that the names given for the 12 tribes of Israel are incidental to the above fact I just mentioned, that which particular tribes represent the 12 land inheritances is incidental to the fact there were originally 12 tribal land inheritances. No matter which name is affixed to the particular land inheritances, they still encompass the same total land territory. And no matter what tribes are omitted, the Jewish People today consist of *all* of those original tribes. What tribes mentioned has a symbolic significance, rather than an actual ability to exclude a particular hereditary stock. The Jewish People today are the descendants of the entire collective package of the original 12 tribes.
    Nope, God names them specifically. He doesn't omit an entire tribe incidentally!
    It matters ENTIRELY to God, because God is the one who gives the Land Inheritance out, NOT simple as descendants of Abraham, but as 12 tribes with SPECIFIC land allocated.
    You ignore what God says, and then try to brush it off as though what God says is less important than YOUR own view.
    Now if you could provide scriptural evidence that God gave land to Levi or that He would take Land away from Dan, then please do. Otherwise scripturally you are making things up.

    Yes, I reject that because for me it's not true. Whenever the 12 tribes are mentioned they hearken back to the original mandate of possessing the entire land inheritance of Israel. In this case, spiritual values and the value of an actual land inheritance can be synchronized. My own property inheritance is dissipating as we speak. It is not "spiritual" of me to not care about this. However, it is what it is!
    Nope, no Land involved here ONLY the spiritual aspect.

    Please provide an example of what you're talking about, with respect to actual boundary lines being mentioned in the Bible at various times. Please don't expect me to make the leap with you that Anna saying she is from the tribe of Asher means there are still boundary lines for Asher! People have had genealogies to places that may not even exist any longer!
    I gave you Ezekiel 47 & 48, which was future from the time of the exile - IOW more than 500 years from when YOU claim that the tribal boundaries no longer exist.
    The FACT that someone from a tribe which others say is lost, is not only not lost, but actually KNOWN and recorded shows that the tribal lines were still recorded, 1000 years from when YOU claim they are no longer relevant or known, shows how little you know.
    Nehemiah 7:61 onwards makes mention of people as well as priests who couldn't show their family lines and so were excluded. This a further 80 years AFTER the first people return from exile, or around 550 years after you say it is not known.

    You have yet to provide real evidence that there existed, in the time of Jesus, that Israel was divided up into tribal boundaries. In my view they were largely viewed as originating from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. But they were all merged and descended from all 12 tribes. The land inheritances may have existed to some degree, but I find no evidence of particular tribes or tribal boundaries still existing at the time John wrote his Revelation. So no, this conversation has become a waste of time. You just want me to take your word for it, based on the fact Anna had a genealogy and Jesus had a genealogy? Ridiculous! I don't even want to satisfy your criteria for truth!
    Firstly I have PROVED beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the 12 tribes were not merged.
    Secondly I have not claimed that the tribal boundaries as were being lived in were not affected by the ruling Romans. For example we have Joseph living in Nazareth, yet when the census came he knew his tribal land was Bethlehem. So though people did live in various locations, the FACT is they still knew from where there family came. Joseph was NOT an isolated incident as Luke 2 tells us:
    Luke 2:2 And all went to be registered, each to his own town.
    IOW Joseph was NOT the only one to return to his own town. IN fact it seems Bethlehem had more people returning than there was room in the inn
    Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
    This shows that many other people made the journey to Bethlehem and nearby. Others went to other towns.

    Land inheritance existed, but what was also existing was a knowledge of their genealogy and which tribe they were from.

    I also highlighted how the reality even today is that numerous people in the world know their genealogies going back hundreds of years. YOUR claims are NOT based on a single scripture, but upon a Western-centric, specifically US based view, from a land which is a melting pot of peoples where such things do not happen, and so you apply this to everyone else.
    Go to the Deep South and you will find others know their roots back to colonial days - and this with a people who do not have a promise of God relating to their family etc.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,757
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Keraz, I respect your position because 1) the Church has held your position for a very long time, and 2) I'm not dead certain of my own interpretation. However, for now, I believe the passage is stating that the descendants of the original twelve tribes will inherit the entirety of the land of Israel. God's promises are being kept.

    There is no question that Israel is not yet God's People. That's true if you look at them presently as a nation. The vast majority are not Christians.

    However, there is a Christian remnant among them, as even Paul says. And these, I believe, sort of "stand in" for the hope of the whole nation, that the nation will one day become a Christian nation.

    Many nations in history have become "Christian." Why can't that happen to Israel too?
    Jewish Israel cannot become all Christian because the Bible prophets say they won't.
    The Dispensational theory of a general redemption of the entire house of Judah is not Biblical. What Jesus and the prophets plainly state is the demise of the House of Judah, with only a Christian remnant to survive. Romans 9:27, Zechariah 13:7-9, Jeremiah 10:18, +

    Yes, it will be the descendants of Jacob that will inherit the holy Land. Mostly those from the ten Northern tribes, who are now the Christin peoples. Also the teachings of Paul make it clear that anyone becoming a born again Christian, is deemed to be a descendant of Abraham. Romans 9:6-8, Ephesians 2:11-18, +

    Isn't Jeremiah 12:14-16 plain enough? My Israelite people is mentioned separately from the House of Judah.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,956

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    You do keep saying it and until you STOP saying it, because it is NOT - there really is little point you posting erroneous claims further.
    I'll try to keep it REALLY SIMPLE. 12 tribes of Israel, when speaking about land inheritance REQUIRES the tribe of Dan to be included!
    Is that simple enough?
    I understand what you're saying. But you're absolutely stone deaf to what I'm saying! I'm saying that 12 tribal allotments had to do with the parsing out of land inheritances to 12 tribes.

    Can't get any more simple than that! You can change the names, but that doesn't change the *historical reference.* And since this is, in fact, an historical reference I take it to be also an historical *inference.*

    Since the tribal boundaries, and thus, ethnic tribal distinctions, do not exist any longer, reference to the 12 tribes--whatever tribes may be omitted--is an historical *inference.* I will keep hammering away at this until you stop running past it. Perhaps it's too simple for you to grasp?

    Let me use the simplest of examples. Let's say I travel to Israel with a church group, and I'm teaching on Bible Prophecy. I go to the Sea of Galilee and pick up 12 stones, throwing them into the lake. What do you think that infers?

    Well, there are 12 stones, and there were 12 tribes, and there were 12 apostles. I think I can safely say the reference is to the 12 tribes of Israel.

    Does that mean the tribes still exist? No, it just means that I'm referencing the ancient 12 tribes and their tribal allotments in land. It means nothing more than this. What you do in terms of interpreting what I *mean* by it is another thing entirely!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Every single scripture which speaks about land inheritance of the 12 tribes ALWAYS includes Dan. This is true for BOTH the original division AND a future (prophesied) division.
    So you are claiming something which NOT a single scripture supports.
    This is YOUR personal speculation.
    I think you're so dead set on this because of your view of Eze 40-48 and because of your view of Rev 7 and 14. There are problems with basing absolute doctrinal positions on visions and dreams, on symbolism and speculation. We should deal with that separately, and not base any certainty on those kinds of things. My immediate concern is to just make the point that the symbol indicated by a reference to *12 tribes* is a reference back to the original 12 tribes--no matter what specific tribes are listed.

    And no, I don't think the omission of Dan means that he is excluded from a future inheritance in Israel. There is no tribe of Dan regardless! He has been absorbed into the body of people we call "the Jews." The omission of his name is significant only by symbolic gesture--by reference to the fact his tribal distinction is less worth representing than others. But the same people and the same land territory is being represented.

    Let me just explain again how this is possible, based on actual conditions in the present. The 12 tribes have merged into a single people, the Jews. So 12,000 Jews could be assigned a Reuben portion, 12,000 Jews could be assigned a Simeon portion, and 12,000 Jews could be assigned a Joseph portion. It doesn't matter, any group of Jews consists of the descendants of *all 12 tribes!* And so the omission of Dan and Ephraim are irrelevant! What is relevant, however, is the fact that the original mandate is being carried out, namely the inheritance of the total land package of Israel!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, God names them specifically. He doesn't omit an entire tribe incidentally!
    It matters ENTIRELY to God, because God is the one who gives the Land Inheritance out, NOT simple as descendants of Abraham, but as 12 tribes with SPECIFIC land allocated.
    You ignore what God says, and then try to brush it off as though what God says is less important than YOUR own view.
    Now if you could provide scriptural evidence that God gave land to Levi or that He would take Land away from Dan, then please do. Otherwise scripturally you are making things up.
    No, I'm talking about historical realities today and in the day John received his revelation. I'm not saying that the irrelevance of omitting certatin names renders God's word irrelevant! I'm saying that God's word here is deliberately rendering irrelevant the omission of Dan's name, because God *wanted* to omit the name. He wanted to render omission of the name Dan irrelevant!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope, no Land involved here ONLY the spiritual aspect.


    I gave you Ezekiel 47 & 48, which was future from the time of the exile - IOW more than 500 years from when YOU claim that the tribal boundaries no longer exist.
    Yes, the vision Ezekiel received was a vision. And the facts on the ground in his time was *no more tribal boundaries.* The northern tribes, which had been consolidated into a single kingdom, were no more. And the 10 tribes are now thought to have been "lost."

    So you are basing your views on visions that applied to Ezekiel's time, and only apply to our time in the format of symbolism. In Ezekiel's time the Law was still in play, and temple law still applied, even though the temple was wiped out. So the language of temple symbolism expressed the future hope of Israel, the final salvation of national Israel.

    I still believe that will happen. I just don't believe it will incorporate the Law of Moses. That is against Scriptural doctrine.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The FACT that someone from a tribe which others say is lost, is not only not lost, but actually KNOWN and recorded shows that the tribal lines were still recorded, 1000 years from when YOU claim they are no longer relevant or known, shows how little you know.
    Nehemiah 7:61 onwards makes mention of people as well as priests who couldn't show their family lines and so were excluded. This a further 80 years AFTER the first people return from exile, or around 550 years after you say it is not known.
    I agree with you. People still kept genealogies for a long time. As long as the Law was still in effect, land inheritances were in effect, priestly lines were in effect, and even royal genealogies were necessary. But the existence of genealogies alone did not maintain tribal distinctions in the sense of ethnic groupings. My sense is that all the tribes became either lost or merged into "the Jews." This is just a fact of history. The limited use of genealogies, therefore, does not prove that tribes existed like states, and that they can ever be restored as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Firstly I have PROVED beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the 12 tribes were not merged.
    Secondly I have not claimed that the tribal boundaries as were being lived in were not affected by the ruling Romans. For example we have Joseph living in Nazareth, yet when the census came he knew his tribal land was Bethlehem. So though people did live in various locations, the FACT is they still knew from where there family came. Joseph was NOT an isolated incident as Luke 2 tells us:
    Luke 2:2 And all went to be registered, each to his own town.
    IOW Joseph was NOT the only one to return to his own town. IN fact it seems Bethlehem had more people returning than there was room in the inn
    Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
    This shows that many other people made the journey to Bethlehem and nearby. Others went to other towns.

    Land inheritance existed, but what was also existing was a knowledge of their genealogy and which tribe they were from.

    I also highlighted how the reality even today is that numerous people in the world know their genealogies going back hundreds of years. YOUR claims are NOT based on a single scripture, but upon a Western-centric, specifically US based view, from a land which is a melting pot of peoples where such things do not happen, and so you apply this to everyone else.
    Go to the Deep South and you will find others know their roots back to colonial days - and this with a people who do not have a promise of God relating to their family etc.
    Just show me a people who call themselves Reubanites and you will convince me. But you can't. Just find me a group called Josephites, and I'll concede. But you can't. You're arguing for a flat earth. You're going to believe it because "the Bible says it." But you're basing your beliefs on visions and symbols. That's a big mistake! Base your beliefs on *doctrinal statements* made in the Bible--not on your own personal speculations and interpretations of visions. That's way too subjective to be reliable.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,757
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Jeremiah 50:5 & Jer. 51:50 They will ask the way to Zion, with their faces turned thitherward saying: Come; let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant, never to be forgotten. Remember the Lord from far off and let Jerusalem come into your mind. KJV.
    This verse is often quoted as an example of the gathering of the Lord’s people at the commencement of the Millennium. Apart from the KJV’s archaic wording, other translations put it exactly the same. What needs to be considered is; Who is it asking the way to the holy Land and when does this happen?

    Jeremiah 50:4 tells us exactly who this refers to: it is the people of Israel, who are: the Northern ten tribes and the people of Judah, the Jews. Isaiah 11:11-12
    Jeremiah 50:6 My people are like lost sheep, whose shepherds have led them astray. They have run wild and wandered from mountain to hill, forgetful of their true inheritance.
    Other than about half of the Jewish people, they are now in exile. So it isn’t the Christian church as such, but all the descendants of Jacob, whether actual or grafted in and only God knows who they are, [Amos 9:9] scattered among the nations, but they will be the faithful Christian believers in the one true God and all those that place their trust in the Lord Jesus for their salvation.
    The prophet Ezekiel in chapter 37, tells us about the spiritual regeneration and the physical rejoining of the House of Israel and the House of Judah. In Ezekiel 20:34-38, he tells how they will be gathered and judged, then they will go and settle into the holy Land. But to enable this to happen, all of the holy Land must be cleared and cleansed and this will be done by the ‘Lord’s outpoured wrath’. Ezekiel 20:46-48 explains how this will be achieved – the Lord will kindle a fire in the Land, it will burn everything from the Negev northward. This will be the Day of the Lord’s vengeance and wrath, a terrible fire blasted out from the sun that will devastate the Middle East and will have dramatic worldwide repercussions. Isaiah 30:25-28, Malachi 4:1, Isaiah 66:15-16, 2 Peter 3:10, Zechariah 3:8

    The prophecy that specifically tells us about the glorious Return of Jesus, Rev 19:11-21, does not speak of anything like this, His defeat of the Anti-Christ’s army is simply by the Sword of His Word, they are not burned up, as the birds and beasts feed on them. Matthew 24:31 states that: He will send His angels to gather His elect from around the world… they are those who refused the ‘mark of the beast’, and righteous Israel – taken [flown?] to a place of safety during the Tribulation. This is quite different from the many prophecies about the great second Exodus of the Israelites, who come back to their heritage in other ways; Isaiah 66:20, Isaiah 60:8-9, Psalms 107.
    God’s promises to the Patriarchs will be fulfilled and their descendants, actual and spiritual, will live in peace and prosperity in the Promised Land. Psalms 105:5-10 They will be a ‘light to the nations, displaying the Lord’s holiness for all to see’. Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 66:18-19, Ezekiel 39:27-29

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I understand what you're saying. But you're absolutely stone deaf to what I'm saying! I'm saying that 12 tribal allotments had to do with the parsing out of land inheritances to 12 tribes.
    I have heard EVERY TIME you have made YOUR claim. I am not deaf to it. I have simply repeated, and no it is getting to ad. nauseam, that there are NOT the 12 tribes mentioned as Dan is NOT mentioned.
    So WHEN Dan is included THEN you would be correct. However as Dan is NOT mentioned , so it is clear you are wrong.

    Can't get any more simple than that! You can change the names, but that doesn't change the *historical reference.* And since this is, in fact, an historical reference I take it to be also an historical *inference.*
    A historical reference means it connects to an historical reality. You IGNORE the historical reality for your OWN historical speculation.
    You provide ZERO scriptural or historical reality that matches. So why should anyone think you have a foundation for your claim!?!

    Since the tribal boundaries, and thus, ethnic tribal distinctions, do not exist any longer, reference to the 12 tribes--whatever tribes may be omitted--is an historical *inference.* I will keep hammering away at this until you stop running past it. Perhaps it's too simple for you to grasp?
    Again WRONG.
    You confuse tribal land inheritance with actual tribes.
    The tribes were promised land is correct. However they also were given other promises - stated for different tribes. Perhaps reading Genesis 49 might help you?
    Further we KNOW 100% for a FACT that the tribal distinctions were known and KEPT.
    Therefore your claim is incorrect.
    When you start according with scripture then you have something to impart.

    Let me use the simplest of examples. Let's say I travel to Israel with a church group, and I'm teaching on Bible Prophecy. I go to the Sea of Galilee and pick up 12 stones, throwing them into the lake. What do you think that infers?
    Well, there are 12 stones, and there were 12 tribes, and there were 12 apostles. I think I can safely say the reference is to the 12 tribes of Israel.
    Does that mean the tribes still exist? No, it just means that I'm referencing the ancient 12 tribes and their tribal allotments in land. It means nothing more than this. What you do in terms of interpreting what I *mean* by it is another thing entirely!
    So the 12 tribes have allotments in the sea? Sorry, your example is void for a number of reasons.
    1) If you were to mention the 12 tribes in regards to land, then you would name each stone AND call one Dan. I'm pretty sure in your example you aren't calling one Dan.
    2) Throwing 12 stones is meaningless without it stating what about those 12 tribes. In the case of Rev 7 we are told that there are 12,000 people out of each, who are set aside by God.
    3) If it were you teaching, then by what you have put on this thread, then we would know it is meaningless - - OK joking on this one.

    I think you're so dead set on this because of your view of Eze 40-48 and because of your view of Rev 7 and 14. There are problems with basing absolute doctrinal positions on visions and dreams, on symbolism and speculation. We should deal with that separately, and not base any certainty on those kinds of things. My immediate concern is to just make the point that the symbol indicated by a reference to *12 tribes* is a reference back to the original 12 tribes--no matter what specific tribes are listed.
    Now if you simplified your claim, to it being about 144k people from 12 tribes THEN you may get agreement.
    It is when you ADD that it is about land inheritance, and further ADD that there are not 12 tribes. And keep ADDing your OWN speculation.

    And no, I don't think the omission of Dan means that he is excluded from a future inheritance in Israel. There is no tribe of Dan regardless! He has been absorbed into the body of people we call "the Jews." The omission of his name is significant only by symbolic gesture--by reference to the fact his tribal distinction is less worth representing than others. But the same people and the same land territory is being represented.
    Nope. God does NOT omit names incidentally or accidentally.
    We use the word Jew interchangeably with that of Israel, mainly for historic reasons. Doesn't mean we use it correctly.

    Let me just explain again how this is possible, based on actual conditions in the present. The 12 tribes have merged into a single people, the Jews. So 12,000 Jews could be assigned a Reuben portion, 12,000 Jews could be assigned a Simeon portion, and 12,000 Jews could be assigned a Joseph portion. It doesn't matter, any group of Jews consists of the descendants of *all 12 tribes!* And so the omission of Dan and Ephraim are irrelevant! What is relevant, however, is the fact that the original mandate is being carried out, namely the inheritance of the total land package of Israel!
    Nope. I could accept that the people in question themselves may not know to which group they belong. However IF God wanted 144k Jews, then that is what would be said.

    No, I'm talking about historical realities today and in the day John received his revelation. I'm not saying that the irrelevance of omitting certatin names renders God's word irrelevant! I'm saying that God's word here is deliberately rendering irrelevant the omission of Dan's name, because God *wanted* to omit the name. He wanted to render omission of the name Dan irrelevant!
    Unfortunately you seem fairly clueless about historical realities. And more importantly you ignore scriptural realities. In the time when John received Revelation people KNEW which tribe they were from. It is as simple as that. I have nothing in particular to say beyond that. The inferences can be made by others. However when you CLAIM something based on a FALSE inference, then I thought it is important to highlight this FACT.
    I wont say this again as it becomes pointless.

    Yes, the vision Ezekiel received was a vision. And the facts on the ground in his time was *no more tribal boundaries.* The northern tribes, which had been consolidated into a single kingdom, were no more. And the 10 tribes are now thought to have been "lost."
    Incorrect. the 10 tribes were NOT no more. We know they continued to exist because they still existed in Jesus' day, 500 years later.

    So you are basing your views on visions that applied to Ezekiel's time, and only apply to our time in the format of symbolism. In Ezekiel's time the Law was still in play, and temple law still applied, even though the temple was wiped out. So the language of temple symbolism expressed the future hope of Israel, the final salvation of national Israel.
    Here is another of your FALSE claims. The LAW exists and will continue to exist.
    The temple, in case you hadn't noticed was rebuilt. Further in Ezekiel's vision it is rebuilt. In Revelation the temple exists. The final salvation of Israel has ALWAYS been God.

    I still believe that will happen. I just don't believe it will incorporate the Law of Moses. That is against Scriptural doctrine.
    No, just against your doctrine.

    I agree with you. People still kept genealogies for a long time. As long as the Law was still in effect, land inheritances were in effect, priestly lines were in effect, and even royal genealogies were necessary. But the existence of genealogies alone did not maintain tribal distinctions in the sense of ethnic groupings. My sense is that all the tribes became either lost or merged into "the Jews." This is just a fact of history. The limited use of genealogies, therefore, does not prove that tribes existed like states, and that they can ever be restored as such.
    You keep trying to make strawmen arguments. The FACT that tribes existed MEANS that tribes existed. That is the FACT.
    You are claiming that because the tribal land inheritances were all mixed up that somehow this means that tribes didn't exist or that the knowledge of your genealogy is unimportant.

    Just show me a people who call themselves Reubanites and you will convince me. But you can't. Just find me a group called Josephites, and I'll concede. But you can't. You're arguing for a flat earth. You're going to believe it because "the Bible says it." But you're basing your beliefs on visions and symbols. That's a big mistake! Base your beliefs on *doctrinal statements* made in the Bible--not on your own personal speculations and interpretations of visions. That's way too subjective to be reliable.
    I am not arguing for a flat-earth. I am arguing for TRUTH, which is that AT THE TIME John was given Revelation, there was the tribe of Benjamin, the tribe of Asher, the tribe of Judah, the tribe of Levi. Further that people knew from where there families came from.
    This is TRUTH as presented in the Bible.
    Now, you may argue that TODAY is much harder to prove or show such a thing for those of Israel.
    But if you are trying to argue about DURING the time of John, the scripture PROVES the opposite to what you claim.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,956

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I have heard EVERY TIME you have made YOUR claim. I am not deaf to it. I have simply repeated, and no it is getting to ad. nauseam, that there are NOT the 12 tribes mentioned as Dan is NOT mentioned.
    That is so obviously wrong that it barely bears addressing. The only thing I need to is quote the passage:

    Rev 7.4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

    Your position flat out contradicts this Scriptural claim. The Scriptures here claim that all of the tribes listed constitute a complete list of "all the tribes of Israel." Your argument is with the Scriptures!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So WHEN Dan is included THEN you would be correct. However as Dan is NOT mentioned , so it is clear you are wrong.

    A historical reference means it connects to an historical reality. You IGNORE the historical reality for your OWN historical speculation.
    What historical reality am I ignoring--the false claim that boundaries existed for the 12 tribes of Israel long after they no longer existed? You have provided no evidence apart from genealogical records and land inheritance claims. The peoples amalgamated into one--the Jews, by the time John wrote his Revelation! There were no Reubanites, Judahites, though there still were Levites! A few people could trace their heritage. But this does not in the least equate to tribal groups that could be repackaged at the end of the age into twelve separate tribes!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You provide ZERO scriptural or historical reality that matches. So why should anyone think you have a foundation for your claim!?!
    Historical realities, my friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Again WRONG.
    You confuse tribal land inheritance with actual tribes.
    The tribes were promised land is correct. However they also were given other promises - stated for different tribes. Perhaps reading Genesis 49 might help you?
    Further we KNOW 100% for a FACT that the tribal distinctions were known and KEPT.
    The tribal inheritances and promises were fulfilled fairly early in the history of Israel. Eventually, the tribal distinctions became unnecessary and non-existent. It is no different from how people grow as families today, with some remaining in their tribal areas, and some migrating elsewhere. Eventually, you get a hodgepodge.

    But there is no question in my mind that following the captivities there could be little trace of recognizable tribal groups. Ten of the tribes are thought to have been lost--the Jews believe that! I personally think many from these ten lost tribes either assimilated or merged in with what we call the "Jews" today.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Therefore your claim is incorrect.
    When you start according with scripture then you have something to impart.

    So the 12 tribes have allotments in the sea? Sorry, your example is void for a number of reasons.
    1) If you were to mention the 12 tribes in regards to land, then you would name each stone AND call one Dan. I'm pretty sure in your example you aren't calling one Dan.
    2) Throwing 12 stones is meaningless without it stating what about those 12 tribes. In the case of Rev 7 we are told that there are 12,000 people out of each, who are set aside by God.
    3) If it were you teaching, then by what you have put on this thread, then we would know it is meaningless - - OK joking on this one.
    It's okay. I don't teach the Bible. It was just an example. You miss my point because I deliberately avoided giving names to the stones. Just the fact there were 12 conveys the idea of the 12 tribes of Israel. It doesn't matter if Dan is omitted. The fact there are 12 indicates all Israel and all of its tribal inheritances are involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now if you simplified your claim, to it being about 144k people from 12 tribes THEN you may get agreement.
    It is when you ADD that it is about land inheritance, and further ADD that there are not 12 tribes. And keep ADDing your OWN speculation.
    Connecting the idea of "12" to the tribal inheritances, which were *12* is not speculation! It is historical fact. It is an historical symbol! The specific names can be rearranged, but we're talking about the same people, particularly after they have fully integrated and intermarried among the tribes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope. God does NOT omit names incidentally or accidentally.
    We use the word Jew interchangeably with that of Israel, mainly for historic reasons. Doesn't mean we use it correctly.
    I am not saying God is accidentally omitting Dan. You know that already. I'm saying God is deliberately showing that the mention of Dan is unimportant to the description of the *total number of Israeli tribes,* which are listed in Rev 7.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nope. I could accept that the people in question themselves may not know to which group they belong. However IF God wanted 144k Jews, then that is what would be said.

    Unfortunately you seem fairly clueless about historical realities. And more importantly you ignore scriptural realities. In the time when John received Revelation people KNEW which tribe they were from. It is as simple as that. I have nothing in particular to say beyond that. The inferences can be made by others. However when you CLAIM something based on a FALSE inference, then I thought it is important to highlight this FACT.
    I wont say this again as it becomes pointless.
    Again, you think to establish that everybody in Israel in the time of Jesus had genealogies of their own tribe, encompassing all 12 tribes? Where is your "Scriptural proof?" You have just given us Jesus' genealogy, and Anna's genealogy. We know Paul had a genealogy. That does not prove there were distinct tribes in Jesus' time! Where was the tribe of Reuben? Where was the tribe of Naphtali?

    Actually, you do have a description of the region of Naphtali. But this was a quote from Isaiah concerning the *region* of Naphtali and Zebulun.

    But do you find they were consisting of those from the tribe of Naphtali? No, they are all described as Jews. And we know, from Scriptures, that these Jews originated from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. If you don't like the facts, don't tell me that I haven't made reference to Scriptures! You just don't seem to want to hear them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Incorrect. the 10 tribes were NOT no more. We know they continued to exist because they still existed in Jesus' day, 500 years later.
    Right, we can accept that from you because you *say so?*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Here is another of your FALSE claims. The LAW exists and will continue to exist.
    The temple, in case you hadn't noticed was rebuilt. Further in Ezekiel's vision it is rebuilt. In Revelation the temple exists. The final salvation of Israel has ALWAYS been God.
    As I said before, don't build doctrine off of visions! They are subject to private interpretation, which always should be suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No, just against your doctrine.

    You keep trying to make strawmen arguments. The FACT that tribes existed MEANS that tribes existed. That is the FACT.
    You are claiming that because the tribal land inheritances were all mixed up that somehow this means that tribes didn't exist or that the knowledge of your genealogy is unimportant.
    No, I'm saying that the 10 tribes got lost and merged in with the people we call "the Jews." Same people, but no more tribal distinctions. Some genealogies, yes. But the possibility of reemerging tribes from the ancient DNA bases--no.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I am not arguing for a flat-earth. I am arguing for TRUTH, which is that AT THE TIME John was given Revelation, there was the tribe of Benjamin, the tribe of Asher, the tribe of Judah, the tribe of Levi.
    No, you're proving only that people existed who still traced their lineage to their original tribes. They were no longer grouped into tribal divisions, period. You have *not* proven that. You *cannot* prove that. You *will not* prove that! And I will *not* accept something that is not historically accurate. It's not even *biblically* accurate!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Further that people knew from where there families came from.
    This is TRUTH as presented in the Bible.
    Now, you may argue that TODAY is much harder to prove or show such a thing for those of Israel.
    But if you are trying to argue about DURING the time of John, the scripture PROVES the opposite to what you claim.
    So, you can never prove that it can be fulfilled as a future reality of 12 tribes? So now you resort to only trying to prove a reality 2000 years ago that you have *no evidence for* except for the existence of a few genealogies? That is the weakest you ever been, glory. I'm disappointed. I expect better out of you.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    That is so obviously wrong that it barely bears addressing. The only thing I need to is quote the passage:
    Rev 7.4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
    Your position flat out contradicts this Scriptural claim. The Scriptures here claim that all of the tribes listed constitute a complete list of "all the tribes of Israel." Your argument is with the Scriptures!
    Nope, doesn't contradict scripture. It says this is the number FROM all the tribes of Israel. It doesn't say this IS all the tribes of Israel. There is no one FROM the tribe of Dan. Scripture doesn't disagree with itself. We KNOW 100% from scripture that Dan is a tribe of Israel. What we KNOW 100% from this scripture is that no one from the tribe of Dan is part of the 144k.
    That is what the scripture says. This PROVES your idea as wrong, when you understand what is stated.

    So, you can never prove that it can be fulfilled as a future reality of 12 tribes? So now you resort to only trying to prove a reality 2000 years ago that you have *no evidence for* except for the existence of a few genealogies? That is the weakest you ever been, glory. I'm disappointed. I expect better out of you.
    Who can PROVE the future? We can ONLY see what we are told of the past. Yet some, like yourself refuse to accept what we are told of the past, so then how can we ever get a clear understanding?

  9. #129

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    The 144,000 are, probably, literal virgins, IMO.

    For one thing the Bible, inasmuch as it is correctly transcribed and unmolested, doesn't make mistakes.

    But people do.

    Also, Jesus told us that our children would be our judges, I recall, and that will be in tune, I believe, with our lack of responsibility in regard to their safety.

    MT 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
    JER 14:13 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them: Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.'
    JER 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke I unto them; they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by dan View Post
    The 144,000 are, probably, literal virgins, IMO.

    For one thing the Bible, inasmuch as it is correctly transcribed and unmolested, doesn't make mistakes.

    But people do.

    Also, Jesus told us that our children would be our judges, I recall, and that will be in tune, I believe, with our lack of responsibility in regard to their safety.

    MT 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
    Actually Jesus is not saying our children would be our judges, but rather that the children of the Pharisees, who reject Jesus, would be judges of their parents (for having rejected Jesus and,) will use the same measure against them.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,956

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, doesn't contradict scripture. It says this is the number FROM all the tribes of Israel. It doesn't say this IS all the tribes of Israel. There is no one FROM the tribe of Dan. Scripture doesn't disagree with itself. We KNOW 100% from scripture that Dan is a tribe of Israel. What we KNOW 100% from this scripture is that no one from the tribe of Dan is part of the 144k.
    That is what the scripture says. This PROVES your idea as wrong, when you understand what is stated.


    Who can PROVE the future? We can ONLY see what we are told of the past. Yet some, like yourself refuse to accept what we are told of the past, so then how can we ever get a clear understanding?
    Rather than believe something that is impossible I choose to look at it another way. All the tribes of Israel are amalgamated into a single pot of "Jews." This includes *all* of the tribes, *all* of the representative DNA from all 12 tribes, including Dan. The distinction of a different set of tribal boundaries appears to show that the land encompassing all 12 tribes of Israel find greater importance with these particular land designations than with others. The omission of Dan, for example, does not exclude the descendants of Dan, but it does refuse to give them recognition due to their historic choice to establish idolatry in Israel. Future Israel will not allow this idolatry.

    What we will have to do, if we are to re-designate 12 tribal bounaries is arbitrarily assign the Jewish People to each region, irrespective of any distinction in their tribal DNA.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Thames, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,757
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Rather than believe something that is impossible I choose to look at it another way. All the tribes of Israel are amalgamated into a single pot of "Jews." This includes *all* of the tribes, *all* of the representative DNA from all 12 tribes, including Dan. The distinction of a different set of tribal boundaries appears to show that the land encompassing all 12 tribes of Israel find greater importance with these particular land designations than with others. The omission of Dan, for example, does not exclude the descendants of Dan, but it does refuse to give them recognition due to their historic choice to establish idolatry in Israel. Future Israel will not allow this idolatry.

    What we will have to do, if we are to re-designate 12 tribal bounaries is arbitrarily assign the Jewish People to each region, irrespective of any distinction in their tribal DNA.
    Your notion that the Jewish people are all of Israel is incorrect. This is proved by the prophesies saying that the Israelite peoples will be an uncountable multitude and when they all go to live in ALL of the holy Land, they will say: This Land is too small for us. Isaiah 49:19-21
    Ezekiel 37 is unfulfilled. This is clear from how the Spiritual blessings have not yet been given.

    When we Christians go to live in the holy Land, Isaiah 35:1-10, Ezekiel 34:11-31, Jeremiah 31:8-9, Romans 9:24-26, + , the Lord will be revealed to us, 2 Thess 1:10, Revelation 14:1, and He will assign each family to the tribe that is best suited for them. This great gathering is seen by John in Revelation 7:9
    The sequence of that chapter being between the Sixth Seal, Rev 6:12-17 and the Seventh Seal, Revelation 8:1, informs us that these things will take place soon after the terrible Day of the Lord's wrath; the 'great ordeal, or tribulation' of Revelation 7:14.

    Isaiah 27:6 In a time to come, Jacobs posterity will take root and Israel will bud and blossom. They will fill the whole world with fruit.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Rather than believe something that is impossible I choose to look at it another way.
    What is impossible? You mean because you don't know?

    All the tribes of Israel are amalgamated into a single pot of "Jews." This includes *all* of the tribes, *all* of the representative DNA from all 12 tribes, including Dan. The distinction of a different set of tribal boundaries appears to show that the land encompassing all 12 tribes of Israel find greater importance with these particular land designations than with others. The omission of Dan, for example, does not exclude the descendants of Dan, but it does refuse to give them recognition due to their historic choice to establish idolatry in Israel. Future Israel will not allow this idolatry.

    What we will have to do, if we are to re-designate 12 tribal bounaries is arbitrarily assign the Jewish People to each region, irrespective of any distinction in their tribal DNA.
    Sorry, but this is not specifically about DNA, it is about a group being called out of each tribe. It does NOT include all tribes, so your base assumption is wrong.
    Every time you say it is ALL the tribes we automatically know you are wrong as you are making an assumption on what is not there.

    It makes ZERO statement about tribal boundaries, but does make a statement about tribes worshipping God.
    At the time Revelation was written these tribes were still known.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,956

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    What is impossible? You mean because you don't know?


    Sorry, but this is not specifically about DNA, it is about a group being called out of each tribe. It does NOT include all tribes, so your base assumption is wrong.
    Every time you say it is ALL the tribes we automatically know you are wrong as you are making an assumption on what is not there.

    It makes ZERO statement about tribal boundaries, but does make a statement about tribes worshipping God.
    At the time Revelation was written these tribes were still known.
    Wrong!
    Rev 7.4 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

    Can you please define what "all" means here in this verse? I know you've tried before, but "all" means "all."

    The tribal land boundaries did not exist in the time John received his revelation. Having a genealogy is not the same as there being tribal boundaries. And if you don't have tribal boundaries, you don't have tribes.

    John knew this, and still penned this revelation. How do you think he understood it? It had to be the Jewish People as a whole, representing as a people the posterity of all 12 tribes. And each tribal area had to together constitute the entire land area of Israel.

    Yes, it is all about DNA. The tribes had to have contributed their DNA to the collective group we call "the Jewish People." Otherwise, they would not be descended from Abraham, nor the "natural branches" of the original tree. The inclusion of all tribes, therefore, require that this be the natural posterity of Abraham. And this also suggests the original land is still in play.

    In the time of John the tribes were no longer represented. They had all come to be immersed in Judah, because Judah was the tribe surrounding the temple and Jerusalem. They were certainly not all from the tribe of Judah. But they were most certainly a mix from all the tribes. Some remained in diaspora. Some became assimilated in other ethnic groups.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are the 144,000 literally "virgins?"

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Wrong!
    Rev 7.4 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

    Can you please define what "all" means here in this verse? I know you've tried before, but "all" means "all."
    Actually I did explain before and you didn't say where my explanation was wrong.

    Rev 7:3 saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads."
    Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
    Rev 7:5 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, 12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad,
    Rev 7:6 12,000 from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh,
    Rev 7:7 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000 from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar,
    Rev 7:8 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.

    We are given the break down of the tribes which are sealed, and Dan is NOT included. Therefore the meaning is NOT meaning LAND Boundaries, because Dan is apportioned Land as a tribe of Israel.
    You latch onto the word ALL as if it exists in isolation of what is stated.
    The meaning is that ALL those who are sealed ARE from a tribe of the sons of Israel. IOW it is NOT speaking about Gentiles. ALL are from the tribes of Israel. Every single one.
    We KNOW your understanding of the meaning is the wrong one BECAUSE the tribe of Dan is NOT included.
    So either the claim of what ALL by John meant is wrong, or YOUR understanding of how the word ALL is used is wrong.
    I personally go with "YOUR understanding of how the word All is used is wrong".
    I think John was right.

    The tribal land boundaries did not exist in the time John received his revelation. Having a genealogy is not the same as there being tribal boundaries. And if you don't have tribal boundaries, you don't have tribes.
    I agree that having a genealogy is NOT the same as there being land boundaries. You are the one claiming it is about land boundaries when that is NOT mentioned. I am saying this is about genealogy, which IS mentioned.
    So everything matches with genealogy and so to claim it is about land boundaries, which you yourself note wasn't in effect, and which John would know as well as anyone the truth of this, shows you are going down the wrong path.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 140
    Last Post: May 5th 2018, 07:07 AM
  2. Replies: 68
    Last Post: Sep 6th 2013, 05:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •