Re: another thing for donald on the 144000 -- Spotlight Ministries Debate Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Re: another thing for donald on the 144000

Author:
Donald

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:36:44 06/29/04 Tue
In reply to: Vince 's message, "Re: another thing for donald on the 144000" on 11:50:26 06/28/04 Mon

Donald

>?
>
>So you have reveresed your position on this to fit the
>WT view?

No, in fact the opposite. I reversed my position on this issue to fit in with anti-Witness view of those at Reachout.

Since my earlier post comes as such a surprise I assume that you did not read it. Here is another quote which should help explain.

"I was on the Reachout forum for years and had some bad experiences along the way. I was excluded once and left of my own accord a couple of other times. Before I wrote as ROTW I had not posted for a while because other posters were becoming increasingly hostile to me, so that when I returned I thought that if I used a different posting name that others might give me a fairer hearing. I also realised that I could not be as strident in defending Jehovah's Witnesses as I had been previously or I would be instantly recognised. So I decided to stress those few things that I could possibly say I had in common with the others so as to try to have more balanced discussions. I thought that maybe if I started with a less obviously apologetic position concerning Jehovah's Witnesses then I could perhaps have more success winning them round on the more important issues."

And regarding the 144 000 issue:

"Again, I wanted to emphasize what I had in common with the anti-Witnesses on Reachout at the time, and I now think that I unwisely went to far in appeasing them by saying that I agreed that the 144 000 is not literal."

I believe that the number is literal, but that it would not matter if it wasn't. That is my position, and that is why I unwisely flexed on this issue.

You had formerly come to the conclusion that
>the 144,000 was a symbolic number.
>
>Are you now also saying that the "little flock" of
>Luke is to be identified as the 144,000 as well?

Actually, I came across a footnote in a Protestant Bible recently which supports our understanding of this verse against Doug's intepretation. The jury is out, but the Witnesses offer a reasonable explanation of this phrase. And, of course, even if our understanding of this verse is wrong, that does not affect all the other passages which point to two hopes and heaven for the 144 000.

Donald

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]