The 'Anointed'

[Ann O'Maly]

On 3/30/2016 at 4:57 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Where? When? What?

Yep, that's my question. What changed? Where, when ... and how ... if the inspired biblical canon closed nearly 2000 years ago?

On 3/30/2016 at 4:57 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

There are other literal elements of this chapter: God; the Lamb (although this is a symbolic reference).

But how does a figurative 12 times a figurative 12,000 equal a literal 144,000?

On 3/30/2016 at 4:57 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Not convinced they have to be in the same location as God. Being before God's throne does not require this literally. Standing before God or Christ can denote having their approval regardless of location (Comp Lu. 21:36; Ps.5:5,7).

Jehovah can stand by his servants without literally coming to the earth. Ps.109:31.

But contextually, if John was seeing everything in vision unfold from the perspective of heaven - the 'God's eye' view (Rev. 4f.), the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the Lamb, 4 living creatures, 24 elders and angels. To illustrate:  

I'm in bed asleep. I'm dreaming. In my dream I'm standing on a tropical beach. I see the palms swaying in the breeze and feel the warm sun on my face. Hearing excited shrieks, I turn and see my grandchildren ... in reality I don't yet have grandchildren so I sense this is an idealized representation of a desired future ... I see my grandchildren splashing about in the ocean, laughing because some fishes are tickling their legs. Further in the background, I see dolphins frantically racing each other.

Am I really on a tropical beach? No, I'm sleeping in my bed.

In reality, where are my grandchildren? In reality, they don't exist.

But in my dream, where am I? On a tropical beach.

In my dream, where are the fishes and dolphins? In the ocean.

In my dream, where are my grandkids? At New York Aquarium.

Huh? 

No that's incorrect. In my dream my grandkids are in the ocean with the fishes and dolphins.

Applying this to Rev. 7 now:

In vision, where is John? In heaven.

In vision, where are the 24 elders, angels and four living creatures? They are around the throne which is in heaven (Rev. 4:2,4,6; 7:11).

In vision, where is the great crowd? On earth.

Huh?

No that's incorrect. In vision, the great crowd is where the elders, angels and four living creatures are - before the throne and in front of the Lamb who is also in heaven (Rev. 7:9; 5:6).

The point. Within the confines of the vision, there is no warrant to say the 'great crowd' is anywhere else - just like there is no warrant to say my grandchildren are anywhere other than where my dream put them. 

[Evacuated]

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Yep, that's my question. What changed? Where, when ... and how ... if the inspired biblical canon closed nearly 2000 years ago?

Just time and place

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But how does a figurative 12 times a figurative 12,000 equal a literal 144,000?

Just does. Not a problem for me as it makes sense. I don't expect everyone else to see it.

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

To illustrate:  

I'm in bed asleep.

I like the clarity of your logic and understand what you are saying. But your analogy relies on the statement "I'm in bed asleep". The dream you describe could be experienced anywhere, even on a bench at New York Aquarium!  Dreams can be made up from internal and external cues. I have had dreams incorporating imaginary and real life situations where an incident or event taking place in my environment literally is incorporated in a dream sequence and I could just as easily use that analogy to illustrate my understanding. It remains for me that being before God's throne does not require this literally. e.g. Standing before God or Christ can denote having their approval regardless of location (Comp Lu. 21:36; Ps.5:5,7). Even Jehovah can stand by his servants without literally coming to the earth. Ps.109:31.

 

15 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I don't follow.

I don't expect you to follow.

But what I understand is that the "great crowd" described at Rev 7:14 as surviving "the great tribulation", do so here on planet earth and their experience of "no tears" is similar to that described at Rev.21:3-4 as occurring amongst  "mankind" who are, very much, creatures of planet earth.  .

I simply have no problem with a the idea of a dual destiny for humans in God's purpose. A limited number leaving the earth to be be re-created as a new life form to rule with Christ in heaven and an unlimited number to live on earth freed from sin and imperfection, enjoying Edenic conditions as originally purposed, for me, fits everything I read in the Bible.

Even before I became aware of Jehovah's Witnesses, my Bible reading told me that heaven was no place for me. And since becoming one, I am even more convinced, as sure about it as the anointed are regarding their future. The idea that a group of humans would respond to the good news during the last days, and that they could survive the end of that period to live on earth makes perfect sense to me and harmonizes with the scriptures as I read them.

And my experience over the years is that, discounting those I meet with no spiritual interest at all, there are two kinds of reactions to this concept regarding a great crowd with an earthly hope. It is either welcomed gladly, or rejected as either impossible or not scriptural. I expect nothing less on this forum.

[Ann O'Maly]

On 4/9/2016 at 1:01 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Just time and place

Explain?

On 4/9/2016 at 1:01 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Just does. Not a problem for me as it makes sense. I don't expect everyone else to see it.

Oh dear. 

On 4/9/2016 at 1:01 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

But your analogy relies on the statement "I'm in bed asleep". The dream you describe could be experienced anywhere, even on a bench at New York Aquarium!

Nevertheless, where does my dream place the grandchildren? Not at New York Aquarium. And there are no grandchildren in reality. So whether I have fallen asleep in my bed, at the Aquarium or on top of the Empire State Building, it doesn't alter the fact that my dream puts my dream grandchildren in a dream ocean, just as John's vision puts his visionary 'great crowd' in a visionary heavenly court with the other visionary heavenly characters.

On 4/9/2016 at 1:01 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

But what I understand is that the "great crowd" described at Rev 7:14 as surviving "the great tribulation", do so here on planet earth and their experience of "no tears" is similar to that described at Rev.21:3-4 as occurring amongst  "mankind" who are, very much, creatures of planet earth.  .

Yes, the 'great crowd' has come out of the 'great tribulation' so John sees them as a victorious, POST-tribulation group enjoying eternal peace and heavenly favor.

The 144,000 are from among mankind too (Rev. 14:3, 4), so how does citing Rev. 21 help you with Rev. 7? Don't the 144,000 experience 'no tears' too?

You may have no personal problem with symbolic numbers adding up to literal ones, or a two-tier salvation concept, but it doesn't mean they're harmonious with Bible teaching. 

On 4/9/2016 at 1:01 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Even before I became aware of Jehovah's Witnesses, my Bible reading told me that heaven was no place for me.

Then I recommend becoming acquainted with more mainstream Christian doctrine which teaches that heaven is only the intermediate state - not the final one. 

Take a look at this, for example: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html

 

[Evacuated]

18 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Don't the 144,000 experience 'no tears' too?

Not while they are human.

18 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

my dream.........

You are just demonstrating the flexibility of dreams.

18 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Explain?

The time and place bit...?

Well...Scriptural canon may be locked down, but understanding moves with time and place. e.g. I would suggest Gen 3:15 was pretty obscure for a long time. But thousands of years after its utterance, Paul demonstrated insight as to its application at Romans 16:20.  (I am citing this as an example. I am not looking to argue about correctness of interpretation at this point.)

18 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

You may have no personal problem with symbolic numbers adding up to literal ones, or a two-tier salvation concept, but it doesn't mean they're harmonious with Bible teaching. 

That's why I say  I don't expect everyone else to see what I see.

I checked out the Bishop of Durham. Eloquent and interesting, but as you say, mainstream.

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Not while they are human.

The 'no tears' thing only happens when they're no longer human? 

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

You are just demonstrating the flexibility of dreams.

How so? I thought I was demonstrating the opposite - that contextually, you can't place an event or person in a location other than where your dream (or vision) put them. If I told you the traditional version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears - which is set at a house in the middle of a forest - you can't then expound on that by claiming that, while the bears were at their house in the middle of a forest, Goldilocks was really at IKEA in the middle of a city.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Well...Scriptural canon may be locked down, but understanding moves with time and place. e.g. I would suggest Gen 3:15 was pretty obscure for a long time. But thousands of years after its utterance, Paul demonstrated insight as to its application at Romans 16:20.  (I am citing this as an example. I am not looking to argue about correctness of interpretation at this point.)

Paul's understanding is considered to be part of that same sacred, inspired canon. The canon is closed and inspiration ceased, did it not? If all true Christians in the 1st century were 'anointed,' how and when did true Christians divide into 2 groups - one 'anointed' and one not? 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

you can't place an event or person in a location other than where your dream (or vision) put them

I can do what I like in a dream.

 

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Paul's understanding is considered to be part of that same sacred, inspired canon.

It is now (and since at least the latter part of the 1st C I understand).

Paul's words served to enlighten on the application of Gen 3:15 once he wrote them. Certainly the time and place is relevant to what he said WHEN he said it. Such words would have had no direct application if written say, 100 years earlier, as there was no one to apply them to at that time.

I am only illustrating that an explanation of earlier prophecy can come later than that prophecy, and is therefore relevant to time and place. I am not discussing whether something is part of the inspired record or not. Explanation or interpretation of prophecy does not need to be inspired in the sense that scripture is. ( comp.2Pet. 1:21).

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The 'no tears' thing only happens when they're no longer human?

There are no humans in heaven.  Rev.21:3-4. The "no tears" experience here happens to "mankind" after Armageddon. Those from among mankind who get resurrected to the heavens will leave their "tears" behind once that happens.

[Ann O'Maly]

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I can do what I like in a dream.

Maybe *you* can. But you're circumventing my point. Could John do what he liked in the vision Jesus gave him?

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I am only illustrating that an explanation of earlier prophecy can come later than that prophecy, and is therefore relevant to time and place. I am not discussing whether something is part of the inspired record or not. Explanation or interpretation of prophecy does not need to be inspired in the sense that scripture is. ( comp.2Pet. 1:21).

And so we have a situation where the inspired NT indicates that all true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and share the same everlasting reward, and uninspired interpretations saying that only some true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and there are two groups of true Christians with different everlasting rewards. Which view has more weight?

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

There are no humans in heaven.  Rev.21:3-4. The "no tears" experience here happens to "mankind" after Armageddon. Those from among mankind who get resurrected to the heavens will leave their "tears" behind once that happens.

Would you agree, then, that using the 'no more tears' argument to try and differentiate two groups of victorious faithful dangles a red herring? The 'anointed' are no longer in tearful anguish once they get their heavenly reward and, by the same token, mankind is no longer in tearful anguish once they receive their reward. 'No more tears' applies across the board to all the rewarded faithful so cannot be used as an argument for the two destinies idea.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Maybe *you* can. But you're circumventing my point. Could John do what he liked in the vision Jesus gave him?

Of Course not. But whatever Jesus  liked in the vision is what the vision contains.

 

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

all true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and share the same everlasting reward,

This to me is an uninspired interpretation and carries no more weight of itself than any other uninspired interpretation.

 

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Would you agree, then, that using the 'no more tears' argument to try and differentiate two groups of victorious faithful dangles a red herring?

No. Do you see yourself as a hunting-dog? Surely not! So you must be aware that red herrings actually are ineffectual and really serve at best as a time waster. I don't waste my time on red herrings as a rule.

The scripture at Rev 21:2-4 says that God WILL wipe out every tear from their eyes and that death WILL be no more an experience for obedient mankind on earth AFTER New Jerusalem becomes fully influential in matters. 

"New Jerusalem", spoken elsewhere as the "bride of Christ" (Rev. 21:9-1),  is actually the anointed congregation of the firstborn which brings us back to Rev 14:1-5 and then Rev 7:4 once again.

Those "victorious faithful" receiving a heavenly reward, receive this before the rest of mankind receive theirs, as they are first fruits to the Lamb. Once resurrected to heavenly life, they have no tears to wipe as there are no tears in heaven, or death for that matter. They are then in a position to serve as kings and priests along with Christ Jesus, and will commence work to extend the blessings described at Rev 21:2-4 to all obedient mankind in a 1000 year rehabilitation (tear and death removal) program for the earth and its inhabitants. This will include all those resurrected to earthly life during that time, along with those survivors of the "great tribulation" described at (you guessed it) Rev 7:9,14.

So that's about it from me on this subject @Ann O'Maly 

I will respond to any other comments you care to make..........unless, of course, I smell something....er....fishy............

[Ann O'Maly]

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Of Course not. But whatever Jesus  liked in the vision is what the vision contains.

So if he put the great crowd in the same place as the Lamb, 4 living creatures, 24 elders and angels in his vision, who are we to say different?

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This to me is an uninspired interpretation and carries no more weight of itself than any other uninspired interpretation.

Where does the NT teach about a non-anointed true Christian?

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

They are then in a position to serve as kings and priests along with Christ Jesus, and will commence work to extend the blessings described at Rev 21:2-4 to all obedient mankind in a 1000 year rehabilitation (tear and death removal) program for the earth and its inhabitants. This will include all those resurrected to earthly life during that time, along with those survivors of the "great tribulation" described at (you guessed it) Rev 7:9,14.

Where does the Bible say the kings and priests will be instrumental in a thousand year rehabilitation program for the 'great crowd' and resurrected?

To quote you:

"This to me is an uninspired interpretation and carries no more weight of itself than any other uninspired interpretation." 

[Evacuated]

52 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

"This to me is an uninspired interpretation and carries no more weight of itself than any other uninspired interpretation." 

So then we agree at last. Both your and my interpretation of scripture are uninspired.     

[Ann O'Maly]

 Have I interpreted? I have asked questions about your reasoning and the JW interpretation.

[Evacuated]

 

43 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 Have I interpreted?

Yes.

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

the inspired NT indicates that all true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and share the same everlasting reward