They're better as a group, than they are individually - (observations from the outside)

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Ah well—if he did he took it back, didn’t he?

No. I don't think he ever took it back. The teaching survived into Rutherford's period of leadership, and there were still echoes of it during the time of Knorr and Franz. I don't recall exactly when it was rejected in print, but some say that Franz, while giving the Memorial talk, would quote the verse from 1 Cor 12:12 and then follow up with an odd statement to the effect that "only the 144,000 share the flesh and blood of the Christ, even though Jesus himself no longer shares flesh and blood." It's scriptural but by putting emphasis on the word "share" he made it sound odd, perhaps invoking John 6.

There's even an echo of it in the expression, "he is one of 'the anointed.'"

Originally this "mystery doctrine" led to some awkward sounding statements from Russell too. For example, he said in 1914 (Watchtower, p.83):

https://archive.org/details/1914WatchTower/mode/2up?q=sum+total

"The word Christ signifies anointed. God has declared that He will have an anointed King and High Priest to be His Agent in the blessing of the world. He has declared that that great King is, primarily, the Lord Jesus Christ. He also declares that instead of the Lord Jesus being the sum-total of the Anointed One, it is His good pleasure that there shall be members added to Him. And the adding of these members has been the completing of this Anointed One."

But if all the anointed were "The Christ" this had led to him also claiming that the anointed 144,000, including himself, were also the "Mighty God" and the "Eternal Father." (Isaiah 9) And his explanations seemed strained.

"Soon follows the power which will, under him as our head, constitute the whole body of Christ the "Mighty God" to rule and bless the nations - and the body with the head, shall share in the work of restoring the life lost in Adam, and therefore be members of that company which as a whole will be the Everlasting Father to the restored race." - (WT November 1881: 298)

Rutherford called this body of Christ: "the Great Messiah." This followed consistently on Russell's statements such as another from the same 1914 Watchtower:

"And as we further study, we find that this is the Mystery mentioned in the Scriptures: to wit, that the great Messiah so long promised should be composed of many individuals;

But I think it was only Russell who delved into statements that would show that this doctrine proved that when Jesus said "Ye are gods" in John 10, that this also had reference to the 144,001. I'm sure that to some, this would have sounded too similar to Mormon teaching.

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Hence in no sense have I, as a pope, taken the place of Christ before his Church.

This is correct. Russell never took the place of Christ before his Church. Christ was the Head of the Body, and Russell would never consider himself the "Head" of the Body of Christ. This doesn't mean that Russell would ever have admitted that any other person could be God's "mouthpiece." Russell only said this about himself, and no one else. Also Russell printed letters that addressed himself as "the faithful and wise servant." He printed no letters that identified anyone else as that "faithful and wise servant." He did this while teaching that this "servant" could only be ONE INDIVIDUAL, and not a class of individuals.

[JW Insider]

19 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

The reference of the 144,001 simply means Christ and the 144, 000

In general, that statement is true. Except when this particular mystery doctrine was being explained by Russell. For example, in Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, page 239, Russell showed that the 144,000 were "Joint-sacrificers" with Jesus Christ.

As I mentioned above, these 144,000 joint-sacrificers are correctly referred to as "gods," per Russell:

[also, Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, p.239]

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The reference of the 144,001 simply means Christ and the 144, 000

Just for sake of discussion  

Is there a possibility that, the number, 144000 should not be taken literally? Revelation is full of symbolism and almost nothing is literal. Even the term 1000 year (Kingdom) should not be literally counted as one thousand years of 365 days each.

WTJWorg has formally given up the length of Creative Day that lasted 7,000 years. But, it is still the idea that literal 1000 years of the Kingdom is PART of the literal 7000 Years (of 7th Creative Day). That is why it was a rumor around 1975, because then the period of 6000 years from the creation of man ended. According to such a WTJWorg chronology, the final part of the 7th day, with the 1000 years of the Kingdom of God, was expected to begin in that period. 

By overthrowing the idea of a fixed duration of Creative Day, the interpretation built on the rejected idea was called into question. But nothing new. The same can be seen in other interpretations.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is there a possibility that, the number, 144000 should not be taken literally?

Yes, of course. There are very few numbers in Revelation that are taken literally. Even the number 144,000 is made up of a non-literal number of tribes (12) each made up of a non-literal number of persons from each one of them (12,000).

The rationale for taking this one literally is that it is compared with an uncountable number of gentiles who come out of the great tribulation. We don't teach that these are literal gentiles either.

[Kick_Faceinator]

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

Is there a possibility that, the number, 144000 should not be taken literally?

You may be right,

“And the number of the people of Israel will be like the grains of sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it will be said to them, ‘The sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Kick_Faceinator said:

“And the number of the people of Israel will be like the grains of sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it will be said to them, ‘The sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10

This would make perfect sense as an interpretation of Revelation 7. After all, the apostle Paul said that Israel would now be made up of the "full number" of Gentiles even though the number of "all Israel" would also have to come in. And, of course, Jesus said that the lost sheep of the house of Israel would be visited first, but that he had other sheep which were not of that fold which would also come in. Paul used Hosea to show how both Jews and Gentiles would make up Israel.

(Romans 9:24-26) 24 namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it? ²⁵ It is as he says also in Ho·seʹa: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not loved, ‘beloved’; ²⁶ and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

(Romans 9:6) . . .For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.”

(Romans 9:27) . . .Moreover, Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Although the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.

(Romans 11:25, 26) . . .For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret, brothers, so that you do not become wise in your own eyes: A partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, ²⁶ and in this manner all Israel will be saved.. . .

Our current teaching accepts that Paul was speaking of literal Jews and Gentiles, but Jesus' statement about "other sheep" and Revelation's "144,000" from Israel and the "great crowd" are understood as "spiritual" Israel and "spiritual" Gentiles (where both groups are mostly physical gentiles).

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm sure that to some, this would have sounded too similar to Mormon teaching

I have a thing for Mormons and have an entire Mormon category on my blog. Several similarities. We even both had child superstars of the 70s. Michael Jackson to their Donny (and Marie) Osborn. Alas, ours flew too close to the sun and crashed to earth.

1 hour ago, Kick_Faceinator said:

will be like the grains of sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. A

As a test, I tried this yesterday at the local beach. It was hard counting the grains at the local beach, but it was not rocket science. If you put you back into it, it can be done.

There were 145,732. It is close enough, allowing for human imperfection.

[Srecko Sostar]

48 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Romans 11:

17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root...²⁰  That is true! For their lack of faith, they were broken off,...²³  And they also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in,y for God is able to graft them back in.

As we know, WTJWorg teaches that 144000 is a literal number. They also teaches that if some “anointed ones” drop out then they will be replaced by someone else, to get the number filled.

Reading these lines, I see something for the first time. Fallen anointed ones are replaced by newly elected anointed ones. But the verse says that the fallen anointed ones can return and be attached to the tree again. So the tree always remains the same, but the number of branches is not determined. Returning the cut branches, there is no mention anywhere that the replacement branches will be cut off because the original branches are reattached. So, the number of "anointed ones" according to this illustration is not defined. It can be larger than the imagined number (144000).

 

 

[JW Insider]

7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There were 145,732. It is close enough, allowing for human imperfection.

Sand = silica. In Silicon Valley, 1K=1,024.* So, 144K actually equals 144*1024=147,456.

*The kilobyte has traditionally been used to refer to 1024 bytes (2¹⁰ B).^[5][6][7] The usage of the metric prefix kilo for binary multiples arose as a convenience, because 1024 is approximately 1000 -- Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte

[TrueTomHarley]

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Sand = silica. In Silicon Valley, 1K=1,024.* So, 144K actually equals 144*1024=147,456.

*The kilobyte has traditionally been used to refer to 1024 bytes (2¹⁰ B).^[5][6][7] The usage of the metric prefix kilo for binary multiples arose as a convenience, because 1024 is approximately 1000 -- Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte

JWI the Science Guy

[xero]

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

JWI the Science Guy

I just google conversions. In my work, it's all about memory allocation. Java applications are always sucking up memory like pigs, so as a DBA you have to set the server up allocating enough space for SGA and all the other memory components including the JAVA_POOL and the SHARED_POOL. When I run into issues, I usually just double the allocation. (not efficient in resource terms of the computer, but in terms of the resource which is my time and energy it is)