The 144,000

jonojim1337 · Nov 9, 2025

I came to think of this verse as I was thinking about how inept people are at forming a government, or even, providing for their own security.

Biblically, the idea of forming your own government is actually blasphemous, since Christ already formed one.

Furthermore, Biblically, we are given clues to who Christ actually is and what government he formed - will it be a surprise for Christians to find out, that the house of David will remain forever?

Thus ultimately, I think the 144,000 have successfully identified the house of David, or Mt. Zion.

Of course, if you have further information about the 144,000, you can post it here.

Hentenza · Nov 9, 2025

Here are the pertinent verses.

“And I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, from the tribe of Gad twelve thousand, from the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, from the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, from the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand, from the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand, from the tribe of Levi twelve thousand, from the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand, from the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand, from the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand, and from the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand were sealed.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭7‬:‭4‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Revelation 7:4-8 And I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, | New American Standard Bible -

And I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand,

bible.com

“Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000 who had His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps. And they *sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one was able to learn the song except the 144,000 who had been purchased from the earth. These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are celibate. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭14‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Revelation 14:1-5 Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000 who had His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the s | New American Standard Bible -

Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000 who had His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the s

bible.com

jonojim1337 · Nov 9, 2025

12 is the number of lictor states in the original Roman Kingdom. To me this signifies it’s restoration. It doesn’t exclude the multitudes, who take part in the second resurrection, but the first fruits, or the first born, inherit the power structure.

The Liturgist · Nov 22, 2025

jonojim1337 said:
12 is the number of lictor states in the original Roman Kingdom. To me this signifies it’s restoration. It doesn’t exclude the multitudes, who take part in the second resurrection, but the first fruits, or the first born, inherit the power structure.

That’s not Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

You are aware the Orthodox Church officially rejected chiliasm at the second ecumenical council in Constantinople in 381 AD?

jonojim1337 · Nov 23, 2025

The Liturgist said:
That’s not Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

You are aware the Orthodox Church officially rejected chiliasm at the second ecumenical council in Constantinople in 381 AD?

How is this related? The first resurrection is about the patrician families of Rome, the plebs come after. This was simply my point.

The Liturgist · Nov 23, 2025

jonojim1337 said:
How is this related? The first resurrection is about the patrician families of Rome, the plebs come after. This was simply my point.

Also not Orthodox doctrine as far as I can tell, but perhaps I’m wrong, to which I would defer to @prodromos or @HTacianas or @FenderTL5 or @Chesterton .

Are you Eastern Orthodox? Because your profile indicates this.

Chesterton · Nov 24, 2025

The Liturgist said:
Also not Orthodox doctrine as far as I can tell, but perhaps I’m wrong, to which I would defer to @prodromos or @HTacianas or @FenderTL5 or @Chesterton .

Are you Eastern Orthodox? Because your profile indicates this.

IMHO, it sounds like those orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionists, and think the modern state of Israel shouldn't exist because they think their messiah hasn't come yet.

jonojim1337 · Sunday at 9:09 AM

Chesterton said:
IMHO, it sounds like those orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionists, and think the modern state of Israel shouldn't exist because they think their messiah hasn't come yet.

It shouldn’t exist because they are not the descendants of Abraham.

jonojim1337 · Sunday at 9:11 AM

The Liturgist said:
Also not Orthodox doctrine as far as I can tell, but perhaps I’m wrong, to which I would defer to @prodromos or @HTacianas or @FenderTL5 or @Chesterton .

Are you Eastern Orthodox? Because your profile indicates this.

The 144,000 belong to the bloodline of Christ and I think we’ve already been over what lineage he belongs to.

Orthodox Church has a long history of working with that bloodline.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 12:26 PM

jonojim1337 said:
The 144,000 belong to the bloodline of Christ

Christ our Lord, while in principle biologically able to, did not father any children. The suggestion that the 144,000 are descendants of his and of various Byzantine-adjacent royal families is not only not Orthodox but probably constitutes ethno-Phyletism.

jonojim1337 · Sunday at 12:42 PM

The Liturgist said:
Christ our Lord, while in principle biologically able to, did not father any children. The suggestion that the 144,000 are descendants of his and of various Byzantine-adjacent royal families is not only not Orthodox but probably constitutes ethno-Phyletism.

Wrong. I think I already told you, to watch Byzantine icons? Besides that Christ adopted John who took over his inheritance as priest-king I.e pontifex maximus. Also, he had relatives. All of whom are depicted with aristocratic Roman garments.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 2:07 PM

jonojim1337 said:
pontifex maximus

“Chief bridge builder,” not “Priest king”, in some cases held by the Emperor, for example, Julius Caesar held the office at a young age, but not necessarily. Archbishops Leo, whose unprompted intervention at Chalcedon inadvertently contributed to the schism between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, was the first of many Roman archbishops to use this title(they took the title of Pope, previously used exclusively by the Popes of Alexandria such as St. Alexander, St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy and St. Cyril the Great, in the sixth century) including St. Gregory Diologos, whose Orthodox status is unquestioned.

The fact that Manuel I Komnenos may have claimed descent from St. John does not make it the case; all Orthodox sources I have agree St. John the Beloved Disciple was one of three members of the twelve who was celibate and unmarried, the others being his brother St. James the Great, and St. Thomas “the Twin” the Apostle to Edessa, Seleucia-Cstesiphon and India.

So thus far you’re proposing a “bloodline” from a celibate Christ to a celibate Apostle to the heir of the Byzantine Empire who was a member of the illustrious Komnenos dynasty, which was alas not the only dynasty to reign in Constantinople and not likely related to St. Constantine in any real sense; as far as heredity to Emperors before St. Constantine or St. Constantine’s heretical sons like Constantius, and Julian the Apostate (whose name is particularly apt in that he left Arianism to embrace neo-Platonism, which is to jump from tne frying pan into the fire, eschatologically, since the Arians deny Christ as the Incarnation of God and the latter deny him altogether, a bit like those driven by the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses cult into atheism).

jonojim1337 · Sunday at 2:21 PM

The Liturgist said:
“Chief bridge builder,” not “Priest king”, in some cases held by the Emperor, for example, Julius Caesar held the office at a young age, but not necessarily. Archbishops Leo, whose unprompted intervention at Chalcedon inadvertently contributed to the schism between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, was the first of many Roman archbishops to use this title(they took the title of Pope, previously used exclusively by the Popes of Alexandria such as St. Alexander, St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy and St. Cyril the Great, in the sixth century) including St. Gregory Diologos, whose Orthodox status is unquestioned.

Priests have absolutely no right to the office of priest-king. This is a royal title and reserved solely for Caesar or “Emperor” however in some cases Emperor is a lower title than Caesar.

The Liturgist said:
The fact that Manuel I Komnenos may have claimed descent from St. John does not make it the case; all Orthodox sources I have agree St. John the Beloved Disciple was one of three members of the twelve who was celibate and unmarried, the others being his brother St. James the Great, and St. Thomas “the Twin” the Apostle to Edessa, Seleucia-Cstesiphon and India.

So thus far you’re proposing a “bloodline” from a celibate Christ to a celibate Apostle to the heir of the Byzantine Empire who was a member of the illustrious Komnenos dynasty, which was alas not the only dynasty to reign in Constantinople and not likely related to St. Constantine in any real sense; as far as heredity to Emperors before St. Constantine or St. Constantine’s heretical sons like Constantius, and Julian the Apostate (whose name is particularly apt in that he left Arianism to embrace neo-Platonism, which is to jump from tne frying pan into the fire, eschatologically, since the Arians deny Christ as the Incarnation of God and the latter deny him altogether, a bit like those driven by the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses cult into atheism).

In the Latin version of things, JC adopted Augustus who then adopted Tiberius. So adoption is not ruled out.

On another note, Russian monarchs have claimed descend from Prus, a brother of Augustus. This is another way of how inheritance is passed on, that is, to the closest relative. It would also explain the existence of something called Prussia.

Constantine is not relevant to the foundations of Christianity so I’m just going to ignore that.

The 144,000

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Similar threads