Jump to content
The World News Media

How are we to understand the GB/Slave interpreting scripture, as the sole chanel, and at the same time accept that they can err?


Anna

Recommended Posts

  • Member
6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Matthew 24:46
Blessed is that servant -- A steward, the one channel selected by our
Lord for dispensing food to the "household"; faithful both to the
"Master," his "fellow-servants" and "the household." D613

It's easy to misunderstand Russell's position on this parable, but once you learn more about the historical context, it's easier. Above, you have highlighted "fellow-servants". This might imply to some that Russell did not see himself and as that individual servant. Note, though, that D613 is exactly the footnote that the "Divine Purpose" book gave earlier to show how the once-correct view gave way to seeing Russell himself as "that servant." It's called "D" of course, because D is the fourth letter of the alphabet and it's from Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 4, p.613.

A more careful reading shows that the reason Russell explained the "fellow-servants" was to show how these are plural and yet "that servant" is singular, which to him, he claimed, meant that only one individual would distribute to his fellow servants who would then pass it on to yet others --and therefore, those fellow servants were not the one specially-used individual called "the faithful and wise servant."

Using the current NWT, Russell's explanation was this:

(Matthew 24:45) 45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave [Charles Taze Russell, individual, singular] whom his master [Jesus Christ] appointed over his domestics, [fellow-servants, plural; fellow distributors of Watch Towers and Studies in the Scriptures books (Millennial Dawn books)], to give them their food at the proper time?

I'm sure you know that "gentlemen" of the 19th century were famous for "mock humility." It's part of what it meant to be of the "genteel" class, and even the Watch Tower itself praised Russell's "gentlemanly" character. I don't think Russell was exactly like this, but clearly, in keeping with the style of the times, Russell knew that it would not do to just crassly put his own name on this interpretation. A rule of the time was that you get others to praise you; it had to come from the mouth of other people. I don't know if Russell ever had to ask for it, but it was common in the 19th century for a speaker to write up a self-praising introduction about himself for another person to read when introducing him.

Sometimes this made for some "work-arounds" that appear kind of comical today. For example, from the same book you are quoting (Expanded Biblical Comments), we have this from the parallel parable in Luke:

[NTC - Luke 12:42]
. . .
Who then— . . . the Lord would appoint a servant in the household to bring these matters to the attention of all the servants. R3355:6, 2693:6
That faithful—. . .
Wise steward— . . . Not a composite steward, because we are not to recognize a . . . class; and the word "that". . .  implies a particular one. R3356:1 The angel of 1 Kings 19:7, the preparer of the Dawns and Towers. R4211:6*

Same story, here of course. Woodworth (this book was mostly his doing) had to work with contradictory material in using Russell's "Dawns and Towers," as the view had been adjusted in 1896. (Dawns=Millennial Dawn aka Studies in the Scriptures, and Towers=Zion's Watch Tower and later Watch Towers.)

But notice that the idea of ONE individual servant brings matters to the attention all the fellow servants, and it can't be a composite steward or "class" but a particular one. It doesn't name "Russell" but does mention the preparer of "Studies in the Scriptures" and the "Watch Tower." 

I wonder who that could be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 16.3k
  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Most Witnesses obviously want to live peaceful Christian lives and conduct ourselves in a way that pleases Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. None of us really want the job of being responsible to take a s

Hi Anna! Sorry for the delay in response. I am a little bit confused what you mean about complete obedience being in the minds of only some Witnesses. The Governing Body spells it out in their literat

Who is more loyal? This is a real conversation I had with a brother. He insisted I should follow some instructions in our congregation. I agreed but I also mentioned this arrangement was silly. T

Posted Images

  • Member
3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm sure you know that "gentlemen" of the 19th century were famous for "mock humility." It's part of what it meant to be of the "genteel" class, and even the Watch Tower itself praised Russell's "gentlemanly" character.

I know that George Washington used to sign his letters "Your  Most Humble Obedient Servant - G. Washington", which I suspect was understood as "... which you know damn well I am NOT!".

He also wore a white powdered wig, a lace "blouse" with lace around the cuffs, and skin-tight breeches that left no doubt to his gender.

He also carried a dagger, a sword, and a 55 caliber one shot pistol .... which if you dress like that, is probably a good idea!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
52 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Do you see the similarities you impose for today's Watchtower, even a blind man can smell what you are shoveling.

LOL! You are reverting to the habit Allen Smith was infamous for: trying to use a quotation to prove someone wrong, when that quotation fully supports what you are opposing. It seems like the problem with so many opposers is that they are so anxious to oppose that they are blind to the evidence in front of them, or they forget to look carefully at it.

You really should just take some time and try to deal with the evidence at hand. So far, you have answered none of the items of evidence raised. And so far, every bit of evidence you have produced is exactly in support of what I have been saying all along. I agree 100 percent with your evidence. As usual, it helps make the same points I already made.

In this case, of course, you are quoting from the letter from 1914 that Alex Evans (a "colored" brother from Louisiana) wrote to the St. Paul Enterprise newspaper, in defense of Russell personally holding the title of the "faithful and wise servant." It starts about a third of the way down into this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20160722143304/http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/st paul defences.htm

And speaking of opposers, I notice that you have now, on multiple occasions, stated that you believe that Russell actually did hold the office of "faithful and discreet slave."

13 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Was he the Faithful and Wise Servant, many congregations believed so. I happen to think, he was.

Can you explain why you think that Russell was the Faithful and Wise Servant when the Watchtower currently teaches that the slave did not come into existence until 1919 (well after Russell had died in 1916)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The angel of 1 Kings 19:7, the preparer of the Dawns and Towers. R4211:6*

Had anyone ever noticed that Russell allowed himself to be identified as the "angel of Jehovah" here?

(1 Kings 19:7) 7 Later the angel of Jehovah came back a second time and touched him and said: “Get up and eat, for the journey will be too much for you.”

This was long before Russell had been identified (in print, at least) as the "angel" of the church at Laodicea, or "the seventh messenger."

image.png

You can also use this image to play "Where's Waldo?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

"gentlemen" of the 19th century were famous for "mock humility." It's part of what it meant to be of the "genteel" class, and even the Watch Tower itself praised Russell's "gentlemanly" character. I don't think Russell was exactly like this, but clearly, in keeping with the style of the times, Russell knew that it would not do to just crassly put his own name on this interpretation. A rule of the time was that you get others to praise you; it had to come from the mouth of other people. I don't know if Russell ever had to ask for it, but it was common in the 19th century for a speaker to write up a self-praising introduction about himself for another person to read when introducing him.

Good observation and reminder. I think it's always a good idea to keep in mind the "customs" and general attitude of society in times past when judging a situation from the the perspective of the present. It explains a lot of things. For example we can see why the organization was so weary of certain things in the past, which it now accepts. (organ transplants, vaccinations, cooking with aluminium etc.....etc...) We can also better understand things in the Bible, some of which might sound positively traumatic to the "modern" mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
23 hours ago, Anna said:

There was absolutely no intent at being clever or sly on my part. But you really show your paranoia though. Attributing intent where there was none.

If it wasn't with intent then you must have either a natural ability for it, or, you have been brainwashed by the JW Org (etc) to do it without even thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

To be honest @JOHN BUTLER, I just couldn't be bothered to give you a detailed reply because your reasoning is so out of whack. But here goes:

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

First point. And this is funny.  Quote "who all err and make mistakes." 

So you are agreeing with me that to 'err' is not a mistake but a deliberate wrongdoing. Because you say, err AND make mistakes. 

As far as I am aware there is not much difference between an error and a mistake, they are just synonyms of each other. Once you put the adjective "deliberate"  in front of any of those words, then it changes the meaning to being  ummmm....deliberate, intentional, calculated, wilful etc. And no, I do not think their errors are deliberate. To which you will no doubt say I am brainwashed. It's good to have an opinion John, it doesn't mean someone is brainwashed, to the contrary.

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God.

I would include Jesus Christ as he has been given the power and authority, and he will be doing the judging.. 

Sure. But ultimately it is God. 

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The GB cannot ensure our salvation, 

No, but didn't the Watchtower used to say that a person had to be part of the JW / W/t org/soc to gain salvation ?

It's still up to God to grant that, not up to the GB. You could be part of the WT/JW etc. and still be disapproved by God. Just being a part of something is no guarantee.

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass....

Well that knocks the Bible Students and JW Org / GB / W/t on the head then doesn't it.  

Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters.

This didn't work with CSA in the JW Org did it ? MORAL STANDARDS. I don't think so. 

The WT org. didn't foretell anything new, it just repeated what the Bible already foretold.

As for moral standards, you already forgot how high they are. You don't remember if someone is found to be unrepentantly flaunting God's moral standards they are out on their ear? 

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

if his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

Well we have both of those in JW Org. The standards are low and predictions are false.

Already covered above

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The GB falsely call themselves the F&DS. 

Your opinion 

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now this bit is almost clever, Quote Anna Starts with 'The true prophet', then she moves on to  'the prophet/spokesperson/GB' but finally she moves on to ' the prophet/GB/FDS. 

How sly is that. A perfect JW way to twist things. Start with a true prophet and end with the GB/F&DS. 

You are reading FAR too much into this! My inconsistency has nothing to do with the intention of twisting anything. Just laziness.

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Yes the speculation about 1975 was wonderful wasn't it. And the speculation that one has to be a baptised JW to be 'saved'. And the speculation that Armageddon is 'so close now'.......... :)

1975 was speculation. To be baptized as JW to be saved is a belief. Armageddon being close is also a belief.

Sorry, can't finish. Got to go. Will carry on later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, 

That is because they are not inspired Anointed. Why would God give us His word if He would not give inspiration of holy spirit to Anointed ones to interpret it properly. Do you think God wants people to misuse scripture ?

No, of course God does not want us to misuse nor misunderstand scripture, and to understand scripture we need to ask God for help, which as you mention is the holy spirit. But holy spirit can only do so much. Since we are all free moral agents, but are imperfect at the same time, we CAN make mistakes in understanding where holy spirit is leading "us" (the person in question). Just because the holy spirit guides, doesn't mean that someone is capable of following it perfectly all the time.  Look how long it took Jonah to finally do what he was told. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) including the anointed. I think one of your problems John is you are waiting for someone to interpret the scriptures to you perfectly.  But the irony is, how would you know? How would you know what that one person is saying is better than what another person is saying? Jesus gave people identifying marks so we can recognize his true followers. It's not complicated. Matthew 7:21, John 13:35, John 17:16 etc... The Bible  lets us know clearly and unambiguously what is important to God. That's not complicated either. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 1 Corinthians 5:11, Ephesians 4:28, Colossians 3:8, Corinthians 7:1, 1 Timothy 5:8, Galatians 5:20, 21 etc....

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Going beyond what is written.

Calling themselves the F&DS...............

Perhaps they are not going beyond what is written. How would you know?

On 7/4/2019 at 3:03 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

 I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.

BUT the GB say they are the F&DS and requite complete obedience. Didn't someone put up a Watchtower quote where the GB said that God and Jesus Christ trust them (the GB), so everyone else should trust them. 

Yes, in fact God and Jesus want us to be obedient; "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account"... (Heb 13: 17)

But complete obedience is first and foremost to God. It's a no brainier. The GB know that. Yes, God and Jesus support trustworthy older men. Paul told Timothy: "You, therefore, my child, keep on acquiring power in the undeserved kindness that is in Christ Jesus;  and the things you heard from me that were supported by many witnesses, these things entrust to faithful men, who, in turn, will be adequately qualified to teach others". (2 Tim 2:2). And as you know, not only do God and Jesus trust older men, but they trust all Christians who strive to obey God, since they entrust them with "shining as illuminators" and with preaching the good news

"“You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when located on a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house.  Likewise, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens" (Matt 5:14-16)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.