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
On 1/16/2017 at 4:03 AM, JW Insider said:

All in all, the majority of them seem to be good, God-fearing, humble men who want to do what is right, the same as the rest of us. We don't get the idea that any of them "schemed" to get to this position. We know that the guidelines for elders apply to them just as they apply to congregation elders. And it's my opinion, but I see a certain stability and faithfulness to worthy goals among all of them. 

I've already stated my opinion that the GB are not the equivalent of the "faithful slave".

 

Allow me to play devil’s advocate. Re-reading several posts of JW Insider, I extract two main points.

One. JW Insider respect the GB. He considers these brothers as carrying an enormous responsibility. For him they are some kind of body of elders with global, worldwide concerns.

  • Derived from this view, we should respect them and obey them, following the Heb.13:17 counsel: “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”

Two. JW Insider disagree with the application of the slave’s parable to these brothers.

Well, and what’s the matter? It isn’t the main point to obey the brothers leading the congregation, even the universal congregation? Does this obedience depend of the meaning of one parable? What if (our understanding of) the meaning changes? Should we then, stop obeying them?

I’m completely sure the GB is very conscious of the special meaning of the next verses to all of them:

  • ·        (James 3:1) “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment”

  • ·        (Luke 12:48) “Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him”

  • ·        (Luke 19:22) “He said to him, ‘By your own words I judge you”

I don’t envy them. They deserve our respect and prayers. Regarding the last verse I’ve quoted, as it applies to the bad slave, I’m not saying the GB is this bad slave. I mean that according Jesus words, if one person or collective claims to be something will be judged according his affirmations.

And I don’t think any presumptuousness about them, rather they had the same attitude -I think so-  of Isaiah when he said: (Isaiah 6:8) “Here I am! Send me!” In other words, they have seen the responsibility to oversee the worldwide congregation and don’t refuse to accomplish.

Sorry if after this defense JW Insider goes to hail!!

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
1 hour ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

What I’m proposing is: if I want to be loyal, must always agree with the instructions from the “slave” class? Have I the right to think some orders, explanations, directions from these brothers are silly, sometimes completely wrong?

Yes, of course you have the right, but not according to them.  If you say you have the right to the wrong listening ear, you will be disfellowshiped. 

“How, then, can we be friends of Christ? One way is to obey the direction provided by the faithful and discreet slave class, which consists of Jesus’ spirit-anointed brothers still alive on earth.” Wt. 09/10/15 pp. 13-17

“But we are acting against Jehovah’s purpose if we do not obey the faithful and discreet slave or if we choose to obey only what we think is important.” ws11 7/15 pp. 17-21

These comments threaten that we will lose “friendship” with both God and Christ if we chose not to obey their irrational direction.  They beat JWs over the head with such lies, and sadly, I believe all of you here hold the view that the wicked slave is a parable with no fulfillment.  Matt 24:48-51

“Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem:
They commit adultery (by leaving truth in Christ) and walk in lies;
They also strengthen the hands of evildoers,
So that no one turns back from his wickedness.
All of them are like Sodom to Me,
And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.

15 “Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets:

‘Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, (Rev 8:11)
And make them drink the water of gall;
For from the prophets of Jerusalem
Profaneness has gone out into all the land.’”

16 Thus says the Lord of hosts:

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.
They make you worthless;
They speak a vision of their own heart,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.
17 They continually say to those who despise Me,
‘The Lord has said, “You shall have peace”’;
And to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say,
‘No evil shall come upon you.’”

18 For who has stood in the counsel of the Lord,
And has perceived and heard His word?
Who has marked His word and heard it?

“I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.
I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in My counsel,
And had caused My people to hear My words,
Then they would have turned them from their evil way
And from the evil of their doings.

“Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” says the Lord, “who steal My words every one from his neighbor. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets,” says the Lord, “who use their tongues and say, ‘He says.’ 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” says the Lord, “and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all,” says the Lord.

Thus every one of you shall say to his neighbor, and every one to his brother, ‘What has the Lord answered?’ and, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ 36 And the oracle of the Lord you shall mention no more. For every man’s word will be his oracle, for you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God.

Portions of Jer chapter 23

 

"Why Does the Master Delay" - http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-does-master-delay-luke1235-stay.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

By the way JWinsider. I see you friends at this forum are beginning to attempt to "BLOCK ME" Good luck! where there's a will, there will always be a way.

I thought they were beginning to block me. For the last few days I couldn't get here because FireFox won't let me in. I have been gettting this error:

Quote

 

Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to www.theworldnewsmedia.org. The OCSP server suggests trying again later. Error code: SEC_ERROR_OCSP_TRY_SERVER_LATER

    The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
    Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.

 

But even when I go to advanced settings, and ask the OCSP server to ignore any problems, I still can't get in. I tried Chrome instead of FireFox, however, and I'm able to get in today. 

Anyway, I hope no one here blocks you. If anyone tries, I'll put in a good word for you, :) but I'm not really friends with anyone here in that sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

And yes, I should be expulsed. The Bible orders this:

  • ·        (Titus 3:10, 11) “As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition, 11 knowing that such a man has deviated from the way and is sinning and is self-condemned.”

  • ·        (Romans 16:17, 18) “Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them. 18 For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own appetites.”

This is not a rule of JW, nor the GB, is in the Bible.

Sometimes I consider some teaching from the “slave” is not viable, or lacks biblical base, or is bad focused. What would happen if begin to teach others according my view? What would happen if all of us do this way? Imagine attending the meeting in your congregation and listening some teaching about the, let’s say the “other sheep.” Now, you attend next weekend another congregation and listen just the opposite. What a mess! How could we follow the scriptural advice in 1 Cor.1:10 “Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

What I do is, regarding this kind of matters I personally have another view is teach them as in the Watchtower is showed. Why?

  • ·        After all, I could be wrong (most of the times, really)

  • ·        This is no my responsibility to direct God’s people, but Christ’s. I let Christ the responsibility to direct the brothers on charge of His work.

As I mentioned in other comments, I prefer using expressions like “we believe this [doctrine] means this.” If my interlocutor replies “but I believe other way”, I can tell him “well, perhaps you’re right, with time and study perhaps we should move our understanding, but at this moment we all view this matter in this way.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Derived from this view, we should respect them and obey them, following the Heb.13:17 counsel: “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”

Yes, this is exactly what I believe. I also agree with everything in Eoin's previous comments (above, from Friday). Of course, Hebrews 13:17 would have referred primarily to the local elders of local congregations, according to the same logic of the 2013 Watchtower, which Eoin also agreed with:

On 2/2/2017 at 2:04 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

So for me, the concept of the "faithful and discreet slave" being an arrangement for spiritual nourishment as a part of the sign of these last days now in progress is quite acceptable. There was absolutely no need for such a question in the 1stC preceding the apostasy, in the same way that the term "Christian" was unambiguous, so no need to ask "who really is" at that stage.

*** w13 7/15 p. 21 par. 7 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
In the first century, there was hardly a reason to ask such a question. As we saw in the preceding article, the apostles could perform miracles and even transmit miraculous gifts as proof of divine backing. (Acts 5:12) So why would anyone need to ask who really was appointed by Christ to take the lead?

Therefore, there would be no need for Hebrews 13:17 to be reminding members of any congregation about following the lead of the apostles, or any type of "governing body" in the first century. So this verse must be referring to those who take the lead in the local congregations: "those taking the lead among you."  As members of the congregation could see how the faith and conduct of their overseers has turned out, they should imitate their faith, and in this way follow their lead in whatever "good works" they wish for their particular congregation to participate in.

In principle, however, Hebrews 13:17 still applies to all elders. In every way in which their conduct and actions can be rightly imitated, we should follow their lead:

(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
 

Everything they do, should be appropriate to imitate. This is the type of obedience the context is talking about. We should be doing what they are doing. In the way that they show brotherly love and hospitality, we should too, according to Hebrews 13:1,2. In the same way that these brothers take the lead in visiting those in prison, we should too, according to the next verse (3). In the same way the "governing" body of elders sets the example in their own marriages, we should govern ourselves with their same moral example (verse 4). In the same way that this "governing body" shows itself "free from the love of money and content with the present things" (verse 5) we should obey that same example. In the same way in which this body of elders teaches us to not rely on legalistic rules but to rely on undeserved kindness as our motivation, we follow that, too (verse 9). These are the kinds of things that the body of elders will take the lead in; this is the scriptural context that we are "obedient" to:

(Hebrews 13:16) .Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.
 

And this doing "good works and sharing what you have with others" is, of course, the doctrine that this particular body of elders should be teaching by example. Where we fall short and need assistance or counsel, this body of elders should also be able to admonish us and encourage us with their own example. This is why nothing they do should be hidden from any of us. There should be no secrecy among such a body of elders. The verse you quoted (v.17) is not specifically about teaching doctrine, but about shepherding. (NWT links it to Acts 20:28) This can include doctrine, too, of course.  We should appreciate that a body of elders who takes on the responsibility of multiple congregations might be in a position to see dangerous trends and may be able to provide counsel and prepare others for strengthening their faith and resolve. Even the ability to report on what is going on in other countries among the brotherhood is often an encouragement, especially if they may be facing hardships that we have not yet faced. And such elders who take on a wider responsibility of multiple congregations would be in a position to learn about programs of charity due to emergencies (famine, flood, earthquake, war, persecution, disaster, economic hardships, pestilence, etc). 

 

16 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Two. JW Insider disagree with the application of the slave’s parable to these brothers.

Well, and what’s the matter? It isn’t the main point to obey the brothers leading the congregation, even the universal congregation? Does this obedience depend of the meaning of one parable? What if (our understanding of) the meaning changes? Should we then, stop obeying them?

Yes, this is much closer to what I was saying. The main point is to have respect for the good examples of elders in all parts of the congregation, both local and worldwide. We don't do this based on our understanding of Matthew 24:45 because Jesus made it very clear what that parable was about. But with or without any specific interpretation of Matthew 24:45, this has no effect on our wish to show respect for good examples, and showing the proper respect for their counsel and admonition. This is why the Christian congregations are instructed to appoint elders in the first place. We already have portions of the scriptures dedicated to the qualifications for elders. We already have portions of scripture showing us why we show them respect, and even give them a little more "benefit of the doubt" if an accusation is brought against them.   

We also wish to show the best kind of respect for the teaching they share with us, and the ultimate way to show respect for it is to be "noble-minded." This means to take it seriously enough to question it, test it, discuss it, and see if it's really so. When and if we see that it is so we should be happy to share it, too. This is what will surely happen most of the time. Yet, if our serious study and testing of any particular teaching indicates that it might not be so, especially if it seems to contradict scripture, then we should be just as willing to imitate the lead of this body of elders in expressing our view about that, too. We are not talking about "counsel" here, which is something we should always submit to humbly. Bible teaching is something we are asked to prove to ourselves. We are asked to let our reasonableness be known. We are asked to let our reasons be known. (1 Pet 3:15) Anything related to teaching and doctrine that we learn from humans, such as a body of elders, we need to make sure about, and take it very seriously, and never just accept it because our congregation's body of elders believes it.

(Galatians 1:8-10) 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . .
 

Imagine how much faster we would have been blessed and progressed past the 1925 fiasco if Bible Students had truly believed that it was always important to question everything. Imagine how much less embarrassing the 1975 fiasco would have been if more persons spoke up and quoted Matthew 24:36 as the reason to question it. Imagine how much more loving it would have been to help prepare our fellow brothers and sisters, and encourage them to meet any and all of the possibilities that might lie ahead of us, instead of focusing on a narrower set of beliefs held at the time by a body of elders, who repeatedly claimed, for example, that this old system would be over by the end of the previous century.

*** it-2 p. 278 Love ***
However, love is not gullible, for it follows the counsel of God’s Word to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God,” and it tests everything by the measuring rule of the Bible. (1Jo 4:1; Ac 17:11, 12)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Imagine attending the meeting in your congregation and listening some teaching about the, let’s say the “other sheep.” Now, you attend next weekend another congregation and listen just the opposite. What a mess! How could we follow the scriptural advice in 1 Cor.1:10 “Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

That is a very simple example. Those who wish to teach should always guard their teaching. It's possible to say two completely different things about the "other sheep" and yet cause no divisions, and always speak in agreement. Here is an example:

Pretend this is a quote from the first meeting you attended in your congregation:

  • "When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that he was at that time addressing his Jewish apostles and disciples, and he asked them only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So it may be that when he spoke of having other sheep who would later be brought in to the same flock under the same shepherd, that he was preparing them for something that would prove to become a "sticking point" for some, it would "shock" some of them, and some would have to overcome long-held beliefs and prejudices to get the full impact of the fact that they would very soon -- within just a few months -- need to accept Gentiles into their congregations. But remember that Jesus did not say exactly what he meant at this point, so we shouldn't be saying that we know for sure. It's something to think about however isn't it? Because, if this is what he meant, it would show that Jesus was, like a good shepherd, gently nudging the flock in the right direction, preparing them, for some "rocky terrain" as it were. As with other things, they might not have been ready to hear it all at once, but they could look back and say: Oh that's right, remember when Jesus was with us, he told us about this matter.  etc. etc. ...the olive tree of Romans and Revelation, etc."

Then the next week in the other congregation:

  • "When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that the apostles and disciples who were listening to him had a special privilege of being part of the flock at that particular time, but that there were other things they just weren't ready to know at the time. Notice that Jesus doesn't say exactly who these persons would be. Perhaps it is something that would be revealed over time. We know that the book of Revelation is a book that was not immediately clear to the disciples at the time it was written, yet it contained a lot of things that would be revealed over time. The very name of the book indicates that it is about things to be "revealed." Perhaps, Revelation 7 is giving us a glimpse of who these other sheep are. Recall, that Jesus spoke to the disciples and called them a "little flock." Yet they clearly grew to become thousands in just the first few short years after Pentecost. Was there a separate group that could be called a "great crowd" even when compared with thousands? In the 7th chapter we have a group of 144,000 which would probably seem to be a huge group to most of those first century Christian disciples. They would be imagining a group that was as large or perhaps larger than any group they had ever seen before at one time.  Perhaps when they attended yearly festivals at Jerusalem. But now we have this group compared with an even bigger crowd, a great crowd that no man could number. It must be in the millions! It's true that Revelation 7 indicates that the 144,000 were from the Jewish nation, and these perhaps "millions" would be from all nations, Gentiles. But notice how the tribes were each numbered 12,000. Could this indicate that we are not speaking of literal tribes of Jews but this is a reference to "spiritual Israel" -- meaning all the chosen, holy nation of kings and priests? And if this is so, then this group of 144,000 could very well mean that those with the heavenly hope are limited to 144,000 kings and priests. This could mean that Jesus was referring to the fact that those from the nations would be a great crowd of millions at the time of this great tribulation. This could also resolve the issue of how there would be a completion of Jehovah's purpose for a "new heavens" and also a "new earth." The Lord's prayer...etc."

Note how neither one of these teachings is wrong. They are both expressed as possibilities, and they are both therefore true, because both are expressed as true possibilities. They are not expressed as something that you need to believe one way or another to be baptized. That is the same as starting a sect. This is why the scriptures speak of "starting a sect" as a problem of pride. Pride makes someone believe that a certain teaching that is not expressed, but only interpreted, must still be followed as a teaching.

In our case, we have a body of elders whom we respect writing up their reasons for the second view in the Watchtower magazine which is the way they share their understanding with all the congregations. There would be nothing wrong with this body of elders, if they all speak in agreement themselves on this matter, explaining all of the reasoning that went into their preference for the second version. If there are any dissenters, they should also explain exactly why the dissenter believed what he did, and explain how and why that particular idea was considered to be less likely. But it could never be called "wrong" as long as it also fit the rest of the scriptures. Neither of these can be called "wrong." They both might fit the scripture. One may seem more likely to some and one might seem more likely to others. 

Yet, the congregations could still be in perfect agreement about the way in which it could refer to either scenario. That would be "the truth" about it. Over time, it would be much easier to discuss it without pride, or without the fear that a change would destroy a body of truth. If you think about it, it's usually pride that results in any determination that a certain way of looking at something must be the only right way. Pride is both the source of such claims and it also feeds more pride when one begins to think that they are privileged to know the only correct interpretation when more than one are possible. Pride can also create class distinctions among us, a teaching class versus a learning class, for example, which might make it more difficult to admit when we need to extricate ourselves from a certain set of teachings that turn into a "tradition" over time, and become even harder to break.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That is a very simple example. Those who wish to teach should always guard their teaching. It's possible to say two completely different things about the "other sheep" and yet cause no divisions, and always speak in agreement. Here is an example:

Note how neither one of these teachings is wrong. They are both expressed as possibilities, and they are both therefore true, because both are expressed as true possibilities. They are not expressed as something that you need to believe one way or another to be baptized. That is the same as starting a sect. This is why the scriptures speak of "starting a sect" as a problem of pride. Pride makes someone believe that a certain teaching that is not expressed, but only interpreted, must still be followed as a teaching.

 

Oh, yes, it would make me feel like in the Paradise! I’ve included a new post regarding some collateral ideas. Your answer inspired me to write another post I had in my mind for a while: Our problem with the humility.

Had the supposed first century GB secrets meetings?

·        (Acts 15:7-25) “After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them:[…]10 So why are you now making a test of God by imposing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? […] 12 At that the entire group became silent […] 22 Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation, decided to […] 24 Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions, 25 we have come to a unanimous decision to…”

We can observe from this account about the transcendental meeting:

·        The difficulty to arrive to the final accord – “intense discussion”

·        The different contributions for his name – “Peter, Paul, James…”

·        The dissimilar opinions – “you… imposing on the neck of the disciples a yoke”

·        The lack of secrecy – “decided to… etc.”

What added benefits we would find?

Let’s take, for example, the “other sheep” parable. (By the way, JWI, your exposition about the two congregations was in the way in try to teach others, but most of the time I find it difficult or impossible, I’ll explain it later). If we maintain both possibilities open:

·        We wouldn’t have to change once and again about meanings.

·        We wouldn’t have to expel brothers for sectaries.

·        We, mainly the GB, would show more humility.

The problem is, in my opinion, that the “slave class” has converted in core doctrines what are, in reality, explanations, applications “interpretations” –yes, I know this is a taboo word in our dictionary. Many times I mention to brothers with doubts: “the core teachings brother Russell started to teach are the same we are believing at this precisely time: dead condition, hell, soul, trinity, life on earth and so.” Our failure are the prophecies and similar.

It’s a matter of loyalty

When I read Rev 1 to 3 I found something shocking. Most of the congregations were in very bad condition… but Christ had them in his very hand, overseeing them. So, if I was in one of those congregations what should I have to do with the attitudes and actions of the body of elders on those congregations? Would I like to direct my “bible students” of those days to my congregation, attending the meetings?

Yes, if some elders influenced by Jezebels would have to influence me to consent sexual immorality, I’ll try to refuse his bad influence. But, in spite my despair, trying to correct the body of elders wouldn’t be my war, but Christ’s. Let me put modern examples.

Do you remember the short period (perhaps in the 80, I don’t remember) when were given instructions to report TWICE each month? I’m not sure how long was this arrangement, perhaps only months! Now, I’m an elder in the congregation on those days and I feel this disposition is completely silly (well, it was), and I begin to discourage the brother to inform two times monthly.

Is it the same to report our ministry twice each month than teach others to commit sexual Immorality? Rev 2:20?

So, in spite I disagree with some dispositions or teachings from the GB, I let the things in the hands of the Master. Is His responsibility, not mine.

Why Uzzah had to hold the Ark? (1Chr.13:9) Yes, it was a fault from the GB of those days, but it was a problem between Jehovah and His anointed.

I find no way to teach in my congregation in this open way if the GB don’t show the way to make this way. Sometimes, nevertheless the brothers on charge of the teaching have been close to this:

·        *** ip-1 chap. 18 pp. 241-243 par. 21-23 Shebna’s experience reminds us that among those who claim to worship God, those who accept privileges of service should use them to serve others and to bring praise to Jehovah. They should not abuse their position in order to enrich themselves or gain personal prominence. For example, Christendom has long promoted herself as an appointed steward, the earthly representative of Jesus Christ. However, just as Shebna brought dishonor on his father by seeking his own glory, Christendom’s leaders have brought dishonor on the Creator by amassing riches and power for themselves. Hence, when the time of judgment “to start with the house of God” came in 1918, Jehovah removed Christendom

·        23 What happens to Shebna? We have no record of how the prophecy about him, recorded at Isaiah 22:18, was fulfilled. When he exalts himself and is then disgraced, he resembles Christendom, but he may have learned from the discipline. In this, he is very different from Christendom. […] What a fine lesson for those who lose positions of service in God’s organization!

A fine example! Two opens applications!

Another one: how to flight when the disgusting thing starts to stand where it should not be?

*** w99 5/1 p. 19 par. 22 “We cannot presently have full details about the great tribulation, but we can logically conclude that for us the flight Jesus spoke of will not be in a geographic sense. God’s people are already around the globe, virtually in every corner. We can be sure, though, that when flight is necessary, Christians will have to continue to maintain a clear distinction between themselves and false religious organizations. It is also significant that Jesus warned about not going back to one’s house to retrieve garments or other goods.”

In other words: the GB is not sure about the fulfillment and let it clear his lack of knowledge. Perfect! For me, what wonderful it’ll be if a lot of applications and meanings about the Scriptures the GB would have this attitude. “We have no full details, we aren’t sure, both possibilities fits this prophecy.”

To finalize, I prefer the older explanation about the meaning of the illustration of the leaven and the woman (Mat.13:33) Obviously, I teach others the modern one. But what damage would happen if the GB would have said “both applications are possible?”

So, JW Insider, summarizing. Of course I’d like the GB would show more humility, that he would be more open indicating his own doubts in form of possibilities, not “lights or flashes.” But if they need to be corrected, they have a Master. I pray this Master guide them, so the Master hadn’t to punish them!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Do you remember the short period (perhaps in the 80, I don’t remember) when were given instructions to report TWICE each month? I’m not sure how long was this arrangement, perhaps only months! Now, I’m an elder in the congregation on those days and I feel this disposition is completely silly (well, it was), and I begin to discourage the brother to inform two times monthly.

I think that started in 1977. I was already in Bethel for about a year, and a lot of brothers stopped reporting twice a month before the end of the year. I think it was still expected in the United States (or at least my congregation) until well into the next year. In 1978, I was the book study conductor in my congregation for one of the two groups that met in the Kingdom Hall. The purpose was so that, especially the book study conductors (Congregation Bible Study conductors) would know by the middle of the month who might need encouragement to get out in field service before the month was over, so as not to be counted as "irregular." I don't remember when or if this was officially dropped, but it was never encouraged officially after 1978 in our congregation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, JW Insider, summarizing. Of course I’d like the GB would show more humility, that he would be more open indicating his own doubts in form of possibilities, not “lights or flashes.”

The biggest things that came from "lights or flashes" as the "GB" claimed at the time were 1925, 1935, and the "higher powers" of Romans 13 (not civil authorities, but Jehovah and Jesus). We've since dropped all three of those interpretations. Romans 13 was considered to be one of the most "inspired" of all the teachings that the GB (Rutherford) ever came up with, and was even made to be the fulfillment of prophecy. By that I mean that prophecy was supposedly fulfilled by the very fact that the interpretation was made known, and that coming up with this (wrong) interpretation had proved the superiority of the Watchtower over Christendom's teachers. Since then, we have gone back to teaching what Russell and Christendom had taught about Romans 13.

  • (Romans 13:1-6) 13 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose.

There may have been a tiny bit of ambiguity about the exact phrase "superior authorities" (or "higher powers"). But the teaching about Romans 13 was not at all necessary to make the point we were then making from it. More importantly, it didn't change the meaning of its own context, which makes the same older point, and there were still other scriptures that made the same older point that Romans 13 had previously been understood to make:

  • (John 19:10, 11) . . .Do you not know that I have authority to release you and I have authority to execute you?” 11 Jesus answered him: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been granted to you from above. . . .
  • (1 Timothy 2:1, 2) . . ., 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness.

We already knew from other scriptures that Jehovah and Jesus were superior authorities. We already had the Bible teaching that "We should obey God as ruler rather than men." (Acts 5:29)  So I'm not sure why anyone thought it was necessary to make a scripture in Romans mean something other than what was already clear from the context. Perhaps Rutherford thought he had to be definitive as a way to compete with the kind of respect that had been afforded Russell. Perhaps it was a way to show that we could make definitive statements about teachings that were not obvious on their own. It was to show that Rutherford had taken a very powerful stand against the authority of the civil powers by interpreting them out of Romans 13:1.

Similarly, calling the end of the anointed calling in 1935 a "flash of light" was evidently done for the same reason: there was no specific, definitive, scriptural statement about a certain time when the "door to the heavenly calling" would be closed, so it became a point of claimed superiority that we (the GB) were able to come up with this one.

But to me, these aren't mistakes that reflect badly at all on the "faithful and discreet slave" because that phrase is apparently not significant in terms of making a point about a special group assigned to serve up true doctrines at the proper time. That would mean that the phrase is not about a specific set of men who will be punished if they serve up mistakes in their spiritual food. All of us must learn to discard tradition where it makes the word of God invalid, and all of us must learn to be faithful and discreet in our stewardship within the household of faith. All of us must answer for our lack of humility when we tell a Bible student that we know that a certain scripture must mean this or that, when we have not questioned it thoroughly to be sure. It might please men that we accept their word without questioning it, but it does not please Jehovah. So, one more time for this verse:

  • (Galatians 1:10) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All of us must learn to discard tradition where it makes the word of God invalid, and all of us must learn to be faithful and discreet in our stewardship within the household of faith. All of us must answer for our lack of humility when we tell a Bible student that we know that a certain scripture must mean this or that, when we have not questioned it thoroughly to be sure. It might please men that we accept their word without questioning it, but it does not please Jehovah. So, one more time for this verse:

  • (Galatians 1:10) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.

 

The easier situation

Let’s assume in the next class with my bible student he raises the parable of the woman and the leaven. Then, I teach him that, according our present view it represents the unhidden and beneficial effect of our preaching, or something similar. But, let’s suppose I personally prefer the older explanation, that the illustration prefigures the corruption of the Christianism. I face in front of several “teaching options”, I will exaggerate a little bit the arguments.

  • ·        Dear student: The Bible clearly and without any hesitation shows… {present explanation}

  • ·        Dear student: Our literature teaches this parable in this way… {but I, as a very clever person have this other explanation… {older explanation}  

  • ·        Dear student: For years we thought this parable had this meaning… {old explanation} and these were the reasons… {about the old explanation}. But, after studying now we see… {new explanation} because of these proofs {about the new explanation}. Jehovah doesn’t teach the brothers preparing the information miraculously so, perhaps over time we should have to move our view.

I think the third approach is the best one.  As I always mention, this is not necessary with our “core”, main, basic teachings.  These practically never change. An added benefit is that we show more humility, and, if the understanding varies it would be seen as normal in our learning process. I think so.

Besides, no one of the explanations conveys any wrong idea. I mean, both applications transmit good points. My bible student is not going to worship idols because one or another explanation.

In the 140 Gilead Graduation, the brother William Samuelson was interviewed for he had to leave his position as Gilead teacher for the age. The successor showed appreciation for the fact the brother Samuelson had knowledge about the progressive understanding in our beliefs, and you could go to ask him about these developments. So, it isn’t bad to present the evolution of our teachings, in this way showing our process to adopt or prefer one side or the other. (140 Gilead video, part II, min. 54:00 approx.)

I prefer to present this more humble view of ourselves. No as if we were the receptors of almost divine revelations or flashes.

A more difficult situation

I’ve already mention it. Let’s keep going. Now, in our next Watchtower we found a study article with the title: “New light about the higher authorities.” And yes, the article explains a number of reasons to believe these authorities are Jehovah and Jesus Christ. The difficulty with this situation is that, in contrast with the example with the parable of the leaven and the woman, where I had some doubts or reluctances, in this case I’m completely sure the Watchtower is wrong and my view is correct. What now?

Following this (I hope) hypothetical situation:

First. Is it incorrect to think about God and Jesus as the ‘Supremes’ authorities? Any bad behavior from this ‘new light’ would arise? I only would see, as a damage, the lack of correct understanding about one verse.

So, again, the possibilities if I were the person directing the Watchtower study this day:

  • ·        As the “slave” has shown in this article, the Bible teaches us crystal clear this {new understanding}

  • ·        The “slave” has said this {new understanding} but there are a lot of feebleness, and the {old understanding} was better.

  • ·        Until now we believed this {old understanding} for these reasons. Now, after studying the matter, this {new understanding} is what we think for these other reasons. Perhaps in the future more study will improve our perception.

I, without a doubt, would opt for the third option. I definitely would refuse the second one.

The worst scenario

A new hypothetical Watchtower article is published with the title: “Now it is appropriate to worship idols!”

This supposed “new light” would convey any bad behavior? Naturally! It would not be just a matter of bad understanding of some verses. It would be contrary to God’s law!

Well, we can obviate the options. Only one option should be the correct:

·        (Galatians 1:8) “However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed”

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

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

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

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    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.