Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?

[bruceq]

   Your personal attacks mean nothing to me. All I asked was where do you get your "special interpretations" from in regards to 1914, Gentile Times and so forth. Obviously not from Jehovah's Witnesses since they are at odds with your beliefs. So where do you get your interpretations from? I believe that JESUS is our head and we should follow him no matter where he goes. There is no Scripture that says we should follow an internet blogger who gets special interpretation. 

 

 Jesus is head of the Congregation - if he says he became King in 1914 then who exactly are you to go against the teachings of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ?

“These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.”—REV. 14:4.

So "special interpretation" belongs to Jesus as our HEAD not to an internet blogger. LOL 

https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgMovies/pub-kyc_1_VIDEO

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/1914-significant-year-bible-prophecy/#?insight[search_id]=46cb7e60-31f5-400b-94ec-d6d85eae6d8f&insight[search_result_index]=1

 

 

[bruceq]

   Your personal attacks mean nothing to me. All I asked was where do you get your "special interpretations" from in regards to 1914, Gentile Times and so forth. Obviously not from Jehovah's Witnesses since they are at odds with your beliefs. So where do you get your interpretations from? I believe that JESUS is our head and we should follow him no matter where he goes. There is no Scripture that says we should follow an internet blogger who gets special interpretation. 

 

 Jesus is head of the Congregation - if he says he became King in 1914 then who exactly are you to go against the teachings of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ?

 

“These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.”—REV. 14:4.

So "special interpretation" belongs to Jesus as our HEAD not to an internet blogger. LOL 

https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgMovies/pub-kyc_1_VIDEO

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/1914-significant-year-bible-prophecy/#?insight[search_id]=46cb7e60-31f5-400b-94ec-d6d85eae6d8f&insight[search_result_index]=1

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, bruceq said:

All I asked was where do you get your "special interpretations" from in regards to 1914, Gentile Times and so forth. Obviously not from Jehovah's Witnesses since they are at odds with your beliefs. So where do you get your interpretations from? I believe that JESUS is our head and we should follow him no matter where he goes.

I never claimed to get any special interpretations. In fact, I was talking about YOUR special interpretations. I'll assume you didn't understand this. I was referring to the ridiculous kinds of special interpretations that YOU defend when you pick the most unlikely meaning of each word to fit an interpretation. You claimed that we should defend the most unlikely meanings, because our interpretation SHOULD be the most unlikley, while Christendom accepts the most likely meaning. That's why I said "SUPPOSE" that I used  the same ridiculous logic in order to MISunderstand what you were saying.

For anyone who might think that this really was a question about claiming that I had a "special interpretation" then it should be obvious that I don't. The particular interpretations mentioned in this thread are very common in many of the commentaries that Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in support of other doctrines. In fact we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, agree with probably 95% of all that is written in many or even most of the major commentaries, such as Barnes Notes or Matthew Henry etc. And many people of Christendom also agree with Jehovah's Witnesses that Matthew 24 is about how we will all see worsening signs that tell us that the great tribulation is near. Earlier I explained that this particular interpretation was something I learned from many other Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't think I would have ever come up with it on my own. Those persons who brought it up to me were well respected persons with high levels of responsibility, and several of them are still at Bethel in levels of high responsibility. Two of them are actually on the video that bruceq pointed out in a recent post in another thread:

https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgMovies/pub-kyc_1_VIDEO

[bruceq]

I don't care about your bragging about being at Bethel. An "insider" after only a few years at Bethel from 40 years ago.   LOL Brag about JEHOVAH for a change.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2017/why-modesty-still-matters/

 Where do you get your "special interpretations" from in regards to 1914, Gentile Times and so forth. Obviously not from Jehovah's Witnesses since they are at odds with your beliefs. So where do you get your interpretations from? I believe that JESUS is our head and we should follow him no matter where he goes. There is no Scripture that says we should follow an internet blogger who gets special interpretation. 

So you admit you follow the teachings of Christendom and their writings and interpretations. No wonder you do not believe in the teachings of our Head Jesus regarding 1914.

 Jesus is head of the Congregation - if he says he became King in 1914 then who exactly are you to go against the teachings of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ?

“These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.”—REV. 14:4.

So "special interpretation" belongs to Jesus as our HEAD not to an internet blogger. LOL 

https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgMovies/pub-kyc_1_VIDEO

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/1914-significant-year-bible-prophecy/#?insight[search_id]=46cb7e60-31f5-400b-94ec-d6d85eae6d8f&insight[search_result_index]=1

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/#?insight[search_id]=e8ddb295-889f-4ee3-ac9d-d25140623b74&insight[search_result_index]=5

[bruceq]

On 8/25/2017 at 4:47 PM, JW Insider said:

what is the more likely meaning of the Parousia? Presence or Visitation/Advent?

 

Whatever Jesus tells us through his Congregation of course...not Christendoms teachings or a blogger from the internet promoting Christendom's teachings with his "special interpretations". 

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/jesus-coming/

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, bruceq said:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

what is the more likely meaning of the Parousia? Presence or Visitation/Advent?

 

Whatever Jesus tells us through his Congregation of course...not Christendoms teachings or a blogger from the internet promoting Christendom's teachings. 

Actually, you already conceded that this does not necessarily mean it is more likely, only that you would accept it as what you would be required to believe, whether it was true or not. Under another topic you just recently claimed that if you were in a first century congregation that you would have gone along with the body of elders if they told you the resurrection had already occurred. Had you been in a congregation between 1919 and 1925 you are admitting that you would have gone along with 1925 and promoted it even if you knew it was wrong. Your position of removing all responsibility for carrying your own load is sad when you compare it with the counsel we get in the Bible. This completely ignores the counsel that Paul gave to the Galatians:

• (Galatians 1:6-9) 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from the One who called you with ChristÂ’s undeserved kindness to another sort of good news. 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 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.

Paul said it didn't matter how highly regarded the men were that were preaching another sort of good news, they could be men of high regard, they could even be pillars in the congregation. In fact, they could even be "angels." But we should not accept any good news beyond what Christ Jesus tells us to follow. And who were these men that might have even been considered by some to be on par with "angels"? Let's see.

Who is it that Paul makes a point of saying that he did NOT see when he went to Jerusalem?

• (Galatians 1:16, 17) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus.

Why do you think it was important for Paul to make it so clear that he did NOT go to Jerusalem where the apostles were?

• (Galatians 1:18-20) 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ce?phas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.

Why make it a point that it was three years before he saw Peter or James, and even then for only 2 weeks, and that he did NOT see any of the other apostles?

• (Galatians 2:1-5) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Bar?na·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you.

Why do you think Paul considers it so important to say it wasn't until 14 whole years later that he visited Jerusalem again, and this time it wasn't because they called him, it was because he had a revelation to tell them? Obviously these men who were highly regarded were the apostles, especially. But he again makes a point that they weren't able to compel his traveling companion to be circumcised. He says the whole matter wouldn't have even come up if false brothers hadn't been brought in to spy on them. But he didn't yield in submission to them. What is so important about not yielding to the apostles and older men of Jerusalem. Again, who likely sent these false brothers who were brought in?

• (Galatians 2:12) 12 For before certain men from James arrived,. . .

So who were these ones who "seemed to be important"? Who were these ones who "seemed to be pillars"?

• (Galatians 2:6-9) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a manÂ’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . .  9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ce?phas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . .

Today, we would call these ones the "Governing Body," right?

So why does Paul go to so much trouble to tell the Galatians that they must be senseless for having listened to them, and been influenced by them? Why does he say they are accursed if they accepted teachings from the Governing Body that were not in line with what Jesus taught them? Do you think that Paul said this only to brag? Or was he making a point about following God instead of a Governing Body when it comes to doctrine? I'm sure you know the answer, but Paul gives it, too:

• (Galatians 1:10) 10 . . . .Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be ChristÂ’s slave.

Jesus goes through the same issues to John in Revelation when he gives counsel about the various congregations. The representative of each congregation is called an "angel" here too.

• (Revelation 2:1, 2) 2 “To the angel of the congregation in Eph?e·sus write: . . . ‘I know your deeds,. . . and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . .

This does not mean that we expect the leadership of the congregations or the Governing Body to mislead us. They surely would never do such a thing on purpose. But the verses show that it is right for us to put to the test those who seem to be important, those who seem to be pillars, those who are highly regarded, even the very ones we would now call the "Governing Body." Even we expect 99.9% of what is taught to be correct, it is still our own responsibility to put to the test those who teach doctrinal matters, because it is much more important to follow Christ wherever he goes.

• (Galatians 6:5) 5 For each one will carry his own load.

 

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, bruceq said:

I believe in Jehovah's Witnesses teaching not Christendom's.

[edited to add the words in brackets]

It's easy to understand that sentiment. What's hard to understand is why you claim that you will always prefer the [certain, specific] teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses even if you are aware that the Bible teaches something different [about those certain, specific teachings]. I'm really surprised that any Witness would admit that. Seriously!

[bruceq]

On 8/25/2017 at 6:03 PM, JW Insider said:

It's easy to understand that sentiment. What's hard to understand is why you claim that you will always prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses even if you are aware that the Bible teaches something different. I'm really surprised that any Witness would admit that. Seriously!

There ya go. Thanks for admitting your thinking about Jehovah's Witnesses. Now its on record for all to see.

So you feel , after your edit, that its ok to pick and choose what to believe from Jehovah's Organization.

[edited to add the words in brackets] by "insider":

 "What's hard to understand is why you claim that you will always prefer the [certain, specific] teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses even if you are aware that the Bible teaches something different [about those certain, specific teachings]"

You even went so far as to say on 8/27 : "You obviously don't know that that my experience at Bethel makes me believe that I have "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by God." Need I say more  You have more authority because you spent a few years at Bethel 40 years ago. LOL right. No wonder you believe you have as you say "special interpretation".  Rather haughty - no wonder you call yourself an "insider". Satan was an "insider" also, so I woundn't brag about it.

No reason to say further. Promoting the teachings of Christendom is wrong. Jesus said "by their fruits " you would recognize true from false religion.

The Bible teaches whatever our HEAD tells us we do = JESUS. NOT you and Christendom. LOL seriously 

How Can I Find the True Religion?

00:00

 

03:34

Download

Audio recordings download options

• MP3

The BibleÂ’s answer

Illustrating how to tell the difference between those who practice true religion and those who do not, the Bible says: “By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they?” (Matthew 7:16) Just as you can distinguish a grapevine from a thornbush by what it produces, you can distinguish true religion from false by its fruits, or by these identifying features.

1. True religion teaches the truth that is based on the Bible, not on human philosophies. (John 4:24; 17:17) This includes religious truths about the soul and the hope of everlasting life on a paradise earth. (Psalm 37:29; Isaiah 35:5, 6; Ezekiel 18:4) It also does not hold back from exposing religious falsehood.—Matthew 15:9; 23:27, 28.

2. True religion helps people to know God, including teaching them his name, Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; John 17:3, 6) It does not teach that he is incomprehensible or aloof; rather, it teaches that he wants us to have a relationship with him.—James 4:8.

3. True religion highlights Jesus Christ as the one through whom God grants salvation. (Acts 4:10, 12) Its members obey Jesus’ commands and strive to follow his example.—John 13:15; 15:14.

4. True religion focuses on God’s Kingdom as mankind’s only hope. Its members actively tell others about that Kingdom.—Matthew 10:7; 24:14.

5. True religion promotes unselfish love. (John 13:35) It teaches respect for all ethnic groups and welcomes people from all races, cultures, languages, and backgrounds. (Acts 10:34, 35) Moved by love, its members do not go to war.—Micah 4:3; 1 John 3:11, 12.

6. True religion has no paid clergy, and it does not give high-sounding religious titles to any of its members.—Matthew 23:8-12;1 Peter 5:2, 3.

7. True religion is completely neutral in political affairs. (John 17:16;18:36) However, its members respect and obey the government where they live, in harmony with the Bible’s command: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar [representing the civil authority], but God’s things to God.”—Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1, 2.

8. True religion is a way of life, not just a ritual or a formality. Its members adhere to the Bible’s high moral standards in all aspects of life. (Ephesians 5:3-5; 1 John 3:18) Rather than being grim, though, they find joy in worshipping “the happy God.”—1 Timothy 1:11.

9. Those who practice true religion will be in the minority. (Matthew 7:13, 14) Members of the true religion are often looked down on, ridiculed, and persecuted for doing God’s will.—Matthew 5:10-12.

True religion is not just ‘the right religion for me’

There is a danger in choosing a religion based solely on how it makes us feel. The Bible foretold a time when people would “surround themselves with [religious] teachers to have their ears tickled.” (2 Timothy 4:3) In contrast, the Bible encourages us to follow “the religion that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father,” even if that religion is unpopular.—James 1:27, footnote; John 15:18, 19.

Jesus is the driver of the Chariot if you want to take a taxi because you want to go where YOU want to then go ahead. But I will follow and be LOYAL to Jesus:

These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.”—REV. 14:4.

 

[Anna]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No that wasn't 'all you asked. And if you are really willing to let the dishonesty of that previous post stand with no response then I will assume that you really are willing to sully the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's good name.

I don't think Bruce was intending to be dishonest, I think the problem is he just didn't get what you meant with your analogy at all...

[Anna]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What's hard to understand is why you claim that you will always prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses even if you are aware that the Bible teaches something different.

 

6 hours ago, bruceq said:

here ya go. Thanks for admitting your thinking about Jehovah's Witnesses. Now its on record for all to see.

The Bible teaches whatever our HEAD tells us we do = JESUS. NOT you and Christendom. LOL seriously 

@bruceq how does this have anything to do with what JW Insider said above? All he did was indirectly quote you, and said he finds it hard to understand. You might need to read it again, several times. It's a claim you made, after all!

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't think Bruce was intending to be dishonest, I think the problem is he just didn't get what you meant with your analogy at all...

It's possible, so I'll assume you're right. I'm going to try to get in some late edits that don't cause too much confusion so that I can remove my previous assumption that he purposefully pulled it out of context. In some ways, I felt it was a different kind of insult to him to assume he hadn't really understood what he was doing. Hard to find a middle ground here. 

6 hours ago, Anna said:

13 hours ago, bruceq said:

here ya go. Thanks for admitting your thinking about Jehovah's Witnesses. Now its on record for all to see.

The Bible teaches whatever our HEAD tells us we do = JESUS. NOT you and Christendom. LOL seriously 

@bruceq how does this have anything to do with what JW Insider said above? All he did was indirectly quote you, and said he finds it hard to understand. You might need to read it again, several times. It's a claim you made, after all!

I think I know what he misunderstood here. I've seen A.S. do the exact same thing with the exact same reaction on a similar expression. In context, of course, he said he would ALWAYS prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to the Bible even if he knows that specific teachings might be different. Several times I spelled this out and was clear that it was only "specific teachings" that he might know are wrong. But because it was clear from context, I left out the idea about certain "specific teachings" and accidentally wrote "the teachings." He was able to jump on that and decide that I must have meant that ALL the teachings must be different from what the Bible teaches.

Historically, most of us have a bad habit of supporting "proof texts" vs. "context," so I should have seen it coming. I got a little more careful when engaging with A.S. because I'm sure you've seen how 'black and white" thinking with no room for subtlety or "gray areas" often results in this type of misunderstanding. It seems that words get culled and re-culled to find little snippets of "proof texts" for a preconceived notion. I've purchased CD's from bruceq, one of which contained several resources we have quoted from. I realized that this is an even bigger problem than I had ever noticed before, when we look to outside sources for quotes and support. Very often we just take a "proof text" without realizing that the context says almost the opposite. Even G.S., a writer at Bethel, was infamous for this kind of misunderstanding. He would read through newspapers and magazines searching for little phrases he could pull out of context. But as smart as he is, I don't think he always noticed when the context was saying the opposite. That's approximately what happened in both of these recent misunderstandings with bruceq. 

[Ann O'Maly]

15 hours ago, bruceq said:

How Can I Find the True Religion?

http://www.calldrmatt.com/AskDrMatt_17_Points_of_the_True_Church_of_Christ.htm

https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/where-is-gods-true-church-today/content

http://www.itiswritten.com/search-for-certainty-lesson-21-gods-church-identified