Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

Apostles, Judas, GB, Raymond, Satan, Holy Spirit

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
430
5197

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

On 1/30/2019 at 11:39 AM, JW Insider said:

Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do?

I think we might be a little harsh in judging F. Franz for having said this, as from your statement above it was obviously nonsensical. I feel it was just his way of saying things, or maybe the way some people spoke. Although it came across as haughty, I doubt Fred's intention was to put himself above God. Who does that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

Elders have NO right, to overrule anointed brothers,  WHY  THAT ?

The trouble with this view is that the only way to know that a person is anointed is that he or she says he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The trouble with this view is that the only way to know that a person is anointed is that he or she says he is.

But they seem to be told not to make it known. That's the whole point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

How do you know they were not anointed ? 

How do we know they were? You have a point, since an anointing is usually a private thing between God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the person.

 Truthfully, I can't say, although I believe many/most were not anointed.  That day a big deal was made about who were anointed.  Just think of how many followers Christ had in the days that he chose the small group that he did.  They were baptized, but not anointed.

But, here is more about the event surrounding the Pentacost:

 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. 16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.  Acts 2:12-16

Many believers of Christ did the same thing, but again, they were not chosen to receive an anointing – just the apostles at that time.

If the Father is the God of the living, (Luke 20:38) which includes all of Abraham’s seed, how do we learn to be among the living if we don’t follow Christ’s teachings, including the teachings about the anointed who will serve the needs of God’s children in the Kingdom? 

If we were to learn about the general curriculum necessary for someone to become a specialized doctor, would it help us if we have to visit one of them?  I think so.  Learning about them is a curriculum in itself, that can be advantageous when we need their help, and it may give us insight on their credibility. 

Understanding the anointed, and the help they are to give those not anointed is really what it’s all about – how they will become approved to serve as “New Jerusalem” bringing living sustenance from God, to all who are among the living.    It is also to our advantage if we want to be among the living, to use Jesus’ teaching points, as well as those of the apostles, to help us spot the false teachers; the ones that go astray and deviate from Jesus Christ. 

So, the Bible is written for everyone who desires to gain eternal life.  We all must turn to Christ to receive it.     Here are a few more scriptures that include those believers not anointed:  Heb 6:10; 1 Cor 1:2; Matt 25:37-40

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also quite different from you, I don't consider bad spelling and grammar to be any kind of "fail" on your part, my part, or for anyone else. That's why you don't see me degrading others, or making fun of grammar or bad spelling. In this case I really wondered what actual meaning was intended in the several recent instances of that particular word I asked about. I also knew why you might seem sensitive about it, but I also really wanted to know what you meant.

word. This is not a classroom and you are not a teacher to correct. If anything, correct your own mistakes first, just like it states in scripture.

Matthew 7:5

5You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Your behavior is a subtle way of poking fun at people you want to quietly want to degrade. My evidence was to prove your own fallacy. We should always keep an eye on the prize no matter what. Philippians 3. If God doesn’t reveal something to us, it’s because we have become unworthy. Then it becomes as Jesus stated in Matthew 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

word. This is not a classroom and you are not a teacher to correct. If anything, correct your own mistakes first, just like it states in scripture.

That is correct. That is why I asked what you meant instead of correcting you.

9 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Your behavior is a subtle way of poking fun at people you want to quietly want to degrade. My evidence was to prove your own fallacy.

I don't want to degrade anyone, which is why my behavior did not poke fun at anyone. Also, you provided no evidence of anything, just more false and empty assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know how important it might be to impute wrong motives to me. But if you think you know something different, why not share evidence instead of unsubstantiated accusations?

I believe the substantiated evidence comes from your personal thoughts and rhetoric. Unless you are blind to your own words, there’s no further need to share the evidence that is before you. If you want to justify the means, that’s not a defense from your conduct unbecoming a Christian. Philippians 1:27

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's another example of Fred Franz' obsession with 1975 and something akin to numerology.

Referring to the same obsession you have about Fred. How does the same type of obsession work? Fred’s obsession as you call it was for the 6000 years. What is your obsession against Fred? Romans 8:6-16

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I was also both happy and serious about it too. My parents were different as to how they took the predictions about the 1970s, but circuit overseers were encouraging quitting school to pioneer, and I quit school at 15 (1973) to do just that. Naturally, I discussed that plan with my parents in 1972, but was asked to finish out my high school "sophomore" year. My mother liked the idea that it could be as early as 1974, because that would allow for a lot of growth from the increased activity, but it would still come at an hour we were not expecting it.

How do you see the many thousands that continued to college after high school at that time? Witnesses were encouraged to seek first the kingdom of God. This has always been a calling from the Watchtower. Should we think any less of those that went to college? Should we be thinking any less of those that decided not to be part of Bethel? It seems you harbor some kind of resentment for not having pursued a different course in your life you clearly hoped you had, instead of having spent time pioneering and spending time at Bethel. That shows more about your character, with personal ambition.

If you think you lost out on something, it was never too late to attend college or some type of vocational to earn a better skill, and better pay if you’re into materialism.  I entered college in my 30’s. So, don’t blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions you have made throughout your life.

Hebrews 13:5 New International Version (NIV)

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,

“Never will I leave you;
    never will I forsake you.

I have a college degree, but I guarantee you, I live a poorer life than you. Therefore, a piece of paper shouldn't make or break a person.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That might be a true statement, but it was not what F.Franz had in mind when he made it clear that no "ecclesiastical body" should have that responsibility. He made it clear that he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. I don't think it was lost on some in the audience that F.Franz knew his time in that office of president would be just a few months away. 

How different was that with Raymond that thought the same way? Fred believed he could handle the responsibility given him. I wouldn’t characterize him as negative as you make him out to be, and evil self-righteous individual, but some of us knew Fred in a personal level. I will be the first to dispute your character assassination attempt. Proverbs 26:24-25, Ephesians 4:29-32

Once again, this says more about you than those you have disdain for since the subject about administrative responsibilities were for maintaining spiritual food. The process is the same even though it has changed from a presidency to the governing body. As president Fred still delegated certain responsibilities to others. No different from today.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, you're right; he was correct in saying that. It was his rant against governing bodies (and committees) that seemed out of place, even though he used plenty of scriptures to back it up. He showed how even the apostolic body in Jerusalem was not a centralized body acting in the capacity to send out missionaries.

Wasn’t he referring to the first century governing bodies that didn’t think about sending out people to teach Christ gospel?  What part of that is false? Remember don’t confuse the objective.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. It doesn't. In fact that was one of the most ambiguous passages in that May 1, 1968 Watchtower about 1975, when it said "1975! And Beyond."  It stated that perhaps some can't see beyond 1975, but Witnesses should see ourselves continuing right on into a new system. These were very carefully crafted words.

It appears you are reading too much into the article. There is nothing between the lines. You misread your own tea leaves. That doesn’t help your cause just like it doesn’t help the cause, coming from apostates.

*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***

5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day.

*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***

8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be not to be awake and alert to the limited time remaining, to the earthshaking events soon to take place, and to the need to work out one’s salvation!

Wasn’t that the same assumption apostate’s use for Pastor Russell? That he, in a subtle way was saying the end of the world would come in 1914 when he never directly or indirectly made that claim. It was a wait and see. That’s always been a Christian view for staying alert to the signs. 1975 just happen to be just another sign of how humanity would become worse if God was resting. What part of humanity increasing lawlessness, corruption, frequent natural disaster, economy, etc. isn't a sign? Matthew 24:42-43

 

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I recalled the date problem in the Russell story of his announcement of the "end of the Gentile Times" and it reminded me that F.Franz used this opportunity to also announce the "end of the 6th 1,000 year day in the 7th 7,000 year creative day. His, as I recall, also produces a date problem. But it was to show that he was still obsessed with the unscriptural doctrine of the 6,000 years being significant. It is against scripture in that it's based on the idea that either Jesus and the angels either can't count, or this scripture is false:

I suppose you believe the accounts of Genesis is unscriptural. I guess the words of the psalmist, and Peter is unscriptural and false as well. When did God give you this new light that we should add to scripture with your understanding? Or is it just a problem you have with a fellow Christian that makes it unchristian to harbor such ideology among Christians.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I do think that persons like R.Franz should have done more to curb the influence of F.Franz in what I think was his obsession with 1975. The way R.Franz tells it, it was several people who knew better, but didn't do much about it.

Perhaps you had more loyalty to Raymond, but once again you are simply using conjecture to justify your behavior. This obsession with Fred’s obsession about 1975 was to confirm the theory of the 6000 years, not the end of the world, as you speculate indirectly. Whatever, was going on in the minds of your parents and your own, should have been on how to best serve Jehovah, since, if the 6000 years was a true indicator of worse thing to come, it would be better to serve as righteous people than to allow the deteriorating conditions soon to follow, distract us from our mission. If millions understood, why, should the actions of a few be exalted?

Titus 3:3-7 New International Version (NIV)

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Therefore, there is still no justification you can offer for your attitude and responsibility. This bears witness on how careless your words have been.

However, it is pointless to argue an account with a closed mind. A person that has already become a judge. Romans 14:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "Otherwise you would be saying God discriminates on account of position, that somebody with a higher position has more value in God’s eyes than someone of a lowly position. "

If 'Experiences' (in Yearbooks / Watchtowers etc)  are to be believed, then it would seem that God / Jesus Christ has / have saved some brothers/sisters in certain circumstances, but not saved other brothers/sisters in other circumstances. Now both God and His Son work in their own ways, working together as one, and i would never question what they do. I am humble enough to know that their ways are much higher than mine. But they must have their reasons for saving some and not others. (If experiencies are to be believed). 

An example of a supposed 'experience' : A sister was on the ministry and knocked on the door of a man. The man turned her away. The man was later arrested for rape/murder of a woman in his own home. When questioned as to why he did not invite the sister in etc, as she had been his first visitor. The man said that she 'had a man stood either side of her', she was not alone. But the sister had gone in to the ministry alone, so the 'man either side of her' must have been angels guarding her. ... True or false I do not know, but I do know it was offered as an 'experience' at a meeting a long time ago. 

 

It is impossible to even fathom how God operates. One thing is sure; He has the power and the desire to fulfill his purpose.  He can do it anyway he wants, and in his superlative wisdom he knows the best way. I cannot deny that He probably works some type of miracles today, but I cannot see how he would single out certain individuals because he thinks their life has more value than another person’s life. The only factor that may play a part is if that certain person has a role in fulfilling his purpose. The person himself will not even be aware of that. But whether Jehovah protects someone because of a role they play in fulfilling his purpose, or does not protect someone because they have a less important role, eventually both persons will gain everlasting life.  So the reward  will be the same for both. And another factor to think about (and I think it has already been mentioned)  is if Jehovah would protect individuals serving him, then Satan’s challenge he raised with Job would have no meaning.  So I am usually pretty sceptical when it comes to claims that Jehovah stepped in and saved someone.  Anyone can claim that, but that doesn’t make it true. I have already shared this story on here somewhere, but it’s relevant so I will mention it again: A while ago a sister, a Bethelite, was walking back to the Bethel from having been out in service all day when someone grabbed her from behind, stabbed her in the neck and ran off with her handbag.  The surgeons were amazed and said that the chance of the blade missing her jugular was almost zero. They told her she was lucky to be alive. This sister (and others) believes Jehovah saved her, by making the blade miss the jugular. Personally, I believe it was chance. But I cannot deny that if Jehovah had wanted to, he could have of course. This sister works in the translating department, so she plays quite an important role. So did Jehovah “save” her because of her role? And had she worked as a housekeeper, would he have allowed her to get killed? Housekeepers are a dime a dozen, good translators are not.  But then Jehovah could bring in a replacement couldn’t he? So where would the line be drawn with regard to “interfering” in man’s affairs, and putting a "protective fence around his people"?

All good things come from God. But they may not always be directly caused by God.  People can do good deeds by themselves, because that is an innate trait created in them by Jehovah when he created man in his image.  We should give thanks to God for every good thing, so there is nothing wrong with this sister thanking Jehovah, even if Jehovah may have had nothing to do with it.

Also, as JW Insider pointed out, many people who believe in God also attribute apparent miracles to Him. If the sister had been a Catholic lady walking to her church, no doubt she would have also attributed this “miracle” to God.

But as @Srecko Sostar mentioned "time and chance happens to them all". Some for better and some for worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

If you think you lost out on something, it was never too late to attend college or some type of vocational to earn a better skill, and better pay if you’re into materialism.  I entered college in my 30’s. So, don’t blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions you have made throughout your life.

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything.

Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was:

  • I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Wasn’t he referring to the first century governing bodies that didn’t think about sending out people to teach Christ gospel?  What part of that is false?

No, he specifically ran through a listing of modern governing bodies of the major churches of Christendom today. What he did NOT mention was first century governing bodies who should have been sending out people. So if I had to guess, I'd say that at least that part of what you propose is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JW Insider said:

No, he specifically ran through a listing of modern governing bodies of the major churches of Christendom today. What he did NOT mention was first century governing bodies who should have been sending out people. So if I had to guess, I'd say that at least that part of what you propose is false.

What expectation do you think the first-century governing body would have to send people out to evangelize the gospel of Christ? A person they despised enough to kill. Why, would Fred mention such an irrational thought. Perhaps what is false, is your way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is why I was a bit disappointed at the implication by GJ that seems limiting when it says that holy spirit created the Bible for us (true) but it seems like the holy spirit is not described as playing a part in the process of helping the GB understand it. It's presented as if the HS has already done its work and congealed itself into the Bible, but reading and rationalizing and remembering how verses might apply is the way the holy spirit "acts." He did mention prayer but gave no connection to the process. It ends up sounding like the way people apply Dylan lyrics to their lives or Shakespeare quotes to describe an experience or a "moral" of a story. (The difference being that the Bible "contains" holy spirit.) 

I can see why you might be disappointed, but I thought it was a pretty good explanation, lol. I just cannot imagine someone (in this case GJ) describing going into some kind of trance or supernatural state, or some inexplicable feeling. I suppose one could say that the HS guiding someone could be similar to someone KNOWING they are of the anointed. I have heard it said that it took some anointed a while to recognize the calling. Could it perhaps be that it takes a while for someone to comprehend what the HS is telling them and that is why mistakes have been made? I do think though that using the Bible as a kind of "mediator" or channel for the HS to do it's work is reasonable. Without the Bible we would have nothing to base our faith on, regardless of the HS.

In any case, those are my thoughts. How do you think the HS works, how do you think GJ should have described it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

I suppose you believe the accounts of Genesis is unscriptural. I guess the words of the psalmist, and Peter is unscriptural and false as well.

Of course the account in Genesis is scriptural, and Psalms and Peter too, as you must specifically be referring to the "thousand years as one day with Jehovah." What was unscriptural was to say that just because we had a doctrine that said that all the 7 creative days were 7,000 years each (not scriptural) for a total of 49,000 years -- that a point that was 6,000 years into the 7th of those days should be significant as a time marker related to the end of this system. That would be building an unscriptural point on top of an unscriptural point which also happens to defy Jesus words that neither he nor the angels knew the day or the hour. After all, if that 6,000 year point really had been the significant time marker for Armageddon, if we only knew how long it was between Adam's and Eve's creation -- then surely the Son and the angels would have already known that time marker. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

After all, if that 6,000 year point really had been the significant time marker for Armageddon, if we only knew how long it was between Adam's and Eve's creation -- then surely the Son and the angels would have already known that time marker. Right?

Excellent point! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Anna said:

In any case, those are my thoughts. How do you think the HS works, how do you think GJ should have described it?

More emphasis on the power of prayer and even faith in setting the mental and heart attitude that should lead them to the right Scriptures, lead them to see through previous mistakes and resolve them with a consistent picture obtained from Scripture, and on the ability of each of them to bring further and additional scriptures to the table that each of them appreciate as being in consistent harmony with the spirit of the Bible and of an over-arching view of Christianity. There should be more emphasis on speaking in agreement with one another, seeing the value of these decisions in producing a more loving organization producing more love and other fruits of the spirit. Also emphasis on the evidence of Jehovah's blessing through the success of these decisions in how they are appreciated by the worldwide body of Witnesses as a whole. How problems are resolved. How lives are changed for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Wasn’t he referring to the first century governing bodies that didn’t think about sending out people to teach Christ gospel?  What part of that is false? Remember don’t confuse the objective.

16 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

What expectation do you think the first-century governing body would have to send people out to evangelize the gospel of Christ? . . . Why, would Fred mention such an irrational thought.

I answered both questions already. You asked if F.Franz wasn't referring to the first century [Jewish] governing bodies. I already said he wasn't and that he referred to modern governing bodies of Christendom today. Then you asked me why he would have mentioned such an irrational thought about the first century governing bodies anyway.

Remember, don't confuse the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Anna said:

Who does that?

False prophets (he did prophesy), false "christs", wolves in sheep's clothing, having a form of godliness but denying its power.  Matt 24:11,24; 7:15; 2 Tim 3:5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FelixCA, I had said that F.Franz in his Gilead talk, made it clear that, instead of some ecclesiastical body, he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. To that you responded:

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

How different was that with Raymond that thought the same way? Fred believed he could handle the responsibility given him. I wouldn’t characterize him as negative as you make him out to be, and evil self-righteous individual, but some of us knew Fred in a personal level.

I notice that you keep repeating this idea that Raymond Franz also aspired to an authoritative presidency. I'm not sure where you got this idea. Nothing in his books gives that impression, and he states the exact opposite. The impression he gave while at Bethel was also consistent with someone who wanted a quiet, unassuming, thoughtful, existence there. In all his comments he spoke with a quiet, soothing voice. (It was that same voice that read the book of John in the first set of Bible recordings on cassette.)  The political aspirers would rant and raise their voice and talk about things they didn't like. You could tell that R.Franz wanted a more spiritual life than a political life at Bethel.

On the idea that some here knew him on a more personal level, that's very possible. The now-infamous A.Smith said the same thing. I think F.Franz would have been very interesting and possibly even fun to know on a personal level. I was a friend with his long-time Bethel roommate, who left Bethel amid the scandalous kerfluffles of 1980. But did he act haughty, presumptuous and self-righteous? There was no question in the mind of anyone at Bethel. It was just his way -- and his way of talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

No, he specifically ran through a listing of modern governing bodies of the major churches of Christendom today. What he did NOT mention was first century governing bodies who should have been sending out people. So if I had to guess, I'd say that at least that part of what you propose is false.

Just curious. Wasn’t that Fred’s point. Not to have the present day governing body be as the first century, the governing body.

It seems you have reservation with Fred’s ecclesiastical abilities. Does this reflect on the notion that you scrutinized the word doctoral? Meaning Fred had now biblical knowledge because he didn’t carry a degree. He was offered to attend a prestigious school of higher learning that he declined. However, which school of higher learning did Jesus attend?

Now you can use Paul’s way to supplement his doctrinal treatises with detailed practical directions as to the conduct that should of necessity to, ensue on a belief in the doctrines propounded. Romans 12:6-7

In essence, a fallacy shown here by many as to the roles we all have by God’s Holy Spirit.

Why else would there need to be a distinction in scripture?

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 New International Version (NIV)

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Raymond lost his ability to function as a governing body member after he allowed his mind to be poisoned, by bad influence, plain and simple. He could no longer see scripture in a clear state of mind. Now, what does it mean on verse 10 about different kinds of tongues and in some Bibles, speaking in tongues?

Doesn’t this relate to interpreting and understanding different languages, in order to communicate with foreign language speakers? Or does it mean to speak gibberish as taught by some within Christendom?

Therefore, 1 Peter 4:10-11 confirms and disputes the misguided claim, this person “witness” offers as a rebuttal.

11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies-in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Another question. If you don't believe Raymond was as authoritive as Fred, did you personally know this family? or it is a rolling commentary in your part from having read Raymonds fairytale book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Anna said:

I think we might be a little harsh in judging F. Franz for having said this, as from your statement above it was obviously nonsensical. I feel it was just his way of saying things, or maybe the way some people spoke. Although it came across as haughty, I doubt Fred's intention was to put himself above God. Who does that? 

  • Who gets called "The Oracle"?
  • Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?
  • Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 
  • Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?
  • Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?
  • Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000?
  • Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example:
    • Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205):

      Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
      Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
      has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
      and wise servant"
      , who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
      to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
      earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
      all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
      These expressions of God's will by his King and through
      his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
      for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
      companions today... The Lord breaks down our
      organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
      the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
      of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
      says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
      hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
      into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
      pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
      can be properly developed during that time. And for
      company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
      hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
      for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
      the Lord through his established agency directing what
      is required of us;
      . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
      the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
      requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
      prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
      These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
      and as collective units called "companies". ...
      They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
      that assignment. ...
      ... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
      states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
      months."
      That becomes our organization instructions and
      has the same binding force on us that his statement to
      the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
      image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
      and obey it. 

A similar attitude was shown in R.Franz experience after the GB had elicited input from various Branch Overseers in many countries where "alternative service" was an issue. In the book "In Search of Christian Freedom" page 268, R.Franz writes:

Indicative of this, the Society’s president, Fred Franz, also expressed
doubt as to the weight to be given to the expressions of
the Branch Committee members. He reminded the Body that he
had not voted in favor of the worldwide survey and then, sharply
increasing the force of his tone, asked: “Where does all this information
come from anyway? Does it come from the top down? Or
from the bottom up?” He said that we should not build our decision
around the situations found in different countries.
As noted, this phrase regarding “top” and “bottom” was not new
to me. As recently as 1971 in a Watchtower article, Fred Franz had
used it, along with reference to the “rank and file” members of the
organization. But the whole tone of the discussion was extremely
upsetting to me, particularly such expressions as “If we allow the
brothers this latitude.” When recognized by Chairman Klein, I reminded
the members that it was the Governing Body’s decision
to write the Branch Committee members, that those men were
among the most respected elders in their respective countries, and
if we could not give weight to their expressions then to whose
expressions could we do so? I felt compelled to add that my understanding
was that we considered ourselves as a brotherhood and
had no reason to look on ourselves as the “top” of anything, that
we should even find the concept personally repelling.

Edited to add that the Watchtower article written by Fred Franz from 1971 referred to above is this one, an article stating that the Governing Body can't be voted in because they are appointed by Jesus Christ himself:

*** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
They do not want to cause anything like a situation where the “administrative agency” controls and directs the user of that agency, which user is the governing body as representing the “faithful and discreet slave” class. No more so than to have the tail wag a dog instead of the dog’s wagging its tail. A legal religious instrument according to Caesar’s law should not attempt to direct and control its creator; rather, the creator of the legal religious instrument should control and direct it. . . . Rather, it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work of the great Theocrat. Hence it is patterned according to His design for it. It is a theocratic organization, ruled from the divine Top down, and not from the rank and file up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    59,438
    Total Topics
    105,226
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    15,937
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Sperrferr
    Newest Member
    Sperrferr
    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.