The Incredible Desert Find: the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats, Destined to Update the Bible Canon

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Does this necessarily include the  "highly regarded" men in Jerusalem namely Peter, James and John, among others? Didn't those same brothers say:  "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,

Here I am getting the credit for doing "heavy lifting" while you are the one presenting the best possible defense for the usual reading of these incidents through the support in Acts 15.

So, yes, this phrase "although we did not give them any instructions" is the key that defends Peter and James [and John, not mentioned in Acts].

I don't believe it's correct to call the apostles and older men in Jerusalem a "Governing Body" but for simplicity of communication, I'll still abbreviate them as the J-GB. We don't know how many were involved in this J-GB. Perhaps Peter, James and perhaps the entire remaining group of apostles and evidently a couple other elders at this time (unless James, the brother of Jesus, was one of the elders, and we know that Judas-Barsabbas and Silas/Sylvanus were also leading men at Jerusalem). Perhaps all the 12 apostles from Acts 1:26 were still around, with at least the obvious exception of James the son of Zebedee (brother of John, son of Zebedee) --Acts 12:2.

But the reason I called these three (James, Peter, John) Judaizers is not because they were ACTIVE Judaizers, the ones going out themselves and creating the trouble, but because -from Paul's perspective as presented in Galatians- they are guilty of creating the problem. Is it possible that Paul only assumed that the J-GB had given instructions to SUBVERT him, and he learned differently for the first time when they explained it in Acts 15? Or was Paul much more sensitive to the lack of action against these subverters, realizing that the passive act of sending out spies, with active Judaizers included in their group of spies, made them guilty of Judaizing?

Paul thinks of Judaizers as "false brothers" no matter how sincere they were about their faith and Christianity among their own Jewish brothers. Paul says that they were "sent" from James. Acts merely says "they went out from among us." Who is the "us"? Jewish Christians? Jerusalem brothers? "Elders" who were included in the so called J-GB? No matter what, at the very least, James and Peter know that some had gone out from "them" to subvert Paul's ministry and teaching, even if they had not been instructed to subvert it.

I think that Paul included the experience with Peter in Antioch, because it was the perfect indictment of the attitude of the J-GB. They knew that Paul was right, but they cowered at actively supporting his ministry to uncircumcised persons of the nations. Obviously there were other brothers there with Peter who were Jewish Christians, and those Jewish Christians were "false brothers" in that they would not extend a full hand of support and fellowship to the Gentile Christians, separating the brotherhood. (Even though Jesus had said the two folds would become ONE flock. 😉) Peter proved himself a Judaizer by choosing to "side with" the conduct of the Judaizers. Paul said that this was HYPOCRISY (the actual Greek word Paul used was hypocrisy, which is softened in the NWT to "pretense" just as Peter being CONDEMNED is softened to "in the wrong"). Paul said that Peter was thereby COMPELLING people of the nations to live according to this Jewish custom of separation from uncircumcised persons. 

(Galatians 2:11-14) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong [Greek: CONDEMNED]. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek: HYPOCRISY], so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense [HYPOCRISY]. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”

Paul explains his reasons for such language, because Peter, for example, was a transgressor by tearing down things he had himself once built up (recall that Peter was the first to go to the uncircumcised). He was REJECTING the undeserved kindness of God, in effect, rejecting Christ's sacrifice. Paul is therefore speaking of the EVIL influence of the condemnable and hypocritical actions of Peter and the men James had sent:

(Galatians 2:18-3:1) . . .If the very things that I once tore down I build up again, I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. . . . 21 I do not reject the undeserved kindness of God, for if righteousness is through law, Christ actually died for nothing. 3 O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence,. . .

Luke, in Acts, is merely putting the overall past picture in its simplest form without including his own judgment about whether Peter and James were absolutely correct in their claim. Luke in Acts also removes most of the controversy. Without Paul (in Galatians) we would not even be aware of some time periods being so many years, when Luke uses expressions like "a few days" "many days after this." For example, Acts does not give the impression that Paul went off to Arabia for 3 years.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am glad that JWI is here to do the heavy lifting .... I am building a chicken coop and run for 18 chickens, and I am pooped.

Haven't you finished that yet. Must be a big un. 

I've had to scale it down a bit, eliminating the sliding boards, and helicopter pad for the chickens with choppers.

CHICKENS IN CHOPPERS .mp4

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I've had to scale it down a bit, eliminating the sliding boards, and helicopter pad for the chickens with choppers.

Great! Just great! And how am I supposed to knew whether the next comment from you is actually from you or from one of the 18 chickens?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I've had to scale it down a bit, eliminating the sliding boards, and helicopter pad for the chickens with choppers.

Great! Just great! And how am I supposed to knew whether the next comment from you is actually from you or from one of the 18 chickens?

Because I have a nose, and they have peckers?

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Where did you find this new interpretation of the Codex Sinaiticus Book of Galatians, TOM? You didn't post a link or author.

Um...uh....let’s just say it is cutting edge scholarship by “just an ordinary man” who wishes to remain anonymous.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

38 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

However, not too many people knew about that reconstruction by this Scholar.

Not too many people know about the breakthroughs of the Klingon Language Institute, either, and THEY can spit and yell at the same time!

[Anna]

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

while you are the one presenting the best possible defense for the usual reading of these incidents through the support in Acts 15.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.

I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.

The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Or was Paul much more sensitive to the lack of action against these subverters, realizing that the passive act of sending out spies, with active Judaizers included in their group of spies, made them guilty of Judaizing?

I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

One thing I have said many times before .... with humans, there is truly ...

INFINITE VARIETY

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

One thing I have said many times before .... with humans, there is truly ...

INFINITE VARIETY

 

Now't as strange as folk.  As olde Amos Brearly would say.  

[Evacuated]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

even those who are "highly regarded"

The "highly regarded" bit is the "double honor" bit of 1Tim.5:7, and with that goes the "heavier judgement" bit of James 3:1. Unfortunately, despite Jehovah and Jesus being the ones with whom those with responsibilty have an accounting, humans with their fleshly tendencies also tend to hold ones they view as prominent to account. From selfies to scandal to assassination (both literal and figurative), humans bathe in the imagined reflected glory of others.Today's obsession with "celebrity" is nothing new.

Paul's self-imposed absence from prominence for 14 years is just a reflection of his modesty. His unique experience in his encounter with Jesus, almost on a par with the Transfiguration witnessed by  Peter, James, and John, was no basis for him seeking prominence in the eyes of others. His seeming disdain for those taking the lead is only spun that way by fleshly minds.  Paul's recounting of his early years experiences is his way of dealing with the unwarranted attention so typical of humans. He is always at pains to explain the undeserved nature of his privilege of service. (Eph.3:8). I cannot imagine he would ever engender a shred of disrespect for Christ's arrangement of matters in the congregation. Any extrapolation on the Ist Century account of Paul's dealings with the GB of the time must fall within that parameter.

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

I am finding it soooooo funny, this pretence that the modern day GB is just a 'follow on' from the J-GB as you folks are now calling it. Is this GB / W/t / JW org brainwashing ?  Or are you people so indoctrinated as to actually believe it or make it up yourselves ? 

Is there any mention in the Greek scriptures, of words that directly / exactly translate into Governing Body ? If so please put proof up on here so that I can check it out for myself. 

There is one thing however that I've found interesting, it seems it was only by some people complaining / objecting to certain 'rules' being made, that anything was done to change the situation. 

It also seems that the Apostles and older men were available to talk to directly, to be able to make complaint. Totally different to today's GB who seem to hide behind locked gates and won't even do interviews or answer questions from ordinary people. 

I do hope Anna knows that 'err' has a double meaning. It can mean deliberate wrongdoing.  And relating those anointed Apostles to the GB now is quite funny. Remember Anna your GB is not inspired, the Apostles were.  

 

 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I am finding it soooooo funny, this pretence that the modern day GB is just a 'follow on' from the J-GB as you folks are now calling it. Is this GB / W/t / JW org brainwashing ?  Or are you people so indoctrinated as to actually believe it or make it up yourselves ?

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double honor" for their hard work and the heavy responsibility they have taken upon themselves. Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse. I'm not trying to divert this topic to the specifics of any other issues of doctrines and procedures.

I know you'll disagree, but this is just to explain my own view. It's just that I wanted you to know that I think these particular elders, who call themselves a Governing Body, have put themselves in a unique and valuable position for the overall benefit of congregations worldwide. 

• They have years of experience studying, speaking, and teaching on Bible topics.
• They are in a position to discuss certain difficult doctrinal issues with others who have years of experience studying the Bible.
• The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons).
• There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help handle related issues of logistics or issues of lesser importance.
• There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc.
• They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.
•  They have years of experience working with various congregations.
• They have years of experience traveling to congregations in various places in the world to be aware of various customs and practices that differ from their own.
• They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching.
• They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from.

Of course, this is fraught with all kinds of dangers and potential abuse. Or a small mistake can quickly turn into a large one. Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.

There are other things, of course, but these ones are important to me.

Surely you would think that in any church or congregation there might be a need for organization and leadership. Agreeing on meeting times, topics to speak about, topics for Bible study, activities, care for the building, what to do with contributions, and even issues of who might join the church, who might need to be dismissed from the church, who might need counsel or adjustment, who might have special needs the church can take care of, etc., etc.

Most people would have no problem with this on a local church-by-church basis. But here we have tens of thousands of these congregations all around the world, and all of them are happy to teach exactly the same message. A group of elders who are deemed capable of handling this bigger responsibility is, in essence, no different than the local congregations. It's just that some of their functions will necessarily carry even greater responsibility.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It also seems that the Apostles and older men were available to talk to directly, to be able to make complaint. Totally different to today's GB who seem to hide behind locked gates and won't even do interviews or answer questions from ordinary people.

This might be true. But it can also just be a logistical problem. Remember how Moses handled the millions in a single "congregation" that began draining his time and energy. He ended up appointing a "hierarchy of command" similar to any large army or large business corporation, so that concerns could be handled more efficiently. Also, on a personal level, while at Bethel I sat at meetings with as many as 5 GB members at the same congregation meeting. While visiting Warwick several months ago, I sat in a meeting with 2 members of the GB and 3 GB "Helpers" (and the wife of a deceased GB member, Sydlik). I could have gone up to any one of them after the meeting to ask questions. In fact, I did. I asked Brother Morris, "How are you?"

Anyway, in my opinion, the Governing Body provides a practical committee of elders handling issues that elders should handle. The difference being that they handle issues that come in from the worldwide congregation. As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body." (You might know that we are not the only religion that happens to call such a committee of "church decision-makers" a "Governing Body.") That might not be the best phrase, but it's clear that the congregations generally agree that it's appropriate to have such a group.

I personally don't agree that any such group should make a claim that they are THE faithful and discreet slave prophesied to come into existence at a proper time beginning in 1919. It's indiscreet and unfaithful to the teachings of the scriptures to accept them in that specific capacity. I'm sure they are making a mistake in that regard, but again, this is just my own opinion. It doesn't stop me from accepting and respecting 98.6 percent of what is published by them.