Jump to content

JW Insider

Furuli's new book: Is any of it right? Useful? Like Franz?

Recommended Posts

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many.

Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. 

There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too.

I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, JWI has posted a new topic. I don’t want to catch any of you saying irrelevant things. I don’t want 4Jah talking about CSA. I don’t want Allen talking about Zondervan. I can post some of my vacation pictures, of course, but everyone else had better behave. You want me to blow you in to the Old Hen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, "a while" is up. I indicated to someone in the other Furuli thread that I would follow up on the comparison between Furuli and Franz.

I'll start with just a repetition of what I put in the other thread, with only slight edits because it would otherwise be too far out of context here:

=============

So far, I can't help but see a strong parallel between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli's choice of words, style and even some of his entire talking points. I already had five R.F. marks in the margins (pdf) before even got out of the Introduction. And it started not to matter whether the R.F. stood for Rolf Furuli or Ray Franz, so I stopped highlighting those kinds of parallels.

Two of the parallels are so "eerie" that I wonder how aware Furuli is about how they sound. Here's one:

Ray Franz became associated with the term "captives of a concept" as a way to explain how and why the GB see themselves in a position that is so difficult to explain Biblically. Furuli hits several of Ray Franz' points in the same order that Franz presents them:

I do not question
the sincerity of the members of the GB. But it seems to me that they are
held captive by their belief that they are chosen by God as "the faithful
and discreet slave," and that they have been appointed over Jehovah's
Witnesses as their government with unlimited power.

Here's another one, that echos the theme of R.Franz' second book:

This letter shows that the members of the GB believe that they have
the right to . . .
overrule the consciences of individual Witnesses. But this is an attack on
the Christian freedom that Paul mentioned in Galatians 5.1.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily go to [a] point about Furuli's goals, because Ray Franz' style appeared to be much more reluctant about saying anything, but explained how he had been forced into a corner to explain himself due to rampant misinformation. This rang true with Ray Franz that he had never wanted to leave the organization, or try to do anything that would get him in any kind of trouble that would force anyone to try to make him leave, or try to undermine anything to do with current doctrines or teachings, after settling into his congregation. The problem apparently started only when the congregation wanted to use Ray Franz as an elder, and the local elders wrote the Society to find out if that would be appropriate. Until then there was apparently no reason to go after Ray Franz to try to get him disfellowshipped. So, "Chairman Ray" may [not have been very] revolutionary. And Furuli is setting himself up similarly as a non-revolutionary.

One major difference is that Furuli has evidently taken a more proactive role, and pretty much admits to assuming that he won't be answered, just because they haven't dealt with him or his issues yet. TTH might have nailed it when he wondered just how Furuli knows they are refusing to consider his "corrections." But I'm pretty sure that he knows. He knows what is inevitable, or at least what would have been inevitable if he hadn't got this book out there first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To that same point about the comparison to Ray Franz, The Librarian, that ol. . . . . , (Wait, now you've got me saying it, TTH). Anyway the Library wondered if he just copied Fred Franz viewpoint, which was barely known by anyone outside of Gilead Students and Bethelites in 1975, until Ray Franz pointed out this talk in his book:

 

On 5/25/2020 at 2:30 PM, The Librarian said:

I wonder if he just copied Fred Franz' viewpoint?

See also

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also on the previous thread, I remember that R Franz spoke of the hierarchical similarities between the GB and the Catholic hierarchy. And where else but from trusting the narrative in Ray Franz' first book would Furuli have accepted that Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz were presented with the meaning of the Biblical elder arrangement during the time that the Aid Book was being completed, and how they accepted the change as Scriptural (1970/71).

On 5/26/2020 at 1:00 AM, JW Insider said:

But Furuli's book is starting to sound more like a Raymond Franz sequel (on those few points where they agree). Comparisons between the organizational hierarchy and the Catholic Church are even stronger here than in Franz' books. He even seems to acknowledge (or idealize) that there was a short period of time that immediately followed when R.Franz presented the scriptural meaning of elder, etc., to Knorr and FW Franz, and they humbly accepted the loss of power and authority.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend also pointed out to me that Furuli's citation of the November 1, 1946 Watchtower was the same set of points that Ray Franz discussed at length in the book "In Search of Christian Freedom."

This is from p.101 of Furuli:

Excursus on the view of the organization in 1946
    The view of the organization in the middle of the 20th century was the
diametrical opposite of the present view that is described above. The
article "Let God Prove to Be True" in The Watchtower of 1 November
1946, pages 330-332, shows the contrast between the hierarchical
Catholic Church and the Christian organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Below is a long quotation [from that Watchtower].
   The written Word of God, therefore, does not need the addition of
traditions which are the private interpretations of men and of
religious organizations. It is not on our own authority that we say that
the Bible is sufficient without such .... (2 Tim. 3:15-17, Douay) Had

the oral traditions of religious men been necessary to complement
the canon of the Bible, Paul would not have said that the inspired
Holy Scriptures were profitable to the point of making the men perfect
in faith and devotion to God....
    Now a final argument is shot at us by those who uphold an
ecclesiastical or hierarchical organization. They say: 'Even doing away
with religious traditions, the Bible cannot be left for each reader to
interpret for himself; we still need the visible organization of the
faithful to act as a "living magisterium" or teaching power in order
to interpret the Bible and make plain the will of God from it. Look
at how the Bible, left to each one's individual interpretation, has
resulted in the religiously divided condition of Protestantism.' To this
we say, Protestantism's multitude of sects and cults is no proof that
the Bible is a divisive force to those who take it, and it alone, as
adequate. The Bible is not is a divisive Book, for it is harmonious
from cover to cover and agrees with itself, in all its canonical books.
   The divisive force among the Catholic and Protestant religionists of
Christendom is the religious traditions which they follow. The truth
of the Bible is a unifying power. After Christ Jesus prayed: "Sanctify
them through thy word: thy word is truth," he immediately prayed
that all his believers, those then following him and those yet due to
believe, should be united in one, just as he and his heavenly Father
are one. (John 17:17-23) It is now that this Christian oneness must
be attained; now, at this end of the world. It has been attained by
Jehovah's Witnesses, who have come forth from inside and outside
of the multitude of religious organizations and who now unite in
God's service despite their former religious disagreements.
How is this? How is disunity over each one's individual interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures now overcome and avoided? Is it because they an united around
a visible human organization or around a visible human leader? The answer is
No. It is because they recognize Jehovah God and Christ Jesus as The
Higher Powers to whom every Christian soul must be subject for
conscience' sake. (Rom 13:1) It is because they recognize Jehovah
God as the one true and living God, the Most High or Supreme One,
and Christ Jesus as His anointed King and Elect Servant, whom
Jehovah has appointed as the Leader and Commander to the peoples.
(Isa. 42:1; 55:3,4: Matt. 12:18; Acts 13:34) It is, too, because they
recognize Jehovah God as the living, ever-present Teacher of His
church on earth, and that he teaches the "church of God" through
her Head, Christ Jesus.-Isa. 54:13; John 6:45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many more points of overlap between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli on those topics where they agree. One might expect this to be natural since they studied the same topic and came to the same conclusion on a few of them. Perhaps it's just coincidence, except for the idea that some of the points were barely known outside of their exposure in Franz books. Perhaps even the similarities of expression and style are coincidental.

Or Furuli could have read Ray Franz' books and decided to try to debunk them as he had tried to debunk Ray Franz and C.O.Jonsson on chronology subjects.

It probably doesn't matter how similar they are. But anyone else who read both authors might have more points to weigh in on if they wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JW Insider    I have to say it again. It seems that JWs are so used to being in a group, doing things in groups, almost living as groups, that they seem to have to put everyone else into a group.  I know this isn't putting Furuli into a group, but it is grouping him with R Franz. 

Why can't you just accept the man as an individual ? He is just as entitled to an individual opinion as anyone else is.  It just reminds me as when I say something similar to some one else on here I get accused of being one of their disciples. JWs, it seems, are frightened by people that have their own opinion. I think one reason is that JWs are not allowed to express their own opinion at a KH or amongst the congregation anywhere. 

Your first two questions : - Is any of it right ? Useful ? 

However you couldn't hold back for long could you ?  You had to immediately start  to discredit Furuli by almost saying that he copied Franz. This immediately knocks a big hole in those first two questions. You put the Franz question as last, but you could not resist answering it first. 

You disappoint me, not that it would matter to you. You definitely show how you have been indoctrinated by the CCJW / GB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a possible explanation for the Franz / Furuli similarities is that both situations, the time of Franz and the present, share the same problems.

I see a tension, an opposite force, between wanting to have a united, harmonious organization and allowing greater freedom of conscience and thought. Both extremes I think are bad.

Can you imagine going to a congregation that believes in the trinity, or in hell fire?

At the other extreme, it is a shame it is troublesome to wear a beard, not to wear a tie and that sort of thing.

Share this post


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

The Librarian, that ol. . . . . , (Wait, now you've got me saying it, TTH).

I wouldn’t exactly call it the pure language, but I am glad to see that it is catching on.

Just a heads-up, JWI, in case Allen comes around trying to impress you with his diploma from Bible 101. It is genuine, but not earned in the traditional way. He argued so unceasingly with the results of every test, quiz, term paper, and lab project, that we finally gave him a diploma just to get him out of our hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Why can't you just accept the man as an individual ? He is just as entitled to an individual opinion as anyone else is.

I think you have tried to group me with those who think R.Franz was all bad. I think that R.Franz was also "right" and "useful" in several ways, but I also think he was too weak or passive to stand up for what he was learning to be right. I had thought he might have come to realize some of these things after leaving, but he admits to not having the confidence to stand up to F.Franz, the conservative "guardian of doctrine" in those days. He should have seen the ongoing problems of the "two witness rule" and that scripture did not treat is as so all-encompassing. I don't mean to go off on a CSA tangent but some of that is on R.Franz, for promoting the two-witness rule. He knew things were wrong and didn't kick up much of a fuss. He admits to having learned that the WT was wrong on 607, and therefore wrong on 1914, and therefore wrong about the "parousia" and "generation" theory. I think he bears some responsibility for just allowing the status quo to go on and create the mess it did on that "generation" topic for several more decades. 

But the point is that even the WTS saw some usefulness and things that were right in the book that R.Franz wrote. They changed some things that he had exposed. A person can be partly right and partly wrong, but it doesn't mean their concerns are not useful.

With Furuli, I agree that it's not fair to try to group him with others. But the comparison is very interesting to me because I think I know Furuli's thinking pretty well from reading a lot of his books and even having some back-and-forth with him on academic sites many years ago. And I heard the equivalent of about 70 15-minute talks by Ray Franz at the Bethel morning text over a 3.5 year period. (Don't tell Kosonen, but that's 1,260 days.)

To me, Furuli, like Franz, have some good points and some bad points. (I mean, who really needs to go back to the old 49,000 years of creative days?) But I'm not playing fair if I say that Furuli must have been very thoughtful and useful with his critique of "GB=FDS" just because I agree with him on that, but that he must still be stuck on the weak and beggarly things if he can't get over 607 BCE and the 49,000 years.

So anything I can grasp at to understand his current mindset is of interest to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Perhaps a possible explanation for the Franz / Furuli similarities is that both situations, the time of Franz and the present, share the same problems.

I see a tension, an opposite force, between wanting to have a united, harmonious organization and allowing greater freedom of conscience and thought. Both extremes I think are bad.

Can you imagine going to a congregation that believes in the trinity, or in hell fire?

At the other extreme, it is a shame it is troublesome to wear a beard, not to wear a tie and that sort of thing.

Wait!!! Jehovah's don't believe in the trinity of the GB, Jesus and Jehovah?

Just kidding:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JW Insider Quote " I think you have tried to group me with those who think R.Franz was all bad."

I don't know if this is a sneaky trick to try to make it look as if I'm grouping you with others, but I have no idea if R. Franz was good or bad, and it never crossed my mind. When i said you discredit Furuli, i meant simply by suggesting he was copying someone rather than having his own opinion. 

However, I still say that you put up three questions, but chose to answer the last question first. 

I have a bad memory but it sort of reminds me of Shakespeare  (I think ) Mark Antony ' I come to bury Caesar not to praise him '.. ............. A bit sly in my opinion. 

Share this post


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

Also on the previous thread, I remember that R Franz spoke of the hierarchical similarities between the GB and the Catholic hierarchy. And where else but from trusting the narrative in Ray Franz' first book would Furuli have accepted that Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz were presented with the meaning of the Biblical elder arrangement during the time that the Aid Book was being completed, and how they accepted the change as Scriptural (1970/71).

Was this before or after he decided to accept the unpublished book of Olof Jonsson? What would have been the mindset of Ray if he thought negative about the GB before he was kicked out. Does that mean Jesus wouldn't have had a problem with Judas? 

Now I can understand, the negativeness when he was kicked out, so are you saying, you will soon see Furuli disfellowshiped? If he is, it would seem to a thinking person, he will discredit the Watchtower like RAY.

Therefore, how useful do you believe Ray's book CC, is in any way useful to any true and active witness?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Was this before or after he decided to accept the unpublished book of Olof Jonsson?

The understanding of the Elder arrangement and the recognition that there was a lack of evidence for 607 was long before COJ. Remember that the first Aid Book was released in 1969. More of it was done, but it ended at A-E. The entire book A-Z was released in 1971. The research that Franz had to do on Chronology and the Elder arrangement had already been done by 1969.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

What would have been the mindset of Ray if he thought negative about the GB before he was kicked out.

"Mindset" hmmm. Who knows? I don't think anyone ever got the sense that he thought negative about the GB. He took a leave of absense in early 1980 for health reasons. I'm sure it was mostly due to harrassment by a specific member of the GB, but I doubt that he considered that brother to reflect the entire GB, or the "GB arrangement." He was asked to resign from the GB in May 1980. From his book, it appears he was doing the best he could, and still supportive of the Society's arrangements right up until he was disfellowshipped near the end of 1981. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed he said anything about the GB until his own book was published in 1983.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Now I can understand, the negativeness when he was kicked out, so are you saying, you will soon see Furuli disfellowshiped? If he is, it would seem to a thinking person, he will discredit the Watchtower like RAY.

I don't think Ray Franz would have wanted to appeal the DF if he was really negative. Why try to stay in something you don't like?  And personally I don't see it as inevitable that Furuli will be disfellowshiped. If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should then I think that the decision will reach to NY HQ, and they will try to avoid making any news over it. I think that the GB will understand this as a kind of a trap for them. There is the small world of academia, which the GB still rely on now and then for a certain level of credibility. but they will fear what they don't understand very well, and not with to disturb anything there. And, more importantly we are already in a world where a large percent of young JWs do online Google searches, so that his disfellowshiping would also bring unnecessary attention on the very thing they don't want. I'm sure it's preferable to try to let it blow over if it will.

Share this post


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

The understanding of the Elder arrangement and the recognition that there was a lack of evidence for 607 was long before

To whom, members of the Bethel Family?

It appears Furuli and Ray missed the mark when it comes to the presumptive first century governing body the watchtower has focused on.

Once again, the Sanhedrin could be the equivalent to a modern governing body regardless who tries to discredit that notion.

There was also the Council of Jamnia that could have taken part in canonizing the Hebrew Bible.

Now the Sanhedrin was composed of either 21 or 24 elders. The point here is, The Pharisees (middle class) and Sadducee's were prominent Jewish leaders.

Therefore, the suggestion there was NO ancient governing body that modern times cannot compare is not supported by scripture.

Why would Peter and John go before the governing council of the Jewish people?

Acts 4-6: Peter and John before the Sanhedrin

Now, when Paul went with James to the “Elders” who are those Elders? Acts 21:18

245 πρεσβύτερος presbuteros {pres-boo'-ter-os}

Meaning:  1) elder, of age, 1a) the elder of two people 1b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior 1b1) forefathers 2) a term of rank or office 2a) among the Jews 2a1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men) 2a2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice 2b)

It seems Furuli has made the mistake Ray did if not worse for not fully understanding scripture and the role of the First Century group of Elders, since the same can be applied to any modern governing body.

gov·ern·ing bod·y

/ˈɡəvərniNG ˈbädē/

noun

noun: governing body; plural noun: governing bodies

  1. a group of people who formulate the policy and direct the affairs of an institution in partnership with the managers, especially on a voluntary or part-time basis.

When Ray mentioned similarities with the Catholic Church, guess what, the “Holy See” is the Vatican’s governing body. They fit the bill. Therefore, Ray’s criticism would not have impacted witnesses back then, nor should it be misinterpreted for today’s witnesses.

The question then becomes, how is a modern governing body with limited powers be compared with the first century rabbinic tradition. Back then, that body had the power to condemn and put to death in the name of Jewish law. If Jesus death doesn’t convince anyone, it never will.

There were difference between these sectarian groups. Does the Watchtower governing body have the same power to put people to death?

Review of Lifestyle, Values, and Halakhah in the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Qumran

This finds support in the Christian literature. Although the Pharisees and Sadducees appear together often in Christian literature, the Pharisees alone are linked to the class of “scribes,”11 to dealing with “laws,”12 and to religious and ideological arguments around these laws. Page 54-55

 However, scripture depicts the Pharisees as going beyond the laws of Moses, and history supports that. Is this what Furuli’s book indicates?

 PHARISEES, SCRIBES AND SADDUCEES IN PALESTINIAN SOCIETY

 Recent research on the Pharisees has paradoxically made them and their role in Palestinian society more obscure and difficult to describe. Scholars have pictured the Pharisees as a sect within Judaism, a powerful religious leadership group, a political leadership group, a learned scholarly group, a lay movement in competition with the priesthood, a group of middle class urban artisans or some combination of these. The Sadducees have usually been identified as coterminous with the Jewish governing class, including the chief priests, high officials and rich families in Jerusalem. The scribes are described as a middle class professional class. In most historical reconstructions of Jewish society the categories used to describe these groups, such as sect, school, upper class, lay leadership, etc. are ill defined or misused and not integrated into an understanding of the overall structure and functioning of society. Page 3

 The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism) page 112

 The Religion Toolkit: A Complete Guide to Religious Studies, page 135-136

 Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Page 855-856

 

Not only was Raymond Franz wrong, so is Rolf Furuli. There is too much word manipulation from both in different ways.

Share this post


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

And where else but from trusting the narrative in Ray Franz' first book would Furuli have accepted that Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz were presented with the meaning of the Biblical elder arrangement during the time that the Aid Book was being completed, and how they accepted the change as Scriptural (1970/71).

Interesting.  Which is truly scriptural, the elder arrangement today, or the elimination of the elder arrangement in Rutherford's day?  Is God so fickle that He would approve of both the elimination AND the re-installment of the elder body in the 70's?  Of course, Rutherford wanted total power.  Yet, he refers to scripture to prove his point, just as scripture was used to verify the elder arrangement in 1970-71.  

"Therefore be it resolved that there is no Scriptural authority for the existence of the elective office of elders in the church and that henceforth we will not elect any person to the office of elder; that all of the anointed of God are elders, as that term is defined by the Scriptures, and all are servants of the Most High. . . . A service director who shall be nominated by us and confirmed by the Society’s executive or manager, and which service director shall be a member of the service committee of this company.

"This Resolution was adopted by congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the earth. The announcement in the Watchtower magazine of October 15, 1932, at the end of 2,300 evenings and mornings was the official notification made by Jehovah through his visible channel of communication that his sanctuary of anointed “living stones” had been cleansed, vindicated and justified. It had been restored to its rightful state as regards the elimination of democratically elected “elders” and as regards the theocratic appointing of the congregational overseer. Certainly the twenty-four elderly persons whom the apostle John saw in his heavenly vision crowned and seated on thrones around the throne of the Most High God were not “elders” democratically elected by the congregations on earth below. They were “elders” chosen by the Sovereign of the universe because of their full Christian growth and proved integrity. Certainly, too, the “seven stars” whom John saw upon the right hand of the glorified Jesus Christ and who pictured the “angels” or overseers of the congregations of Jehovah’s anointed sanctuary class were full-grown “elders” chosen and controlled, not by the congregations after the democratic procedure of the seventh world power, but by the Supreme Head of the theocratic organization through Jesus Christ. (

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
) Rightly the remnant of the sanctuary class on earth was brought into accord with this theocratic rule in Jehovah’s due time."

    Hello guest!

 

 

 

Share this post


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

This Resolution was adopted by congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the earth. The announcement in the Watchtower magazine of October 15, 1932, at the end of 2,300 evenings and mornings was the official notification made by Jehovah through his visible channel of communication that his sanctuary of anointed “living stones” had been cleansed, vindicated and justified.

Some time around 1971, that prophecy changed from 1932 to 1944. This changed in --you guessed it-- 1971! I'm assuming that Fred Franz had caught the contradiction himself. This is definitely his writing, below (and likely above, too) as he was the only one allowed to define the 2300 evenings and mornings, the 1290, 1335, etc. I never caught this before that the timing was so close to the timing of the elder arrangement being brought back, so that the 2300 days no longer made sense as the time when the elder arrangement was abolished.

*** w71 12/1 pp. 724-725 pars. 27-29 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today ***
When did those 2,300 evenings and mornings begin? By knowing this we can find out when they end and thus when Jehovah’s “holy place” is “brought into its right condition,” or, “shall be restored to its rightful state” . . . At the earliest this was on June 1, 1938, when the official magazine of Jehovah’s anointed remnant of underpriests at His sanctuary, namely, The Watchtower, published Part One of the article entitled “Organization,” so as to state more fully the theocratic requirements for it. When we calculate according to the Jewish lunar calendar that was used at the time of Daniel’s vision centuries before the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar were introduced, June 1, 1938. . .
28 If we thus count from the critical period when theocratic organization was being more fully installed in the congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses, when did the 2,300 days end?
29 Remember, this is a prophetic period. So a prophetic year of 360 days is involved. (Rev. 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14) So 2,300 days would amount to six lunar years, four lunar months and twenty days. That amount of time counted from Sivan 2 (June 1), 1938, would end on Tishri 21 (October 8), 1944, or, counted from Sivan 16 (June 15), 1938, it would end on Heshvan 5 (October 22), 1944. At that particular time world events were moving closer to the bringing of the beastlike Eighth World Power out of the abyss shortly after World War II, this time in the form of the United Nations organization, for world peace and security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

To whom, members of the Bethel Family?

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved. The understanding of problems with 1914 were known since well before COJ. And yes, by members of the Bethel family, including several persons on the GB, and several in Writing. Also at least one in the Service Dept, who was later transferred to Writing after 1982. I can guess that there were (and are) many more that I didn't know about at the time

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

It appears Furuli and Ray missed the mark when it comes to the presumptive first century governing body the watchtower has focused on.

You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975. There never was a body of "governing" elders involved in real decision-making until after the GB vote in December 1975. And it was Ray Franz' proposal that spear-headed a GB that acted like a council. Like a kind of Sanhedrin. In his book he tries to minimize his involvement in pushing for that decision, but at the time I think he knew his 64-page proposal, if approved, would likely result in a real GB like the one today. And it did, even with the same committee structure he had proposed.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, the Sanhedrin could be the equivalent to a modern governing body regardless who tries to discredit that notion.

There was also the Council of Jamnia that could have taken part in canonizing the Hebrew Bible.

Now the Sanhedrin was composed of either 21 or 24 elders. The point here is, The Pharisees (middle class) and Sadducee's were prominent Jewish leaders.

I think these are all good points. I think it's almost inevitable that a Governing Body of some sort will develop. And if it is scriptural to have a presbytery, or body of elders, in the congregations, then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)

And as the work becomes more international, the most efficient version of the body of elders, is a body of elders who can make decisions appropriate to the logistics and efforts and distribution requirements of a worldwide congregation.

I think what made both R.Franz and R.Furuli uncomfortable is when they realized it didn't work out to their own expectations.

Share this post


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

I never caught this before that the timing was so close to the timing of the elder arrangement being brought back, so that the 2300 days no longer made sense as the time when the elder arrangement was abolished.

Good thing these literal, timely "prophesies" are flexible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone at any point reflect on how Moses was supplied helpers when the load proved too much for him? Might simply common sense suggest a governing body ought replace a ‘top guy’ as the number and complexity of the brothers increase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Witness said:

Good thing these literal, timely "prophesies" are flexible.  

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).

Share this post


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

Does anyone at any point reflect on how Moses was supplied helpers when the load proved too much for him?

(Exodus 18:17-23) 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. 20 You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. 21 But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. 22 They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”

A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.

Also, you might have referred to this case:

*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.

This full situation always reminds me of this:

(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This full situation always reminds me of this:

(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

I think this shows that a person does not have to be a JW to serve God through Christ. 

As for the GB being likened to the Sanhedrin, wasn't it them that had Jesus put to death? So yes i can see a similarity. 

And as for the 1st Century 'group of men in Jerusalem' that made decisions, weren't they inspired by God's Holy Spirit ?  Whereas this GB admits to not being so. 

And wasn't it the Apostle Paul that wrote to the congregations, not those men in Jerusalem ?

 And wasn't the Apostle Paul chosen and directed by Jesus Christ personally ? And wasn't Paul inspired of God's Holy Spirit. 

And didn't those men of the 1st Century PROVE that they were inspired by their WORKS. 

And Now :- The Watchtower dated (top right corner) March 2020.  Study articles May 4- 31 2020

Page 6 paragraph 16. from part way down, reads. (I have paper copy supplied by an elder)

" Jesus has appointed a small group of anointed men to take the lead in organising the work that he wants done today. Jesus referred to this group of men as 'the faithful and discreet slave' and they take seriously their responsibility to feed and protect you spiritually. "

What hogwash ! Complete lies or deliberate deceit.

Firstly the GB say they are not inspired, so how would they have been 'appointed' ?

 ALL anointed remnant are anointed of God's Holy spirit hence they know they are anointed. 

All of those of the Anointed remnant were seen as being the F&DS at one time, so when did Jesus suddenly decide to change this ? 

So how was / is this special appointing done ? 

Secondly. Jesus did not refer to these men as the F&DS 

Jesus asked a question ???? He did not make a  statement, and he certainly didn't say who they were.  

But many JW's just want their ears tickled, and many JWs are brainwashed enough to just accept everything written in the Watchtower. 

 

Share this post


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

If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should

This kind of thing often fails because enemies will not let it remain low-key. It has made their day, if not year, and they will pump and pump until it becomes the only story that matters.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—“My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!”

But the young man again said, this time emphatically, “My Lord Moses, restrain them!’ Moses mildly replied: “Not a problem. Chill.”

But the young man once again said: My Lord Moses, restrain them!!!!! Moses mildly replied: “Let’s stay low-key about this.”

But the young man once again said: “MY LORD MOSES, RESTRAIN THEM!!!!  (this is going to be good!!!!)“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not often that I throw such red meat to Kos for prophetic interpretation and possible escalation to anti-type. A few days ago I put before him for consideration the fact the Dennis Christensen suggests by both name and profession the one for whom he serves as a type.

Now comes the added bone that the two prominent ‘TOD’ (Trashers of Doctrine) in our age have both presented with the initials R.F.

Now those two facts are worth fleeing to the Australian wilderness to ponder over till the end of time!  (I as missing more than ever the prophet JTR, who would also find this a hoot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And Now :- The Watchtower dated (top right corner) March 2020.  Study articles May 4- 31 2020

Page 6 paragraph 16. from part way down, reads. (I have paper copy supplied by an elder)

" Jesus has appointed a small group of anointed men to take the lead in organising the work that he wants done today. Jesus refers to this group of men as 'the faithful and discreet slave' and they take seriously their responsibility to feed and protect you spiritually. "

What hogwash ! Complete lies or deliberate deceit.

If i can recall what Jesus said, it would be this:   

He said to him the third time, Simonson of John,  do you love   me?”  Peter was grieved because he said to him 

    Hello guest!
the third time, Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, 
    Hello guest!
you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, Feed 
    Hello guest!
my sheep.

This Bible verse (even in nwt translation too) confirm only one fact: Jesus delegated task, service, obligation about feeding to only one person, Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Rolf anywhere deal with the verses that say ‘no part of the world?’ If so, what is his take on that. Among the digs on higher education is that it facilitates force-feeding by the world.

Share this post


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

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved.

In what sense, that elders before 1931 were "voted" in by the congregation, that later became a spiritual need to be approved by spiritual men? Why is it so important to you to attempt to remove the GB from this structure. 

The Sanhedrin is just a comparison to a group of men that had a structured authority. The GB of course are NOT the Sanhedrin since the GB don't carry the SAME structure weight when it comes to man's laws just like the Sanhedrin. Therefore, it's not necessary to misuse the name Sanhedrin.

About 7 years ago when I mentioned Raymond's ideology was to bring back the voting rights of the congregation, you opposed the view, now you support it, which is it. Did Raymond Franz support bringing back the right to have the congregations take a vote for the elder ship? 

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975

In essence, back in 1919, the "board of directors" was the GB at that time. Rutherford just like Fred Franz functioned as the President of the Watchtower. Let's not forget there is a difference between the function of the Watchtower President between those two.

However, Fred far exceeded in theology.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)

What is your understanding about the apostles having to go before the "governing council" that you call the Jerusalem council? The same structure the Watchtower is using now is framed from the first century concept. Communities that couldn't go before the Sanhedrin made up a communal council. Its no different with what we see in today's Arabic structure. What is an "overseer" or someone acting as an assistant? 

Once again, under those conditions, the Watchtower GB do not act like a combined secular and spiritual group. There is no need for these men to involve themselves with secular authority, but are being "forced" to do so, by secular authorities and through the voices of disgruntled witnesses. 

Share this post


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

Does Rolf anywhere deal with the verses that say ‘no part of the world?’ If so, what is his take on that. Among the digs on higher education is that it facilitates force-feeding by the world.

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 

His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s true, sometimes art imitates real life. Too bad Furuli and those that don’t believe in a structured leadership haven’t given enough thought on the struggles of real life.

With God on their Side Sport in the service of religion

In San Francisco the YMHA was formed in 1877 and held separate quarters for Jewish men. The YWHA organised in 1914, and the women originally lacked access to the YMHAs quarters for gymnasium activities. However, the San Francisco YWHA used various clubrooms and included gym classes, basketball and swimming as well as vocational training for young women. For Jewish women, in 1918 ‘the YMHA gymnasium was used for their physical activities’, with the YWHA’s Monday night gym classes taking place at the Haight Street building of the YMHA, which housed a new gymnasium.49

 Whilst Jewish women wanted to participate in sport and active recreation, limited use of gymnasia and athletic fields hampered their opportunities. In 1921, the National Jewish Welfare Board (JWB) was founded and it became the national governing body for YMHAs and YWHAs, and the National Council of Young Men’s Hebrew and Kindred Associations.” Page 81

 

Therefore, it doesn’t matter which word phrase people attempt to structure, be it “Governing Council” Jerusalem Council (Sanhedrin) National Council, Governing Body, it still means a structured authority that God himself has approved from the OT Exodus 18:21 to the NT Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Romans 13:1-2. Let it go people. Furuli’s complaint is not supported by scripture. Neither is JWinsider and Witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy the Kid, what rubbish you talk. A Governing Body GOVERNS. RULES OVER. 

The GB of the CCJW rules over 8.5 million people, or there abouts. 

Jesus did not rule over, and He told the disciples not to rule over. He said that was how the 'world' works. 

Do not be lording it over the congregation. 

But you still miss the point of the 1st century 'body in Jerusalem' being inspired by God's Holy Spirit, and they GAVE PROOF OF IT BY THEIR WORKS. 

The GB of CCJW are not inspired and the lies written in the March 2020 Watchtower are laughable. 

For the GB to pretend that they were appointed by Jesus, and that Jesus refers to them as the F&DS.. It's lies or at very least deceitful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Firstly the GB say they are not inspired, so how would they have been 'appointed' ?

 ALL anointed remnant are anointed of God's Holy spirit hence they know they are anointed. 

Okay thanks. However, please reread your own words. Try to figure out your own contradiction. Just like Srecko, you are giving an absolute. Where in scripture or in the Watchtower publications have you found, the Watchtower were NOT anointed by God's grace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In what sense, that elders before 1931 were "voted" in by the congregation, that later became a spiritual need to be approved by spiritual men? Why is it so important to you to attempt to remove the GB from this structure.

Your question can be taken in several different ways, so I can't assume which question you are asking. Are you asking in what sense the 1944 article explained the Elder arrangement, or 1969-1971 until now, or about elders before 1931?

In general, the 1944 article explained that it should be the way we are doing it now. It was just ignored for 25 years until it came up again for serious consideration around 1970. Before 1931 the congregations would have a larger say in who they thought were meeting the qualifications for elder that were found in the Bible, based on the idea that "as you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith." It's not like Russell and the Bible Student congregations had ignored the qualifications found in Titus and Timothy. But this had resulted in some persons who were not loyal to Rutherford's changes. In some cases elders were too stuck on Russell's ways, and in some cases elders were trying to use scriptures to show how Rutherford was abusing his power. And some were mixing both messages, pro-Rutherford in some ways, and anti-Rutherford in other ways. So Rutherford needed better control of the message for the sake of unity, and changed the whole system to be hierarchical from the Society on down. This is a time period when you see a lot of statements in the literature that obedience to Rutherford is the same as obedience to the Lord. It continued through the 1940's and 1950's, which is probably why the Bible counsel printed in 1944 was never implemented until 1971.

If you think I am removing the GB from this structure it is only because the GB did not exist from well before 1919 and continued to not exist until the 1970's.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The Sanhedrin is just a comparison to a group of men that had a structured authority. . . .Therefore, it's not necessary to misuse the name Sanhedrin.

Yes, I understood that when you compared the Sanhedrin to other "governing bodies." I understood that you were not misusing it. And neither was I. No problem there.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

About 7 years ago when I mentioned Raymond's ideology was to bring back the voting rights of the congregation, you opposed the view, now you support it, which is it.

I still don't believe it was Raymond Franz' ideology to bring back the voting rights of the congregation. Nor do I support the view. Where are you getting that from?

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Did Raymond Franz support bringing back the right to have the congregations take a vote for the elder ship? 

From everything I've read in his books, I'm sure he did NOT. If true, that kind of "news" would have been spread everywhere, but I don't see anyone even thinking about claiming this. But I haven't finished all of "ISOCF." Perhaps you have some evidence?

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In essence, back in 1919, the "board of directors" was the GB at that time. Rutherford just like Fred Franz functioned as the President of the Watchtower.

There are many pieces of evidence that are even admitted from Watchtower publications themselves that there was NOTHING at all like a GB under Russell. Even the way in which the term "governing body" was typically used for many years (from the 40's until the 70's) tells us that there was no governing body in the way we now define it. And there is evidence that Rutherford was even MORE like Russell in personally deciding all matters of any importance from a doctrinal perspective. Still, there might have been small areas where others handled responsibilities that Rutherford didn't care to handle. Ray Franz claims it was still like this even after the governing body was expanded to include additional members besides the board of directors in the 1970s.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What is your understanding about the apostles having to go before the "governing council" that you call the Jerusalem council? The same structure the Watchtower is using now is framed from the first century concept.

My understanding, for it's worth, and that's not much, is that every organization does better with something like a governing body. Religious or secular. And it's human nature for some to take the lead, and human nature for others to prefer following the lead of others. And as I've said on the other thread, it makes sense that some elders would be better at presiding, decision-making, organizing, speaking and teaching. Just as some would be better models for others in the way they bring up their families and provide for them, or show hospitality, or encourage the weak, or find opportunities for charity, visiting the sick, etc.

Therefore, for some elders, being part of a decision-making council makes sense. I would expect it in almost every large religious organization. But especially in our own, due to the importance and magnitude of the preaching work, translating work, distribution of literature, managing assemblies, writing for publications, answering issues that arise, handling legal issues, etc. 

Also, because of our desire to match to the first century, we are generally pleased with the idea that, if they had something like a governing council in Jerusalem, and we know that at least 1 of those persons on that council was an apostle, then we should expect spiritual men with a good level of experience and spirituality to be assigned to such a governing body today. And, while we know they are flawed and won't always say and do the right thing, our current 'governing body' is known to have successfully worked at varying levels of responsibility in their assignments and ministry.

So I have no problem with a 'governing body' even though I think that specific 'title' stuck for secular/legal/bureaucratic reasons and is probably not the right name to represent the position these men should hold. Some of these additional opinions of mine are trivial, however.

On the question about a governing body in the first century, I think that's a little more germane to the topic. I'll get into that if time permits.

Share this post


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

Does he mention CSA? Ray thought it was an overblown concoction of media. What say Rolf?

Barely mentioned. Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words. But he does have one point about it here in one of the footnotes:

I would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and
other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation, the GB
has been accused of having directed elders to hide such crimes from the authorities.
The first time such crimes were known to elders in Norway was around 1990. Since
then, elders have been advised to take particular measures to protect children, and
always to cooperate with the police. So this accusation is wrong!

Much earlier in the book he did mention it in one paragraph, but not anything controversial:

When I preach the good news, I often say that we Jehovah's Witnesses
believe in the Bible and the Bible alone. We do not accept any creed or
dogmas that are made by humans. In a big organization engaged in
worldwide preaching, there must, of course, be rules made by humans, as
also was the case in 1972. For example, elders in the congregations need
advice on how to deal with different issues, such as the molesting of
children and different legal matters. I am not speaking about such matters.
But I am speaking about decisions made by the GB that interfere direcdy
in the lives of individual Witnesses, and which are not based on the Bible.

 

P.S. One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra T. It sounded like a good name for one of those "male supplement" drugs that spammed my email account in the days before spam filters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, a couple years ago I was given the power to move posts to other topics to keep topics better organized. But this is also the power to delete. I hate to delete anyone's posts but there are times when someone accidentally posts something twice and asks for one of them to be deleted. Also, even when I move something to another topic, it can be a brand new topic, and that topic can be temporarily hidden, which is pretty much the same as deleting if no one wants it back in the topic.

In this topic, I have moved a repeated topic by 4J to a hidden place because it was nearly an exact repeat of an earlier post, and also the post where he makes a point that it had been 9 hours and no one answered him yet, which caused a couple of responses that were unnecessary. If anyone insists, their posts can come back, but it's not necessary to repeat the same exact content in a discussion forum, nor to "harass" people in general for not responding as soon as one would like. If someone says they didn't see a post and wants to see it, there is a way to put a link to that exact post, or just tell them that it about 5 or so posts further up.

Don't think of this as any kind of warning or punishment, because I have nothing to do with that, but I thought that the repeated content it made it more difficult to read and respond to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This Bible verse (even in nwt translation too) confirm only one fact: Jesus delegated task, service, obligation about feeding to only one person, Peter.

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed, it just says that Peter should feed the little sheep. it does not logically follow that no one else should imitate the good example that Peter was to give us. It's the job of a shepherd to feed his sheep by guiding them to pastures where they feed.

Look what Paul says:

(Acts 20:26-28) 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, . . .

(1 Peter 5:1-4) 5 Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

(Ephesians 4:11, 12) . . .And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,

Share this post


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

There are many pieces of evidence that are even admitted from Watchtower publications themselves that there was NOTHING at all like a GB under Russell.

Stick to the time frame. I said nothing about Russell's time. I commented in Rutherford time since he did place a board of directors which you are well aware of.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My understanding, for it's worth, and that's not much, is that every organization does better with something like a governing body.

Good, then we both accept what is spiritually provided. 

Share this post


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

Your question can be taken in several different ways, so I can't assume which question you are asking. Are you asking in what sense the 1944 article explained the Elder arrangement, or 1969-1971 until now, or about elders before 1931?

It sure can, since there was a process being made to what we have today. All comes from scriptural understanding that was devoted for each time.

Share this post


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

What is your understanding about the apostles having to go before the "governing council" that you call the Jerusalem council? The same structure the Watchtower is using now is framed from the first century concept.

I already gave my opinion that there is nothing wrong with the structure the Watchtower is using in the attempt to imitate the first century. There was a similar congregational structure in terms of their bodies of elders/overseers. And I don't see a problem with trying to imitate the body of elders at Jerusalem, which does appear to be a respected council of elders. Up to a point, this is a very good thing.

It seems fairly clear from what Paul said to the Galatians that, to them, Jerusalem seemed to have a lot of respect for having some of the most famous "pillars," James, Peter and John. So there was no doubt a tendency to give extra credence to what came from Jerusalem's body of elders. No doubt it would be a great privilege to actually visit the congregation(s) in Jerusalem and hear eyewitnesses of Jesus speak and teach.

But I don't think the letter of Galatians would be included in the Scriptures if there was not also a limit to the respect given to imperfect humans, even apostles. We know that in Galatians Paul accused at least one apostle and other persons of hypocrisy. But he went much further on what he thought of the concept of treating that body of elders at Jerusalem as a "Governing Body." He directly answers your question about whether apostles should feel that they had some obligation to go before them in the sense of a "governing council."

Paul showed that there was no reason for an apostle to feel obligated to go before such a "governing council."

(Galatians 1:16-20 to 2:6) . . .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. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, 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. . . . Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·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. . . . But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.

So, apparently, Paul never had to go to the see the council of elders in Jerusalem until some of those elders from there began causing problems. Because some of those elders in Jerusalem needed to be set straight, Paul received a revelation that he should go there. So he went, even though he previously had only one short visit in the last 14 years or more. Paul knew that he needed to help set things straight with them or else they could ruin all the progress he had made, and he would therefore be be running in vain against that body of elders. Paul had to go to great lengths to explain why, if they were pushing a different gospel, then they meant nothing to him even if they were apostles, or even if they had been angels!

I think the point was that, of course there was a body of elders in Jerusalem, it was natural that there would be, and it was natural that people would think of them as highly regarded, and that they would seem to be pillars for all the congregations. But this was dangerous for people to have that kind of respect for humans, because, in reality, that Jerusalem council should not have tried to push its influence on the congregations around Antioch, which teachings had now reached all the way to Galatia. Because of Paul's visit, the body of elders in Jerusalem issued a statement showing that it was their fault, and that they had gone too far in trying to encroach on the consciences of Christians in other places.

Instead, evidently, each congregation should have been more like those 7 congregations in Asia Minor that we find in Revelation 2 & 3. Whatever contact they had with each other was not important to mention here. So they are shown (symbolically) to be held before Christ himself as judge of their actions. Each of them were praised for taking their own action against false teachings and those who called themselves apostles. The counsel from Christ Jesus is never about the idea that they had not listened to this Jerusalem Council, or a group of apostles, or even an elder/overseer like John who may have known those seven congregations of Asia Minor through some kind of shepherding or circuit work for many years.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with having councils of elders in our twenty-first century world, which should include a variety of "gifts in men" including those who claim and show evidence of being anointed. And I think the most "gifted" in teaching, would be appropriate. They would be elders of course with appropriate experience in taking the lead, and as elders they would deserve an extra measure of respect. It appears to me that we have already have the right idea, but if we listen to Paul's letter to the Galatians, we can also see the dangers of giving such a group of men too much credence, respect and authority.

The end result of having the apostles stay in Jerusalem together, for a time after the holy spirit anointed them in 33 CE, was no doubt to help them straighten out necessary scriptural questions and provide that "holy spirit" for us today through the inspiration to produce the Christian Scriptures.

We know there would be a natural human tendency for such a body of elders to want to impose their conscience on others, as they might feel it was more experienced, and a more Christian-trained conscience. With good intentions, they might wish to be the governors of another person's faith. All of these natural tendencies are already counseled against in scripture:

(1 Corinthians 10:29) . . .For why should my freedom be judged by another person’s conscience?

(1 Corinthians 4:3) . . .Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . .

(2 Corinthians 1:24) . . .Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Stick to the time frame. I said nothing about Russell's time. I commented in Rutherford time since he did place a board of directors which you are well aware of.

That was the point. He followed in the steps of Russell who made no use at all of the board of directors who were only there for legal reasons and possible continuity of the Society if something were to happen to Russell. When people in Rutherford's day compared him to Russell, they said that Rutherford was even more autocratic/dictatorial/monarchial. So I included Russell as a means of comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

illy the Kid, what rubbish you talk. A Governing Body GOVERNS. RULES OVER. 

The GB of the CCJW rules over 8.5 million people, or there abouts. 

Jesus did not rule over, and He told the disciples not to rule over. He said that was how the 'world' works. 

What is your argument? Just because the Watchtower GB do not see themselves as the catholic infallibly creed?

 Or is just the phrase, “not inspired” and “not infallible” that gives you the trouble. Were the apostles perfect?

 When the apostles appointed someone, were those then made perfect? At what point does those considered, couldn’t have received God’s grace?

 Keep in mind, Paul was a prosecutor of Christians. When do you believe, Apostle Paul never received God’s Holy Spirit since the majority of the NT was written by Paul to the congregations. Are you now suggesting the Bible is just a fabrication and a story for children? Is Paul evil in your mind?

 Do you even understand how people viewed that phrase, lets back in Russell’s time? It was seen as, people were not worthy to read scripture much less teach about it. That’s where the papacy infallibility is drawn from. Only those that were Christ-Like were the only ones worthy to receive such honor of God’s grace.

 Once again, given Jesus action to appoint and commission, where does your argument lay? Which publican can you give where the Watchtower GB believe they are Christ-Like? This question also implicates the 144,000.

 The basis upon which these conclusions are built is, that the Apostles were not inspired as were the Prophets, and hence they could judge of truth and error only as we do.

 Did Jesus not rebuke Apostle Peter? How about Paul and Peter?

 How about Witness. She considers herself anointed. According to your understanding, she is Christ-Like and cannot make a mistake. Now she comes here every day to voice herself and teach division and strife. People like it. Are you saying God approves of this person? Because only such a person can receive God’s Holy Spirit?

 I’ll give you another example. Let’s take JWinsider. He was a Bethel member. In order to go to Bethel, your spirituality needs to be high. He then was appointed to be a ministerial servant. According to your belief about the GB, The GB made a mistake giving him not only the honor of attending Bethel, but being part in enriching others spirituality. God is wrong in your mind.

 1 Timothy 2:1-7

 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in ]authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at ]the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

 Acts 6:3

3Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them

When did you start to believe the Watchtower GB, became the Evil servant? And the above examples deserve your praise. How are JWinsider and Witness (perfect) Christ-Like in your eyes?

Share this post


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

But I don't think the letter of Galatians would be included in the Scriptures if there was not also a limit to the respect given to imperfect humans, even apostles. We know that in Galatians Paul accused at least one apostle and other persons of hypocrisy. But he went much further on what he thought of the concept of treating that body of elders at Jerusalem as a "Governing Body." He directly answers your question about whether apostles should feel that they had some obligation to go before them in the sense of a "governing council."

This would have been a learning experience upon how the Elders could keep the congregation clean. What would be the purpose to keep a person as a spy? A none believer to demoralize others. There is much we learned by Paul's letters to the congregation that the Watchtower take to heart and conform to scriptural instruction. The GB cannot and must not deviate from scripture just because of human emotion. Jesus wouldn't have rebuked Peter if he allowed his human emotion to supersede his spiritual conviction.

Share this post


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

I have moved a repeated topic by 4J to a hidden place because it was nearly an exact repeat of an earlier post, and also the post where he makes a point that it had been 9 hours and no one answered him yet, which caused a couple of responses that were unnecessary.

Is his post still up where he said my remark was obvious click bait and I said ‘how can that be, you dodo, since there is nothing to click on?‘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2020 at 10:20 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Is his post still up where he said my remark was obvious click bait and I said ‘how can that be, you dodo, since there is nothing to click on?‘

I didn't see that one, but I would have left it there for entertainment value.

[PS: I found the one you were looking for in the first Furuli topic topic, not this one.]

Share this post


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

That was the point. He followed in the steps of Russell who made no use at all of the board of directors who were only there for legal reasons and possible continuity of the Society if something were to happen to Russell. When people in Rutherford's day compared him to Russell, they said that Rutherford was even more autocratic/dictatorial/monarchial. So I included Russell as a means of comparison.

Compared to what. Russell was the only one that could be seen as the owner of the organization through the eyes of secular law. That was the reason to incorporate. Rutherford as his attorney was not even a Bible Student at that point, just his lawyer. Therefore, those are the steps taken to meet the demand of secular authority. Russell's nondenominational church continued as a vote in structure for Elders. That doesn't mean, by Rutherford's time and unrest with the other Bible Student factions, the "board of directors" went on to seen as "responsible men" of a corporation by secular authority. Hence, a governing body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Compared to what. Russell was the only one that could be seen as the owner of the organization through the eyes of secular law. That was the reason to incorporate. Rutherford as his attorney was not even a Bible Student at that point, just his lawyer. Therefore, those are the steps taken to meet the demand of secular authority. Russell's nondenominational church continued as a vote in structure for Elders. That doesn't mean, by Rutherford's time and unrest with the other Bible Student factions, the "board of directors" went on to seen as "responsible men" of a corporation by secular authority. Hence, a governing body.

There are so many things historically wrong with your assessment that I won't even start on it. Fortunately these facts are not critical to understanding the Governing Body today, although it might have helped to highlight the actual situation in 1919 and to compare it with some of the implied claims.

Share this post


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

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed

I made comment on WT article that @4Jah2me put in his comment, and of course on many other WT article that making statements how Jesus gave task of feeding only to 1919 small group of people inside WT.

Also, if we going into searching to whom specific words was addressed by Jesus, about feeding,i found only this specific verse that can be connected with "spiritual food". I must tell, also, how i am not reading Bible as many of you does regular or every day. This is from memory and than go to search where some verse is in the book. Because that, it can be how i missed some other verse which confirm other conclusion. 

In verses you offer it is notable how other people, not Jesus, encouraged fellow brothers and elders to be in service of helping/feeding people in congregations. Nothing wrong with that, of course. 

What is of concern is stubborn claims made by WT and GB how only few people inside JW Church are delegated/appointed, not by Peter or Paul, nor by Russel and Rutherford, but by JHVH and Jesus themselves, to be FDS Class. And much more - How no other individual, or group of people/elders, no one of Anointed as individual or group is/are allowed to do this feeding.

I agree how you are right in conclusion how "this verse not say that ONLY Peter should feed", and i hope you will agree how Jesus or any Bible verse not say how ONLY governing body in NY HQ should feed, too.  :))

Paul is example of individual, very much independent in actions and words. And he was not part of any sort of GB that is promoted today. 

 

@César Chávez put this interesting verse in comment:

 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” - Act 6

1st century brothers and sisters (anointed or not)  had spiritual ability to recognize who among Men are full of Spirit. I suppose how you need Spirit for doing this? Can we say they were "inspired"? At least for this particular moment and particular task?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a time period when you see a lot of statements in the literature that obedience to Rutherford is the same as obedience to the Lord.

History repeats. WT study magazine and TV Broadcasting doing same thing to JW people today.....with some other methods and words: Trust in Us because Jesus also trust in Us. If Jesus trust in Us, shouldn't you do the same?

Do not forget, Jesus not say that only (Peter) GB will feed people. GB ask people to trust ONLY to them because they claim how ONLY they have spiritual food to share. 

Where we are now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furuli's Introduction and Chapter 1 are important as a foundation to the topic, but we can skip them for the purpose of a discussion. We'll go straight to Chapter 2 which starts out with a summary "review" that I have copied below.

Furuli opens up the discussion with the words I put on the left, and I'll add some comments on the right. They are color-coded to match up which paragraphs are being commented upon.

THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE -REVIEW

In Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, the presence (parousia) of Jesus from 1914 to the great tribulation is mentioned four times, and his coming (erkhomai) as the judge in the great tribulation, at the end of his presence, is mentioned eight times.

 

The faithful and discreet slave is mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47. The previous view of the GB was that the coming of the master (v. 46) occurred in 1918, and the slave was appointed over all his belongings in 1919. These belongings included the branch offices, the Kingdom Halls, and the preaching work.

The present view is that the coming (v. 46) is future and will happen in the great tribulation. Then the slave will be appointed over all the belongings by receiving a heavenly resurrection. This new view excludes any connection between the coming (v.46) and the presence of Jesus.

Nevertheless, The Watchtower of 2017 says that the slave was appointed in 1919 to give God's servants spiritual food at the proper time during the presence of Jesus. But no evidence has been given for this claim.

Luke 12:35-44 discusses the faithful steward, the discreet one, which, according to the context, is the same as the faithful and discreet slave in Matt 24:45. One slave was put in charge of a master's household to give the other slaves literal food at the appointed time. Such a slave is mentioned in Luke chapter 12, and when he faithfully is giving the other slaves food when the master returns, thus doing his job, he will be appointed over all the belongings of the master.

The situation is the same in Matthew 24:45-47. That the slave gives literal food to the other slaves is his job. When he is doing this job faithfully when the Lord arrives in the great tribulation, he will be appointed over all the master's belongings. The focus is on literal food and not on spiritual food. Thus, "the slave" refers to individual Christians who are faithful when the master arrives and not to a class of persons.

In Matthew 24:48-51, the wicked slave is mentioned. The GB says that Jesus is not saying that a wicked slave will come, but points to the possibility; this is correct. However, neither in Luke 12:42 nor in Matthew 24:45 is Jesus saying that the faithful and discreet slave will come. But Jesus asks who the faithful and discreet slave will be. In other words: "Who will fill the role of the faithful and discreet  slave in the illustration of Jesus when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation?" The whole setting in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 is:"Who will be on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge"?

Furuli still supports the idea that the "parousia" began in 1914 and goes on  until the "erchomai" (Judgment Day). Most Bible scholars believe that the "parousia/ synteleia/ telos/ erchomai" are all nearly synonymous, which coincidentally results in the same outcome as Furuli sees here. That's because the FDS illustration is specifically tied to the erchomai and there is no specific to to the beginning of the parousia.

Furuli is setting up to show how the doctrine got "confused" over time, and pieces of the interpretation are still based on older versions of the doctrine which are no longer consistent with parts of the new version. That's because the doctrine began when the erchomai was not "Judgment Day" but a judgment based on Jesus "coming in 1918 to inspect the temple." After the FDS passed the test in 1918, they were then appointed over all his belongings in 1919. Those belongings were said to be the properties and purview of the WTS. (I think that Kingdom Halls weren't added to this list until around 2006.)

It's not like the GB hadn't thought if this, because (as Anna pointed out in the other thread) they are now only supposed to be appointed as FDS prior to the "full reward" which allows for an appointment in 1919, it's just that there is no specific scriptural reason any more to place this appointment anywhere between 1914 and the future erchomai (Judgment).

Furuli's logic has started to weaken. He's right, of course, that there are no longer any scriptural reasons here to point to 1919, except to fit the GB's own view of themselves. There is no more reason to pick 1919 than 1915, 1935, 1972, or maybe even 33 CE. But nothing excludes a 1919 date either, even if one doesn't believe an invisible presence and kingship started in 1914. However, if Furuli really still believes in 1914 as he says he does, and he expects a single generation in which a preaching work occurs in the midst of trials and tribulations, then why not provide an FDS specifically or that special generation? If 1914 works for Furuli, then there is some logic to appoint an FDS shortly after that generation begins.

Nothing to see here. This is fairly obvious that Luke 12 gives the same illustration with exact same idea and only a few words added or changed.

I personally agree with this. Jesus was talking about persons who have a responsibility to do a job, that of giving literal food to the rest of the slaves in a household when the master is gone. A slave who is handles such a responsibility faithfully can expect a reward. Especially because it would be so easy to slack off and take advantage while the master is away. It doesn't have to be a prophecy about "spiritual" food  It's not a prophecy. It's an illustration just like others Jesus made about readiness.

Furuli is not giving credence to the WT idea that this must be a prophecy because it's found in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. Also, it starts out with a "who is" which has been taken to be a command of sorts to go out and identify who is meant here. Furuli seems to treat it like any other illustration, as if reminding us that we don't automatically create a type/antitype out of the carcass and the eagles in verse 28. We don't automatically look for a pregnant woman class and the nursing baby class from verse 18.  Who really is a householder that will know in advance when a thief is coming to break into his house? (v44)

At first it appeared that Furuli was agreeing with a linguistic reason from Greek that the WT uses to downplay the possibility of an evil slave coming. But this is really just agreeing that there is nothing definite here about a wicked slave coming. And this is paralleled with his view that this illustration is also not saying anything definite about a faithful slave coming, either. That's a surprising turn, but I suppose it's really like Luke 11:11 saying "Who really is the father who will hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?" It makes a teaching lesson, not a prophecy about when such a situation will prove true. Furuli treats it as if Jesus is saying what he said in Luke 18: 

(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I agree how you are right in conclusion how "this verse not say that ONLY Peter should feed", and i hope you will agree how Jesus or any Bible verse not say how ONLY governing body in NY HQ should feed, too.  :))

Of course. I agree that the Bible says nothing about 1919, NY, or the Governing Body. But it's a belief based on the supposed fulfillment of prophecies as these same persons understand the prophecies. I didn't respond to 4J because he had to turn this into a "lie" instead of an "interpretation." I agree, though, that the interpretation is so ingrained that they weren't careful with the wording at all. Also, as I've said before, just because Matthew 24:45 isn't a source that "prophesies" such a work as is taken on by the GB, it doesn't mean it isn't a "fine work." Or that it should not be appreciated. It's just that we have to be alert to always remember that all of us stumble many times, including the GB, so we should always do our Christian duty and test anything and everything they say, and if our consciences differ, to always obey God as ruler rather than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy the Kid it becomes impossible to talk to you as you seem to deliberately twist everything I write.

Quote :-

 Keep in mind, Paul was a prosecutor of Christians. When do you believe, Apostle Paul never received God’s Holy Spirit since the majority of the NT was written by Paul to the congregations. Are you now suggesting the Bible is just a fabrication and a story for children? Is Paul evil in your mind?

It was I that wrote that the Apostle Paul was inspired by Holy Spirit and guided personally by Jesus Christ.

It was I that wrote that Paul was not one of the twelve and that HE wrote all those letter to the congregations. 

But you now twist it all to pretend that i said the opposite. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does he mention CSA? Ray thought it was an overblown concoction of media. What say Rolf?

Quote @JW Insider

Barely mentioned. Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words. But he does have one point about it here in one of the footnotes:

P.S. One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra T. It sounded like a good name for one of those "male supplement" drugs that spammed my email account in the days before spam filters.

Um, I wonder what a psychologist would make of that 'typo'. A man denying CSA in his 'Beloved Religion' then typing Sexual Immortality. 

Share this post


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

I [RF] would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation...So this accusation is wrong!

Ah. So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent internet  pages, is 

Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus

In writing this headline, I hesitated to use the word ‘proved.’ Had he really done that? But then I deferred to the words of the other scholar on this forum, 4Jah, who said of Rolf’s book (without reading it): “I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I'm making here.”

In fact, it ‘proves’ just the opposite.

In a roundabout way, Rolf brings his gift to the altar. Are legal machinations against the WT on account of how they viewed elders in the 1940s? Or are they about sensationalized investigations of CSA? Put Rolf on the stand as star ‘expert’ witness for the defense—after lauding him as Moses descending with the tablets, opposers can hardly say that he is delusional—and knock the legal ball out of the park.

In view of this service, compromise with Rolf. Appoint a panel to look at the GB’s doings. Get a few of the helpers. And, for balance, an impartial outsider or two like myself or @Arauna (you keep out of it JWI) We’ll have this ship righted again in no time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @JW Insider 

Because of Paul's visit, the body of elders in Jerusalem issued a statement showing that it was their fault, and that they had gone too far in trying to encroach on the consciences of Christians in other places. "

Wow, could you imagine the GB apologising, I don't think so. They won't even apologise for the CSA in the Org. 

JWI can you please give scripture to back up this 'statement issued' / apology, as you mentioned above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow it sounds like @TrueTomHarley is having one of his 'wet dreams' that he seems to like talking about. (It is one thing that has me concerned about Tom actually. The point that he likes mentioning wet dreams and is so in denial about CSA in the CCJW)  ) 

Let's look at the book title, My Beloved Religion, And the Governing Body.

Furuli seems to love the religion not the GB. 

Tom knows exactly what i was referring to previously, and it was about Higher Education. I was not referring to the book contents (as i hadn't read it ) but referring to the fact that the man, Furuli, was a highly educated man and had a very strong reputation for his knowledge which was high and above normal schooling. 

Now Furuli has a dislike for the GB  and how they act. But he seems to have a love for the CCJW.  Furuli wants to defend the Organisation (because he knows how much damage the CSA is doing)  and to defend the Org he seems to find the need to defend the GB concerning CSA.... Anyone with common sense or love of truth will see this to be obvious. 

Mr Harley is a true JW. He has the need to twist truth because it is the only way JWs seem to survive the CSA issue. Mr Harley's headline seems inline with what the GB first said about CSA. 

I do know of course that Tom is a wind up merchant, and very childish in his ways.  But when he has to twist truth and misquote others then he is showing his true colours as a non-christian. Being a member of the CCJW will not get people saved through Armageddon. 

 

Share this post


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

I didn't see that one, but I would have left it there for entertainment value.

I answered tom on this one actually. The answer being that the click point is in the bottom right hand corner of every comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

JWI can you please give scripture to back up this 'statement issued' / apology, as you mentioned above. 

Sure, it's Acts 15:24, highlighted further below, but you'd probably want to see the context. And keep in mind that I am just interpreting, too. In Galatians, where Paul clearly makes a point that he did not get any apostolic authority or theocratic assignments from the "so-called pillars" at Jerusalem. Paul says in Galatians chapters 1 & 2:

"nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was. . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me .  . . .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;  we did not yield in submission to them, . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. On the contrary, . . . . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . . However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong.  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. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek, hypocrisy], . . .

So this is the backdrop of Acts 15. The NWT cross-references "the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy" to Acts 15:1 and 15:24:

(Acts 15:1) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
(Acts 15:24) 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,

It's not as important but "men from James" is cross-referenced to Acts 12:17, evidently to show that "James and the brothers" was a way of referencing the Jerusalem congregation. The WT uses this idea to say that James must have therefore been the "chairman" of a governing body at Jerusalem.

So, putting it all together, the situation is that JAMES, was one of the highly regarded men, who SEEMED to be important. But JAMES had sent spies to see if Paul was really preaching against the need for circumcision. But these spies, were evidently just supposed to spy for James, and report back to him. These men from James evidently did NOT have instructions to begin subverting Paul's preaching by promoting circumcision.

At any rate, you can see from Acts 15:24 that, in the message that went out from Jerusalem, it admits that these men "went out from among us" and "caused trouble" and admits that they were "trying to subvert." James says they did not give them instructions, which is a nicer way than Paul would have said it, of course.

Share this post


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

we did not yield in submission to them,

- obedient and submissive - 

    Hello guest!

WTJWorg spreads teachings how members must doing exactly this before Elders and GB.

Paul said; NO, you DON'T HAVE TO be OBEDIENT AND SUBMISSIVE to human leaders in "Jerusalem" or in your congregation!

 

Share this post


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

One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra 

It can go the other way, too with references to the “immorality of the soul.” But nothing matches reading aloud one of those interminable “Is it” questions of Fred Franz and only realizing that the very end you should have read it with the inflection of an “It is”—because it was a statement, not a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. "  Gal 2:7-9

For the WT leadership to believe that this verifies proof of a governing body in Jerusalem, is self-gratifying, supporting their desire to build their "temple".  On the contrary, each apostle is a "pillar" of truth, supporting the foundation of the Temple of God.  

"These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."  1 Tim 3:14,15

"Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

Each anointed one sealed into God's Temple, also becomes a "pillar"..of truth.

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name."  Rev 3:12

"But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life."  Rev 21:27

It is ironic that the organization is referred to, as "the truth", in light of all of its falsehoods.   The "truth" can only apply to the Temple of God.  Again, I think of "Beliefs Clarified" which covers over falsehoods by glorifying them, as acceptable.  How deceitful.  

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Witness said:

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name."  Rev 3:12

The Head of the anointed Body/Church, is Jesus Christ.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6

It is not possible for any "living stone" who are members of this Body, to speak a lieThey are united under one Spirit.

"There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all."  1 Cor 12:4

"This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth." 1 John 5:6

"Sanctify them by Your truth.  Your word is truth."  John 17:17

The sealed "living stones" are all, pillars of truth.   (1 Pet 2:5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote @Witness " It is ironic that the organization is referred to, as "the truth", in light of all of its falsehoods.   The "truth" can only apply to the Temple of God.  Again, I think of "Beliefs Clarified" which covers over falsehoods by glorifying them, as acceptable.  How deceitful. "

It is done to play on the mind of the weak. If you tell some people it is 'the truth' then they don't question it. Most JWs  are basic folk with very basic thinking ability. They either are not intelligent enough to think or cannot be bothered to think beyond what they are taught at the KH or conventions.  The CSA problem shows this, most JWs don't even know it exists. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Russia?

Does he say anything about Russia? Does he imply that things would have been right as rain if his college-educated buddies had been running the show? Does he imply that of the first century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Most JWs  are basic folk with very basic thinking ability. They either are not intelligent enough to think or cannot be bothered to think beyond what they are taught at the KH or conventions. 

If you don't mind my different opinion. I would say how basic elements in message that JW's preaching; better new world, perfect life and health, no death, peace and security, Jesus and God etc. are something what almost all people want/wish.   

The system of repetition and persuasion of how to achieve all this, goes into our conscious and unconscious deep enough that we don’t feel the need to question anything that have source in new found religion. In fact, we self-censor ourselves and do not allow critical thinking. That is, the Organization has succeeded in instilling in its members the feeling that everything that is happening in terms of doctrine and technical implementation of learning does not even need to be re-examined. Only what comes from outside, the “worldly,” needs our utter caution and suspicion.

Deception imbued with elements of good and even true, creates in us an inability to think differently. Our mind is dulled. The mind is no longer sharp to discern fraud that growing within ourselves and danger of our confidence in the Organization. “Danger comes from outside” and “I am sinful and can't trust myself” - these are thoughts that obscure view about possibility and about very good chance how "the truth" is much else other but not really truthful. 

Why we stay so long in this mode and state and sometimes refuse to see obvious? Why we convince ourselves how "this must be the truth" when "truth" is not truth any more but another interpretation?

You and me and many similar to us are not in any intellectual shortcomings, but we were deceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Srecko Sostar  I agree with what you are saying but here in England (the parts I have lived and live now) most JWs are lazy. Many cannot be bothered to even study the Watchtower before the meeting. On the ministry it is terrible, they walk very slowly so as to take more time between houses because they don't really want to be there. Many will only do the minimum hours. They use the Org more as a social club. They do just enough of everything to keep the Elders happy. 

I agree with you, what they teach is truth mixed with deceit. And at first we 'swallow' it all. 

Share this post


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

There are so many things historically wrong with your assessment that I won't even start on it. Fortunately these facts are not critical to understanding the Governing Body today, although it might have helped to highlight the actual situation in 1919 and to compare it with some of the implied claims.

The only one that has gotten the Watchtower history wrong is you. Just keep in mind Russell had a “board of trustees” in Allegheny and when he made his last will and testament, the Watchtower would be run by an “editorial committee” after his death.

 If we are to profess knowledge of Watchtower history, let it be with the strength of true knowledge. Any one of these could be considered a structured governing body. 

Before you respond with that's what I meant, or attempt to twist ideologies from President to secular law, with governing body to secular law, the Watchtower has had a structured theme just like the first century churches. 

Scholar don't lack intelligence, some lacks true knowledge. Is Furuli on the way to be disfellowshipped? Time will tell. If he is, it won't be because of his complaints, it will be because, he has lost his way into spiritual knowledge. Raymond Franz did the same thing with one exception, Ray's spiritual knowledge was supposed to have been higher.

Therefore, let's not start with "grammar" again to point out things. No one here is spot on with grammar, accept it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

It was I that wrote that Paul was not one of the twelve and that HE wrote all those letter to the congregations. 

But you now twist it all to pretend that i said the opposite. 

Wrong, I used your own argument to bring to light how nonsensical it is. Therefore, your response is a poor one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does he say anything about Russia? Does he imply that things would have been right as rain if his college-educated buddies had been running the show? Does he imply that of the first century?

Not a word about Russia, except to mention Russia, USA, Norway, etc., in passing, as some of the governments that God's kingdom will crush, per Daniel 2:44. Nothing new here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If we are to profess knowledge of Watchtower history, let it be with the strength of true knowledge.

If you'd like. Go ahead and believe it was some sort of Governing Body. 

I'm only referring to the fact that the Watchtower publications (and MacMillan's "Faith on the March," too) nearly BRAG about the fact that "Russell was the Society," and never had to take any advice or share his leadership with anyone else. As I said above, the need for the editorial committee, and Society officers, was only to be invoked if something were to happen to Russell.

In an April 1894 Watch Tower, Russell himself stated :

image.png

Notice that the board of directors was understood not to have any control or usefulness until Russell died. Hard to see how they could be "governing" in any way if they were not in any way useful while Russell was alive. The office of Russell was considered to be that of RULER of ALL the Lord's belongings, already, now that the Lord had already arrived in 1874. This was stated in the March 1 1923 Watchtower, too:

image.png

...

image.png

The world ruler is in the Watchtower's italics. Not mine.

As I said, however, you are free to believe what you want here, say whatever you'd like,  but I will take the Watchtower's word for it in this case.

23 hours ago, César Chávez said:

That was the reason to incorporate. Rutherford as his attorney was not even a Bible Student at that point, just his lawyer.

I won't pick on every little thing you got wrong, but this part was also problematic. The Watchtower incorporated in 1884, so Rutherford was not his attorney at that point. Rutherford was only 15 years old in 1884. Wikipedia should clear it up:

". . . .joining the

    Hello guest!
, and he was baptized in 1906. He was appointed the legal counsel for the Watch Tower Society in 1907"

Or if you still think that he was his lawyer first before becoming a Bible Student, you can try the Proclaimers book and the 1975 Yearbook:

*** yb75 p. 83 Part 1—United States of America ***
Not long thereafter, in 1906, J. F. Rutherford symbolized his dedication to Jehovah God. Wrote Brother Macmillan: “I had the privilege of baptizing him at Saint Paul, Minnesota. He was one of 144 persons that I personally baptized in water that day. So when he became president of the Society, I was especially pleased.”
In 1907 Rutherford became the Watch Tower Society’s legal counselor, serving at its Pittsburgh headquarters.

I hope, for once, that you won't try to drag this out, and divert and still try to say that all these facts are wrong and that only you can do actual correct research. As you said to me above:

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The only one that has gotten the Watchtower history wrong is you.

So, yes. I've heard this dozens of times from you. And everyone who reads carefully has always been able to see through this game of yours. Or you can accept what the Watchtower publications say about it.

 

Share this post


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

I won't pick on every little thing you got wrong, but this part was also problematic. The Watchtower incorporated in 1884, so Rutherford was not his attorney at that point. Rutherford was only 15 years old in 1884. Wikipedia should clear it up:

How disingenuous you continue to be since You are now starting your story from 1884 when Rutherford was an unknown. Keep this nonsense off. If you want to revise from Allegheny to New York. You don't have to play games. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

o, yes. I've heard this dozens of times from you. And everyone who reads carefully has always been able to see through this game of yours. Or you can accept what the Watchtower publications say about it.

Yes they should see the false claims you make. However, you command too much loyalty here for anyone to care about the truth. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If you'd like. Go ahead and believe it was some sort of Governing Body.

Once again, playing with words. STRUCTURE! STRUCTURE! And Yes! The board of trustees, editorial committee, board of directors fit the bill of governing body. Maybe to you, it doesn't, but that doesn't stop the definition of it.

Share this post


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

I'm only referring to the fact that the Watchtower publications (and MacMillan's "Faith on the March," too) nearly BRAG about the fact that "Russell was the Society," and never had to take any advice or share his leadership with anyone else. As I said above, the need for the editorial committee, and Society officers, was only to be invoked if something were to happen to Russell.

You can continue to think what you like. I wouldn't put weight on a bragger.

[R3765 : page 126]

PASSED BEYOND THE VAIL.

ANOTHER member of the Board of Trustees of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY, Brother William M. Wright, passed beyond the vail, into the Most Holy, we trust, on April 3rd. He was well known and dearly beloved by the friends of the Truth in various parts, but especially by the Allegheny company, with whom he has lived and met for the past eight years. He was buried from the Bible House chapel on the 5th.

There is nothing you can teach me about the Watchtower history. The fact that "Schultz" concentrates on certain things, doesn't mean he knows everything. Take a Q!

Share this post


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

The office of Russell was considered to be that of RULER of ALL the Lord's belongings

Note that the current WT idea makes the FDS only appointed but not yet ruler over all the Lord's belongings, but that Russell was considered to have already been RULER of ALL the Lord's belongings, from the time Russell saw himself --alone-- as the FDS (FWS).

Rutherford had a chance to consider the views of the so-called "governing  body" of the WTS board, but when a majority of that board disagreed with him, Rutherford found a way to dismiss them. (Using a legal loophole that also applied to himself, so that he would also have needed to dismiss himself if his real goal was to be legally fair and ethical.)

But Rutherford also road on the coattails of Russell's authority as a means to continue the idea that he was in Russell's place, and no one would dare go against Russell without also realizing they were going against the Lord's appointed instrument. Inconsistently, Rutherford was also able to argue that Russell's paper "last will and testament" was worthless because God's organization can't be tied to the "will" of a human. The Watchtower itself admits that any usefulness of the Editorial Committee under Rutherford was already as good as abolished by 1925

image.png

...

image.png

Notice that the usefulness of an editorial committee is considered to be the opposite of the Lord himself running the organization.

And just another example. Raymond Franz, in Crisis of Conscience, mentions the time when Rutherford wanted to change the doctrine of the "superior authorities" in Romans 13 to mean Jehovah and Jesus, instead of following the correct explanation that Russell had, and which we now have again.. (R.Franz recalls that it was either this issue or another one just as obviously unscriptural.) Fred Franz objected because he was aware that it was false, and he expressed his objection to Rutherford. So Rutherford had Fred Franz write the article with the false doctrine in it.

image.pngimage.png

These stories merge exactly with stories that my Bethel table head told us about Rutherford, among other persons who related stories of his Rutherford's autocratic objection to making use of anything like a "governing body."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 6/6/2020 at 7:56 AM, JW Insider said:

There are so many things historically wrong with your assessment that I won't even start

Since we are Bible students and have a PERSONAL relationship with Jehovah and keep improving our  BIBLE  knowledge, I fail to see why we need to know the entire history and every detail of the watchtower history.

I look at the bible and see some kind of central body in the first century. Then I look at the changed circumstances of our day, such as a world-wide responsibility,  together with new technology such as internet and video etc. I immediately understand we need a legal corporation etc to manage a unified approach to the nation of God.  I.e they delegate the videos to certain branch offices but have final oversight over content to ensure ONE message. 

What I am interested in, is NOW!  The core truths that we are teaching now! And the willingness of people to contemplate the new changes. I do not need any person to tell me...... "BUT in a watchtower in 1967."...... bla bla bla.  Russel said : bla bla.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

it will be because, he has lost his way into spiritual knowledge. Raymond Franz did the same thing with one exception, Ray's spiritual

Intelligence or education is not needed to understand the deep things of God......... jehovahs spirit is needed.  I do not admire scholars at all because it puffs up. And secular scholars are often bought and paid for.

I have lived in Africa where I saw true humility and poverty..... so I know what the real thing looks like .  Some people  have an "acquired humility".

I actually  feel sorry for the professor Feruli- to have served jehovah so long and faithfully and now in old age succumb to the plague of mankind........ the same quality which Satan displayed. We can all fall and become a victim.  I doubt he took any advice from a brother before publishing it. He wanted the world to notice him...... unfortunately. 

Share this post


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

Since we are Bible students and have a PERSONAL relationship with Jehovah and keep improving our  BIBLE  knowledge, I fail to see why we need to know the entire history and every detail of the watchtower history.

It’s weird that you think that way. How many times in WTJWorg magazines is it discussed and explained why JWs don’t do this or that. Why some customs are rejected and some are not considered wrong. Eg. why not celebrate a birthday, new year, May 1st etc. Then historical examples from the Bible or "worldly" history are given of what happened during the two birthday celebrations and other events. The magazine then concludes that birthdays have a “pagan origin,” and that this is the main reason why JW’s don’t celebrate birthdays today. What has happened in distant history is becoming a moral principle, a doctrine for the 21st century.


So, to today's JW's it is very important what the history of this or that is. Why is the history of a "mountain-like organization" not important to You, to them?

 

Share this post


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

Intelligence or education is not needed to understand the deep things of God

Intelligence is not needed ? Perhaps education is less important,because someone else can read to uneducated people, BUT you need  at least average IQ for understanding world around you and various/specific religious doctrines. :))