Juan Rivera

I hope no one was thinking that any comparison was being made (by Luke or Origen) to true Christians. The comparison was always between what was being practiced by the seven sons of Sceva, and what was being practiced by the "bad men" in Origen's reference. We don't know much about the success rate that the Scevason boys had in their exorcisms prior to their attempts to add the pronunciation of Jesus to their repertoire, but it doesn't matter.
We know that Jesus would reject some who claimed to cast out demons in his name and say he never knew them. We also have the verses in Mark saying:
(Mark 9:38-40) John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us. Not really knowing anything about their motives, I'll limit my comparison the the original reason I gave for comparing them.
True. If, as we say, 99% of apostate Christianity calls itself Christian, then even the word "Christian" itself has become a brand mark of "Christian" apostasy. But it's also the term that true Christians should use. Apparently, a brand mark representing a small fish could have also survived as a brand mark of Christian apostasy, but I agree that dual-beamed cross symbol is the most popular brand mark, whether this was the incorrect version of the instrument of Jesus' death, or the correct version. You have already said that we don't know for sure. 
I sometimes wonder why no one ever thought to create a "compendium" (staurogram, christogram, etc) that made use of the letter "I" which was the actual initial of Jesus' name, and which would have been rationalized against the words of Paul:
(1 Corinthians 1:17-18) For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go declaring the good news, not with wisdom of speech, that the [STAUROS] of the Christ should not be made useless. 18 For the speech about the [STAUROS] is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it [the STAUROS] is God’s power. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24) 22 For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ's [STAUROS], to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his STAUROS].
Combining those words of Paul (which the unsteady were already twisting to their own destruction) it would have been easy to imagine creating a symbol from the "I" of "Iesous" and the possible "I" shape of the "STAUROS" and try to symbolize that they were following Jesus, who also, like Paul, is seen treating the STAUROS as a "symbol."
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually. Would it be right to assume that your primary reason for favoring a one-beamed cross is not so much about the variety of uses of the term STAUROS, but because the two-beamed cross has long been associated with apostate Chrsitianity? Associated with this might be the fact that the Watchtower displayed the two-beamed STAUROS, or cross, for about 52 years, and has since has dropped the symbol, due to its association with apostate Christianity. 
The original reason that Rutherford spoke out against the CROSS however, was that it was so closely associated with the cult of "Russell worshipers" and Russell often spoke about this need to remove the Russellite cult elements from the Bible Students. The Leolaia paper, on the first two pages, reminds us that Rutherford campaigned for 8 years against this symbol of the dual-beamed CROSS while still teaching that Jesus had died on a dual-beamed CROSS. The symbol was removed from Watchtower covers after 52 years of showing, but even this was at a time when the WTS still taught that Jesus had died on a traditional two-beamed CROSS.
That situation reminds of the time we are in now, where we don't like something because of its idolatrous associations, but we still haven't reached a point where the have the scholarship to back up our reasons to dismiss the possible "fact" of the stauros. But I have a feeling that, due to the way the Watchtower has worded the topic, that many Witnesses have already come to assume that the scholarship is there already. That could easily make other Witnesses think that even my own acceptance of the evidence in favor of a two-beamed stauros is somehow related to promoting the use of the symbol, or even promoting idolatrous worship.
So our current stance is understandable. "Flee from idolatry" should have a high priority and based on our correct prejudices against anything used in idolatry, it would be very difficult to imagine the WTS ever looking into whether the dual-beamed stauros might have more scholarly, historical and linguistic support. We might rightly hope that it does not.

LOL! You are even pickier than I was about this phrase. Immediately after writing it, I looked back on it and literally said to myself, "Wait, I can't use the word 'similar' because @Outta Here might even point out that Origen referred to successful pronouncers of Jesus' name and Acts/Luke refers to failed pronouncers of Jesus' name." (Or words to that effect.)
In fact, I nearly re-edited the word "similar" on the spot to "related" but didn't because I had said:
Similar idea in Acts from the seven sons of Sceva. This idea "from" the seven sons of Sceva is that they, too, wanted to be successful and effective pronouncers of Jesus' name. And, of course, the Origen quote that you offered is from the same article that's attached to the picture of the coin-like amulet. And this particular quote from Origen starts immediately after the quote from Acts about the sons of Sceva. (Both references start 4 to 7 lines further down in the article from the point where the picture left off, but still seen here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/)
In any case, I was offering a point about how we do not immediately deny the accuracy of all information that comes from mystical or apostate sources. As you indicate, we might even expect that someone transforming themselves into an "angel of light" may get a lot of things right, while misusing and misapplying other things.
I believe you are here admitting that this is a similar idea between both Origen's examples and the seven sons of Sceva.
And the same point again that one of those apostate legends might have been that Jesus had been executed on a crux simplex, as the Watchtower has promoted for several years now. This does not mean that the Watchtower itself is apostate, but that we must always be on the lookout for mistakes in our teachings that might have been tainted by false or apostate thinking. Otherwise we would not need the following admonition:
(Colossians 4:17) . . .“Pay attention to the ministry that you accepted in the Lord. . . (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (Hebrews 2:1) . . . That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away. (Philippians 4:5) Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . True. But standing for something that is right and then drifting away from that stand is the basic, simplest definition of "apostasy" based on the meaning of the word in Biblical Greek ("standing from").  We don't have to be an apostate to be affected by apostasy. You will recall that we now believe that when the Watch Tower publications promoted the celebration of Christmas and birthdays that they were not being apostate, but that it was a matter of getting something wrong due to the long effects of apostasy. Also, recall that you had said:
"And whether consciously or not, given the spirit behind apostates, the inroads are far too subtle for humans to discern strategically. " You were speaking of the writer of the Letter of Barnabas specifically and pointing out the possibility that he could have been consciously or unconsciously transforming himself into an angel of light, and therefore we would expect that misleading or false information would be combined with information that was very true. But your statement just quoted shows the difficulty in discerning such subtle inroads. Therefore, I never claimed that Rutherford was apostate, but that he got clearly got some things wrong due in part to the supposedly indiscernible inroads of apostasy. If they are not humanly discernible, then we must even more carefully follow those "pay attention" scriptures just quoted, and perhaps that's the best we can do. Your logic admits that there may still be much humanly indiscernible apostasy anywhere. 
Personally, I have stated my belief that choosing between one or the other direction based on the preponderance of evidence is merely a choice that comes out of "letting our reasonableness be known" "guarding our hearts and our mental powers" and "paying close attention to ourselves and our teaching." It does not mean that either choice is an apostate choice, yet you did bring up that one of the choices might be related to apostasy. So I merely state the obvious: that if it's humanly indiscernible, then we don't really know which set of evidence is the one that might be leading us in that direction. But we do know that by paying closer attention the Watch Tower publications could have avoided being led astray from a more correct stand on Azazel,* pyramids, the superior authorities, the "generation that will not pass away," 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, the 6000 years, the Elder arrangement, the Gentile Times, Zionism in Palestine, the identity of the faithful and discreet slave, etc. And who is to say how many issues remain, if they are truly indiscernible?
*Azazel was just an example that "Letter of Barnabas" evidently had right, then J H Paton got wrong in Russell's Watch Tower magazine, then Russell himself came closer to our current teaching, then Rutherford drifted back in the direction of Paton's teaching, and now, today, by coincidence, we are closer to the "Letter of Barnabas" in our current teaching.

It would not surprise me in the least if evidence were discovered that indicated that Jesus died on a simple, upright pole, rather than a two-beamed traditional cross. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if additional evidence were discovered that indicates that Jesus died on a traditional, two-beamed cross.
But up to this point, I'd have to admit that no evidence for a single-beamed upright pole with reference to Jesus' execution has yet been discovered. The evidence isn't very strong, but all of it, so far, points to a dual-beamed, traditional cross. 
Good points. And if Jesus were executed on a traditional, dual-beamed cross, then what would have been the correct words to refer to this type of instrument?
"STAUROS" and "CRUX."
And these are the words used in the oldest known manuscripts of the Bible. These are the same words used in the Christian Greek Scriptures and the early Latin translations of those Greek Scriptures, which were translated at a time when Greek was still a living vibrant language spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in the Roman world.
It's true that the Greek and Latin words "stauros" and "crux" could also refer to a simple upright pole, but it's also still true that the words "stauros" and "crux" were also the CORRECT words the Bible would use to refer to a two-beamed cross, or even another shape altogether. There was no better word. 
Of course, the same could be said for the single-beam, upright pole.
While we have no direct evidence in the Bible that a traditional cross-shaped symbol was a pagan symbol, the Bible contains many direct examples showing that the single-beam, upright pole was a pagan symbol.
(Deuteronomy 16:21, 22) 21 “You should not plant any sort of tree as a sacred pole near the altar of Jehovah your God that you make for yourself. 22 “Neither should you set up a sacred pillar for yourself, something Jehovah your God hates. (Judges 6:25) . . .tear down the altar of Baʹal that belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred pole next to it. (1 Kings 15:12, 13) . . .He expelled the male temple prostitutes from the land and removed all the disgusting idols that his forefathers had made. 13 He even removed Maʹa·cah his grandmother from her position as queen mother, because she had made an obscene idol for the worship of the sacred pole. Aʹsa cut down her obscene idol and burned it in the Kidʹron Valley. (1 Kings 16:33) 33 Aʹhab also made the sacred pole. Aʹhab did more to offend Jehovah the God of Israel than all the kings of Israel prior to him.
(1 Kings 18:19) 19 And now summon all Israel to me at Mount Carʹmel, as well as the 450 prophets of Baʹal and the 400 prophets of the sacred pole, who are eating at the table of Jezʹe·bel.”
(2 Kings 13:6) 6 (However, they did not depart from the sin of the house of Jer·o·boʹam that he had caused Israel to commit. They continued in this sin, and the sacred pole continued to stand in Sa·marʹi·a.)
(2 Kings 17:16) 16 They kept leaving all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and they made metal statues of two calves and a sacred pole, and they bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served Baʹal.
(2 Kings 18:4) 4 He was the one who removed the high places, smashed the sacred pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.. . .

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

Sorry about that last post. I tried to do the whole thing from my Dragon speech app on my phone, and every time I reworded something, or decided to change it, I couldn't find the previous version. Then I found it all bunched down there at the bottom of my post. I removed most of the gibberish.
I guess that was supposed to be me? LOL. I can assure you that I have never dissociated myself, nor have I ever been disfellowshipped. I did "step down" as we call it, but I am pretty sure that you yourself would most likely consider this to have been at least a "step" in the right direction. After all, I am now responsible for a lot less teaching assignments in the congregation. Your response to this has repeatedly been to call me someone who is "no longer in good standing," but surely this is better for everyone all around. (Turns out there are plenty of sacred service activities that don't require an "eldership" or "pioneership" etc.)
The jwcross.pdf by Leolaia does not prove the Watchtower wrong. It does not even say that the Watchtower is wrong about Jesus dying on a simple, upright pole. It does try a bit too hard to show up the dogmatism and research errors, in staking out a position, but without crediting the Watchtower for exposing a major flaw in Christendom's assumptions, too. Also, the article avoids the issue of improper veneration to objects and idols, which has been a major part of the history of the cross. I understand that this is not a real focus of a "cross vs. stake" discussion, but since it is obviously geared to a JW and ex-JW audience, it should therefore give more credit where credit is due.

I suppose you are referring to the fact that most Witnesses think that "spirit-directed organization" refers to the idea that the persons responsible for directing the WT organization would therefore have a greater measure of Jehovah's holy spirit, or at least a special measure of holy spirit specifically for the work of guiding and directing what counts as "spiritual food."
*** wp17 No. 1 p. 15 Is It Just a Small Misunderstanding? ***
The holy spirit also moves more knowledgeable Christians to come to the aid of those seeking greater understanding.—Acts 8:26-35. *** w17 February p. 24 par. 5, 10-14 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body . . . .  In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) Even in those early years, a small group of anointed brothers who served at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, prepared and distributed spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. . . . .  the Governing Body to focus on providing spiritual instruction and direction. Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. . . .  Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” . . . . can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919? Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved. What I think that many persons might find confusing here is that the article specifically used examples of how wrong we have been in the past as proof of the direction of holy spirit, otherwise how would the Governing Body have been able to make so many changes to its own false doctrines. The same article included these words:
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. 13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! I think the biggest source of confusion is the contradiction between the idea that we don't yet have perfect knowledge and yet Jesus promised his disciples:
(John 15:26-16:13) 26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; 27 and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. . . . . For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. . . .  13 However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. The contradiction is pretty obvious:
The Governing Body claims to be directed by holy spirit; The holy spirit was supposed to guide Christians into all the truth when it was poured out in 33 CE after Jesus was no longer present; The Governing Body admits to a long list of errors going back over 100 years; Many of these new errors and false doctrines were introduced after Jesus was supposed to be present again in 1914. The Second Adventists (and Seventh Day Adventist branch) resolved the issue by calling their false doctrines "Present Truth." If doctrines were found to be false and therefore changed, then the new doctrines were "present truth" and those past false doctrines were "present truth" at the time, even if time proved them to actually be false. Clever! It was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:12. But in the tradition of Second Adventists, we (Bible Students/JWs) also needed to adopt the same solution, especially because we were promoting pieces of a chronology that was continually being proven false. For many years, the Watchtower used 2 Peter 1:12 to defend the idea of "present truth." We now admit that it was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation. But it remained in Watchtower vocabulary for many years. At one time the doctrine has been so important it was capitalized.
*** w52 4/1 p. 219 An International Assembly in Rome ***
those who had already come to the truth must keep up with present truth. They must appreciate what the Lord provides through his organization and study diligently. *** yb88 p. 139 Korea ***
The Watch Tower of August 15, 1914, printed a fascinating letter addressed to Brother Russell, stating: “I am a stranger to you in one sense; but I came to a knowledge of Present Truth through your writings just twenty-two months ago. For some time I have been anxious to write and tell you of my special appreciation of the Truth, but circumstances did not permit until now. The real solution, I think, is found in Jesus' words about what the "spirit of truth" would lead them to. Truth is not the same as "accurate knowledge." Jesus said it would focus on three things: the truth about sin, righteousness and judgment:
(John 16:7-11) . . .For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. For other things, like this issue of cross vs stake, we should have absolutely no problem telling the truth about it. The truth is that we cannot be dogmatic. The truth is that we don't really have proof one way or another. It is NOT the truth to say that "Jesus was therefore executed on a single upright stake." But the truth is very accessible. All we have to do is say that, based on current evidence, Jesus may have been executed on a single upright stake, but there is also evidence that he may have been executed on a dual-beamed cross. It appears that both of these methods, and several others, could fall within the meaning of the term "stauros" found in the Scriptures.
So we have no reason to believe that holy spirit has not already led Christians "into all the truth." We even know the truth about cross versus stake.

I had a discussion with a Witness  in regards to your point and this is what he said:
When I first came into the truth, I believed that the organization would likely follow the pattern of Jehovah's people in the past and eventually apostatize, but through my study of and familiarity with the Bible, I came to understand that the modern congregation will not, in fact, apostatize.
The modern Christian congregation has been prophesied to exist at the time of Armageddon, thus, the organization will not apostatize. (Revelation 7:9, 10, 14, 15; 21:1-4) The organization may cease to exist as a legal body by decree of the nations, but as a people, we will not apostatize. When the anointed are taken from the Earth, those of us who remain will have the publications that have already been printed to rely upon so that we may continue to hold our faith united.
Then, in the thousand years, we will have the 144,000 kings and priests to help keep us in check. Though that is not to say that many will not be turned aside by their own bellies, (Romans 16:17, 18) but, for the most part, Jehovah's people will remain faithful, enough so that a great crowd survive Armageddon into the 1000 year reign. So we can be confident that the organization will never apostatize.
This is also in line with the prophecy about the modern organization which states, "Instead of the copper I will bring in gold, and instead of the iron I will bring in silver, instead of the wood, copper, and instead of the stones, iron; and I will appoint peace as your overseers and righteousness as your task assigners." (Isaiah 60:17) That seems pretty clear that we become more refined rather than apostatize.
The apostasy in the second century was foretold by Paul. (Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8) There has been no such apostasy foretold regarding the last days. In fact, Jesus himself is to "do away with him at the manifestation of his presence." (2 Thessalonians 2:8) That is, he will completely annihilate all apostate religion at the tribulation. (Revelation 18:1-8) As I mentioned the legal entity of the organization may also be done away with at that time, but Jehovah's people as a whole will not be done away with as with all the other religions. We will endure the tribulation, but they will not.
 

@JW Insider I'm going thru all the comments on this thread but it will take me a while. My preliminary judgment is that I don't think "practical" covers the role and office of those taking the lead.
We all agree Jehovah , being omnipotent, could have done it in any way he saw fitting.  He could have set up His Congregation such that it had no hierarchy (brothers taking the lead), and each man was guided entirely by the holy spirit through his own reading of the Bible. But that seems entirely unfitting to human nature. As @TrueTomHarleyhas commented in some of his writings.  We are social/political beings by nature, and our nature is expressed in societies, as Aristotle explains in his Politics. From the family, to the local community, to the state. Just as marriage has a head of the home, and a company has one CEO, and our country has one president, it seems quite strange that for any other community hierarchy it's a necessity,  but not when it comes to Jehovah's family (the congregation).
@Anna In regards to the suspicions @Witness mentions, the Scriptures teach and speak of the importance of the strong helping the weak. That is the purpose of the hierarchy, that those who have God given authority, might serve those entrusted to them. The worldly (fallen) notion of authority is one of domination and tyranny, but that's not the way Jehovah has created hierarchy in the family, and in the Congregation. Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not it's proper use. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not “lord it over” them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, tyrannical. 
Also, I don't see a contradiction between Christ being the head of the Congregation, and the Governing Body being the head of the Congregation, so long as we are very clear that the word ‘head’ is being used in two distinct senses. Christ or ultimately Jehovah, is the head of the Congregation, because He is the Congregation’s source, life, highest authority, and end. But the Governing Body is the representative of Christ, under His authority but acting in His authority as steward of the Congregation until Christ returns. So the Governing Body is the head of the Congregation in a different sense than Christ is the head of the Congregation. The Governing Body is subordinate to Christ. But Witnesses are subordinate to Christ by being subordinate to the Governing Body, as Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. And whoever disregards you disregards me also. Moreover, whoever disregards me disregards also Him who sent me.”(Luke 10:16) If it were true that no one could speak for Christ without undermining Christ’s unique authority, this verse could not be in the Bible. This verse (along with others) shows how Christ’s delegation of authority in His Congregation does not undermine His unique authority, but allows others to participate in it, in a subordinate way.
 

Something very interesting about the parable is the reference to the term "everyone," here. It's obvious that Jesus often used illustrations (parables, allegories, and analogies) in which a single person or small group of persons actually represented a larger group, sometimes everyone, or at least all Christians. But what was usually important in the illustrations was not the actual specific activity that the person or persons engaged in, but their attitude and response toward a particular situation. Usually Jesus was pointing out an attitude that should be true of all Christians, such as patience, loyalty, humility, persistence in prayer, watchfulness, mercy, faithfulness,forgiveness, etc.
For example, Jesus gave a parable of a tax collector and Pharisee in Luke 9:10-14. He wasn't making a prophecy that there would someday exist a "tax collector class" of Christians that would begin existing in 1919, for example. He wasn't saying that Christians should follow the example of tax collectors either. The importance of the illustration is that the tax collector was blessed for being humble and recognizing how unworthy he was, as opposed to the Pharisee who claimed to be different and more worthy than the tax collector. Another example was when Jesus gave a parable comparing the response of three different men to a robbery victim who was injured and left on the side of the road. Jesus was not prophesying that there would be a Samaritan class, and a Levite class, or an innkeeper class, or that the road had a certain meaning. (The WTS taught this for many years, but has changed that teaching.) The important thing was how a proper and generous response to someone in need showed who had really made himself "a neighbor" of the victim. Obviously, even though Jesus gave this "moral of the story" to one particular person, the meaning is true for all, and especially for Christians: (Luke 10:36, 37) 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself. ”Note, too, that the illustration was given to answer the question: (Luke 10:29) “Who really is my neighbor?” which reminds us of "Who really is a faithful and discreet slave? and "Who is an unfaithful servant?" Other illustrations were used in order to answer similar questions, such as: “Who really is greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens?” and the answer was that it was "whoever" became like a small child in terms of their humility. "Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 18:1-6) Another example is the parable about a slave who defrauded his master when he knew he was about to be fired. (Luke 16:1-13) The illustration was given because it gave Jesus' followers an interesting insight into their own attitude toward money and "unrighteous riches," and Jesus therefore created an analogy about how Christians should put a different kind of value on riches than what the world does. Jesus was not prophesying that there should be a "defrauding" class of Christians that would appear sometime around 1919, and Jesus, again, was surely not promoting that Christians should defraud their work masters. Note that this was another illustration about a "discreet slave:" (Luke 16:8) "And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted discreetly." [New World Translation, footnote]; Many more possible examples exist, but one of the most famous is the parable about the difference between the way two sons manage their father's inheritance. One son is loyal and continues to work in the father's fields. The other son wastes the money away in a life of debauchery and shame. (Luke 15:11-32) When the debauched and destitute son returns to the father, he is celebrated, much to the consternation of the loyal and stable son. Again, this is not a prophecy about two different classes of Christians that would make their first appearances between 1919 and 1935. (The Watchtower taught for many years that this was the case, but has recently changed that teaching.) Jesus is not teaching us that it is better to return from a life a debauchery than to remain loyal and stable in the master's service. These were merely situations appropriate, not because of the specific activities described, but because of the attitudes and responses to those situations. So this could makes us think again about the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slaves in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is no specific Bible basis for saying that this was a prophecy about a person or a group or groups of people who would make their first appearance around 1919. Jesus was not saying that all Christians would serve food to his body of attendants. Nor is there anything in the parable that tells us that the food here refers to spiritual food. Just like the parable of the Samaritan, there is no Bible basis for saying that the money the Samaritan gave to the innkeeper had some spiritual meaning. The important point is the appropriate attitude. We are "stewards" of Christ and Christianity and the important thing in a steward is to be found faithful.
(1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful.
(1 Peter 4:10) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways.

In past discussions, the idea has been brought up that there is nothing wrong with identifying persons who will use their particular gifts or ministries to take the lead and to teach, and this is still appropriate in congregations of any size, including the "world-wide congregation" as long as that lead is not intended as a way of creating a kind of tribunal or to create governors of our faith. For practical reasons, to keep peace in a congregation, there is always a need for some to take the lead and some to serve as shepherds. In a teaching ministry such as we strive for among Jehovah's Witnesses, we would expect some to focus on making sure that we can speak in agreement by looking closely at our teaching. 
That doesn't change the fact that Jesus was giving illustrations in Matthew 24 for all Christians to be on the watch, and for all Christians to watch their attitude as servants who have been given a serious responsibility.
All of us should ask the same question that Peter asked:
(Luke 12:41-48) 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? . . .  Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

Usually when we refer to the "faithful and discreet slave" parable, we are really referring to the parable of 'the faithful and the unfaithful slave' found in Matthew 24:45-51. In fact, the parable of the "faithful and discreet slave" is also found in Luke, where the expression is changed a bit to "the faithful steward, the discreet one . . . that slave."
(Luke 12:42-48) 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
"That slave" is given the assignment to feed the master's "body of attendants." If he obeys, he gets a promotion, and if he disobeys he is punished. This is the exact same idea as in Matthew 24, except that there are only about 15 words referring to what happens if this slave obeys and 150 words in the section about what happens if the slave disobeys. That's about 10 times as much space given to the idea of disobedience versus obedience. In Matthew it's only about 3 times as much space given to the idea of disobedience.
That might explain why the verses in Matthew are referenced so much more often in Watch Tower publications and talks. The Watchtower has, of course, minimized the idea of any potential disobedience:
*** w13 7/15 p. 24 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
Was Jesus foretelling that there would be an evil slave class in the last days? No. Granted, some individuals have manifested a spirit similar to that of the evil slave described by Jesus. We would call them apostates, whether they were of the anointed or of the “great crowd.” (Rev. 7:9) But such ones do not make up an evil slave class. Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave. His words here are actually a warning directed to the faithful and discreet slave.
  Notice that Jesus introduces the warning with the words “if ever.” One scholar says that in the Greek text, this passage “for all practical purposes is a hypothetical condition.”
This is an adjustment to the doctrine held just up until the change in 2013. Prior to the quote above (originally presented at the Annual Meeting in 2012) the idea about the evil slave was just the opposite: that the "evil slave" came directly from the ranks of the "faithful slave."
*** w04 3/1 p. 13 pars. 2-4 ‘The Faithful Slave’ Passes the Test! ***
The expression “that evil slave” draws our attention to Jesus’ preceding words about the faithful and discreet slave. Yes, the “evil slave” came from the ranks of the faithful slave. How?
3 Before 1914, many members of the faithful slave class had high hopes of meeting with the Bridegroom in heaven that year, but their hopes were not fulfilled. As a result of this and other developments, many were disappointed and a few became embittered. Some of these turned to ‘beating’ their former brothers verbally and consorting with “confirmed drunkards,” religious groups of Christendom.—Isaiah 28:1-3; 32:6.
4 These former Christians came to be identified as the “evil slave,” and Jesus punished them with “the greatest severity.” How? He rejected them, and they lost out on their heavenly hope. They were not, however, immediately destroyed. They first had to endure a period of weeping and gnashing of teeth in “the darkness outside” the Christian congregation. (Matthew 8:12) Since those early days, a few other anointed individuals have shown a similar bad spirit, identifying themselves with the “evil slave.” Some of the “other sheep” have imitated their unfaithfulness. (John 10:16)
Now, of course, the "faithful slave" is made to be the equivalent of the Governing Body since 1919. (The Governing Body has only existed in its current form since the early to mid-1970s.) For this reason, evidently, it would no longer be appropriate to consider or expect that the evil slave might come from the ranks of the Governing Body. Continuing this teaching would likely create a measure of suspicion and questioning of the Governing Body itself.

I can understand why we thought that the evil slave came from the ranks of the faithful slave. At first glance the scripture does suggest that this could happen, so then when the schism came after Russell’s  death, that became a logical conclusion. And then with the apostasy in the early 80’s at Bethel, the scripture could be applicable again.  
I can also get the new understanding as per WT 2013. In fact, in my mind, it places even more responsibility on the GB/Slave as “His words here are actually a warning directed to the faithful and discreet slave”. For that reason I do not feel this “new” teaching is trying to somehow avoid the potential for suspicion or questioning the GB. In fact it is saying that theoretically it is possible, albeit not realistic. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but if the whole of the GB/slave became apostate, that would defeat the purpose of the role Jesus assigned the GB/slave in the first place. Although of course if that did happen, Jesus would find a way around that. But why complicate things, instead, going back to what I mentioned earlier, it is a grave warning to the GB/Slave. I think that makes more sense.

“Let’s go surfing now, everybody’s learning how, come on and safari with meeeee” - Brian Wilson (probably)

Lol, yes, I had looked at all the various depictions of Jesus in other cultures. They all make him look like one of their own. What I meant was that God's organization should have known better than to make him look like a 40's all American boy from California 😂

Grumble, grumble. Do you think I can get my Scrabble-cheating brother to take even the slightest interest in spiritual things? But when it serves his purpose, suddenly he becomes a Fred Franz.

“Never before has the attempt been made to make clear the interaction between heaven and earth and to make visible the influences of the spirit persons [God, Jesus Christ, Satan] on humanity, society and individuals.”
No one’s even tried?

That's such a great line: "a book about self-pity for an audience of one."
I might have missed something, but when I read on his site about three companies he claims to have exposed for fraud, they didn't seem to have anything to do with any local German companies that Witnesses or elders were involved with. It seems he was promoting the idea that he had been exposing fraud in major multinational companies, or at least fraud at very high levels within those companies.

I know, this is an indication of his delusional importance. He probably felt underappreciated, and then the nail in the coffin was when he got warned about it by the elders. 

This seems to be the guy:
https://philippfusz.com/about-me/
If it is him, then it looks like he was mentally unhinged, with delusions of grandeur.

Some more information here from SKY news:
https://news.sky.com/story/hamburg-shooting-unborn-baby-among-those-killed-at-jehovahs-witness-building-12830180

I have just read a "report" and have no idea of its accuracy. Anyway, apparently that night of the midweek service meeting it was announced that Mr. Philipp Fusz (35) no longer one of JWs. During the prayer, Fusz left the KH, went to his car to retrieve a gun and started randomly shooting into the auditorium through an open window that was behind the podium. (The window is apparently opened after the meeting to allow for fresh air). He emptied one magazine and then after putting a new one in he climbed through the window and emptied that one too. It was 9:15 when the police smashed the glass in the entrance door and entered the KH. The shooter ran up the stairs to the second floor where he shot himself. 

NPR announced this morning that he was a former member of the Watchtower Headquarters. Even mentioning the United States. But this seems very doubtful now that I have read his bio and website and self-promotional writings and his own book review.

It's made US national news all over this morning. Authorities believe the shooter is among the dead. This is how it is currently reported on jw.org:
 
BREAKING NEWS | Shooting at Kingdom Hall in Hamburg, Germany
 
On March 9, 2023, a shooter attacked the Hamburg-Winterhude Kingdom Hall after the midweek meeting had concluded. Sadly, four brothers, two sisters, and a sister’s unborn child were killed in this shooting. Several other brothers and sisters were injured. Local elders are providing spiritual comfort to the family members and friends of those affected. We appreciate the courageous help provided by the police and emergency services. Our prayers are with all those affected by the attack. We are confident that Jehovah, the God of peace, will continue to be a refuge and strength in this time of distress.—Psalm 9:9; 46:1; Philippians 4:9.
 

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.
To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.
But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?
*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.