JW Insider

Sounds like it was a gathering party. If I were a judgmental person I might even suspect alcohol, too. Although I can think of other reasons for the confusion.

Spent from July 8 to July 22 this year in Anguilla. Brothers we called there yesterday are all suffering from damage to their homes and several vehicles. No reports of loss of life that they know of on the entire island yet, although injuries reported. To get to Anguilla (three times now) we fly into St. Maarten and take a ferry (although you can also switch planes in Puerto Rico or St. Maarten for a smaller plane that is able to land in Anguilla's smaller airport). Damage at both airports, and a lot of runway debris to clean up. Most homes of Witnesses there are in very low-cost housing construction: concrete walls with metal roof. Several roofs went flying, exposing the contents of home to a lot of water damage. From St. Maarten there was no report yet about the brothers, necessarily, but there are a couple of deaths and several injuries reported in both St. Maarten and St. Martin. [Updated edit: 1 person dead in Anguilla, not a Witness.]

I came late to this discussion, knowing that my viewpoint on this particular subject is based on what might seem a bit radical to some. So I apologize in advance for the opinions to follow: I wouldn't suggest "civil disobedience" either, but to your point, the earth didn't open up when Rutherford successfully attempted his own hostile takeover of the Watch Tower Society from 1916 to 1919 (technically, until 1931). After all, he went directly against the leadership of Russell and illegally went against the leadership of the majority, physically shutting that majority out, until he could put his own majority in place. But this is another one of those potential contradictions of a similar nature to the contradiction that forms the basis for this topic. We forgive him for bending the law and for several ethics violations because we are sure that, in the long run, he had the "truer" religion compared to those he outmaneuvered. Yet, this also suggests that the 'guide from history' has more to do with how we respond to the true Leader, the greater Moses, Jesus Christ. Thinking of men as effectively taking the place of Jesus as head is merely an expedience for modern organizational purposes, and is not related to theocracy, which is rule by God. If a doctrine shows up differently in God's Word from the way it shows up from the GB, then we surely have nothing to fear from merely obeying God as ruler rather than men. That's the true definition of theocracy. But we don't initiate discord, either. That's for the exact same reason we accept and respect the GB in the first place. We appreciate that the role they take on is for keeping order and for efficiently carrying out our ministry in an organized manner. So we gladly subject ourselves to the decisions of an organizational Governing Body. I don't see why anyone would object to that. Besides, it's working; the worldwide ministry is becoming increasingly more organized and efficient through this arrangement. These men also maintain "doctrinal order" by taking on the role of "guardians of the doctrine." This can be a very good thing. Teaching materials, presentation materials, publication content, dramas, videos, convention talks are coordinated and this produces less confusion. When a change is made it is often highlighted and even if not, there are usually efficient ways for us to discover and explain the change. We appreciate that the work done to find the support for these doctrines scripturally is taken very seriously and we have no major doctrines without some Biblical reason for it, even if that reason (for a former doctrine) was based on an admitted misunderstanding. I won't use this topic as a place to show the kind of trouble that can happen if the "guarding" part is taken more seriously than fixing any misunderstandings, but I think that should be obvious, from our own history. But the point is that it should not be difficult for any of us to rattle off anywhere from 10 to 20 doctrinal changes and changes in procedures that came about through "public pressure" even though this public pressure was not well-known to most of us, nor was it any kind of civil disobedience. I can think of a couple cases where it really was something like civil disobedience from the rank-and-file Bethelites, for example, but I am referring primarily to the public exposure of certain embarrassing doctrines by ex-JWs, or the pressure of civil courts and tax courts (US, UK, Belgium, Australia) and scrutiny of doctrine by psychologists, surgeons and law enforcement. Add to this an unknown number of letters that came in from Witnesses whose questions and objections really have been taken seriously over the years. It must be a lot more than some Witnesses and others here would believe.

The most recent persons I studied with who symbolized their dedication through baptism were the father and mother of two children, a pre-teen boy and a much younger girl. We absolutely discussed what baptism means in terms of their association and the potential for disfellowshipping. In fact, we spent hours on the subject, because the mother was a smoker, who needed a lot of moral support to help her quit, and she was (and still is) allowed to call the house any time day or night getting through the tough time she had in giving up the addiction. In fact, they put off baptism for at least an extra 6 months to be sure she was completely over it. But our studies also included a discussion of what can happen to children, too, and the pressure we can end up unknowingly putting on children and the emotional pain that could result if the decision of a child is not really his (or her) own decision, but primarily a way for the child to please their parents. So up to a point, I do, but I have probably over-used or even misused this verse: (Matthew 10:33-37) 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. I'm wondering if this is really all that applicable to the variations of choices people make today. If their children grow up and become atheists, for example, are the parents really required to initiate that division? I read the verse carefully, now, and realize that we are not the ones creating this division and creating enemies. We are the ones who continue to love our enemies, the same way Jehovah continues to make it rain on both the righteous and unrighteous.

If you've seen any of the lengthy topics lately that deal with the "generation" and related issues, you'll notice that I'm probably not the right person to ask. Also, I don't want to turn this particular type of post into a doctrinal discussion that no one bargained for, based on the topic name. However, I do think it's a good question, so I'll attach some notes to one of those other recent discussions.

I'm certainly not going to claim I can explain it. But I think that TTH is accurate. He says that: This means that yes, absolutely, we have two sets of scales on this one, but only because we are sure we deserve a different set of scales. I don't think there is any other way to see it either. It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to: (Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame. (2 Peter 2:20-22) 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.” So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street. Of course, this does not mean it is ethical to imply that it would be as easy to leave the JWs as it is to become one. We do make it difficult, and we do use emotional blackmail, but we believe we are justified. We believe that the "tough love" of shunning will shame people into coming back and that if we win back a brother through shaming that we have thus protected their prospect for eternal life. But should we tell people this before they are baptized, and perhaps show them a video presentation about the worst-case scenario? Should we justify it with the fact that many other people also shun others whether for feelings of religious superiority or sometimes just feelings of cultural or supposed moral superiority -- or sometimes just purely for emotional blackmail based on rationalizing juvenile behavior? In my view, the answer is yes, absolutely. We should show new converts how we shame people. We should be PROUD of everything we do with respect to our preaching and practice. If we think anything we do or teach should remain in the dark, then that can only mean we are ashamed of it. We would be hypocritical not to show it and explain it. We can tell people we think that the "love" behind shunning is worth it in the long run. (Hebrews 12:11) True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice. Also, you are probably aware that I don't think we handle shunning in a completely biblical way. And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

I wish you the best in your endeavors. Thanks for all the input, and of course, if you decide to participate again, I'm sure you will be welcomed. Whether or not I am still here will be based on several factors. It's nice to find a place where one can show complete loyalty to the truth and still not hold back in sharing all aspects of the good news that we have found spiritually profitable. While no one can compare themselves to the Apostle Paul, we should still strive to be imitators of him. (Acts 20:20) 20 while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house. But as some have pointed out, this place, although a useful public forum for ideas to be shared, often becomes a place where opposers of scripture, and opposers of truth and evidence can become ridiculously juvenile and ill-behaved. And while joking and enjoying a laugh, and light-hearted association can be just fine, the propensity for unloving insults, sniping, and sarcasm can easily rub off on any of us. I have recently felt embarrassed at the way in which fellow brothers have claimed to proudly make a conscious decision to disregard Bible truth as long as they are generally confident that the men they choose to follow are backed by Jesus and Jehovah. This is so much like the high-control thinking that certain men have been able to achieve in several of the religious associations of Christendom, and I fear the trend of attracting more and more persons who are happy and proud not to think about scripture and evidence and truth.

We know. Satan said some things that were also true. But wasn't it Billy Graham or one of those preachers from a bye-gone generation who said: "We should learn to love and value truth for its own sake. . . . A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God." Â

It's always nice when people can laugh at themselves. So, here's respect to @The Librarian

I remember once when Jesus demonized some pork, but it was at their own request. (Demon's request, not the pork's.) (Matthew 8:31) . . .So the demons began to plead with him, saying: “If you expel us, send us into the herd of swine.” But Jesus also gave some good dietary instructions for raising pigs. They evidently don't digest beads of calcium carbonate very well, or else perhaps it doesn't sit well with them and makes them violent. (Matthew 7:6) . . .“Do not . . . throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.

I think everyone knew that this was one of his favorite subjects along with his favorite numerology topics. I'm sure he was the one who wrote the article in 1956. I have been assured that he was the one who often repeated the idea that 999 people out of every thousand would die at Armageddon. This was even included in assembly speeches open to the public. The 99.9% figure was also included in the Watch Tower publications a few times. *** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? *** Revelation 9:16 gives us an inkling of the size of Jehovah’s forces when it speaks of him as using, on a certain occasion, cavalry to the number of 200,000,000. And 2 Kings 19:35 tells of just one of these destroying a host of 185,000 warriors in one night. . . . On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” He was also the one who said that due to the current laws of the land, we aren't allowed to kill our apostate children even though they are our own children. *** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers *** In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. That's a very useful reminder not to kill our children, based on a question probably sent in by Percy Chapman, the Branch Servant in Ontario at the time. And of course, Fred Franz was the one who assured me that the hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs who were willing to die for their faith in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were mostly all in Gehenna now, with no hope of a resurrection. Yes, he had a dark side. But at least he could snicker and joke while saying such serious things. I don't know if that makes it better or worse, though.

*** w56 8/1 p. 465 pars. 16-17 Jehovah’s Message Against Gog of Magog *** 16 In the wake of Armageddon’s carnage, disease and pestilence from the rot and decay would plague the survivors were it not for the fact that Jehovah sends forth an invitation to the birds and beasts to attend this great slaughter. “Speak unto the birds of every sort, and to every beast of the field,” Jehovah says, and say to them, “Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, . . . Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.” This certainly shows the contempt in which Jehovah holds the proud and haughty of Gog’s system, letting the wild beasts and vultures feed upon them as worthless carrion!—Ezek. 39:17, 18, AS. 17 With such a glorious feast of victory concluded, only the bones, bones from one end of the earth to the other, will be left for burial. What a task that will be for the survivors, to cleanse the earth of every remaining evidence of Gog’s forces! Even with the work well organized it will take seven months, Jehovah says, just to bury the bones. Scouting corps will be sent out on a full-time basis to search the land thoroughly and, when bones are found, markers will be set up for those with the spades and shovels who follow. (Ezek. 39:14, 15) Those privileged to share in that cleanup work will not view it as a revolting and disgusting assignment but will rejoice to be alive when Gog’s long and oppressive rule has come to an end and when the wicked are no more. Survivors of Armageddon will be happy and will greatly rejoice to have a share in preparing the earth for a global paradise of beauty and perfection under the reign of the King Christ Jesus. But first, before that happy day, this message against Gog must be delivered in its completeness. --------------- In 1965, or so, several congregations used to put on skits for the Circuit Overseer's visit. ("Circuit Servant" in those days.) We did one where we re-enacted this scene from Ezekiel. To prepare, we literally gathered some sun-bleached skulls and bones from long-demised cattle, always plentiful on the acres of land and farms in Missouri. Then we set up some sand-piles on the platform of the Kingdom Hall behind the back curtain, with the bones already placed there. Then, when time for the "drama" came around during the meeting, we opened the curtain, had some little kids play the scouts who put markers by the bones, and then had some more mature brothers put the bones in their large burlap sacks. In rehearsal, one brother picked up a skull and would say things like, "looks like this one died because he was too bull-headed," etc. But the conclusion of the actual drama went like this. One sack-toting brother asks the others, "Hey. Has anyone seen Brother One-hour?" After learning that no one has seen him, he then says: "You don't suppose!?!?!?!?! . . . . . and then, of course, he gets all dramatically wide-eyed, and throws the whole sack across the stage. Lights go to dark. Applause!!

You are saying that Jesus was mistaken then, because he said that "ALL authority had already been given to him in heaven and on earth." You seem to be confusing his authority with the first things that Jesus did with that authority. The first thing that Jesus did was transfer subjects from all walks of life into the Kingdom. It's as if the King of England back in, let's say, the year 1033 CE, just gets into power and says "I am now the King of England, and I now have all authority over the land: both over peasants and land-owners alike." Then he goes on to say that the first thing he will do is accept delegates from all the peasant populations who will voluntary come to London to "bend the knee" in respect to their new king. Based on that King-of-England scenario, you might now have a bunch of peasants saying: "Guess what? Even though the new king claims to have all authority, it's not not really true, he really only has authority over those of us peasants who voluntarily 'bend the knee' to him. We should make sure that all the land-owners are aware that it's OK not to accept him as a real king over them yet. We don't even have to call him 'king.' It's more like a mini-king over a mini-peasant-kingdom. And he really only has authority over us if we voluntarily offer it. Maybe some time near the end of his kingship over the land will we need to accept the idea that he was truly given ALL authority."

So you do not believe Jesus when he said he had just been given "ALL authority in heaven and on earth"?

The OED has the following as the very first definitions of the noun "type." Nothing to do with breath, wind or glassblowing. The word type is probably more closely related to the word beat or strike.

For some reason they brought one back. (Malachi 3:1) I think after realizing that they had demoted Russell from the FDS, they realized they needed him again for some kind of continuity attached to the "Watch Tower" name.

FWIW, I think you have at least a partial point on all the other pieces of the puzzle you mentioned. But I'm not sure how you manage the beliefs surrounding Armageddon and the Millennium. I know there are a lot of options, but I was wondering how you work out "next the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his Father." (1 Cor 15:24)

Not for me. For some reason, I thought this story was mostly true, right away. Not sure why you are asking, though. I'm usually very skeptical of such reports, but I jumped right in and accepted this one as likely true, based primarily on the picture of a sister who had fainted, and a few people standing nearby. This wasn't the usual set-up for a fake story. It didn't try to attach itself to something we already knew was partly true, or a famous event or person, so it didn't seem fake based on the usual reasons people create fake stories. So that's why I responded as soon as this was posted 5 days ago over at another place where this was posted https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/43655-jws-attacked-with-poison-gas-at-a-convention-400-affected/ Naturally, I'm not sure that the reason given for it makes any sense, but I figured we'd learn more. Of course, seeing it on jw.org certainly helped to remove some of the questions, because the brothers putting up information on jw.org can get in direct contact with the brothers at the assembly, and they would want as much information as they could get to verify it.

Didn't watch the video yet, but I've heard that Houston is the worst designed large city in the United States. No planning for new housing divisions. The world's worst sprawl. No way to easily get from one side of city to the other with public transportation. Buildings built below sea level on purpose. Building too close to water and wetland. And all this is from complaints I've heard in the last few years.

JW.ORG is treating it as real news, so I'd say it's real. https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/angola/toxic-gas-20170829/

Not the first one. That could never be a Watchtower picture. I worked in the Art Department during my first few years at Bethel. There are several things wrong with this first picture. It would have been "blasphemy" to present a picture like that into any of the publications. Since the 1940's we have always kept the same "motif." If destruction is shown close-up, then there are NEVER any Witnesses near the destruction. (No "close calls" can be imagined.) It if is not a close-up of destruction, then the destruction must be in the far background, usually to the left, and if Witnesses are shown it is always a congregation-sized group of them, never just one or a few, and they should be streaming towards the right of the picture. The stream of Witnesses should be heading to higher ground ("the mountain of Jehovah") with no one looking back towards the destruction ("remember the wife of Lot"). If an artist made a picture with excess praise to the heavens it would be rejected. If an artist made a picture with a distracting bit of excess emotion or pathos it would be rejected. The eyes should be on something in front of them, with no eyes looking toward Jehovah or heaven. Upward-facing eyes should never be looking at anything higher than a mountaintop of a near horizon, usually out of the picture. The picture here is probably intended to show the issue of "some chosen and some not." The wife and little girl are drawn ambiguously at the edge of a cliff, either having just climbed up or about to fall into it. Either way they are not being helped (yet) by the more obvious "saved" Christian. The "ambiguous" condition of people who might otherwise appear to be good Christians is a common theme in "left behind" imagery. The inclusion of a small, innocent-looking child (with a doll) left behind is probably a signal that the artist is trying to present predestination.  :

It's not that simple. I believe that if persons completely agree with the doctrines of a religion, that they wouldn't be at all concerned that a "governing body" was helping to guide the decisions of that religion. Therefore, I'm sure that most people who speak out against the concept among Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily speaking out against the doctrines that are promoted through this governing body. So I do believe that the Jerusalem Council acted in a very similar capacity to the Governing Body in several of its current activities and services. I don't favor the terms "governing body" or even "elder body"/"body of elders". I don't believe there is any "body" within the "body of Christ" which is his whole congregation. And "governors" is pretty much the opposite of the idea at 2 Cor 1:24 (2 Corinthians 1:24) 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. That said, I cannot say that I find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders who handle matters for the entire worldwide congregation, any more than I would find anything wrong with the service of such a body of elders in any local congregation. (Or even an ad hoc committee of elders from multiple congregations if a situation warrants that.) As a large group performing a worldwide activity, we will always find ourselves in need of decisions that no one person could easily make, especially because that one person might not be in a position to hear input from everyone. Remember Jethro's counsel to Moses about appointing capable men as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. One brother at Bethel, who was defending the leadership style of Rutherford at the time, likened it to picking a carpet color for the Kingdom Hall. If everyone showed perfect love and humility, then everyone would want to unselfishly defer that decision to someone else, and no one would decide. But there are always some who are willing to just decide. These may not come across as the most loving and humble, but they are necessary to the efficient running of a large enterprise among an association of persons. In Jerusalem, I think it was initially a local problem, a problem started by the Jerusalem congregation, so that made it appropriate for the Jerusalem congregation to decide what they ought to do to fix their own mess. They discussed it and asked for the holy spirit to guide them. It was a body of respected elders, associated with, but not equal to, the apostles who had recently devoted themselves to matters of teaching and studying. This is surely a useful model for something like the group we call the "governing body." Questions come up on a wide scale and centralized direction on these issues is a welcome service. The problem, of course, is not the idea of "service" but with the "authority." This is surely what Jesus meant when he said: (Matthew 23:10-12) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Of course, Paul wanted to make sure that no one thought these particular men in Jerusalem had some kind of "authority" such that he was commissioned by them, or took assignments just because of them, or accepted their word as law. But he showed respect and followed their counsel to the extent that he could. (See Galatians & 1st and 2nd Corinthians, in general.) I don't think he would have gone to such lengths to diminish the appearance of authority of the Jerusalem council if there wasn't some kind of "appearance of authority" that seemed obvious and even correct to most Christians at the time. In 2013 the NWT changed the word "tutor" to "guardian" in a few places, and the GB began describing their own role as "guardians of doctrine" with its ill-advised acronym. And this resulted in 1 Cor 4:15-17 offering the following idea: (1 Corinthians 4:15-17) 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. Paul saw himself as a kind of "father" in spite of Jesus words that no one is to be called "father" as a title of authority. So he clearly didn't mean it as a title but as a reminder of his love and concern and guidance. But just as important is that the Law had been a guardian or tutor leading to Christ, but now there were at least 10,000 Christians in the overall "world-wide" organization of the time, and all of them were guardians. (Based on the number of baptisms mentioned in Acts.) Paul looked for a way to get his methods and teaching spread, not just for initial conversion to Christianity, but to remind current Christians in each and every congregation of the proper methods and teaching. But note that all Christians were guardians of each other, or tutors of each other. The role of guardian is not therefore a position of "authority." But there is a "service" that such a committee of elders can provide. For the most part I see them trying to fill this role. I also think they try, at present, to go beyond that role into a role of governing or authority.

Good thing Rutherford didn't have a sense of humor.

(Acts 15:19, 20) 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. Note that it doesn't say abstain from idolatry, murder, and theft, but focuses first on "things polluted by idols." Thayer's Greek Lexicon says that the word ἀλίσγημα here, refers to "pollution from the use of meats left from the heathen sacrifices." Obviously this meat could have been strangled, or otherwise improperly bled, and therefore contained blood. So 3 out of 4 counts from the "burden" could have been broken just by eating ἀλίσγημα. In fact the NWT footnote on the word strangled shows that this isn't really the only idea here. It says "Or, 'what is killed without draining its blood.'" When the "burden" is repeated in verse 29, the intention is obviously the same: (Acts 15:29) 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. . . . But this time the word "pollution" (implying the ritual uncleanness of the meat) is made even clearer by using the word εἰδωλόθυτος, which is translated as "meats sacrificed to idols" in some translations (KJV) or just "things sacrificed to idols." All the meat-related items are now listed next to each other and sexual immorality is pushed to the end. Notice that the NWT cross-references both "things polluted by idols" and "things sacrificed to idols" with the verse at 1 Corinthians 10:14 which says "flee from idolatry." But the verse isn't about idolatry, it's about abstaining from improperly bled meat which could be bought at a Gentile meat market. Would Gentile Christians now have to go to a Jewish meat market to get their meat? Would they have to inquire as to whether something had been strangled or otherwise bled improperly? Just look down from 1 Cor 10:14 to verse 25-27 (1 Corinthians 10:25-27) Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, . . . 27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. In fact it was only if someone else with a weaker conscience was there and pointed out: (1 Corinthians 10:28, 29) 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 29 I do not mean your own conscience, but that of the other person. . . . And you can probably guess, now, what the Greek word was for "something offered in sacrifice." It was the exact same word that the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem put in the "burden:" εἰδωλόθυτος. So what do you think Paul was saying about the 3 meat-related items in the list? And we don't have any evidence that Paul only said this before the Jerusalem council met, but would have complied afterwards. It was more likely already about 6 years after. For one thing the Insight book times Acts 15 to about 49 CE. And it times 1 Corinthians to about 55 CE. *** it-1 p. 257 Barnabas *** In about 49 C.E., Barnabas and Paul took the burning question of circumcision of non-Jews up to the governing body in Jerusalem, and with that settled, they were soon back in Antioch preparing for their next missionary tour. (Ac 15:2-36) *** nwt p. 1663 Table of the Books of the Bible *** 1 Corinthians Paul Ephesus c. 55[C.E.] Paul, therefore, appears to have knocked out two or three items from the very list that came from the "Governing Body." And I don't think Paul was ever disfellowshipped for this.

I don't know, I haven't heard the talk yet. Just kidding. I can see this going either way. It makes more sense to me that Jesus meant the other sheep were the literal gentiles. But then again not everything that appeared to apply to literal Israel appears to be strictly about literal Israel, and the Bible gives us some good reasons to see Israel as a kind of "type" of the heavenly Jerusalem, and of course Christ's Bride which is associated with the 144,000. Since that Bride includes people of the nations, an argument can be made for a "spiritual" rather than a "literal" application. I'm usually for the most simple and straightforward explanation however, and I suspect that if this topic were opened up to entire congregations with only 15 minutes for each of these two perspectives -- I'd say that the simpler perspective would win the day. Meaning of course that the difference in "little flock" and "other sheep" is this: (Galatians 2:8) . . .for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . . I think Jesus pretty much gave away the answer when he said: (Matthew 15:24) He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (John 10:16) . . .And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in. . .