JW Insider

On 5/15/2016 at 10:44 PM, Jesus.defender said:

Not one of the men had ever studied Greek, and wouldn't know the difference between an alpha or a omega. Only three of the five had even finished high school. Of those three only one went on to College.

Franz was not the only one who had studied Greek. George Gangas was very fluent in Greek, and worked as a Greek translator and proofreader for a time, too. It's true that his native language was modern Greek, but he was fairly knowledgeable in koine Greek. (NT Greek). I spoke with him often, and even worked for a while in Athens helping the small branch there to set up a pre-production facility to help take some of the pressure off Brother Gangas who was getting too old to keep up with so much of the translating and proofreading work. Also, I worked with Bert Schroeder, who gave me full access to his own personal, office library to help with research projects. He called some of them his "college" books. Several of them were NT Greek grammars and lexicons and Greek W&H Bibles and Interlinears. Many of them had his own underlining and marks in the margins. It was obvious that he studied Greek seriously, at least on his own, and might have even had some related classes in college.

On 5/15/2016 at 10:44 PM, Jesus.defender said:

Why is it the writers of the New Testament books identified their authorship by their names, we know they were not seeking honor.

Most of the writers of the New Testament books did not identify their authorship, either. All four gospels, for example, are completely anonymous, and we only go by later "catholic" traditions to attach names to them. For example:

The book of Matthew is anonymous. It never claims to be written by a man named Matthew, and gives absolutely no clue about whether it was even written by one of the apostles. Naming it Matthew was based on the fact that the apostle named Matthew was rumored to have written a gospel account in Hebrew, which is lost. All we know is that this gospel that we call Matthew was NOT that gospel, nor was it a Greek translation of anything that had been previously written in Hebrew. Since we call it Matthew only because there might have been a lost gospel by Matthew, this might even be an indication that Matthew was one of the least likely authors. (Also, Jesus picked "unlettered and ordinary" men as apostles, and separate evidence shows that even tax collectors could also be illiterate, i.e., unlettered.)

Mark is also anonymous. No where in the book do we have any indication of who wrote it, nor does the Bible anywhere speak of Mark writing a gospel. Just like with Matthew, this tradition started long after the apostles had died. One of the reasons it is called Mark is because Mark is mentioned as a one-time traveling companion of Paul and if a book could not be assigned to an apostle, it had to be assigned to someone who had traveled with the apostles. An even later tradition has Mark traveling with Peter, based perhaps on the passage in Acts about when Paul and Barnabas had a fight over whether they should take Mark with them. (By the time the book was fully attributed to Mark, there already was a separate Gospel of Peter and a book from Barnabas, parts of which still survive, although very few people think Peter and Barnabas were the actual writers of those books.)

Luke does not claim to be the author of Luke, nor does anything in the book of Luke or elsewhere in the Bible identify him as the author. The same person wrote the book of Acts, which also does not identity Luke as the author. The author mentions that there are many others who have undertaken to write accurate gospels, including  those who had been eyewitnesses. The author of Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness. A traveling companion of Paul is very likely the author, and the Greek is excellent. So choosing to identify the physician Luke as the author makes sense. (Mark and Barnabas were already assigned to other books.) The author makes no claim as to having ever traveled with Paul, but the change of pronoun "we" the latter portion of the book of Acts is a good indication that it was someone who knew Paul and probably traveled with Paul. (Also note that Paul, when quoting material about the Lord's Evening Meal, comes closest to using the language of this gospel account that we call Luke.)

John is not only anonymous, it teases us about the authorship by saying it was from the disciple that Jesus loved. There is no evidence that this was written by a man named John, and the authorship of the book is often placed at the end of the first century or even later. The style of Greek and vocabulary indicates that the writer is the same as the the "older man" who wrote the anonymous letters that we call first, second and third John. But the Greek is very good and very different from the choppy and sometimes badly formed Greek in the book of Revelation. That's why "John" the author of Revelation is often not considered to be the same as the author of the anonymous gospel and anonymous letters that tradition has called John. If the John who identifies himself as the writer of Revelation is the apostle John, then this could indicate that the person who did not identify himself as the author of the gospel and letters would not be the apostle John, and vice versa.

Paul's letters are different. They are identified as having been written by Paul within the letters. The book of Hebrews is anonymous however, and this is why some would assign it to Apollos or Aquila or someone else. (Tertullian thought it was written by Barnabas. Hippolytus thought it was written by Clement of Rome. Origen thought it might be by either Clement or Luke.) James, Peter and Jude are also identified.

On 6/21/2016 at 8:27 AM, JW Insider said:

The Kingdom Signal is raised on high

I should have included another word that was often interchanged with "The Signal" which is "the standard." Rutherford, especially, did not mean "standard" in the usual sense of living up to certain standards, but used it with the definitions found here in Merriam- Webster:

Quote

 

Full Definition of standard

1. 1 :  a conspicuous object (as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle or to serve as an emblem

2. 2a :  a long narrow tapering flag that is personal to an individual or corporation and bears heraldic devicesb :  the personal flag of the head of a state or of a member of a royal familyc :  an organization flag carried by a mounted or motorized military unitd :  banner 1

 

Therefore, when Rutherford said the following at the convention in 1941, he tied it directly to the flags of nations:

"Then says the prophet of God further, "Lift up a standard for the people." What standard? Certainly not Hitler's swastika . . . Certainly not the flag of that religious institution . . . [Catholicism] . . . Now as for the flag of the United States, everyone here loves that flag and loves that for which it stands. And everyone here puts forth an honest and sincere endeavor to obey every law for which it stands. The standard that you lift up to the people, therefore, enables them to see the real meaning of the flag of the United States."

3 hours ago, HollyW said:

You don’t think that even in Matthew 24 it’s obvious the Master was going somewhere and that was why he put a servant in charge of his household?

Yes. Of course the Master was going somewhere and that was why he put a servant in charge. In the parable of the talents this is exactly what happens, too. In that parable he left in 33 CE and comes back in the future at the time of judgment (circa Armageddon). In the parable of the FDS (faithful slave), Jesus also goes somewhere in 33 CE and comes back for judgment (circa Armageddon). The idea, however, is that there was no need for a specific small group of anointed feeding a much larger group until the beginning of the last days, in the generation before the future judgment (circa Armageddon).

So Jesus has already left in 33 CE, which I think you agree with, but appoints the Governing Body 1,885 years later  (33 + 1885 = 1919). The FDS has a 1,885-year gap between the time Jesus left to go away and the time that there was a need for a Governing Body to be the faithful slave who feeds "at the proper time." The idea, I think, is that the proper time didn't come up until 1919. 

3 hours ago, HollyW said:

Of the six times 1914 appeared in the Greatest Man book, in the revised version of it, Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life---all of them have been removed.

You might have a point. But the book is something like a commentary or slightly more explanatory version of what Jesus said, and tries to stay close to the Bible's own context and time frame. But all of the books that are aimed at a younger audience have very few references to 1914. The "Insight" book hardly mentions it. The NWT Bible appendixes have never mentioned it until the 2013 revision. Several of the books and Watchtowers since 1979 have not mentioned it. The new "What Does the Bible Really Teach" book moves the 1914 chart to the back of the book so that it is only in an appendix.

At the same time, the 2014 book "God's Kingdom Rules" mentions the date 65 times. I agree that 2014 was a special year for mentioning 1914 and it has dropped off considerably in the Watchtowers of 2015 and 2016, so far.

3 hours ago, HollyW said:

You say it won’t run out until 2114 but both generation groups will have died well before then.  The first group has already passed away and the second group are no spring chickens.

It's the definition that allows for 2114 or thereabouts. No one said that Fred Franz was the last person of the first group, only that he represented an example of it. If a 10-year old was anointed in 1914 that means he was born in 1904. If he lived to be 110 that would be an example of a person in the first group living until 2014. The definition allows for a very short overlap to fit the idea of "contemporaries" between the two groups. That would mean that a person born in 2004 could technically be anointed at age 10 in 2014 and live to be 110 years old, dying in 2114. I admit that this is not very practical, but the definition allows for it.

I'm only trying to explain our current view. I realize that there appears to be many serious problems with the explanations and definitions.

In any event, I don't think we should deny that Jehovah God has been able to use the historical situation that especially arose in the era of the world wars to draw more attention and questions about the purpose of life. The world went for many years without enough questions and very few forms of Christianity were questioned until the Protestant Reformation. But that Reformation continued with many of the same problems and unchristian practices. I believe that worsening world conditions should be a driver that promotes Christianity as a serious international brotherhood, where we see love for one another, support for one another, refusal to get involved in the divisive politics of war and nationalism, and a lot of other ideas where the Witnesses take a proper stand. I don't judge other Christian-oriented religions that attempt the same thing, but I appreciate the opportunities given to me to help those related to me both in the flesh and those related to me in the faith.

Therefore, I'm not overly distracted by the chronological failures of our past. I think we can and should learn from them, but to me it has already lost its importance. I hope to be judged as a faithful Christian.

4 hours ago, HollyW said:

It's difficult enough to follow all the changes made to Matthew 24:45 without adding in another parable about the talents.

To be clear, I was saying that your question is good because it raised points about some chronological inconsistencies in our current explanations of (four) otherwise consistently-themed parables. I brought up the "talents" parable because the Watchtower brought it up, too, as part of the presentation about how these parables are related, but addressed to different groups. It's the idea that they are given to different groups that drives the differences in the chronology attached to each of them.

Also it's the "talents" parable that specifically mentions Jesus "going away." 

4 hours ago, HollyW said:

they don't know where Jesus went away to in 1919.

However, no one is claiming that Jesus went away anywhere in 1919. In all cases Jesus "went away" in 33 C.E. (just after his resurrection) which most Christian-oriented denominations will agree on. The Watchtower agrees, too.

The Watchtower freely admits that all these parables (4 of them) are related, but gives no reason why some are applied to one group of people and some applied to another. (With one exception.) In only one case is a new reason "hinted at" for applying one of those parables to a different group. Note:

*** w15 3/15 pp. 19-20 par. 3 Learn From the Illustration of the Talents ***
3 The parable of the talents is one of four related illustrations recorded at Matthew 24:45 to 25:46. The other three—about the faithful and discreet slave, the ten virgins, and the sheep and the goats—are also part of Jesus’ answer to the question about the sign of his presence. In all four illustrations, Jesus highlights traits that would distinguish his true followers in these last days. The illustrations about the slave, the virgins, and the talents are directed to his anointed followers. In the illustration involving the faithful slave, Jesus highlights the need for the small group of anointed ones entrusted with feeding his domestics during the last days to be faithful and discreet. In the parable of the virgins, Jesus stresses that all his anointed followers would need to be prepared and to be vigilant, knowing that Jesus is coming but not knowing the day or the hour. In the parable of the talents, Jesus shows that the anointed would need to be diligent in carrying out their Christian responsibilities. Jesus directs the final illustration, the parable of the sheep and the goats, to those with an earthly hope. He emphasizes that they would have to be loyal and give full support to Jesus’ anointed brothers on earth.* Let us now focus on the illustration of the talents.

The sentence containing: "they would have to be loyal and give full support to Jesus' anointed brothers on earth" is followed by a footnote that says:

The identity of the faithful and discreet slave is discussed in The Watchtower, July 15, 2013, pages 21-22, paragraphs 8-10. The identity of the virgins is explained in the preceding article in this magazine. The illustration of the sheep and the goats is explained in The Watchtower, October 15, 1995, pages 23-28, and in the article following this one in this magazine.

In other words, the "sheep" in the parable of the sheep and goats are thought to be the "other sheep" not sheep of the "little flock" because the parable speaks of the sheep doing good to Christ's "brothers" (Matthew 25:40) . . .‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ In the last days, this is explained to be loyalty and full support to the remnant of the anointed, meaning especially the "Governing Body." 

Because there was some reasoning given for identifying the addressees of one parable, I'm assuming that there might also be some reasoning behind the identification for the other parables, but that it was not yet given.

4 hours ago, HollyW said:

One is that these recent changes (including the ones in the Greatest Man book) are a prelude to dropping the 1914 date altogether.

Maybe. I don't see enough evidence for this. Maybe you have seen more.

I believe the new explanation of "this generation" that will not pass away can now allow for keeping 1914 until nearly 2114, another 100 years in the future. Over time, the problem becomes convincing others of the relevance of a date that no one really remembers. Of course, the end could also come any time between now and then which would provide a full resolution to that problem.

4 hours ago, HollyW said:

Does this mean there are going to be two different groups being identified as the faithful and discreet slave?

There already are two different groups identified as being "faithful slave(s)." One group is the class of "faithful slave" of the talents parable that includes all the anointed since 33 C.E. who have taken part in making disciples. The other group is the "Governing Body" since 1919 who are identified as the class of "faithful slave(s)" who have been providing the domestics with food at the proper time. Of course, technically, there is a third class of "faithful slave(s)" because Paul evidently applied the expression in general to all Christians when he said:

(1 Corinthians 4:2) . . . Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful.

Paul's traveling companion, Luke, refers to the "faithful and discreet slave" as the "faithful steward." (NWT)

(Luke 12:42) . . .“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?

It's a good question. I would agree that the original reason for starting that the FDS was appointed in 33 CE was exactly as you have stated. Jesus in a very similar parable of the silver "talents" (Luke 19:11-27, and Matthew 25:14-30) said that he was going away in order to secure a kingdom. (And we explain this as having taken place when Jesus ascended to heaven in 33 CE.)

In that parable of the talents he said that, while the master as away, some would be faithful slaves with respect to their current appointment, and some would be unfaithful. When the master returned, the faithful ones would be appointed over something greater, but the unfaithful would lose everything. 

This is almost parallel to Matthew 24:45-51, where the faithful slave is given an assignment to handle while the master was away. When the master got back the faithful slave would be appointed over something greater. The unfaithful would lose everything. In fact, Luke 12:41-49 is Luke's version of the FDS parable in Matthew 24:45, and it is even a more exact parallel to the Luke 19 parable, where there are different levels of reward/punishment in each.

Both of them (FDS & talents) could be called "the parable of the faithful slave." But really they about both the "faithful and the unfaithful slave."

In both parables, per our latest explanation, Jesus goes away in 33 CE. In both cases the judging is now considered to be future, when he arrives for judgment day. Just because we used to teach that the judgment began in 1918 (then 1919) doesn't mean that Jesus had gone at some time other than 33 CE. Now we teach that the judgment is future, even though we once believed that this judgment that allowed the appointment over all the belongings was in 1918/9. That was true of both parables:

*** w87 8/1 p. 16 par. 5 Christ’s Active Leadership Today ***
The modern history of God’s people shows that this time of accounting came in 1918-19. The parable of the talents illustrates how the Master would settle accounts with the remnant of his anointed slaves.

The only "discrepancy" is that the Watchtower has changed the timing of the appointment in Matthew 24 (and therefore Luke 12) for the faithful slave to begin in 1919, but has not changed the appointment for the faithful slave in Luke 19. The faithful slave of Luke 19 still begins the appointment in 33 CE, and is still considered to be the entire "little flock." The FDS change that was made in 2013 now says that the FDS was appointed in 1919 instead of the older explanation: 33 CE. And the change now says that it's the Governing Body since 1919 instead of the older explanation: the "little flock" since 33 CE. 

The discrepancy this created in 2013 was partly addressed in the Watchtower in 2015. Note that the 33 CE date doesn't change, however:

*** w89 10/1 p. 8 The Illustration of the Minas ***
The slave with ten minas pictures a class, or group, of disciples from Pentecost 33 C.E. until now that includes the apostles.

*** w15 3/15 pp. 20-21 pars. 6-8 Learn From the Illustration of the Talents ***
Hence, shortly after his resurrection and before his ascension to heaven, he gave his disciples the weighty commission: “Go, therefore, and make disciples.” (Matt. 28:18-20) Jesus thus entrusted them with a precious treasure, the Christian ministry.—2 Cor. 4:7.
7 What, then, may we conclude? When giving his followers the commission to make disciples, Jesus was, in effect, committing to them “his belongings”—his talents. (Matt. 25:14) Put simply, the talents refer to the responsibility to preach and make disciples.
8 The parable of the talents reveals that the master gave to one slave five talents, to another two, and to still another just one. (Matt. 25:15) Although each slave received a different number, the master expected all of them to be diligent in using the talents, that is, in serving to the best of their ability in the ministry. (Matt. 22:37; Col. 3:23) In the first century, starting at Pentecost 33 C.E., Christ’s followers began doing business with the talents.

The 33 CE date doesn't change because we currently treat the illustration of the talents in Matthew 25 (Luke 19) as if it is to a different audience than the parallel illustration of the "FDS" in Matthew 24 (Luke 12).

But the judgment that used to be in the past for both parables, is now future for both parables:

*** w15 3/15 p. 23 par. 11 Learn From the Illustration of the Talents ***
Hence, when Jesus said that “the master of those slaves came and settled accounts,” he was evidently referring to the time when he will come to execute judgment at the end of this system.

The question about why one of these is important to 1919 and one of them is not, is still a good question. The only explanation so far is that they are simply addressing two different groups of faithful slaves - and that we need not be concerned about anything specific regarding the fulfillment for the unfaithful slaves.

So the question is good because it makes us think about why we put different dates on one illustration and not the other. I don't think we've given a reason for that yet, but if and when the closeness of the parallels among the related parables are discussed, I would think that a further explanation should also be forthcoming.

12 hours ago, The Librarian said:

Maybe @JW Insider will know when exactly this began to change.

Not really. But I know that Brother Rutherford made a point to speak often of "The Signal" which technically meant the Kingdom that started in 1914. The "Signal" was always described exactly the same as a 'a flag.' Even under Brother Knorr's administration, we sang about "The Signal" in several of the Kingdom Songs up until 1966 (the year before I was baptized). I still remember singing about "the glorious Signal raised" in Kingdom songs, and it was clear that this was the equivalent of 'our flag.' But it was a flag for a 'new nation' born in 1914, without regard to earthly political divisions. Even our Supreme Court arguments about the flag in the 1940's included this idea that we look to a 'flag' that supersedes the flags of nations.

• *** w50 3/15 p. 92 ***   for everywhere and in every language Jehovah’s people were holding high the Signal.

• *** w50 10/1 p. 350 par. 4 “Droop Not Your Hands” ***   It has drawn them to the heavenly Signal, the Kingdom, and has unified them all over the earth, in utter contempt of the racial, color, social, language, political, national, and religious differences and divisions of this world.

The problem was that so many talks and Watchtower articles always tied the "Kingdom" ("The Signal") right back to the Watch Tower organization, as the visible head of that Kingdom that we must "obey". In Brother Rutherford's time it was common to put into print that 'obedience to the [Watch Tower] Society was the same as obedience to the Lord.' (One "Bulletin" [which became "The Informant" which become "The Kingdom Ministry" which became "Our Kingdom Service"] actually said that 'obedience to Brother Rutherford was the same as obedience to the Lord.') I don't recall this idea being stated so directly after Rutherford died, but it was still the idea during the time of Brother Knorr. In a talk he referred to the idea that the Society was the "signal-bearer" and we were like rank-and-file soldiers walking in "lockstep" with the Society.

This hearkens back to the idea under Russell when he was asked if he himself was the "faithful and wise servant" and he would say that "'Some say I am, while some say the Society is.' Both statements were true for Brother Russell was in fact the Society."  -- Watchtower, March 1, 1923, p.68

This idea is still fairly obvious in the 1950 Watchtower, quoted below, nearly a decade after Brother Rutherford died. The "sign" or "signal" of the Kingdom was the fact that "miracles" were being wrought spiritually through the earthly, visible part of the Kingdom. The Society was thought of as a "living servant." It was the real representative of the "anointed remnant."

• *** w50 8/1 pp. 231-232 pars. 2-4 Servant’s Care of the Master’s Goods ***   The Kingdom Signal is raised on high, the road prepared for the returning exiles. The sheep are protected against aggressive and ruthless men, and those who would harm their eternal interests. The barren places in the world are blossoming, for where only a few years ago one or two persons were praising Jehovah now there are hundreds, yes, and thousands. The eyes of the blind are being opened, the ears of the deaf unstopped, the tongue of the dumb loosened, and the lame can leap. These miracles are now being wrought in the spiritual sense, but in the new world they will be realized in a very literal manner.  Other interests (“goods”) of the Kingdom are also receiving the most careful, thoughtful and thorough attention, for the whole structure of the Lord’s visible organization is watched and weak parts continually strengthened. The very charter of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society was brought up to date, and so the Society was made a more direct, living part and a powerful, usable instrument. Then there are the interests of organizing and directing all the branches, missionary homes, Watchtower School of Gilead, radio station, Kingdom farms, circuits and districts, all the assemblies, companies, pioneers, public witness service, Bible studies, Theocratic ministry school. There are many more new world interests which are “goods” or “possessions” placed in the care of the “servant” Yes, these “goods” have been placed under the jurisdiction of the anointed remnant with its legal governing body operating through the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. No one else in the whole world has been given or made responsible for these possessions, nor given the authority to direct and handle such interests. To some readers this may seem a hard statement; but it is the truth, and is made for the protection of the Lord’s “other sheep”, that they may recognize this “faithful and wise servant” and know the “master” has confidence in his discharging faithfully what has been entrusted. Therefore, see now the progressive works of the returned Master in using his faithful people. If we see these things it becomes our bounden duty to cooperate with this servant to receive favor.

The 1978 "Victorious Faith" International Conventions blended the theme of putting faith in Jehovah as the same as putting faith in the organization, although this is not as closely related to "flag" allegiance as is "bounden duty" and "cooperation" mentioned above.

• *** w79 3/1 p. 18 par. 20 Faith in Jehovah’s Victorious Organization ***   So Jehovah’s visible organization came off victorious once again to his vindication. For dedicated, baptized persons to share in that victory, what did it take? Faith in Jehovah’s theocratic organization. Did the remnant of spiritual Israelites and their theocratic companions, the “great crowd” of Christ’s “other sheep,” have such victorious faith? Yes!

The more recent change in the July 15, 2013 Watchtower about the "faithful slave" not yet being appointed over all the belongings was the first major adjustment to idea of the "given authority" of the 'faithful slave.'

• *** w13 7/15 p. 8 par. 17 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***    In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (Mal. 3:1) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. . . . So it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings, mentioned at Matthew 24:46, 47, also applies to his future coming, during the great tribulation.

But the new idea about authority "over all his belongings" being future, probably has very little impact on the ongoing idea of "obedience" and "loyalty" to the visible authority of the "faithful slave." We don't use the term, but those words together are exactly the same as "allegiance." In effect, we 'pledge allegiance to the anointed remnant as represented through the governing body.' The terms are a little different today, because we tend to remove the idea of "The Society" and "The Watch Tower" from the equation. But since most of the "anointed remnant" are considered to be in the same "fold" as the "other sheep" from a practical standpoint, we can't avoid the idea that our obedience [allegiance] is still to the governing body which is still associated with the "Society." That's why we still get counsel such as the following:

• *** w15 3/15 p. 29 par. 17 Loyally Supporting Christ’s Brothers ***    The growing number of prospective sheep count it a privilege to support Christ’s brothers not only in the preaching work but also in other practical ways. For example, they give financial contributions and help to build Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls, and branch facilities, and they loyally obey those appointed by “the faithful and discreet slave” to take the lead.—Matt. 24:45-47; Heb. 13:17.

• *** w14 8/15 p. 21 par. 2 Hear Jehovah’s Voice Wherever You Are ***    In effect, Jesus also conveys Jehovah’s voice to us as he directs the congregation through “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45) We need to take this guidance and direction seriously, for our everlasting life depends on our obedience.—Heb. 5:9.

So the idea from a practical standpoint hasn't changed even if the wording has been transformed from "Watch Tower Society" to "governing body" and from "flag" to words meaning the same as "allegiance."

Rattlesnakes???

On 6/15/2016 at 4:33 PM, Queen Esther said:

I copied alot old theocratic things too !

Thanks for posting.

Just did a little more research on this picture and found information on line that seems to be true:

Standing left to right: Ernest Wilson V. Kuehn; Dr. Leslie W. Jones; Gen. William P. Hall; Professor Frederick H. Robison; Robert B. Maxwell; J. T. D. Pyles.  The three men without "titles" were all wealthy merchants.  Kuehn was a seed company owner from Toledo, who was the country's foremost expert on clover.  Maxwell was a well-to-do mercantile storeowner and bank boardmember from Mansfield, Ohio.  Pyles was the Washington D.C. owner of one of the largest chain of grocery stores the country.  Interestingly, Maxwell died only a few weeks after returning from the World Tour . . .

Kuehn, Jones, and Robison eventually disassociated themselves from the Watch Tower Society after Russell's death. However, to the best of my knowledge, when William Preble Hall died in 1927, he was still loyal to the Watch Tower Society. . . . 

General William Preble Hall was not only a career officer in the United States Military, but in fact, during the time Hall was an active member of the Watch Tower Society, Hall held the rank of Brigadier General, plus he served as ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERAL at military headquarters in Washington D.C.  In fact, while General Hall was on the Watch Tower World Tour, his boss General Ainsworth took early retirement, and General Hall was appointed to run the U. S. Military as its ADJUTANT GENERAL until Hall's own scheduled retirement in June 1912.

And much more, of course. The source of this is easily found, but not friendly to Witnesses, so I won't provide the direct link.

On 6/15/2016 at 4:23 PM, The Librarian said:

@JW Insider might have more details to add to my simple explanation above

Thanks. But rather than add details to the history of the how the term "governing body" has been used through the years among "Russellite" Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd like to add some information about this picture.

CORRECTION TO THE "CAPTION"

This is not the "governing body." The "governing body" in 1911, when the picture was taken, would have included the following, who are mentioned in the October 1, 1911 Watchtower that year (and none of them except Russell are in the picture):

The following officers were elected to serve during the ensuing year [1911-1912]: President, Pastor C. T. Russell, of Brooklyn and London; Vice-President, A. I. Ritchie, of Ontario, Canada; Secretary, E. W. Brenneisen, of Texas; Treasurer, W. E. Van Amburgh.

The picture is in the "Library of Congress" collection, and was taken in 1911 (perhaps even 1912) as the "Missions Investigating Committee" who would travel the world on a cruise with C. T. Russell. A highlight of that tour was to include a visit to the Great Pyramid at Giza. Originally the idea was to include the persons mentioned in this quote from the same Watch Tower of October 1, 1911:

Following this Pastor Russell will go on a world's tour and a committee has been selected to accompany him on his journey. The persons invited to serve on this committee are Major-General W. P. Hall, U.S.A.; Mr. E. W. V. Kuehn, of Toledo; Mr. J. T. D. Pyles, of Washington, D.C., and Mr. Charles F. Anderson, of Baltimore, Md. Not all of these gentlemen have positively accepted the responsibilities of this service, but it is confidently expected that they will accept. As the Association pays no salaries, the invitation carries with it the responsibility of all providing for their own expenses.

Evidently, Charles Anderson did not go, but the April 15, 1912 report from the committee includes the following names (also quoted on page 87 of Watson's Magazine June 1914).

In conclusion, your Committee assure you that they have done their very best to accomplish the purpose of their appointment. They thank the Lord, and also the Association, for the great privileges enjoyed in connection with the service.

C. T. RUSSELL, Pres.

Adj.-Gen'l W. P. HALL

F. H. ROBISON, Sec'y

J. T. D. PYLES

E. W. V. KUEHN

R. B. MAXWELL

DR. LESLIE W. JONES

If you replace F.H.Robison with Professor F. B. Thompson, this list is the same as the people in the picture. A "Dr. Thompson" had provided reports from the "Holy Land" that had been printed earlier in the Watchtower from a trip several years before.  I believe it is also the same "Thompson" who also joined Russell on another trip to the "Holy Land" from when he was living in Australia, and who stayed on as a colporteur in Jerusalem. As late as 1910, he was still mentioned in the Watchtower as doing this work in Australia. (It also might be worth looking into to see whether the picture really shows F. H. Robison, but is mislabeled as F. B. Thompson, who had perhaps joined them on only a portion of the trip but wasn't available for the picture.)

Here are some more complete versions of their names: Ernest Wilson V. Kuehn, General William Preble Hall, Robert B. Maxwell, J.T.D. Pyles, Dr. Leslie W. Jones, and Professor F. B. Thompson.

Here is a picture of General Hall with his medals:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/William_Preble_Hall.jpg/330px-William_Preble_Hall.jpg

A Watch Tower article mentioned his talk at an assembly without his medals:

September 1 was the opening day. General W. P. Hall, U.S.A., gave the opening address, which was quite pithy and to the point, as might have been expected from our famous Philippine warrior. Stripped of his epaulets and honor medals the General looked every inch a preacher. It is said that his Philippine experiences had considerable to do with bringing General Hall into the ranks of Bible Students. His glimpse of heathendom convinced him that the world needs the Kingdom of God's Son, in power and great glory, to accomplish among men things which no human arm or human tongue can bring to pass.

J. T. D. Pyles owned stores in Washington D.C. They are advertised in the Washington Herald in January 1917, for example as "all the stores of J T D Pyles."  I assume they were food stores, because he lost a case against the Attorney General in D.C. for selling adulterated lard. In 1916, after Russell died, he wrote an article that was printed in the Watchtower:

BY J.T.D. PYLES--WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the city of Washington, whence I came, there are many sad hearts today, on account of the loss sustained in the death of our Beloved Pastor. . . . I have known Brother Russell intimately for twenty years. He has many times been a guest at my home, and I have also been a guest at his home. I was privileged to be associated with him for four months in a tour around the world;

One would not likely be wrong if they get the general impression that the names listed for the trip (and those assigned to the funeral arrangements) were financially well-to-do. The names of Kuehn, Jones and Pyles show up again for the funeral arrangement committee for C. T. Russell in 1916.

On a personal note, Dr. Leslie Jones was a friend of my great-grandfather and a friend of the family for a few years. He also handled stenography when traveling with Russell and Rutherford -- even Sister Rutherford, too, on additional occasions. (My great-grandfather joined Russell on the speaking circuit out of the Bible Students' "Chicago Temple." He didn't die until the 1960's but I was too young to ask him the kinds of questions I would ask today.)

On 6/10/2016 at 8:59 PM, Colin Thorpe said:

let the bible speak 1Tim 2:5,6

Most of us are not fully aware that Jesus is not our mediator unless we profess to be of the anointed class, the 144,000.

The Watchtower only used the word "mediator" with reference to Jesus Christ once in all of 2015, only a couple of times in 2014, never even once in 2013, once in 2012, and never once in 2011.

*** w15 1/15 p. 16 par. 14 Why We Observe the Lord’s Evening Meal ***
Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant, and loyal anointed ones taken into it receive a heavenly inheritance.—Heb. 8:6; 9:15.

*** w14 10/15 p. 16 pars. 12-13 You Will Become “a Kingdom of Priests” ***
Moses was the mediator of the former covenant; Jesus is the Mediator of the new one. . . .
13 The new covenant relates to the Kingdom in that it produces a holy nation that has the privilege of becoming kings and priests in that heavenly Kingdom.

*** w13 *** NO MENTION

*** w12 1/15 p. 16 par. 1 Learn From ‘the Framework of Truth’ ***
Paul explained that the tabernacle was merely “a shadow of the heavenly things” and that Jesus became the Mediator of “a better covenant” than that mediated by Moses.

*** w11 *** NO MENTION

Other interesting mentions:

*** w10 3/15 p. 27 One Flock, One Shepherd ***
Jesus is the Mediator of that covenant, not a participant. As the Mediator, he evidently did not partake of the emblems.

*** w09 4/15 p. 27 Appreciating the Greater Moses ***
Value Christ as Mediator
14 Like Moses, Jesus was a mediator. A mediator acts as a bridge between two parties. Moses mediated the Law covenant between Jehovah and the Israelites. . . . In 33 C.E., Jehovah initiated a better covenant with a new Israel, “the Israel of God,” which became a worldwide congregation made up of anointed Christians. (Gal. 6:16) While the covenant mediated by Moses included laws written by God on stone, the covenant mediated by Jesus is superior. . . . Thus, “the Israel of God” is now God’s special property, ‘a nation producing the fruits’ of the Messianic Kingdom. (Matt. 21:43) Members of that spiritual nation are the participants in that new covenant.

*** w08 12/15 pp. 13-14 Appreciate Jesus’ Unique Role in God’s Purpose ***
“The Mediator of a New Covenant”
11 Read 1 Timothy 2:5, 6. Jesus is the “one mediator between God and men.” He is “the mediator of a new covenant.” (Heb. 9:15; 12:24) . . .The original-language word translated “mediator” is a legal term. It refers to Jesus as a legal Mediator (or, in a sense, an attorney) of the new covenant that made possible the birth of a new nation, “the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16) This nation is composed of spirit-anointed Christians, who form a heavenly “royal priesthood.” (1 Pet. 2:9; Ex. 19:6) . . . What does Jesus’ role as Mediator involve? Well, Jehovah applies the value of Jesus’ blood to those being brought into the new covenant. In this way, Jehovah legally credits them with righteousness. (Rom. 3:24; Heb. 9:15) God can then take them into the new covenant with the prospect of their becoming heavenly king-priests! As their Mediator, Jesus assists them in maintaining a clean standing before God.—Heb. 2:16.

One morning, at breakfast at Brooklyn Bethel, Brother Franz was exceedingly angry and the subject caught a lot of Bethelites by surprise. I saw a lot of people who were half asleep quickly perk up their heads when he said that there were certain people around who would merge everyone together and make Jesus the mediator of every Tom, Dick and Harry. That's because even most Bethelites thought that Jesus was our mediator. The teaching hadn't changed, but an article had come out just a few weeks earlier that clarified in more explicit terms that that Jesus was NOT the mediator for the "other sheep" (or "great crowd").

This was actually one of Brother Franz' favorite topics. He often reminded us that the Christian Greek Scriptures were only written for the anointed, and not the other sheep. He recalled the time in a similar speech, when only the anointed were called "Jehovah's Witnesses." He often hinted that he had held onto the teaching that the both Jesus and the anointed were "The Christ." This was a teaching that was started around 1879 and not changed officially until around 1961, if I remember right. Jesus was the "head" of the Christ, and the anointed were the "body" of the Christ. But without all 144,001 there was no Christ.

On a personal note, when they stopped mentioning this idea much after 2008, I thought it was about to be changed. (In the past, not mentioning a doctrine for over a year was considered to be a strong hint that a doctrine was about to be changed, or at least was under discussion for a change.) 2008 was the year that a couple of other doctrines were changed, too.

If there have been any recent hints that it would be reconsidered, I have missed them. It looks like a lot of people will remain a bit confused as to why Paul (in 1 Timothy 2:5,6) uses the expression the way he does.

Officially, our teaching is still as follows:

*** w79 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** 

Is Jesus the “mediator” only for anointed Christians?   At a time when God was selecting those to be taken into that new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote that Christ was the “one mediator between God and men.” (1 Tim. 2:5) Reasonably Paul was here using the word “mediator” in the same way he did the other five times, which occurred before the writing of 1 Timothy 2:5, referring to those then being taken into the new covenant for which Christ is “mediator.” So in this strict Biblical sense Jesus is the “mediator” only for anointed Christians.

*** w79 11/15 pp. 24-25 pars. 12-13 Benefiting from “One Mediator Between God and Men” ***
12 So Jesus Christ in heaven is the Mediator between God and the spiritual Israelites, while these are still in the flesh as men and women. Even within the membership limits of this small “holy nation” the mediatorship of Jesus Christ has expanded, for God has followed a certain order in admitting classes of persons into the new covenant. Thus, for about a year from Pentecost of 33 C.E., Jesus was the Mediator of only those spiritual Israelites who had been fleshly Jews or circumcised Jewish proselytes. About 3,000 of these were added to spiritual Israel on that day of Pentecost, 33 C.E. (Acts 2:10, 37-41) Then, likely in the following year (34 C.E.) as a side effect of the persecution by Saul of Tarsus, the “good news” about the Christ was preached in Samaria and the holy spirit ‘fell upon’ the baptized believers there. (Acts 8:15-17) From then on the mediatorship of Jesus was widened out to benefit spiritual Israelites who had been men and women of Samaria, Samaritans.
13 Two years now pass. Finally, in the autumn of 36 C.E., or three and a half years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, he begins to be mediator to a third class of spiritual Israelites, those taken out from the uncircumcised Gentiles, beginning with the Italian centurion, Cornelius.

*** w79 11/15 p. 26 par. 20 Benefiting from “One Mediator Between God and Men” ***
20 What, then, is Christ’s role in this program of salvation? Paul proceeds to say: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men [not, all men], a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”—1 Tim. 2:5, 6.

The part I marked in red, is not something added here for this post, but was included in the original 1979 WT (although not in red). This caused a lot of discussion at Bethel, and tended to put a lot of people on the interrogation block. I think that Brother Franz (FWF) reaction to the questions and discussion that came up around this point was probably the core of the "apostasy" and why it affected so many dozens of Bethelites in 1979 and 1980.

Pretty funny. Clark-Kent-styled  brother gets "whomped" by the bully. Getting clothing or a magazine stuck in a slammed door is an often told story, sometimes with a happier ending. Those records were rather brittle though. A little reminder of why either brothers or sisters shouldn't work alone in service is included. In those days it was much more common though.

On 6/10/2016 at 2:37 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin.

This is very true. The types of sins that usually result in disfellowshipping are typically related to immorality or "uncleanness," but, in my experience, there are very few times when it's only one "instance" of immorality. However, even if the "instances" are in the past, and are expected to never be repeated, it's still often a matter of whether there was some "scandal" that has to be addressed even if only known by very few. There is a level of repentance shown, just by the fact that the person has met with a judicial committee. The person could have chosen to ignore the congregational judicial process.

There is still the issue of consistency, too. Some elders are more "judicious" than others. A person who is caught smoking (tobacco and/or nicotane-based) cigarettes, for example, can claim it was just a temporary slip-up, and this is treated with much more leniency than in the past. But this leniency can be abused, and even become an excuse for potentially unrepentant slip-ups that are always "forgiven."

Eoin,

My mistake. Yes. Trying to work too much from an old man's memory these days.

Met some of my very best friends in this building. I went to the Kingdom Hall here (1976-1980), and had the 'Book Study' down the block at the brownstone of a Witness family. (They also had a house in the Hamptons, where I learned to water ski. I met some great friends of theirs through whom I even met my wife!!) 

Although I had a beautiful room in the corner of the Towers Hotel, I decided to move down to the room next door to the Gilead Library on the 3rd floor. Most of the floor was reserved for Gilead Students, and this was a great group to study with. I often spent nearly the entire night in the Gilead Library, so this new room was perfect. Another brother had also given me 24 access to his office library which was just one floor away downstairs. (I'm still the kind of nerd who dreams of living in a library.)

Another memory is the one night that the Hotel Margaret, next door, burned down in a 5-alarm blaze when the weather was so cold that the firetrucks tried to spray it with water but ended up spraying it with "snow." I was on the third floor, but some of the windows on the first and second floor (Service Department) were either broken or had holes in them from melting.

I believe that we are often quick to condone everything that the "judges" did, just because their efforts were blessed, even though it is obvious that many of them behaved against the laws of Moses, or against decency.

In any event his faith was rewarded, but I believe that many of the judges acted with a "zeal towards God, but not according to accurate knowledge." The reason I say this is that we are forced to assume one of two choices:

1. That he treated his daughter as slave property, and deprived her of the blessing of freedom, marriage, childbearing. He went against Jehovah's purpose to "become many and fill the earth." This purpose was repeated for the increase of all of Abraham's seed, of which Jepthah and his daughter were a part.
2. That he offered his daughter up as a burnt sacrifice. What is most odd about the account, is that it uses those words about a "burnt sacrifice," and yet offers absolutely no hint that it wasn't true. (We only believe it wasn't true because this choice is even more repugnant than the first choice.)

I've never been a fan of making up a story that isn't in the Bible in order to make a Bible account seem more palatable. When Israelites chop up a woman and send the body parts in packages, we can't do much with it because the account is too clear and we are not defending a specific person. But when David has people burned in furnaces and sawed asunder, we need to make up a story to exonerate him. Jepthah is "rewarded" for his sacrifice (his daughter's sacrifice) and it may have reminded people of how Abraham had been willing to kill his son because Jehovah told him to. He is listed in Hebrews like this:

• (Hebrews 11:32-34) . . .For time will fail me if I go on to relate about Gidʹe·on, Baʹrak, Samson, Jephʹthah, David, as well as Samuel and the other prophets. 33 Through faith they defeated kingdoms, brought about righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from a weak state were made powerful, became mighty in war, routed invading armies.

Not everything we can read about the "Judges" is supposed to be "100% pure." Gilead was of course, Jephthah's father, and Gilead had fathered Jephthah by a prostitute, even though his wife bore Gilead other sons. Judge Eglon's method of assassinating Ehud appears to be a bit "left-handed." Gideon seems intent on putting Jehovah to the test. Samson was the closest equivalent to an ancient suicide bomber. Barak had almost wiped out an entire army with the sword, but the main honor went to a woman who killed the escaping general when he was asleep by driving a tent pin through his head. The Israelites sang a song with lyrics that sounded like "Mac the Knife" (or the Beatle's version of that song, called "Maxwell's Silver Hammer").

• (Judges 5:24-30) . . .Most blessed of women is Jaʹel The wife of Heʹber the Kenʹite; She is most blessed of women living in tents. 25 He asked for water; she gave him milk. In a majestic banquet bowl she offered curdled milk. 26 With her hand she reached for the tent pin, Her right hand for the workman’s mallet. And she hammered Sisʹe·ra, she crushed his head, And she smashed and pierced his temples. 27 Between her feet he collapsed; he fell and lay still; Between her feet he collapsed and fell; Where he collapsed, there he fell defeated. 28 From the window a woman looked out, Sisʹe·ra’s mother peered out from the lattice, ‘Why is his chariot delayed in coming? Why are the hoofbeats of his chariots so late?’ 29 The wisest of her noble ladies would answer her; Yes, she too would repeat to herself,  ‘They must be dividing the spoil they found, A girl, two girls, to every warrior,. . .

Back home they assumed the delay was due to Sisera's army finding a lot of virgins as spoils of war. Little did Sisera's mother know that, yes, he was in a tent with a woman, and even "between the feet" of a woman. ("Between the feet" is Hebrew sexual euphemism. -- Ruth/Moab, etc.) But the delay was not due to despoiling girls. It's really a powerful "feminist" song that was sung from the time that Deborah was a female judge in Israel. The song itself is about warriors who "let their hair down."

• (Judges 5:1-3) 5 On that day Debʹo·rah along with Baʹrak the son of A·binʹo·am sang this song:  2 “Because of the unbound hair in Israel, . . . To Jehovah I will sing. I will sing praises to Jehovah, Israel’s God.

None of these stories actually mean that Jehovah approved of violence. An angel could have silently killed an army of 185,000 in one night as happened under Sennacherib.

And it's quite possible that Israelites had understood (or misunderstood) the law to include the possibility of putting humans to death by stoning, or even by fire and sacrifice, not just lawbreakers, but things they "owned" such as houses, sons, daughters, and slaves. Note that the law allowed for Jepthah's situation to be taken care of by substituting the human for a price if it was a "special" vow. But if it was an unconditional vow, there was not price and the human had to be killed:

• (Leviticus 27:1-29) 27 Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘If a man makes a special vow to offer the estimated value of a person to Jehovah, 3 the estimated value of a male from 20 to 60 years old will be 50 shekels of silver by the standard shekel of the holy place. 4 But if it is a female, the estimated value will be 30 shekels. . . . 8 But if he is too poor to pay the estimated value, the person will stand before the priest, and the priest will set a value on him. The priest will make the valuation according to what the one making the vow can afford. 9 “‘If the vow involves an animal that is suitable for offering to Jehovah, whatever may be given to Jehovah will become something holy. 10 He may not replace it or exchange it with good for bad or with bad for good. But if he should exchange it with one animal for another animal, the original and what is exchanged for it will both become holy. . . . 14 “‘Now if a man should sanctify his house as something holy to Jehovah,. . . 16 “‘If a man sanctifies to Jehovah some of the field that he possesses, . . .  22 “‘If a man sanctifies to Jehovah a field he purchased that is not part of his hereditary property, . . .  28 “‘But no devoted thing that a man devotes unconditionally to Jehovah from his belongings may be sold or bought back, whether from mankind or animals or the field he possesses. Every devoted thing is something most holy to Jehovah. 29 Furthermore, no condemned person who is set apart for destruction may be redeemed. He should be put to death without fail.

The Law doesn't always seem fair to our sensibilities today. We would likely rebel even if we were given the job of putting someone's eye out, as punishment for someone who had put out someone else's eye, even accidentally. It's very common to re-write the story of Jephthah's daughter according to our our modern sensibilities, too. The re-written story is preferable and easier to explain. Most Christian groups tell it this way. But those who were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements in ancient times, the Jews, apparently hadn't  been as bothered by the implications of the story of Jephthah. The sub-moral was the danger of a rash, unconditional vow. More modern scholars have been concerned to interpret it in an easier way.

I hope the "easier" version is correct. But it would be just one of many such "difficulties" and I don't think it's our job to rewrite all of them. Our job is to trust Jehovah's justice in the long run. What he allowed in the past can be fixed in his own time.

Admittedly this is based on the Watchtower's understanding of the relationship between God and Christ. Elsewhere you you claim that Christ is 100% God and 100% man, and obviously this is not something we agree upon. The Father does not have a God, because he is God. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ has a God, namely the Father. The Father is greater than the Lord Jesus Christ. The Christ pleased God by what he did. Christ belongs to God. 

You know that non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians can go back and forth on Scripture quoting all day, and I don't intend to. But I will just limit myself to one book of the Bible to make this point about the relationship between God and Christ.

(1 Corinthians 1:3) 3 May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible often says God has a Son, it never says God has a Father.

(1 Corinthians 1:9) 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

(1 Corinthians 1:24) . . .Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Notice the comparison:

(1 Corinthians 3:23) 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God.

(1 Corinthians 2:16) 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah [Lord, Isaiah 40:13, YHWH] , so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

If Jesus were Jehovah then why would Paul draw a distinguishing comparison about not knowing YHWH from Isaiah 40:13, yet adding "But we do have the mind of Christ"?

Why does Paul need to emphasize that only the Father is God?

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) 4 Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

(1 Corinthians 11:3) . . .But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.

(1 Corinthians 15:23-28) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

If Jesus is 100% God, then why is the Bible always so careful to show that Jesus fully represents God to us, but that he is never called "God" anywhere, with only some possible exceptions in the book of John. I'm sure you think we misinterpret these two or three verses in John, the same way we believe you probably misinterpret the hundreds of verses such as those taken from 1 Corinthians, above. We understand it to be saying that "The Word" represents God so closely that he becomes God to us, probably in the same relationship that Moses had with Aaron. Aaron, in effect, spoke for the God, Moses.

(Exodus 4:16) 16 He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him.

(Exodus 7:1, 2) 7 Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you like God to Pharʹaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. 2 You are to repeat everything that I will command you, and Aaron your brother will speak. . .

Therefore, I am not trying to say that John 1:1 is only using the poetic license to call the Word, God. And I'm not one to be concerned about whether it is capitalized or not. (There was no capitalization required in Greek, anyway.)

(John 1:14-18) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. . . . 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.

Still, even in John there is a kind of hesitation to speak of Jesus as "fully" God: "no man has seen God" but "the only-begotten god... has explained him." To me, it's as if it's saying that -- for all intents and purposes as far as humans can perceive -- the Word is so close to a full representation of God that we can now know God fully through the manifestation of the Son of God, who is not God, but for our purposes, might as well be because he has done such a perfect job representing him.

In other words, I don't believe that Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians need to be so far off from understanding each other. Both of us try to manage our interpretation of all the Scriptures, and I don't think we should blame Trinitarians as much as we often do for their interpretation, but I, naturally, don't think that we should be blamed for our interpretation either.

The reason I went through all of that [off-topic discussion of beliefs about the Trinity or Christ's divinity] is because we see such a close relationship between the Father and the Son. Therefore, we don't see the conflict in NT writers choosing verses that were originally about YHWH (Jehovah) and using them to tell us something about the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, Jesus said that he made God's "name" known. Jesus' name contains the name "Jehovah" in it's very meaning: "YHWH is salvation." It was the will of YHWH (Jehovah) that Jesus' name be known far and wide, above all other names on earth. But "name" also means reputation, and Jesus made known the reputation of YHWH by becoming the "power of God" and the "wisdom of God." Since there is only, to us, one God, the Father, (1 Cor 8:6)  this means that acknowledging the name of Jesus is also the same as bending to the power and wisdom of the Father. I understand that the verse in Joel has been used with reference to a context about Jesus Christ, but it also doesn't bother me that the NWT more accurately reflects of the original Hebrew of Joel's words. It would mean the same to me either way.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You cannot introduce something else that has no relevance to the topic we are discussing

True. I shouldn't have done that. When I wrote it I was thinking it was relevant to the idea of comparing how and why people have added to the Bible text based on their understanding at the time. The theory had also come up about how Moses had added the name YHWH to the text in an explanatory way when referring to times before the name YHWH had been made known to Abraham.

The subtext of most of the concerns about putting the name Jehovah (or any representation of the Tetragram) is usually based on the idea about whether the focus on the divinity of Christ was supposed to have overshadowed any previously known divine names for God. I wanted to make clear that this is NOT the same as adding totally new ideas to the underlying Greek while translating. If anything it's the same as adding a totally old idea to the underlying Greek text, because we think it helps current readers understand the meaning, where simply using Lord would be confusing. (Confusing to some, at least.) Adding the divine name for God in place of Lord, where the quote was ultimately from a Hebrew Bible that contained it, wouldn't seem to be a problem if it were any other name.

I understand the problem of not writing or pronouncing God's name to have been based on a kind of historical "glitch." For example, what if all the "new" French documents about Napoleon from 1814 to about 1830 had replaced the name "Napoleon" [Bonaparte] with merely "L'empereur" ["The Emperor"] for either positive or negative reasons. A strict translation (French to English) would keep the words "The Emperor" but one could surely make a case for translating with word "Napoleon" in a later time when more clarity might require such identification. 

But what if those "new" documents sometimes quoted from prior "older" documents written between 1804 and 1814 when the original "older" documents had actually used the term" Napoleon," but the new documents were replacing even those quotations with "The Emperor"? What would you think of a translator who translated "L'Empereur" as "The Emperor" in every case EXCEPT where the writer was quoting an older document where it was possible to look up the original of that older document and see that it said "Napoleon" in those cases? If those original documents were extremely well-known, then it might even be BETTER to translate "Napoleon," n'est pas?

I believe that this is a fair analogy to describe what the NWT has done. In general, they have only added the name where the well-known older original documents used the name instead of a title. (I understand that there are a couple exceptions this practice in the NWT, but only a few of the 200+. You brought one of them up in your post.)

Therefore when Eion mentioned the following Scriptures, I think it was the correct answer to your question, especially since the original Hebrew of Joel 2:32 uses the name "YHWH".

On 5/25/2016 at 11:56 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

When it quotes from Joel 2:32:"Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." 

at Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"

and Rom 10:13: "For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”"

I know you covered a lot of other points, but the original idea of the question, I assumed, was so that this answer from Joel 2:32 could be turned to a question about why the NT of the NWT uses the divine name where Joel was quoted or referenced.

14 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

This is the point, it is only a theory

Shiwiii,

The Nicene Creed was also a theory. Yet, because that particular theory was found to have not enough scriptural evidence, someone must have added the following words to the text of 1 John 5:7-8: "There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" and the exposition by the "Church Fathers" on similar expressions have influenced the Trinity Doctrine for over a thousand years now. Notice that https://www.bible.com/bible/70/1jn.5 for example, says that this only appears in "late manuscripts." But that's different from adding the name "Jehovah" or some other representation of the "Divine Name" to the NT.

The reason is that it isn't just a theory, but it's a fact that the word Lord sometimes referred to the Father, and sometimes to the Son, and sometimes to the many "lords" on earth, or even a title that Sarah might call Abraham, etc., etc. 

(1 Peter 3:6) 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. . . .

So, with or without the direct evidence that "YHWH" was found in the original NT mss, a translator still has the obligation to try to translate the proper sense of the original. For hundreds of years, some translations of the NT by Jewish Christians (in Hebrew), therefore, used the name (Jehovah or YHWH or The Name) in translating some texts where the translator was sure the original referred to Jehovah even though they were translating from the word "Lord" in the Greek. Many readers of Hebrew were comfortable with that rendering because they knew that the original OT quotations (that were referenced in portions of the NT) contained the divine name in the original Hebrew.

In fact, there is an article in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament with a section called "Sacred Name Bibles" that lists several translations that have put the divine name into their translations.

Just as with Hebrew-reading Jewish Christians, JWs are also quite comfortable understanding "Jehovah" to mean "The Father." If "Jehovah" or any other good representation of the original Tetragrammaton can represent what was found in a NT quotation of the OT, then it is not an improper translation of "Lord" in those cases, because "Lord" was already a word that translated the "Tetragrammaton." 

I don't see any evidence that the NT ever contained the Tetragrammaton or a version of "Jehovah" in the original. The Watchtower doesn't claim that any such direct evidence exists either. But that doesn't mean that using the name in a translation is totally improper. I don't totally dismiss the possibility that the original Greek NT mss may have contained the name, because there are actually a couple of obscure pieces of evidence that show it was possible. (Not just the LXX.) Without any direct evidence, however, we must consider the stronger possibility the name was never there. But even here, there are a couple things to consider:

1. Was it by God's purpose and direction that 200 years AFTER the last portions of the Hebrew Bible were written, that superstitious beliefs should begin creeping in that began causing the divine name to stop being pronounced and not be written?
2. If it was by God's purpose, does that really mean that Christians are never to read or use the name "Jehovah" again? Even when reading or quoting the OT? Does this mean that the KJV was wrong to include it spelled out several times in their translation? Was it wrong for the Jerusalem translation to use Jahve 6,000+ times, then update it to Yahweh. 
3. Is it possible that it was a local Greek language preference because of:
   1. The current need to highlight Jesus as the founder of the Christian religion to people who were not aware of the name Jehovah.
   2. To overcome the difficulty of offending Jewish Christian believers during a time when the name was still steeped in superstition.
   3. The similarity between Jahve and Jove. (And the similarity of pronunciation.)

On the last point about Jove, you may recall that Jove was the archaic Latin name for their "God, the Father" as he was the chief god, sometimes called Father Jove. In Greek, Jove was called Zeus, from which the Latin and Greek words Deus, and Theos derive. Also, wikipedia says this under Jove and under Zeus:

Jupiter, also Jove (Latin: Iuppiter [ˈjʊppɪtɛr], gen. Iovis [ˈjɔwɪs]), is the god of sky and thunder and king of the gods in Ancient Roman religion andmythology. Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman state religion throughout the Republican and Imperial eras, until Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire.

and under the heading Zeus:

Zeus . . . He was respected as an allfather who was chief of the gods^[9] and assigned the others to their roles:^[10] "Even the gods who are not his natural children address him as Father, and all the gods rise in his presence."^[11][12] He was equated with many foreign weather gods, permitting Pausanias to observe "That Zeus is king in heaven is a saying common to all men".^[13] 

When the problems of superstition and the problems of language usage went away, the name "Jehovah" became common especially in the centuries of Christian denominations after the 1500's. So it is now even clearer to use a name like Jehovah with reference to the specific "Lord" found in quotes from the OT (even via the LXX). If the meaning is now clear, then its use in translation is proper.

It's true that it was also used a few times in the NWT where there is NO quote, and I think this would be better handled through a footnote, but, again, it is only where the translators deemed that a reference was being made to Jehovah usually when the language was likely being derived from OT usage, even if not a direct quote. There are also (admittedly) a couple places where it appears that the name was used in the OT quotation but the NWT has chosen NOT to translate it for fear that it would lead to confusion caused by the Trinity doctrine. (Again I believe the NWT should have been consistent, and any possible confusion could be explained in a footnote, such as the Jerusalem Bible and other study Bibles do.)

In summary, I don't think any JWs are claiming that the NWT is perfect, only that it is a translation that incorporates informed choices, even if those choices might seem incorrect. Those who make the most use of the NWT (Witnesses) are given a lot of research, training and background information to be able to explain those translation choices.

There probably are Witnesses who believe that the LXX is partially the same as the NT at least in the sense that as a written document, the NT quoted the LXX instead of the the Hebrew original. The theory goes that if the NT writer needed an exact quote of the OT and was writing in Greek, he would therefore have quoted the LXX accurately. If that portion of the LXX contained a form of the Tetragrammaton at the point it was quoted, the idea is that the NT writer would never have deleted the name himself if it were found in the original LXX.

The link is a portion of a larger website with a Jewish-Christian philosophy that defends using the Divine Name within Christianity. The page that Manuel linked to does NOT claim that the divine name should be used in the NT, only that it is used in the LXX, and probably used in all the older pre-2nd-century BCE manuscripts.

That last part might not be true. I find that a much more complete discussion that is not based on a bias towards finding the name is found here:

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/KyriosorTetragram(1984).pdf

It really is not known which versions of the LXX are more original or more accurate -- not compared with the Hebrew OT, but only within the context of comparing various LXX mss. One of the very best ancient scholars of the original languages was Origen, who produced the Hexapla. But he was also biased towards believing that any manuscript that had the "Tetragram" in it (or symbols representing it) were more original. As JWs we may also have our general biases about which version is older and therefore more original among all the LXX mss.

I find the argument in the 17 page research document linked above to be very convincing, especially after reaching page 11. The link that Manuel provided is likely incorrect in the portion claiming that the original LXX contained the Tetragrammaton. But it is correct in pointing out these two major examples with the images shown. (Other examples of LXX mss include the letters "pi-iota-pi-iota" which indicate a closer copy of the Hebrew square-letter style, not the much older paleo style from 700 to 1,000 years earlier.) 

The problem with the paleo-style instead of the square style Hebrew found within the LXX mss, is actually an evidence that the word was NOT to be pronounced, which is a bit different from our (JW) idea about the actual reason it was put there. Putting it in unreadable characters was actually the same idea that the Hebrew OT mss would accomplish by replacing the vowel points with either the points for Adonai (Lord) or Elohim (God) in the MT mss.

The fact that commentators discussed the LXX text with the assumption that the word "kyriou" (Lord) had already replaced the divine name makes our JW argumentation more difficult. They are almost the same as if a commentator quoted Psalm 110:1 "The Lord said unto my Lord..." and then wondered about the confusion identifying the two "Lords." If such a discussion was discovered, it would surely mean that the original could never have said, "YHWH said until my Lord..."  These are the kinds of discussions that first century Jewish commentators like Philo brought up in his writings. Also the consistent grammar that would have surrounded the word Lord is even more evidence that the word had already been replaced in the original LXX, not at a later time.

35 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The Watchtower's prior beliefs about the cross and how it was depicted in the literature isn't used as a 'proof' that Jesus must have died on a cross, but is merely part of tracing Watchtower's attitudes about it.

I was referring to the "video" presentation that Kurt provided. Look at the point made at the 1 minute and 20 second mark in the video:  "Four main arguments used to prove Jesus died on a Cross" 1. Jehovah's Witnesses Believed in the Cross.

I had a comment here, but changed my mind about whether it was correct. I am sure that there are now more active JWs than inactive. The Pew Research results often give rise to this idea that there is a lot of turnover, but this includes unbaptized persons, and persons who once associated, but we don't know their level of prior participation (Memorial attendance? Family members?).

On 5/28/2016 at 11:33 AM, Shiwiii said:

It seems as though you assume that the Septuagint and the NT are the same.

I don't see at all where Manuel Boyet Enicola said or implied that at all. In fact he very accurately stated the reason for his position and it matches the point made in the link. (ref'd at end of this post)

The link he provided is actually some very good research in my opinion. I would admit that I think that we sometimes overstate the importance of the idea that a few copies of the LXX (Septuagint) contain at least a near equivalent of the Tetragrammaton. Unfortunately, it's also true that this same fact can be made into a good argument that the NT did not contain the Tetragrammaton. And of course, there is also the point that is often made that Jehovah might have been able to protect his name in the Hebrew and some translations of the Hebrew, but for some reason Jehovah could not protect his name in the Greek Scriptures themselves. Since this is an impossible proposition that Jehovah could not protect it, it leads to the idea that Jehovah would not protect his name in the Greek Scriptures.

That problem might still be overcome by discovered texts, but it seems more and more unlikely. However, even here, if we assume that Jehovah, referring to the Father, WOULD not protect his name in the text, even this can be explained from Scripture, in that Jehovah wanted Jesus to obtain a name above every other name. The most common LXX copies also do not have that name. Isn't it possible that Jehovah took advantage of the superstitions about using the Tetragrammaton (YHWH/JHVH/etc)? These superstitions may have worked to the benefit of the spread of Christianity during a time when Jewish elements in the early congregations might have otherwise been able to make an argument that Jehovah's name should be used INSTEAD of the name of Jesus. Personally, I believe it was an important part of the early spread of Christianity, but this does not mean that Jehovah was not also taking out "a people for his name."

I do not argue that the pronunciation of the name Jehovah (or even the name of Jesus for that matter) has anything to do with understanding the importance of the name. I believe that the "name" refers primarily to the reputation, and that it doesn't matter how close we get to pronouncing the names correctly. But we should still understand the difference between God and Christ, and giving them a different name or at least a different reference is very important if we believe that they refer to two different entities. We should definitely not denigrate the name of the Father by the way we use or confuse the name of the Son. There are many similar examples from Scripture, but I like the point that our old friend JTRook often made from Revelation 1:1:

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. (Revelation 1:1)

Remember that Revelation was written after Jesus was no longer in the form of a man on earth.

On 5/27/2016 at 0:04 AM, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Did Jehovah really appeared in the NT text? The probable answer is yes, because the apostles quoted freely from the Hebrew bible or its Greek equivalent, the Septuagint.  And old extant copies of the Septuagint contain the tetragramatton in Hebrew letters amid the Greek text.  http://www.eliyah.com/lxx.html 

27 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Very thorough article with an interesting acknowledgement:

This is pretty much the same acknowledgement made on the jw.org site:

"However, the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty."  -- https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/#insight[search_id]=457bee18-d809-4c69-8899-6c88cc0e738e&insight[search_result_index]=0

That was excellent research that Ann pointed to. Not so sure about how the presentation would convince anyone. Have never heard anyone tell me that Jesus must have died on the cross and one of the proofs is that the Watchtower used to believe it and has pictures of it. ????