Shiwiii

@AllenSmith enough is enough with you guys here in JW land.... cease and desist.
I've warned you before to stick to the issues and leave the personal attacks elsewhere.
 

Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime.....
Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above.
By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website.
This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police:
Page 12-13
1.                In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

            Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either   insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.

 

.
TIRED OF BEING MANIPULATED BY FAKE NEWS?
VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION ... GET EDUCATED ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AROUND YOU!
Royal Commission Case Study 54: What to expect - by an anonymous reporter who DOES homework !
 
With Case Study 54 only a few days away, THIS FRIDAY (AUSTRALIAN TIME) MARCH 10, 2017 (You do the math for local time...) a lot of discussion has been circulating as to exactly what we can expect when Watchtower appears once again before the Australian Royal Commission.
I’ve decided to chip in a few observations here to help set expectations and to contribute to the discussions as best I’m able. So without further ado, let’s quickly run through what we know:
 
What exactly will be discussed?   According to the Commission website, the scope of the study is as follows
1.      The current policies and procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd in relation to child protection and child-safe standards, including responding to allegations of child sexual abuse.
2.      Factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of child sexual abuse at Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd institutions.
3.      Factors that may have affected the institutional response of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to child sexual abuse.
4.      The responses of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to relevant case study report(s) and other Royal Commission reports.
5.      Any related matters.
The purpose of this public hearing is not to inquire into individual sets of facts or particular events as has occurred in previous Royal Commission case studies.
Why does the Case Study 54 hearing appear to be only one day long?   This may appear at first glance to be a surprise. How can a single day of testimony possibly be enough to cover the vast and complex issue of Watchtower’s child abuse scandal?
 
Well, remember that Case Study 54 isn’t a fact finding mission. That was Case Study 29. The Commission spent days digging and interviewing, and ultimately issued a detailed report on every aspect of Watchtower’s failure. As far as the Commission is concerned, the facts are in. There is no further debate. Case Study 54 is tasked purely with a quick review of those facts and then with publicly asking Watchtower what is has done to address the damning failures identified in Case Study 29.
Remember what Justice McClellan said to Watchtower’s legal team? That they were going to come back to Watchtower and publicly ask them what had been done to address the issues?
That’s what this is.
 
So what has Watchtower done in the 21 months since Case Study 29?   As far as I am aware, the only potential effort from  Watchtower to address any of the concerns raised in the Royal Commission has been to no longer require an abuse survivor to confront their attacker. However, it was not clear from testimony if this practice had actually been halted before the Commission sat. Watchtower seemed to insist in testimony that it was, but their documentation did not reflect this.
Thus one cannot say with certainty that even this potential change has come as a result of the Commission report.
 
So Watchtower is going to stand before the Commission, after 21 months, and basically say they’ve done nothing at all?   I have no idea.
 
I mean, that would be the honest thing to do, but remember how slippery and devious Watchtower was in Case Study 29, with senior Watchtower officials like Rodney Spinks, Terrence O’Brain and Governing Body Member Geoffrey Jackson attempted to mislead and outright lie to the Commission on multiple occasions. As far as I can see, Watchtower has three options
 
Admit they’ve done nothing and that they don’t intend to for religious reasons, and turn the whole thing into an issue of religious freedom.   Try to stall and muddy the waters by saying they’ve not had enough time, that they have no authority to make the changes required without Brooklyn agreement, knowing full well that Brooklyn is beyond the reach of the Commission. The idea here would be to stall until the day is over, then slink away and wait, knowing no further testimony is required.   Dive full into another round of misleading doublespeak and outright lies to try and pull the wool over the Commission’s eyes. Which one will they pick? Again I have no idea. Judging from Watchtower’s jaw-dropping legal incompetence in Case Study 29 and in the recent Fessler case, it’s very hard to predict their strategy. It seems to have no rhyme or reason, but keep in mind three things.
 
The men in charge of Watchtower are firstly very deluded. They genuinely think they are defending God’s organization against Satanic and apostate attack, and feel that compromise will be a victory for Satan.   The men in charge of Watchtower are very out of touch with real life, spending all their days in a world where you don’t question Watchtower or those who run it, and now they’ve risen to the top. Their word is law. Odds are that no-one has told Anthony Morris III that his ideas are stupid for a very long time. They have no idea how to handle the kind of environment the Royal Commission brings to the table. Geoffrey Jackson’s excruciating performance, where the Commission made mincemeat of his arguments, was proof of that.   The men in charge of Watchtower are caught between being honest with a Commission that has all of their dirty little secrets on the one hand, and playing to the growing audience of JW’s who they know WILL find out about March 10th one way or the other. They have to both be as compliant as possible to the Commission whilst also appearing to be steadfast and unmovable to the Witnesses who will end up seeing the testimony on YouTube.   So delusion, seclusion, and public relations are all going to crash into once horrible mess as they did in Case Study 29 and as a result I have no idea what Watchtower will do on Friday.
 
We  hope to preserve the live steam video for future reference as the Commission does not archive or make this video available once the live stream is over. However, technical gremlins are always a factor so if you have the ability to record the live stream, it would be a great idea to do so as well. The more people do this, the less chance of this footage being lost forever.
 
Lastly we will of course be following up with articles on the day, giving you a more detailed analysis of what has transpired.
Get your popcorn (and your coffee if you’re staying up late) and lets all observe the car crash together!
And one last thing: if it is safe for you to do so, please tell as many Jehovah’s Witnesses as you can about the events on March 10th. Their children are at risk and they don’t even know it. They may choose not to look up the Case Study, but simply being aware that it exists is the first step in raising awareness that the Governing Body is not being honest with them about the international scandal of child abuse inside the Watchtower organization.
(edited for political correctness and other stuff ...) JTR
 
 

June 2017 Watchtower
15. How does respect for theocratic headship reveal our love for Jehovah’s way of ruling?
15 What is our response to divinely authorized headship? By our respectful cooperation, we show our support for Jehovah’s sovereignty. Even if we do not fully understand or agree with a decision, we will still want to support theocratic order. That is quite different from the way of the world, but it is the way of life under Jehovah’s rulership. (Eph. 5:22, 23; 6:1-3; Heb. 13:17) We benefit from doing so, for God has our interests at heart.
 
So does this mean that if you do not agree with the "err" that is presented, you still must support it? YES it does. It states that if we do not, then we are not showing support or cooperation for Jehovah's sovereignty. So somehow the sovereignty of Jehovah is at stake if we do not side with the wt.  
Again, no proof that ANYONE authorized this leadership but they themselves. 
 
lets not forget:
Watchtower (Study) 15 November 2013, page 20
(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/
 

The part I find troubling is this, to whom do you need to answer these 100 questions and where in the Bible do we find these requirements to join Jehovah's organization? The simple answers are 1. Men  and  2.You don't, but people subject themselves to this on the basis of men who claim authority directly from Jehovah with no actual proof. In fact it is just the opposite, there IS proof, proof that they are not chosen, not any different that anyone else. The proof is freely admitting by means of the "err" statement, but yet still claiming this authority. They are playing with a two-headed coin!
There is only ONE requirement in the Bible to be a part of God's family, John 1:12

Anna's words:  
 “I suppose if someone wanted to go back on their dedication, and no longer wanting to be identified as one of Jehovah's Witnesses…”
You revealed the problem. 
Is the baptism exercised by the organization “from heaven, or from men”?  Matt 21:25
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”  Matt 28:19,20
Baptize In the name of these three - the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.
Is this what the organization does?
"On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?" 
"Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"
Having answered yes to these questions, candidates are in a right heart condition to undergo Christian baptism."
Surely, this is a baptism from men. 
“Brothers, I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what the Scriptures say. Then you will stop boasting about one person at the expense of another.”  1 Cor 4:6
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that person be condemned! What we have told you in the past I am now telling you again: If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that person be condemned!”  Gal 1:8,9
Are the above baptism questions “teaching” those to be baptized, observance toward all the things that Christ commanded us?
No.
How valid, then, is a baptism performed by the organization today?

"Once and again, there is a speech about future events as they had already happened. In this way, it is perfectly possible that all these verses quoted in the section I, in spite the past tense of the verb, would be referring to the future. And, the most important, in this way harmonizing the verses in section II." -- ComfortMyPeople
====
In addition to what you suggest above, note the use of the past tense as well as the future tense in this passage.
"(Revelation 21:1-27) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” 5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” 6 And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Alʹpha and the O•meʹga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will  give from the spring of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son."
What God said here about the future was reported in past tense, as John saw it in a vision. Secondly, his word and purpose are unchangeable. It is impossible for him to lie, so he can say “They have come to pass”. Good promise is given, then signed and sealed and delivered like a will. His word is as good as if it was already fulfilled. So although He uses the future tense, He also reinforces it by using the past tense.
For that it is worth ...

Your last line quoted here appears to be a reference to whether or not you think I'm saying that the Governing Body is a principal aspect of an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time. I think the other side of that same coin is made out to be that if they are not that, then they are therefore self-appointed, and are not therefore a divine provision.
In so many circumstances, the most dangerous thing a human can do is speak about someone's leaders. For most of us, we find our comfort zone when we understand our own fixed place in an ideological hierarchy, and humans have been known to squirm, fight, or even kill when that ideological comfort zone is disturbed or threatened.
So, yes, there may yet be a significant portion of this discussion that needs clarification.
If you are trying to understand my own position on this subject, then I appreciate the opportunity to explain. Unfortunately, we have so much invested in the Watchtower's current explanation of Matthew 24:45 that any different view might prove to be quite difficult to explain without taking a couple more steps back to get a fresh look at the parable. 
I believe I have already stated that bodies of elders should be found in every congregation and they should serve as leading examples, overseers, administrators, teachers, etc. It is therefore inevitable that groups of congregations who work together or share assemblies together will also find a need for different kinds of administrators and leaders, and in effect a body of elders might be found for various groupings of congregations. We have utilized circuit overseers, assembly servants, branch or zone overseers, etc., to form such bodies (or committees) of elders. An even more important leadership role will inevitably be needed over the global set of congregations, and this is, from another perspective, a single congregation, too. It will also have whatever type of body of elders is deemed useful, wise, and important for that particular need. As Fred Franz pointed out in a previously referenced speech, it seems that most major large religious denominations invariably end up with some type of "governing body" even if it's called by another name.
Are they self-appointed? Not really. Remember that we follow the Biblical instructions for qualifications of elders, and therefore elders are appointed by previously appointed elders, who were all apparently approved due to meeting scriptural qualifications. And the very fact that some will reach out for the office of overseer (or qualify as a spiritually mature older man) is a good thing. Some of these men will be better at teaching, some at speaking, some at evangelizing, some at comforting, some at managing, some at visiting the sick, some at looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation, some at judicial matters, some at helping married couples, etc., etc. These are "gifts in men" as we sometimes say. Jehovah has given everyone an opportunity to find areas of sacred service no matter what our personalities. So it would be very unfair to point to the members who have been selected as a committee or body of elders for the overall congregation, and say that they were self-appointed. We need to recognize that the entire orderly arrangement for any congregation is all part of an arrangement from Jehovah. And for our particular type of ministry as Jehovah's Witnesses, there is going to be a strong desire to see men in leadership positions who tend to best represent that ministry to the entire world. We would expect to see good, sincere, faithful examples who are well-spoken, have excellent reputations, understand the scriptures, and have decades of experience in full-time ministry. And this certainly shows up in the selected appointees to the Governing Body. And it is an important part of our preaching and teaching ministry that the Governing Body takes a lead in making choices about the Bible-based publications, Bibles, and various types of Bible-based instruction that the congregations appreciate.
But back to the interpretation of the parable. There is nothing in the parable that says that the faithful and discreet slave prepares spiritual food. There is a faithful and discreet slave that is put in charge of food operations in this household while a master is away. But this is a parable that Jesus says was to point out the different kind of attitude between a faithful slave and an unfaithful slave. It's actually more about the several ways that a slave might show himself to be UNfaithful. The basic idea is that it's easy to imagine how many ways a slave might show himself to be unfaithful if a master puts him in charge of the smooth operation of the household. So the important question is therefore, how will a slave prove himself to be faithful when the master is away and there are so many temptations to get away with things, especially if you don't know how long the master will be gone, and he seems to be delaying. Will food always be served on time? Will the slave let that little bit of power go to his head and start beating his fellow slaves? Will he open up all the wine for himself and start acting like a confirmed drunkard?
Just like the parable of the neighborly and un-neighborly men in the scripture about the good Samaritan, the money given to the innkeeper isn't spiritual money. The beating and the robbery that the victim received was not a spiritual robbery. It was not a spiritual inn or innkeeper. No, it was a practical example about what it means to "love your neighbor" and answer, "Who really is your neighbor?"
In the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, we have the same idea before us. A situation is described in practical terms so that we will all understand that we make judgments every day about how we will live and what decisions we will make to prove that we are really being the sort of person who is in expectation that the master will return at any time, no matter how long the delay. It's easy for us to imagine how likely we are to fail in our assigned duties. It was very poignant for a Jewish audience to hear a story about how a Samaritan showed a more neighborly attitude than the complacent Jewish "neighbor" who ignores fellow human suffering. But Jesus taught that Christianity means doing something about the sick, homeless, those lacking clothing, the hungry and the thirsty. And like the Jewish "neighbor" we too might think we are doing enough by preaching and teaching and therefore become complacent. It's easy to imagine the appointed slave falling into trouble perhaps more easily than the others, as he lets power go to his head, or abuses his authority.
Both situations, just as we would expect of Jesus' parables, are about:  (2 Peter 3:11)  what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,
These parables are not about actually staying up all night to keep thieves from breaking into our houses, or actual robbers beating victims, or actual stewards getting drunk or beating up fellow servants. And they are not about spiritual thieves, or spiritual robbers, or spiritual drunkards. They are circumstances to make us think about what we would do in these particular situations, and how these apply to the kingdom.
The idea of food and a house with a master who has gone away is very appropriate, but there is nothing about a small group feeding "spiritual food" to a larger group in the Bible. This was not a question about who would lead. There is nothing in the Bible about any "sole channel" other than Jesus himself. Our food, like Jesus, should be doing the will of our Father. The most important part of the parable of the slave is not about the food but about our response to the circumstance, as indicated above. This is proven, too, by the way that Mark summarizes it in Mark 13:
(Mark 13:32-37) . . .. 33 Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man traveling abroad who left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or before dawn or early in the morning, 36 in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. 37 But what I say to you, I say to all: Keep on the watch.” In Mark's account there was nothing particularly important about the fact that food was involved. Mark doesn't even mention food, but focuses on the doorkeeper, and the fact that each one of the slaves was authorized to do his work. It was about whether the slaves remained obedient in their assignments, and remained watchful, in expectation of their master's return.
 

I get it. But it was very possible to read what you had written about Korah and tie it, in principle, to the actions of the Governing Body in presenting themselves as "the sole channel." Reading your words very literally could give the impression that the Governing Body was like Korah in the sense that they were not satisfied with the idea that Jesus alone is the "sole channel." It was not clear where the "sadness" came from when you said: "Sadly, the real rub here is around the fact that the Governing Body has presented themselves as "the faithful and discreet slave", the sole channel for the dispensing of spiritual food in these last days."
I understand that you have not changed your previously expressed opinions about this, and that you are here clarifying that you believe the Governing Body is the "sole channel." Still, I think that we should admit that there are a lot of weaknesses in this position from a Biblical standpoint. One obvious weakness was that, for well nigh 100 years, this idea was never known to the persons who now claim that they were that "sole channel." All those years, this supposed "sole channel" didn't know who they were until just a few months ago, and had therefore been teaching incorrect doctrine about who the "faithful slave" was for these last "100 years."
As you said, it was a "principal aspect" of this shepherding arrangement, and yet the "sole channel" couldn't teach the correct doctrine about a supposed "principal aspect."
For me, Jesus is the sole channel, and the Governing Body is simply a body of elders making the types of decisions that elders should make over a congregation. In this case it's not a specific local congregation, but the collection of all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, i.e., the overall congregation. Paul could have stayed in a specific, local congregation and remained a part of its body of elders, but his ministry called for a different kind of "shepherding" over many congregations, and this often presented the need to make logistical arrangements for his own travels and the appointment of others to travel to these congregations. He often had to make corrections either in writing or in person that were sometimes doctrinal in nature, sometimes financial, and sometimes dealing with "personnel" and personality conflicts. Overall, his purpose toward the overall congregation was the same as elders who presided over local congregations: encouragement, practical application of Jehovah's principles, preaching the good news about Jesus and his heavenly kingdom, and taking the lead by setting a good example for others.
So, as I've said before, I see a lot of value in a body of elders who take on this type of leadership responsibility toward the congregation overall. Elders are appointed for both their personal qualifications and, of course, their spiritual qualifications. By their examples they are leading us, and we should be obedient to that example -- just the same as we look to elders as examples in the local congregation. But there is nothing in the Bible about the body of elders who serve the overall congregation determining doctrines and teachings for the other congregations. I know that people will quickly point to the council at Jerusalem found in Acts 15, but this could very nearly prove the opposite point, as Paul seems to point out in Galatians, and as Fred Franz pointed out in a talk he gave back in 1975. (Ironically, Franz was the most respected member of this "sole channel" at the time when he argued against our current view of the "Governing Body.")
I believe that the Bible clearly proves that this slave is made up of the entire body of Christians. Therefore in the Biblical sense of the "slave" I would agree with what you just said, although I prefer an adjustment to the last portion of what you said here, though. During the days of Paul and the Jerusalem council, the holy spirit had not yet produced what we now know as the completed Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament. I think that the very purpose of building on a foundation of apostles and prophets from the first century was to produce inspired writings that reveal to us the "spirit of Christ." The Bible (Jehovah's Word, and through it, "the spirit of Christ") is intervening and directing the congregation at all times, not merely when absolutely necessary. 
The many proofs that, in the last days, all Christians are supposed to be "the faithful slave" or "faithful steward" are found throughout the scriptures. Here's one that gets right to the point.
(1 Peter 4:7-11) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Be sound in mind, therefore, and be vigilant with a view to prayers. 8 Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 In proportion as each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies. . .
A separate point in the above quote from 1 Peter is that all of us are responsible to serve "spiritual food" in the sense that all of us are to speak as if we are responsible for the sacred pronouncements of God. Never is there a hint that we are dependent on any group of men for these pronouncements.
(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.
Therefore, anyone who gives teaching is merely sharing with all the others who give teaching. No one should believe that our (or their) particular teaching is something that another person should "bear." That would be the same as thinking that our teaching carries with it some "authority" when all authority was given to Christ. If any of us thinks that our authority, or the authority of our particular teaching should in any way "govern" another person, then we have done exactly what Jesus warned against when he gave a parable about a faithful slave who 'lords it over' his fellow slaves.
Therefore, I think that the parable of the faithful slave itself is another good place where we find evidence that there should never be any kind of "Governing Body" trying to identify itself as "the faithful and discreet slave." Any attempt to make such an identification is unfaithful and indiscreet. It's exactly that kind of presumptuousness that Jesus spoke of when he said:
(Matthew 23:6-12) . . . . 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 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.
The specific example that Jesus was using here were the Scribes and Pharisees, about whom Jesus said had done the following:
(Matthew 23:2) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses."
The Jewish legal system was understood in Jesus' day to have a need for such persons in the "seat of Moses." But the Christian system was to be different. There would be no "seat of Moses" because all of us would be servants to one another. There would be no governing leader except one, the Christ. It was this Biblical rationale, of course, that led me to think that perhaps you really had realized where the "sadness" came from in your reference to Numbers 16, where Korah and others had wanted to put themselves in the seat of Moses, so that they could count themselves in that "sole channel."

Please don't think that just because I believe the Governing Body has made a serious error of judgment as to doctrine that this is some disaster. They have already admitted to hundreds of errors over the years, and this would not be much different. They are elders of a congregation and therefore not above error and not above criticism. We should take to heart Paul's counsel to Timothy in 1 Timothy chapter 5. He knew that Timothy might be much younger, but should not let anyone look down upon his youth. He told Timothy that older men (elders) should be respected and not severely criticized, but also that they were not above criticism. Those elders who preside in a fine way are worthy of double honor, even "wages" (1 Tim 5:17,18). But he also said that accusations against elders would occur, and some would need to be reproved before all onlookers. Timothy was not to show prejudice or partiality:
5: 1 Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers. . . 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “. . .  “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
Paul made the same point about partiality in Galatians just before he mentioned that he had to reprove elders with respect to Peter, James, John and Barnabas, and the problems they had caused both in the Jerusalem congregation and which had spread as far as Antioch and Asia Minor.
(Galatians 2:6) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.
(Galatians 1:10-12) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. 11 For I want you to know, brothers, that the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ.
The Word of God is our revelation by Jesus Christ. We are taught our doctrine from that source, and if anyone has tried to add any gospel to that, then they are "accursed" according to Galatians.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
And then Paul went on to show how this applied not just to himself or an angel from heaven, but even to the so-called Jerusalem council, which today we might call "the Governing Body."
(Galatians 1:16-20) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.
(Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded,. . .
(Galatians 2:6-13) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . .  when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . . 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense.
It seems now that it is almost too scandalous for some commentators to notice that that it was actually men from James, the "leader" of the Jerusalem council, who were the very "false brothers" sent to spy upon the "freedom" of the Antioch congregation. Paul goes to very great lengths here to show how he resisted the men from James and especially the effect they had on Peter and Barnabas and other Jews. He speaks of the "council of Jerusalem" as if it were something that he was right to almost ignore completely for 14 years. And then he comes as close as possible to speaking of the potential of these men as being something "accursed." He makes it clear that although they seemed to be pillars, and highly regarded, that Paul himself needed to steer clear of them for as long as he could until the ministry based on the revelation by Christ had taken enough of a foothold.
Does this mean he had no respect for them? Not at all. He just needed to avoid treating them as if they were some kind of governing body. He wanted to make sure that congregations outside of Jerusalem knew that they had no reason to treat them with any kind of partiality or doctrinal deference. He doesn't speak against the office of "apostleship" itself, but this was clearly a necessary transition toward the idea of basing our doctrine on the inspired writings themselves, especially at a time when the living apostles would soon disappear from the scene. 

I completely agree with you and your thinking, but is that what has been done thus far? I mean, to proclaim something as dogmatic then to reverse oneself over blood,blood fractions, the resurrection of Adan and Eve, when the "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed over whatnot.  
Can it really be tested? I mean, in the examples above, if you disagree with certain things the "infallible" gb says, what happens to you? Lets say you don't agree with their blood stance? You need it and take it, what happens to you? you didn't agree then and you don't now......I guess you are just not a jw, right? Disfellowshipped, shuned, etc.  if you do not adhere to what the "slave" says, then you are an outsider.....even though they admit not being perfect in their interpretation of scripture. that's not testing.....that's tyranny. 

I believe this only makes sense from a human perspective.
 
Is Jesus flawed? Is he not Truth? “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life” John 14:6
If he is Truth, would anything coming from Christ be flawed or half-truth, or imperfect, or misleading? All that Jesus has, and is, comes from God.
“I and the Father are one.” John 10:30
 
Is God flawed?
 
“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.” Deut 32:4
 
“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” James 1:17
 
The scriptures give us the answer; men make excuses to cover the motives behind their actions.
 
“For I know this, that after my departure SAVAGE WOLVES WILL COME IN AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.”
We can see that these appear among the congregations, AND ARE ANOINTED ONES as verse 30 shows:
Also FROM AMONG YOURSELVES men will rise up, speaking perverse things, TO DRAW AWAY THE DISCIPLES AFTER THEMSELVES. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” Acts 20:29-31
 
As Witnesses try to juggle with the above two conflicting statements, 2 Cor 11:3,4 sheds light on where JWs place their devotion, which undoubtedly is the GB and the organization.
 
“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."
 
By the GB stating that Jesus didn’t promise perfect spiritual food, they are preaching a Jesus other than the Jesus preached by the apostles, thus drawing away, those who accept the GB’s flawed teaching, to follow “after themselves”.
 
Jehovah’s Witnesses, why do you put up with it?  Rely on the scriptures, Anna, not on man's excuses. Isa 2:22
 
The rest of John 14:6 – “No one comes to the Father except through me.”
 
WOLVES IN SHEEP'S COVERING: http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/…/wolves-in-sheep…

There is a genuine humility expressed through the desire to serve the Father with one’s heart, mind and soul; and there is a lowly fear from oppression by those who threaten any to stand up to the GB’s teachings.  Also, it is easy to hear and accept that remaining in the organization will bring “security”, and will bring one “peace of mind”. 1 Thess 5:1-3 Could that be interpreted as pride?  Certainly, even the most humble appearing person could harbor a prideful view by choosing a sense of security offered by a fortress built by men.  How does that challenge one’s faith?

The challenge to one’s faith is through a full submission to God and one’s Master, Jesus Christ; God, who is our only fortress. Ps 18:2 (Dan 11:38) Anointed ones who choose to remain in the organization are either fearful or prideful – both require a selfish disposition and displays one’s lack of love for Christ, who bought them “at a price”.

 “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.”  1 Cor 7:23

So, yes, I have a “problem” that my brothers and sisters in Christ have chosen what men say over scripture.  The GB has miserably failed to teach of the love among members of the Body of Christ. John 13:34,35 They easily disfellowship (“kill”) those who question their actions.  1 John 3:10,12; Rev 13:15 

Because of the continual wariness made concerning one’s anointing within Watchtower pages, many out of fear, no longer ‘partake’ at the Memorial.  This is oppression, Anna, by a “wicked slave” who beats his fellow slaves – not literally, but through emotional abuse and lies.  Matt 24:48-51

“Feeding many at the hands of a few”.  This is such catchy man-made phrase, and I expected it to be brought up.

When Jesus told his disciples to “feed my sheep, it was to the foundation of the Temple, and they were few in number.   When Pentacost happened, many more joined, in fact this “temple” building has been going on since the apostles.  Each priest is to “feed my sheep.” 

Eph 2:19-22 – “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,  having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,  in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

All who comprise this Temple are a “dwelling place of God in the Spirit”.  All have the ability, whether they know it or not, to to provide his people with instruction and spiritual direction as the 2002 Wt brings out.  In ancient Israel, this is how God’s priesthood served the people, interceding on their behalf, as well as teaching.   Mal 2:7; Deut. 24:8; 33:10; 2 Chron 35:3; Neh 8:7

Since the early temple was a “copy and a shadow” of the heavenly, would their role to serve and teach be any different today with Christ as our High Priest?  Heb 8:5

 “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.  And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.  Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?  But earnestly desire the best (greater) gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.”  1 Cor 12:27-29

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” Eph 4:11,12

All anointed ones are to provide spiritual food as they are blessed by Holy Spirit through their entire oneness in Christ.  Among the Body, the anointing alone gives knowledge, yet even more so when the Body is a whole.

“But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” 1 John 2:20

So, why are so many anointed ones becoming squeamish within the organization?  And why are there those who speak up to defend their God in the face of an elder body, like myself?  If God’s spirit is within each anointed heart, those who choose to listen to the Helper, will realize ‘the truth’. John 14:26 Either they act upon it, or choose to remain hidden.

“But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” 1 John 2:27

John also speaks of those who will deceive anointed ones, a deception that can destroy this relationship with Christ and the Father  –

“Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.” 1 John 2:

 “These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.” 1 John 2:26

Obviously, within the organization, it is quite impossible for the Body of Christ to come together.  Truly, they are scattered among ‘nations’. 

 Thus says the Lord God: “When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, then they will dwell in their own land which I gave to My servant Jacob.”  Ezek 28:25

Why, then, is there a Watchtower organization where anointed ones reside?

“And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie” 2 Thess 2:11 “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders”  2 Thess 2:9

As 1 John 2:26 said, there would be those who will deceive the anointed ones.

Christ’s Temple priests are supplanted by an elder body that has “set itself up” within God’s Temple, trampling them into submission.  Dan 8:11; 2 Thess 2:3,4; Ezek 44:6,8; 2 Chron 13:9; Mark 13:14; 1 Cor 3:16

It is an “operation of error” coming through a “false prophet”, a fallen star (anointed one) - and  based on lies and delusion.  Rev 13:11,15; 19:20; 8:10,11; 9:1-3,10; 12:15; 16:13,14; 1 Tim 4:1; Gen 3:15

Anointed ones are to speak as one in truth - in Christ.  Truth is pure, and based on scripture, not based on man’s desire of dominance.  John 13:14-17

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”  2 Cor 10:5


"Operation of Error"
 
http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2014/06/operation-of-error.html

 

 

 

Firstly, sorry for meshing John 14:26 with Dan 8:23-25   The option to edit seems to disappears once a post has been around awhile. 

The Watchtower consistently presents both truth and lies to the sheep, then reinforces the lie.

Compare:

From the Watchtower 02/8/1 pp. 9-14

“Who make up this royal priesthood today? The apostle Peter answers that question in his first inspired letter. To anointed members of the body of Christ, Peter wrote: “You are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies’ of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9) From these words it is clear that, as a group, the anointed footstep followers of Jesus make up this “royal priesthood,” which Peter also called “a holy nation.” THEY constitute the channel that Jehovah uses to provide his people with instruction and spiritual direction.—Matthew 24:45-47.

Are those words put in practice? 

“ Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food.” w16 November pp. 14-18 

So which is it?  All or just a few who are the channel Jesus uses?  Obviously, it is believed to be the latter.

Many, many anointed ones have written letters to the GB expressing their understanding of scripture.  The GB trash these letters, refusing to recognize “the channel that Jehovah uses to provide his people with instruction and spiritual direction”  At the consent of the GB, many are disfellowshipped by the Body of Elders for disagreeing with the GB’s direction. Rev 13:15

The only way to receive spiritual food from Christ is through Holy Spirit, as part of the vine.
John 15:4,5 - "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."
Wouldn’t this necessitate receiving more Holy Spirit to understand Christ’s direction?  Can you imagine that if the Body of Christ was working together, complete in Christ as a finished Temple, how blessed all God’s people would be with understanding? Rev 22:1-3

This will occur, when the Kingdom arrives.  For now, many do have spiritual understanding, but not under a hard-hearted leadership that refuses to recognize the necessity of God’s Temple. Rev 3:20; Mark 11:24; Rev 11:2; Luke 21:24; Isa 1:12  In the organization, since there is no unity within the Body of Christ, and the GB refuses to acknowledge their own brothers in Christ as part of the true vine, the GB will continue to err, out of the hardness of their heart.  Acts 7:51; Jer 7:23-26  Without Christ, without Holy Spirit directing them, they can do nothing.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The location of the great crowd is given to us in Revelation 7:9  as "standing before the throne and before the Lamb".
Up until 1935, the WTS believed and taught that the great crowd was in heaven, a vast group of believers said to be not quite as faithful as the 144,000, but still heaven-bound, spirit-anointed, emblem-partaking, witnesses of Jehovah.
Now, I have heard some JWs call this belief  "crap" and "baloney", but the WTS says Russell and his followers who believed this were being blessed with spiritual insight by Jehovah to rediscover these Bible truths. (see http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102012144 ) And even after Russell's death and after Jehovah is said to have cleansed Russell's followers and appointed them in 1919 as the faithful slave of Matthew 24:45, they still believed this.
But then in the early 1930's there was a third class of believers invented by the WTS President at the time, Joseph Rutherford.  He called them Jonadabs, or Johanadabs, and identified them as a group of believers whose future destination was not heaven but earth.  During a speech Rutherford gave at a 1935 convention, he asked those of this group to stand up.  Then he pointed to them and announced that they were the great crowd.
Think about that for a minute.  Do you wonder why there might have been a sudden hush at the convention?  It's said there was one.  Probably from an intake of breath from those who had believed prior to this that they were members of the great crowd and had stayed seated when those who believed they would be on earth had stood up at Rutherford's invitation.  Or maybe from the whooshing sound of the doors of heaven closing in their faces.
 

isnt that Jesus' actual words and command? why wouldn't you want to follow Jesus and what He said? 
 
why not? Does this limit our prayers to only this? No, but it does give us a starting point for those who are just learning. Again, why not, this was Jesus' words and command? 

then why is it even mentioned and considered in the baptismal questions? Why must one "agree" to that particular question at all? 

Allen,
You did it again! You opposed something, but then provided evidence that you were wrong and that you were opposing the truth again.
I have often kind of "marveled" at how you often take an oppositional position to certain facts and ideas and then when you present the information to try to denigrate these facts and ideas, you end up providing evidence that you were wrong and the person you were opposing was right!
Here's how you did it this time:
Then you quoted, and even highlighted a portion of the evidence that agrees with the statement I made, and would indicate that you were wrong:
I would give the same two pieces of evidence you just gave, as evidence in support of the same fact that you are opposing. You offered these bits of evidence about "Fard" as if you didn't realize that he was one of the founders of the "Nation of Islam." Therefore, if you indicate that Fard used stories from the teachings of Joseph F. "Judge" Rutherford, then you are merely providing evidence that: "Rutherford's doctrines have even been traced as a factor in the growth of the Black Muslim [Nation of Islam] movement in the United States."
As a reminder to those who may not be aware, here is the opening Wikipedia entry for Fard:
Wallace D. Fard aka Wallace Fard Muhammad /fə.ˈrɑːd/ (born February 26, 1877[3]) was a co-founder of the Nation of Islam. He arrived in Detroit in 1930 with an obscure background and several aliases, and taught a distinctive form of Islam to members of the city's African-American population. He disappeared in 1934.

They certainly hid their membership as an NGO of the UN from me and thousands more.

Wt 1966 10/1 pp 603-4 "We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah." 

Even though this quote is in harmony with your words, is it true? 

Jehovah’s Witnesses say they are “dedicated” to doing God’s will, which includes every necessary item on the list of running an organization.  This is their dedication; without such dedication, salvation apparently cannot be achieved as the below statement clarifies:

"Bible students need to get acquainted with the organization of the “one flock” Jesus spoke about at John 10:16. They must appreciate that identifying themselves with Jehovah’s organization is essential to their salvation. (Rev. 7:9, 10, 15) Therefore, we should start directing our Bible students to the organization as soon as a Bible study is established." KM 11/’90 p 1 

For Anna also:
"A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit." Watchtower 1955 Jul 1 p.411

Yet, this is exactly what they do.

Unless you are there at each baptism to warn people NOT to dedicate themselves to an earthly organization, when they agree to accept the identifying mark as a Jehovah’s Witness, they will; and in doing so, are committing idolatry.  This is jeopardizing the salvation of millions; not building a congregation up, but tearing it down.  The organization becomes the idol necessary to receive salvation.

Dedication is a commitment of faith, a trust in something.

One valuable lesson we learn is that we need to trust God’s organization. bt chap. 13 pp. 101-107

“But those who trust in idols, who say to images, 'You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame” Isa 42:17

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.”  Acts 17;24,25

The need of legal protection for an organization, foregoes one’s ability to commit themselves whole souled to God and Christ. 

We are to be no part of the world just as Christ was no part of the world.  John 15:19

Mark of the Beast  http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/05/mark-of-beast.html

 

 

 

And Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have" - how would the disciples have understood this? 
That was not what I was suggesting, of course. I had in mind the term 'Mighty God' - as in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18 - applying to the 'only Potentate.' 
It looks like your next response is one of 'throwing in the towel' and pretty much saying that holy spirit will have to reveal to me the 'truth' as you see it so I can align with your, or present JW, interpretation. Yes, I understand the official JW concepts of earthly and heavenly resurrections for Christian-era Christians, but I question the validity of two separate destinies on scriptural grounds. (Acts 17:11, anyone?)
So far, the questions that are as yet left hanging in the air are:
Given that Paul likened Abraham's being declared righteous by faith to 1st century Christians' being declared righteous by faith, on what basis is there a tangible difference between being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' (understood to be one Christian group of prospective recipients of God's saving grace) and 'declared righteous for life' (understood to be another group of Christians who are recipients of God's saving grace now and into eternity)? If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change?  And the sidebar that keeps being sidestepped: How would the disciples have understood Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"?  Anyway, if those questions provoke further private thought, reflection and research, even if one doesn't feel like discussing them at the moment, it's all good. 

That is a very interesting thought. I mean, how can an organization claim to be "spirit directed" and the leaders not be inspired?
Maybe the term "spirit directed" only means that the organization tries to do what they think is right and nothing more, based on their ideas and interpretation of the Bible. Not claiming any divine direction, but rather allowing their thoughts on certain topics in the Bible guide them. I'm pretty sure most JW's would agree with this statement, but there is a problem with that though. It no longer makes the wt or JWs any different than any other religion. Isn't that what most religions claim? Do others not claim to follow the Bible/God to their best ability and interpretation? Of course they do, but the real trouble comes in when any group claims to be the sole source of understanding, or the only organization with "the truth". A group cannot claim this superiority if they are not any different that any other religion in their belief of being "spirit directed". 
On the other hand, I do believe that the wt thinks of itself as truly guided by God's spirit and not like the scenario above. There is a problem though and this is why the statement of not being inspired was created. This was done to brush off the failed predictions, to excuse the fact that many people have died needlessly over the whole blood/fractions of blood and the mishandling of child sexual abuse to name a few. By stating that they are not inspired they now get that "get out of jail free" card and at the same time still create absurd rules and requirements that are biblically unfounded. They hold onto their power over the jw's and at the same time try and cover themselves legally. I think this might have worked if it was the understanding from the beginning, but I'm afraid now it only looks like a cover up. It will work only to those who want to believe contradictory speech or ones too far invested to reverse (family/friends, etc.).   

The illustration of the tourists is not really analogous.
"IMAGINE that an experienced guide is leading you on a tour of a wondrous and beautiful city"
Jesus. Fine.
"Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them."
That's not quite how it's been in the Organization, though, has it? I suggest that it has been more like a scenario where some of the more dominant tourists start guiding the other tourists, loudly and authoritatively explaining details about the city's features that are a mishmash of fact and falsehood. The experienced guide is shaking his head, trying to speak above the few dominant tourists and waving the group back on track but they're all wandering off after the loud, 'knowledgeable' ones.
Eph. 4:14, 15.
 

How does 1 Cor. 15 support the idea of two different destinies for Christians? Why would one, who is rewarded with a 'heavenly' body, only be able to enjoy their new life in heaven? The point Paul was making was that the present body is corruptible and perishable, whereas the resurrection body will endowed with incorruptibility and immortality.
--------------
That's a given. Earnest and prayerful scriptural research may lead to new perspectives that are at odds with one's previous understanding.
The question still remains: on what scriptural basis is the idea that Christian believers have two different destinies. If all first century Christians were (for the sake of argument) heaven-bound, where does the idea come from that there would be a subset of Christian believers who were not heaven-bound? After the 'inspired' Bible books were written, finalized and canonized, what changed?
There is nothing there that even hints there will one set of Christian believers being rewarded in heaven while another set of Christian believers get rewarded someplace else. All the Ephesian believers were called heirs in Christ (1:11) and given the holy spirit as a token of that future inheritance (1:13,14).
Again, how do you come to that assumption?
Sure. But we are talking about the vision given to John. To be faithful to the vision's details at Rev. 7, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, four living creatures and elders. What textual warrant is there to arbitrarily remove them to somewhere different?
I agree you have to see the whole picture. The thing is, we are seeing different pictures - or rather, yours has some pieces of the puzzle jammed into the wrong places, imho

The ones who inherit the earth are the same ones to whom "the Kingdom of the heavens" belong, who will "see God" and "will be called sons of God," surely (Matt. 5:3, 8-10). Or was Jesus addressing two classes of people in the audience listening to him that day? (Eoin, this was the reason for that question.)
Also, to be able to inherit something, doesn't one have to be an heir?
Contextually, according to the vision, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, elders and four living creatures. So where would that be?
The tribulation was on earth. The 'great crowd' has come out of it and taken their place in the peaceful presence of God and the heavenly court - according to the details of the vision.
You've read different destinies into the text. There is nothing in Jesus' words that suggests two destinies. Two groups, yes, but cp. Eph. 2:11-18, especially noting v. 14.
No mention of whether the destiny is heaven or earth here.
Where else would humans have been bought from, irrespective of final destiny?
But Rev. 7:9 has the 'great crowd' being comprised of people "out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues" too, and yet you used this to argue for an earthly group. How does Rev. 5:9 argue for a heaven-bound group?
Can one not rule 'over the earth' while on the earth? Cp. Gen. 1:28.
Please see my and Eoin's exchange(s). I've yet to reply to his latest post.
The scripture says nothing of the location here.
The following verses (as you quoted) have heaven and earth being gathered together in Christ. It doesn't indicate that some Christian believers will have their everlasting reward in one or the other location.