How are we to understand the GB/Slave interpreting scripture, as the sole chanel, and at the same time accept that they can err?

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Yeah, that way your friend “insider” can continue to give you a concise comment with lies. Especially since he doesn’t know a darn thing about the Bible Student era.   If he did, he would tell you that Russell didn’t want to be seen as the “faithful and wise servant” regardless of the Bethel gossip like your friend.

The truth of the matter is, Russell wanted the WATCHTOWER to be seen as that wise servant.

If Russell didn't want to be seen as the "faithful and wise servant" then why admit that he was the "faithful and wise servant" privately? Why didn't he say something to stop thousands of other people from saying it? Why would he publish letters in his Watch Tower magazine that addressed him as "That Servant"? Why would he allow himself to be addressed this way year after year in the Watch Tower's Bible Student Conventions and addressed this way in the Convention Souvenir Notes, without saying something?

Only about 30 days after he died, the Watchtower claimed that THOUSANDS of people saw him as 'That Servant, Faithful and Wise.' You'd think that Russell would have said something if he didn't want all these thousands of people saying this during his lifetime.

And do you think he thought that no one would see "That Servant" as Russell himself, when he wrote an article indicating that "modesty" was what had kept him from interpreting "that servant" as a singular individual, but that he would be saying the Holy Spirit was in error if he kept saying that it was the entire (plural) household of faith. In 1896 (page R1946), while not making the application directly yet, Russell presented the following article:

"THAT SERVANT."

—MARCH 22.—Luke 12:37-48; Matt. 24:42-51.—

THIS lesson, from Matthew's account (Matt. 24:42-51), was treated in our issue of April 1, '95. We have no further comment to make except upon one point: "that [special] servant." In our examination of this text we seem to have treated the term "that servant" as though the Spirit had erred in saying "that servant" when it meant servants (plural), and we applied it to all true servants of God. Since then we have been met from various quarters with objections to so general an application, and the suggestion that it would be wrong to allow modesty or any other consideration, good or bad, to warp our judgment in the exposition of the inspired Word; to which proposition we agree. God evidently has some purpose in all that he has caused to be written for our admonition; and faithfulness as servants requires that we deliver to the household the Lord's word, as he gives it.

Being unable to answer the objections and arguments raised, we candidly present them to the "fellow-servants" and to the "household" of faith as part of the Lord's message: the subject being forced upon us by its recurrence in the International S.S. Lessons, as well as by inquiries by letter. Let each "fellow servant" and each member of the "household of faith" use his consecrated judgment in accepting or rejecting this exposition, or any other exposition we may ever offer, according to his ability or inability to recognize in it the voice of our great Shepherd.

The objection urged is that the Lord's words clearly mention and distinguish between his "household" (his faithful people in general), the "fellow servants" (plural), and "that servant" specially indicated as the Lord's agent in dispensing present truth as food to his "fellow servants" and the "household." It is admitted that in many Scriptures the consecrated are addressed individually when all of a class are meant,—as, for instance, "To him that overcometh I will grant to sit with me in my throne." This, according to the rules of language, means—"To each one who overcomes," etc. And in the texts under consideration, it is held that if neither the "household" nor "fellow servants" were mentioned, it might be questionable whether the expression "that servant" referred to one or to all faithful servants; but that when "that servant" and "his fellow servants" and the "household" are all mentioned in one connection, and in contrast, it would be a perversion of the rules of language and interpretation to mix and confound that which the holy spirit has so emphatically marked as distinct. It is further urged that to apply the term "his household" to nominal Christian professors in general could not be correct, because the "meat in due season" is intended only for the Lord's truth-hungry, "watching" people; and hence among these must be sought the "household" to be fed, the "servants" (plural) to do the feeding, and "that servant" at whose hands our present Lord will dispense the food to "his fellow servants" for "the household;" and who thus is constituted a general steward, overseer and dispenser of the Lord's "goods."

It is urged, further, that the manifest fulfilment of this, during this "harvest" and time of the Lord's presence, should assist in the correct understanding of the promise; and that when we see things come to pass we should be able to recognize them whether we discerned their meaning in advance or not. Indeed, the demonstration seems to have forced the true interpretation, rather than that an interpretation led to the fulfilment;—which makes the matter really the stronger, now that it is seen. . . .

We submit the argument without comment.

For someone who submitted the argument "without comment" and "with no further comment," he sure went to a lot of trouble to show why he agreed with it, and why it was the undeniable and correct argument.

Whose modesty do you think he was talking about when he said he would only present the argument, but couldn't himself comment on it? The answer, of course, appeared in that December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, that came out just about 30 days after Russell died.

Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believed that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," . . . . His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation. (R 5998)

And of course, Rutherford immediately made more statements to that effect all through 1917. For example:

"All of us realize . . . our dear Brother Russell . . . as 'that servant'." (January 15, 1917, R 6035)

". . . the Lord send through his chosen servant. THE WATCH TOWER unhesitatingly proclaims Brother Russell as 'that faithful and wise servant.' " (March 1, 1917, R 6049)

"The two most prominent messengers, however, are the first and the last--St. Paul and Pastor Russell . . ." (Nov 1, 1917, R 6159)

"Recognizing Brother Russell as the Lord's messenger to the Laodicean church and as the Lord's chosen servant . . . " (Dec 1, 1917, R 6181)

At Russell's funeral, Rutherford even acknowledged that people would come from afar to "worship" Rusell. (His words, not mine.)

"Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet."

Some of these items were already brought up here at the following link and probably elsewhere, too: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/47934-charles-taze-russell-was-he-recently-canonized/

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

7 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

You are just too obtuse to admit when you're wrong, but think you have the right to tell the GB their wrong. Leave the Watchtower, and take James, Anna, Comfortmypeople with you. Start your own religion. LEAVE! LEAVE!

Billy, do you realize the economic opportunity you are missing here?  If you can arrange it to have a massive stroke in mid sentence, while typing, that is worth some serious money!

As a suspected Watchtower Lawyer that should appeal to you on a basic DNA level.

[Anna]

This is not a reply to anyone specifically, just some musings in response to some of the comments here.

I suppose it's not too much of an unreasonable concept to have a measure of confidence in imperfect humans, who all err and make mistakes. Without confidence in others, it would be a crazy world, even crazier than it is now and absolutely nothing would get done. Even when we have been disappointed over and over, we still check what the weatherman has to say about tomorrow's weather. I think maybe the word "complete" confidence should be omitted though when referring to any human, including the GB. Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God. The GB cannot ensure our salvation, only God can. (Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation Ps 146:3) We cannot question God, and quite rightly so of course. But we should be able to question a human, a prophet, or an angel for that matter. The story about the “man of the true God” in 1 Kings ch.13 highlights the seriousness of questioning (making sure) very well.  In Israelite times people needed to distinguish between a true prophet and a false one. There were plenty of false ones, and they were exposed by Jehovah. Today, we need to question in order to determine who is false and who is not.  (The term prophet that I am referring to is a spokesperson for God, not someone who predicts).  The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass (De 18:20-22); and his prophesying must promote true worship, being in harmony with God’s revealed word and commandments (De 13:1-4). The last requirement was probably the most vital and decisive, for an individual might hypocritically use God’s name, and by coincidence, his prediction might see fulfillment. But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters. (Isa 1:10-20; Mic 6:1-12) Hence, it was not necessary to wait perhaps for years or generations to determine whether the prophet was true or false by fulfillment of a prediction. If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

So, we come to the crux of the matter. We should be able to question the prophet/spokesperson/GB, to make sure  that what he says does not conflict with "Jehovah’s righteous standards and mind on matters" as was verified by Geoffrey Jackson in his "if we gave wrong direction, then everyone who has the Bible would see that it was the wrong direction"  statement.

So unquestioning obedience and "complete" trust, in my opinion, are not the right choice of words to use in connection with the GB.
 
And this is the primary reason for the topic, not to suspiciously distrust the GB, but to remind ourselves, by discussing the topic in depth, that there are boundaries and stipulations that have to be met before we can have confidence in, and/or obey any single expression made by the prophet/GB/FDS. And these boundaries and stipulations are set by Jehovah himself.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Going beyond what is written. This happens when an interpretation is applied to any seemingly ambiguous scripture. Where to find the balance? Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, how about only sticking to what is completely clear, (besides not conflicting with other scriptures), and admitting anything else is speculation.  That would be a good start. I have no qualms telling anyone who wants to know my opinion on the revised understanding of the “generation”,  that I believe it is speculative, and may or may not be true,  and that we will know the true answer probably not until after Armageddon......

In saying all this, I do not think that the reasons for distrusting the GB that have been posted here by some are valid enough reasons. I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

 

6 hours ago, Anna said:

This is not a reply to anyone specifically, just some musings in response to some of the comments here.

Oh, come on. Let me drag in my arch-porkchop again. 

I think of that overdone drama of a few decades back of Zena, who resisted every word of counsel from Moses and everyone responded with such bland remarks as ‘Oh Zena, Zena,’ while shaking their heads in dismay and disappointment at her bad attitude. Were it a video version, she would be making that ubiquitous Witness hand-wave, seen in all dramas, that means ‘Get out of my face!’

Of course, she goes down with the scoundrels when Jehovah opens up the earth, to cries of ‘Zeeeena! Zeeeena! Oh....Zeeeena, no no no.

It will be like that in modern times. The call will come to ‘go but for moment into the interior rooms until my denunciation passes over.’ Everyone will rush in their to take cover, but JTR will bellow, “What for? I’m not going anywhere! It’s stuffy in there! I quit the best job I ever had in 1975! No more! Who do they think they are?!” and I will be crying to the last ‘Jaaaames! Jaaaaames! Oh......Jaaaaaaames, no no no (you old pork chop)’

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Whazzamatter TTH?

Doctor would not refill your anti-anxiety meds?

[TrueTomHarley]

4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Whazzamatter TTH? Doctor would not refill your anti-anxiety meds?

Oh, Jaaaames, Jaaaames.........”

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Just now, TrueTomHarley said:

Oh, Jaaaames, Jaaaames.........”

I think that is what the female head pilot in the movie "Goldfinger" said to 007.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I think that is what the female head pilot in the movie "Goldfinger" said to 007.

That was to you, in a Vette, 50 years ago. I can hardly imagine you shoehorned into an Aston Martin today.

[TrueTomHarley]

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

As a suspected Watchtower Lawyer 

I think you should drop this suspicion as extremely unlikely. Your prior guess makes much more sense. In fact, it is almost the only sensible thing you have ever said.

A lawyer that is permitted anywhere near a case must know how to make himself likable. It will not do to tell the judge, jury, or witness, that the reason they don’t understand something is that they are ignorant.

Probably you read about Lee Iacocca. Although he was one who launched the Mustang, Henry Ford later fired him with the remark: “Sometimes you just don’t like people.”

We are far far far more emotional that is generally acknowledged. It is nearly to the point of ‘reason need not be taken into account.’

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

?Winsider, You remind me of . . .

LOL. I'm sure I could remind you of a lot of things, but enough space has been wasted. Let's just stick to the facts on the topic as we know them, and avoid all the attempts at ad hominem if you can.

You point out that Russell responded to a question about "Who is that Servant?" (1909). In 1909, as you must know, there was a "secession" crisis among Watchtower readers, and the idea that Russell was allowing himself to be addressed and introduced as "That Servant" had become even more controversial.

You will also notice that Russell is careful not to deny that he is, in fact, to be identified as "That Servant" even though the question gave him every opportunity to do so.

In fact, Russell points to Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, which had just come out in 1904, but this book says absolutely nothing as to the identity of "That Servant" anywhere in the book. Chapter 4 mentions that as in all ages God may wish to "use some SPECIAL INSTRUMENTS for the service of the Church as a whole, as well as use certain members of each little local company." He adds that all servants should seek to share in the distribution of meat in due season, but this was always part of the teaching, from 1896 to 1926. He appears to scrupulously avoid any mention of "That Servant." Yet, unless it's true that Maria Russell wrote most of the previous Volumes (as some do claim), this was not all that Russell had written on the topic, as he claims.

We already know what was written in Studies and in the WT in 1896, 1897, 1904, 1906 (and 1911). There were also the Convention Notes from 1907 through 1914, and letters published in the WT where others addressed Russell as "That Servant." In fact a very interesting one that Russell published was in the WT of July 1910 (p.210), discussing the very 1909 "secession" controversy:

DELIVERED FROM SATAN'S SNARE

DEARLY Beloved Brother and Pastor:—I am writing to tell you how good our dear Lord has been to me in delivering me from the Power of Darkness, and restoring me to his favor again; and also to ask you to forgive me for the trial that my recent course must have caused you. . . . I opposed your teaching, though not publicly. . . .  Then I began to search for the cause of my blindness, my unbelief, and I was sure that I found it. It was the Vow! What! did I oppose the Vow? No! Had I not taken the Vow? Yes; but with limitations. . . .  my Vow expired by limitation, and the protection that it had afforded me against the suggestions of Evil Spirits was at an end. So for several months the barrier had been thrown down, as it were, and I believe Satan and his co-adjutors had seized the opportunity (Eph 6:12), with the result that my faith had been nearly shipwrecked. Dear Brother, as soon as I saw this I renewed the Vow for all time. . . .  I got to believe that you had never been "That Servant, whom the Lord made master of all his goods"—that Servant was a class; that most of those things you once had right, but you had changed. . . .  While I thought my faith was on a surer foundation than ever, I now know it was nearly gone. . . . This was the turning point with me—the day when the Lord graciously showed me my true condition—that I was growing spiritually blind. . . . The alarming truth dawned on me—I was growing spiritually blind! . . . .  I am glad to add, dear Brother, that the points of doctrine which had been a cause of stumbling to me have since become clear; the Lord has graciously healed my spiritual sight, and my heart is rejoicing in the sunlight of his favor. . . .

Your brother in Christ,

CLARENCE E. FOWLER,

Imagine! One of the main points of doctrine which had been a cause of stumbling was that he temporarily thought the FDS was just a class and not RUSSELL as an individual, which is something that Russell once had right but now had changed (just as Henninges and McPhail were now teaching). But, happily, he reports (in a part of the letter I skipped) that he burned the publications from those former brothers, Henninges and McPhail and Randall.

Also, in the April 15, 1904, (R 3356) Russell also wrote about "that servant" from the parable, and said that:

". . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages . . . because in various times of the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner."

[Anna]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

16 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

As a suspected Watchtower Lawyer 

I think you should drop this suspicion as extremely unlikely.

I think he was only joking 😃

[JOHN BUTLER]

@Anna. you comment is soooooooooooooo funny. 

First point. And this is funny.  Quote "who all err and make mistakes." 

So you are agreeing with me that to 'err' is not a mistake but a deliberate wrongdoing. Because you say, err AND make mistakes. 

 Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God.

I would include Jesus Christ as he has been given the power and authority, and he will be doing the judging.. 

The GB cannot ensure our salvation, 

No, but didn't the Watchtower used to say that a person had to be part of the JW / W/t org/soc to gain salvation ?

The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets:  “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass....

Well that knocks the Bible Students and JW Org / GB / W/t on the head then doesn't it.  

Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters.

This didn't work with CSA in the JW Org did it ? MORAL STANDARDS. I don't think so. 

 If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false".

Well we have both of those in JW Org. The standards are low and predictions are false. The GB falsely call themselves the F&DS. 

Now this bit is almost clever, Quote Anna Starts with 'The true prophet', then she moves on to  'the prophet/spokesperson/GB' but finally she moves on to ' the prophet/GB/FDS. 

How sly is that. A perfect JW way to twist things. Start with a true prophet and end with the GB/F&DS. 

Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact.

Yes the speculation about 1975 was wonderful wasn't it. And the speculation that one has to be a baptised JW to be 'saved'. And the speculation that Armageddon is 'so close now'..........

Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, 

That is because they are not inspired Anointed. Why would God give us His word if He would not give inspiration of holy spirit to Anointed ones to interpret it properly. Do you think God wants people to misuse scripture ?

Going beyond what is written.

Calling themselves the F&DS...............

 I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.

BUT the GB say they are the F&DS and requite complete obedience. Didn't someone put up a Watchtower quote where the GB said that God and Jesus Christ trust them (the GB), so everyone else should trust them. 

Your whole comment reminds me of Mark Antony "I come to bury Caesar not to praise him". BUT your comment is very sly, almost clever, and sooo funny.