Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

It is covered on Jw.org  that I quoted from. Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation is correct until JEHOVAH changes it. Not through a blogger but through the Governing Body.  No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway.

That's fine as a philosophy, but the topic was the Scriptural point of view.

[bruceq]

1 minute ago, JW Insider said:

That's fine as a philosophy, but the topic was the Scriptural point of view.

I personally believe that JW have the Scriptural point of view. Whereas Christendom although they say they do do not in regards to all that has been stated. No reason to argue I just think that interpretational authority belongs to the Governing Body not to any in Christendom or any bloggers trying to figure it all out.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway.

Perhaps I should not say this, but this discussion does not bother me. Nor does it do damage to the cause, even if Ms. Violin appears to hope it will. Historically, many have peered intensely into these things. They still are. It is nothing new that they do it here.

The big fat books we used to study, when explaining some teaching, would preface their remarks with: "it does not mean this' and 'it does not mean that." 'Why do they say what it does not mean?' the Circuit Overseer asked. 'Why don't they just say what it does mean?' It was for the sake of the old-timers, who were being called upon to unravel understandings they once had. Understandings come and go. I'll take the GB's current version because they have some tangible apparatus to show that what they spin has been blessed by God. God's spirit has moved countless volunteers to do things that they do nowhere else. I'm actually a little heartened to see some discuss at length things like this because "it ain't me, babe." I don't feel threatened by it. Let them quibble chronology till the cows come home and hope they are not missing the facts on the ground @Araunaspeaks of, for that is where the real proof of is - faith expressed in practical ways that no one else has gotten around to doing. This stuff is icing on the cake with innumerable variables arguable many ways.

Listen, I'm smart (if you are not fussy) yet this all goes over my head. It will do the same to everyone. Not so if I took hours to review and digest it, but I don't - the real truth is supported by deeds, and if there are no supporting deeds, then it is mere academic air and no one ought to get too worked up over it. Let the ones who have made it a special interest carry on with discussion. For personal reasons, there are a few non-spiritual subjects I know in considerable detail. Why should I object that some have made this theirs? I'll just interrupt here and there to insult @The Librarian.(the meddlesome hen)

[bruceq]

52 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Perhaps I should not say this, but this discussion does not bother me. Nor does it do damage to the cause, even if Ms. Violin appears to hope it will. Historically, many have peered intensely into these things. They still are. It is nothing new that they do it here.

The big fat books we used to study, when explaining some teaching, would preface their remarks with: "it does not mean this' and 'it does not mean that." 'Why do they say what it does not mean?' the Circuit Overseer asked. 'Why don't they just say what it does mean?' It was for the sake of the old-timers, who were being called upon to unravel understandings they once had. Understandings come and go. I'll take the GB's current version because they have some tangible apparatus to show that what they spin has been blessed by God. God's spirit has moved countless volunteers to do things that they do nowhere else. I'm actually a little heartened to see some discuss at length things like this because "it ain't me, babe." I don't feel threatened by it. Let them quibble chronology till the cows come home and hope they are not missing the facts on the ground @Araunaspeaks of, for that is where the real proof of is - faith expressed in practical ways that no one else has gotten around to doing. This stuff is icing on the cake with innumerable variables arguable many ways.

Listen, I'm smart (if you are not fussy) yet this all goes over my head. It will do the same to everyone. Not so if I took hours to review and digest it, but I don't - the real truth is supported by deeds, and if there are no supporting deeds, then it is mere academic air and no one ought to get too worked up over it. Let the ones who have made it a special interest carry on with discussion. For personal reasons, there are a few non-spiritual subjects I know in considerable detail. Why should I object that some have made this theirs? I'll just interrupt here and there to insult @The Librarian.(the meddlesome hen)

I just like playing with mice but sometimes its a bit tiresome. With all four of them.

[Anna]

5 hours ago, bruceq said:

OR on more likely common definitions of Christendom {Majority view}............God is a Trinity, Soul is immortal, Jehovah not in NT...

Why are you bringing this into the discussion?

[bruceq]

On 8/18/2017 at 6:49 PM, Anna said:

Why are you bringing this into the discussion?

I believe the true faith is a minority. Therefore its beliefs would not be shared by the majority such as Christendom in regards to the subjects under consideration. And I believe, as Jehovah's Witnesses also believe, that correct interpretation from God come from the "Faithful Slave" not from some bloggers on an internet site. 

To learn more of what we "really" believe instead of Christendoms propaganda as presented by a blogger look at JW.ORG for the truth about 1914 that Jehovah has given his people at the "proper" time for that teaching. Mt. 24:45.

[Anna]

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

I believe the true faith is a minority. Therefore its beliefs would not be shared by the majority such as Christendom in regards to the subjects under consideration.

Yes, I believe the true faith is a minority too. The scriptures tell us so. We don't believe in the trinity, immortality of the soul and no Jehovah in NT do we?  Why include that in the mix with visible parousia and king in 33 C.E. though? Does that make it wrong just because the majority believe that? The majority also believe other things that we as JWs believe also.

Just as a side issue, I noticed that in the new 2013 NWT there are several instances where we changed the wording to be more in line  with other (Christendom's) translations.  You know the saying,  truth is truth no matter who says it

[Anna]

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

If the Faithful slave says it is so then it is so

By the way is the kind of comment that lands people who make it, out of the truth. May you never be stumbled.

 I hope one day the faithful slave is not going to change their understanding of 1914, to one similar to what is presented here by JWI. If they do, it won't make me think any less of them. What is it going to do to you though? And don't say it will never happen, because it HAS happened on many occasions where they taught one thing, and then "refined" their understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refining our understanding, or even changing our understanding. We should never dogmatically insist on something, and as far as I can see, change is proof that the FDS have not dogmatically insisted on something when further evidence came to light. So why should WE be dogmatic? Is it wrong to say that there are some interesting scriptural arguments being brought forward? Why insist on something "just" because for the present this is what the FDS teach? At least THAT should NOT be the argument. The argument should be a well presented scriptural counter argument. So far I have not really seen this on this thread, or on the other one. The majority has just been diversions, and attacks on the person and their motive.

What if I was to call into question your person and motive? Are you perhaps scared if 1914 is wrong, where will that leave a lot of our beliefs? Where would that leave you? Are you afraid this could delay the end?  Is that why you are sidestepping the issue and diverting attention from the "message" to the person? What are you afraid of?

So, how did that feel.

[bruceq]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

This is the kind of comment that lands people who make it, out of the truth. May you never be stumbled.

Agreed.  "and the people began to fear Jehovah and to put faith in Jehovah AND in his servant Moses". And we know the "rest of the story" of how some were stumbled because of not having respect and loyalty to Jehovah AND the one "taking the lead". "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you+and be submissive" Heb. 13:17. Trust that Jehovah has his organization in complete control like the Celestial Chariot in Ezekiel.

No need to be argumentative. Jesus exposed false teachings and those who promoted them calling them "hypocrites and offspring of vipers". Mt 23. Therefore I have the right to expose those here who likewise are disloyal to Jehovah's Organization, who claim to be brothers yet are very critical and not loyal to the FDS and the current teachings of revealed truths about 1914. So why attack ones who defend the truth as Jesus did?

"So how did that feel?"  Great because:

Abundant peace belongs to those loving your law, and for them there is NO stumbling block.”—PSALM 119:165.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws20130315/loving-jehovah-no-stumbling-block/

 

 agape, Bruce

[bruceq]

On 8/18/2017 at 9:29 PM, Anna said:

Yes, I believe the true faith is a minority too. The scriptures tell us so. We don't believe in the trinity, immortality of the soul and no Jehovah in NT do we?  Why include that in the mix with visible parousia and king in 33 C.E. though? Does that make it wrong just because the majority believe that? The majority also believe other things that we as JWs believe also.

Just as a side issue, I noticed that in the new 2013 NWT there are several instances where we changed the wording to be more in line  with other (Christendom's) translations.  You know the saying,  truth is truth no matter who says it

Read more  

I and Jehovah's Witnessses believe that Satan is misleading the entire earth including the religious element. There is a reason for the widespread beliefs that are false and are in the majority. {I included those as examples] Of course the majority including us believe in the ransom but as you should know it is not the same now is it? Since they believe he was not fully man corresponding to Adam... Yes I have many different Bible Translations in my official library many with wording similar to the 2013 edition of the NWT : THEOCRATIC HERITAGE LIBRARY BOOK STORE AND DIVINE NAME MUSEUM DISPLAYS -.http://www.ebay.com/gds/Collecting-Watchtower-Research-Books-/10000000188341192/g.html  . But Jehovah is ONE and there is only one true religion despite being 40,000 Christian sects on Earth but Jehovah does not use them to preach the good news of the KINGDOM. https://www.jw.org/en/; https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jw.org

You know the saying,  truth is truth no matter who says it: Yes Satan did tell the truth to Jesus now didnt he.  And since he is the god of this world then his minions, who are everywhere including here on the internet, can also tell the truth. But that is not all there is to it now is it .  Satan often presents a truth in such a way to persuade one to believe in a lie as some here do as well being an angel of light or an "insider" of JW theology !!!Mt 7, 2 Cor. 11:14;  {WT 01 8/1 "Your Right to Believe".} https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=truth

Jesus said "by their fruits "you would recognize both true and false. Not by teachings of chronology. Ask yourself why believe a blogger from the internet who you do not even know whos fruits are of a haughty nature with very long posts and thinks he has "inside" info into the Organization yet is just an internet blogger with no way to verify anything, why he could be a predator apostate there is no way of knowing except by their fruits, does he strengthen or weaken your faith with critical words against Jehovah's people as Korah and his 250 followers did?.

[Anna]

47 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Agreed.  "and the people began to fear Jehovah and to put faith in Jehovah AND in his servant Moses". And we know the "rest of the story" of how some were stumbled because of not having respect and loyalty to Jehovah AND the one "taking the lead". "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you+and be submissive" Heb. 13:17. Trust that Jehovah has his organization in complete control like the Celestial Chariot in Ezekiel.

So how do I feel? Great because:

Abundant peace belongs to those loving your law, and for them there is NO stumbling block.”—PSALM 119:165.

 

 agape, Bruce

My previous comment was neither opposed to putting faith in Jehovah and the FDS, nor respecting and being loyal to Jehovah and the ones taking the lead. It was also not opposed to being obedient to those taking the lead and being submissive.  And also not opposed to the idea that Jehovah has his organization in complete control.

So what was your point?

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Abundant peace belongs to those loving your law, and for them there is NO stumbling block.”—PSALM 119:165.

 Exactly. So why worry about 1914?

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, bruceq said:

Is the interpretation of Matthew 24 based on less likely, special definitions of Jehovah's Witnesses {minority view} Invisible parousia, Jesus King in 1914, God is not a Trinity, No immortal soul, Jehovah in NT...

OR on more likely common definitions of Christendom {Majority view} Visible parousia, Jesus King in 33 C.E or at birth, God is a Trinity, Soul is immortal, Jehovah not in NT...

What do you think?

The foundation you gave for your question indicates that you missed the point about special definitions. You have mixed up  interpretations with definitions. What this topic was about was how using unlikely definitions of certain words has contributed to the interpretation. 

Here's an example. Suppose you tell me the following phrase, which I just picked from one of your posts in this thread:

On 8/17/2017 at 7:54 AM, bruceq said:

But I would rather share in the mistakes of Jehovah's people than "share in the sins of Babylon the Great.

This is a sentiment that should be easy to understand, and it's one I agree with whole-heartedly. But let's say that I start using the least likely meanings of the words you used, and it becomes the basis of a completely different interpretation. For example:

Bruceq refers to the sins of Babylon the Great, which obviously refers to the current problems of the city council in the town of Babylon, New York. And we know that just as in the expression "Greater Boston area" ( Greater Boston - Wikipedia ) this refers to not just the area within the city limits of Babylon, New York, but the other suburban areas that come under the jurisdiction of the "Town of Babylon."

Bruceq says he wants to share in the mistakes of Jehovah's people. Well, we know that Jehovah's people were the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so what were those mistakes he wants to share in?

(1 Corinthians 10:6-11) 6 Now these things became our examples, for us not to be persons desiring injurious things, even as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to have a good time.” 8 Neither let us practice fornication, as some of them committed fornication, only to fall, twenty-three thousand [of them] in one day. 9 Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put [him] to the test, only to perish by the serpents. 10 Neither be murmurers, just as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. 11 Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived.

Even less likely, I could assume that you were referring specifically, to the idea of perishing by serpents, which I highlighted above. So I therefore interpret your phrase to mean the following:

"But I would rather perish by serpents than join the Town Council of the town of Babylon, New York."

And I could even defend my special interpretation by pointing out that the "correct" interpretation must always be the least likely because persons in Christendom would have more likely understood it to mean exactly what you intended. Obviously, what most people thought you meant must be wrong, because people in Christendom would agree with it.

Similarly, we have formed the foundation of the invisible parousia interpretation by accepting the least likely meanings of words and terms like "lightning" "shine" "observableness" "parousia" "synteleia" "sign" "generation" "appointed times of the nations." The most important of these special interpretations were inherited from the "private interpretations" of Nelson Barbour. And they therefore came to us as long-standing traditions that started back around 1875.