Apostles, Judas, GB, Raymond, Satan, Holy Spirit

[JW Insider]

On 1/28/2019 at 10:59 PM, Anna said:

I'm not sure I agree with you on that for the simple reason that all the other people you mention would probably not meet for the purpose of studying the Bible, or perhaps in the case of the missionaries or pioneers; to study the Bible independently. But this could be the goal of the anointed, and has been for some, as you know. Then there could be a separation, and as a result a kind of disunity.

Such a meeting could be for anointed persons to answer questions about what they have learned in previous years of independent Bible study. If everyone is sharing in a group, it's easier for some to speak up after others have spoken up. It could be led like a class with sets of specific questions, partially in the form of a survey. Or it might just sound like a Watchtower study that no one had studied for in advance. The conductor would have a paragraph read with a certain idea and then he would ask for comments on the material. The goal would be to find out what things that some of the anointed have learned in their own studies that they wish the GB might be able to share. Or an oft-questioned doctrine could then come up and persons who volunteer could offer their thoughts and questions about it. And there might be a segment on what some of them may have thought was another possibility when it comes to prophetic explanations. They would not have to reveal their current views if it makes them uncomfortable to admit a difference, but just a brainstorming of ideas that have gone through their heads in the past. Naturally not everyone would participate and not everyone invited would want to attend.

There are a lot of JWs who always thought that something like this had gone on in the past anyway. And Brother Sydlik had made a comment on more than one occasion that we should just scrap a certain doctrine and "start over from scratch."

You mentioned that anointed and independent Bible study has already been a goal for some. I think a lot of people have the idea those Bethel Bible studies led to the apostasy disfellowshippings at Bethel in 1980. But as far as I know, this type of independent study had been going on, at least for some, since the late 1960's. In fact, the anointed brother who opened up his room to one 2 hour session and one 1 hour session on another day of the week, had been doing this ever since the Aid Book research began, and it was an excellent way to share things learned that wouldn't fit in the Aid Book. (Part 1 was released on 1969) There were a few who just loved Bible Study, and it was kind of an overflowing excitement that the host usually had, and it would affect others. I think a lot of people have the idea that ALL of these were dangerous just because a couple members of the Writing Department who were also involved in such things were asked to leave Bethel. But this was because of their personal beliefs, extracted after an inquisition that offered a bit of amnesty for anyone who heard anything that sounded like apostasy from a "higher-up." But this was not a part of the Bible study groups. Even if the host didn't believe in 1914, for example, he wasn't about to bring that up in a Bible study where Bethelites of various ages and backgrounds might get upset, confused, turn him in, etc. (Although I understand that one small group actually did use their Bible study night as a cover for discussing views against 1914,  the limited mediator doctrine, etc.)

These types of studies were even hosted by F.Franz who would answer questions in the steam room for people who held him in high esteem. Then he would take a passage in Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc., and start expounding verse by verse. The one time that I went to see what it was all about, he was focusing on Jeremiah.

I don't think it follows that independent Bible study results automatically in division. Besides, it would never be allowed unless the GB were looking for a different approach to our doctrines, and it would need to coincide with an approach that didn't claim to know the ONLY correct doctrine on some issues. As others have mentioned, you can simply propose the most likely version based on evidence, and humbly request anyone with additional evidence to come forward and share.

[JOHN BUTLER]

11 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I never called you an apostate or think of you as one, Pops. Former JW, yes, apostate? Dunno, didn't see you try to set fire to a hall like someone out there or defame God while attempting to mock our faith. 

If I had to be honest......whelp, I just see you as lukewarm or misguided, and a teaspoon of paranoia raising off of your skin. You can agree or disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, but to be as  stale as chips in a bag..... Well, Pops, it fits the bill, and I just paid it and tipped it too.

Do you even know what an apostate is?

Seem? An accusation or an assumption? Here we see you trying to say we are all the same when we are not. Same faith doesn't mean we sre all the same person.

 

oh dios mío.....

You seem to be one strange young person. 

[FelixCA]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Could either one of you tell me what you mean by "doctoral" in these cases? A "doctoral" understanding is the understanding of someone who is a a doctor or who has a doctoral degree. But that wouldn't make any sense in any of these examples.

Since you like to insinuate, allow me to state, 

If doctoral theology or ecclesiastical endorsement means nothing to a person that professes to have Bible knowledge, there is really nothing more that can be added for the wisdom of such a person. The exegesis defines and intellectuals understanding. Perhaps it’s beyond the comprehension for some.

To some, it is clear what is meant in Romans 12:2

Can I take it to mean Anna and JWinsider are husband and wife? since you have the same form of writing style? or is it just another overreach in your part. Perhaps other things are far more important than personal silliness.

[JOHN BUTLER]

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

An interesting point, because we (some of us) tended to defend the idea (GB=FDS) by saying that it never made that much sense that all of the anointed would be both domestics and FDS. Yet here we are right back with one of the original problems with the doctrine that I, at first, thought had been overcome.

Doesn't make much sense really because if a person was given a position of responsibility OVER others, then they would be 'above' the others, not 'equal to' the others. 

The GB are just using that idea, of being equal, to pretend that they are being humble. 

However what about the idea that ALL of the Anointed are the FDS and are 'over' those of the Earthly class ? 

But then we would still have to find the TRUE Anointed first.  

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

If doctoral theology or ecclesiastical endorsement means nothing to a person that professes to have Bible knowledge, there is really nothing more that can be added for the wisdom of such a person. The exegesis defines and intellectuals understanding. Perhaps it’s beyond the comprehension for some.

Makes sense to me. Back under another topic about 1914, specifically, "JR Ewing" and then "Guest JR Ewing" used the same expression:

On 8/27/2017 at 6:55 PM, Guest J.R. Ewing said:

When you ask a modern day Bible Student about doctoral matters, what do you think their response would be if NOT this. . . . The doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is mostly based on the teaching of Joseph Rutherford, not Charles Taze Russell. . . .  but outside of this, the JW doctrine is almost the opposite of what Russell taught and believed.

And also here:

On 9/7/2017 at 8:57 AM, Guest J.R. Ewing said:

Doctoral errors constantly pushed by JWI, JTR, O'Maly, and their supporters that have caused many to "stumble" here, since people have a tendency of believing in their hearts, that what they read is the truth, from characteristics of people that never really understood scripture, to really make an honest assessment of what the Watchtower is really about.

At that time I assumed that "doctoral" was being used as another word for "doctrinal" based on the context. That would have also fit  the more recent context here. But if you say that here you meant "doctoral" to mean "ecclesiastical endorsement" that's fine.

[Witness]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However what about the idea that ALL of the Anointed are the FDS and are 'over' those of the Earthly class ? 

But then we would still have to find the TRUE Anointed first.  

If there is not a clear demarcation of the priesthood/anointed ones in the organization, we have to ask ourselves why.  In Israel, it was evident who were of the line of Aaron and who should serve as a priest.  If the Watchtower organization belongs to God and Christ, then again there would be no question who his priests are, under our High Priest, Christ. 

Jesus said you will recognize those whom he sends by their fruits – their teachings as his priests.  Mal 2:7; 1 Pet 2:5,9; John 13:20; Matt 7:15-20   He also said there would be a ruling power over them during the last days that would remove their “sacrifices” of praise; their voice, before God and Jesus.   Dan 7:7,8,21,23,25; 8:10; Rev 13:1,11; Heb 13:15

Not until his priests speak up using their spiritual voice in defense of Christ; causing them to be “killed”/disfellowshipped and detached from the ruling power,  (John 16:2) will we then have the ability to hear/see their fruits.  In the organization, the anointed priesthood is kept under lock and key in obedience to the counterfeit priests, the elder body, and a wicked slave.  Rev 13:11-15 

This results in anonymity.  Would God’s organization allow this to exist? 

“But you and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for everything concerning the altar and inside the veil, and you are to perform service. I am giving you the priesthood as a bestowed service, but the *outsider who comes near shall be put to death."  Num 18:7

“Have you not driven out the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests like the peoples of other lands? Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, even he may become a priest of what are no gods. 2 Chron 13:9

This early arrangement of worship was made according to the “heavenly pattern” shown Moses on the mountain.  We now have a superior High Priest, the cornerstone of the Temple of God. Heb 7:26  His “living stones” /priesthood of that Temple must be servants only to their High Priest and God. 1 Cor 3:16,17   If the Watchtower organization belongs to God, we would clearly see this in action.  Instead, we see the power of men publicly announcing to God’s priesthood, not to BOND together under their only High Priest, Jesus Christ.  This is all accomplished under a cloak of divine direction. 

Who would be behind this idea, the backbone promoting a lie?  Who does not want to see the coming Kingdom of God and the fulfillment of the New Covenant promise (“woman”)?  Gen 3:14,15; Rev 12:7,9,17

Who can easily dupe people with the offer of riches, power and authority; which during the time of the end, conquers God’s priesthood with lies?  Luke 4:5-7; Matt 24:24; Rev 13:11,12,1,2,5-7; 2 Cor 11:14,15

 

 

[Equivocation]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You seem to be one strange young person. 

And what's that supposed to mean? Because I caught you assuming something and called you out? How is that strange?

After all you said those things, not me, was being honest.

That is, do you want me to refer to you as an apostate so you can proudly boil those eggs of yours? 

You played this game last time, Pops, and you're too up there in age for that.

But yeah, I don't see you as one. I know apostates when I see them, even the aggresive ones that someone who I've calmed down, want to inflict pain to. Some apostates dont realize they are making enemies among themselves and outside. 

[Equivocation]

3 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Can I take it to mean Anna and JWinsider are husband and wife?

Whoa, didn't get the memo for the wedding. Other than that the both of them write better than me, that's for sure. 

[Anna]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

An interesting point, because we (some of us) tended to defend the idea (GB=FDS) by saying that it never made that much sense that all of the anointed would be both domestics and FDS. Yet here we are right back with one of the original problems with the doctrine that I, at first, thought had been overcome.

I know what you mean. But I think it makes a little more sense when we whittle that number down to a few (as in feeding many through the hands of a few). More like a function performed (someone’s got to do it) rather than any superiority or specialness on anyone's part.  I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. So if there is no difference, it logically figures that they are all domestics, whether it be the anointed scattered throughout the earth, the earthly class, or the anointed members of the GB. Obviously once in heaven, they are very different from the earthly class, in every way.

A situation that I think (in my mind) kind of illustrates the “domestics/anointed/FDS rolled into one” idea is when during the memorial (I am only using the memorial for the purpose of an example, not any significance that it is the memorial) emblems are passed around. Towards the end, the attendants who have been passing the emblems around also need the emblems to be passed to them.  All this is done in a symbolic way of course, but the point is that their function as emblem distributors is just a logistical function to get the emblems from platform, to one row to the next, and then back to the platform. This action or job does not include the symbolic observation of the emblems on their part. I don’t know if I have explained this very well, but I am sure you will let me know if I’m not making any sense at all

[JOHN BUTLER]

@Anna Quote" I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. So if there is no difference.. "

A bit presumptuous to assume that the WT is right. Just because the GB / Writing dept' says the Anointed on earth and the earthly class are the same, does not prove that they are the same. What it does is say that the WT are saying they are the same...

If you want to hang on every word the GB / Writing dept' say, that is of course your right. But don't expect everyone else to do the same. 

How many scriptures did the WT use in full to make the point you've mentioned ?  Can you repeat those scriptures ? 

 

[Anna]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It could be to answer questions about what they have learned in previous years of independent Bible study. If everyone is sharing in a group, it's easier for some to speak up after others have spoken up. It could be led like a class with sets of specific questions, partially in the form of a survey. Or it might just sound like a Watchtower study that no one had studied for in advance. The conductor would have a paragraph read with a certain idea and then he would ask for comments on the material. The goal would be to find out what things that some of the anointed have learned in their own studies that they wish the GB might be able to share. Or an oft-questioned doctrine could then come up and persons who volunteer could offer their thoughts and questions about it. And there might be a segment on what some of them may have thought was another possibility when it comes to prophetic explanations. They would not have to reveal their current views if it makes them uncomfortable to admit a difference, but just a brainstorming of ideas that have gone through their heads in the past. Naturally not everyone would participate and not everyone invited would want to attend.

There are a lot of JWs who always thought that something like this had gone on in the past anyway. And Brother Sydlik had made a comment on more than one occasion that we should just scrap a certain doctrine and "start over from scratch."

You mentioned that anointed and independent Bible study has already been a goal for some. I think a lot of people have the idea those Bethel Bible studies led to the apostasy disfellowshippings at Bethel in 1980. But as far as I know, this type of independent study had been going on, at least for some, since the late 1960's. In fact, the anointed brother who opened up his room to one 2 hour session and one 1 hour session on another day of the week, had been doing this ever since the Aid Book research began, and it was an excellent way to share things learned that wouldn't fit in the Aid Book. (Part 1 was released on 1969) There were a few who just loved Bible Study, and it was kind of an overflowing excitement that the host usually had, and it would affect others. I think a lot of people have the idea that ALL of these were dangerous just because a couple members of the Writing Department who were also involved in such things were asked to leave Bethel. But this was because of their personal beliefs, extracted after an inquisition that offered a bit of amnesty for anyone who heard anything that sounded like apostasy from a "higher-up." But this was not a part of the Bible study groups. Even if the host didn't believe in 1914, for example, he wasn't about to bring that up in a Bible study where Bethelites of various ages and backgrounds might get upset, confused, turn him in, etc. (Although I understand that one small group actually did use their Bible study night as a cover for discussing views against 1914,  the limited mediator doctrine, etc.)

These types of studies were even hosted by F.Franz who would answer questions in the steam room for people who held him in high esteem. Then he would take a passage in Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc., and start expounding verse by verse. The one time that I went to see what it was all about, he was focusing on Jeremiah.

I don't think it follows that independent Bible study results automatically in division. Besides, it would never be allowed unless the GB were looking for a different approach to our doctrines, and it would need to coincide with an approach that didn't claim to know the ONLY correct doctrine on some issues. As others have mentioned, you can simply propose the most likely version based on evidence, and humbly request anyone with additional evidence to come forward and share.

You raise some good points, and they, and some other comments, have given me an idea for a topic on the JW - only closed club. So when I get a bit more time I will put something together.

[JOHN BUTLER]

15 minutes ago, Anna said:

You raise some good points, and they, and some other comments, have given me an idea for a topic on the JW - only closed club. So when I get a bit more time I will put something together.

Yep do it in secret. Just like the GB does.