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

[FelixCA]

On 2/3/2019 at 5:35 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

Unfortunately, I don’t share your views and value about, bad association. I am not here for the association but rather show how Ex’JW’s distort Watchtower publications to benefit what is clearly a misapplication of them. The 1943 Watchtower that was posted by Anna comes to show, how vital it is to have good expectations rather than try to satisfy the status quo.

It also appears this is being done with the claim of being an active member whereas if these thoughts and outdrawn misguided conclusions were set before the congregation, they would have nothing to do with such ideology.

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books, however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Another area of how the early brethren dealt with issues, was by being direct and frank. A characterization of Fred, seen as a hardnose can be applied to Raymond in private since he was hypocritical in public, but how the early Bible Students which Fred was baptized under and the Jehovah Witnesses that took a different direction.

This example on an exchange comes to mind.

Dear Brother Woodworth:-
Your editorial of July 8, 1931, entitled "Bible Students Radio Echo", has been read with much interest. Both you and I have often gloried in the privilege of scripturally refuting the audacious claims of the various Babylonian sects who boast that they constitute the only divine channel and repository of all truth. How often have you punctured the pompous pretensions of popes, priests, and ministers who have said that they possess God-given authority to judge and excommunicate all dissenters from their views, no matter how conscientious and devout such "heretics" might be!

We have both known and long taught that the Christian is called unto liberty, and that every child of God is divinely authorized to preach the Truth as he sees it. Is it possible that we are forgetting these past sound teachings and have come to ignore that precious heritage of Christian liberty that has long been ours? Are we now willing to adopt the "human ordination" arguments policies of the clergy whom we have so strenuously condemned?

Are we now ready to consign to everlasting destruction sincere Christians who have done no wrong greater than that of proclaiming Christ's Kingdom without first having been authorized by man or by a man-made organization? I cannot bring myself to believe, dear Brother Woodworth, that you and thousands of other Bible Students or Witnesses of Jehovah are giving your willing assent to such God-dishonoring theories and practices as your article implies. Hence, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, and with no thought whatsoever of retaliation, I write this letter in the hope that I may help you to arouse yourself from the spiritual stupor into which circumstances seem to have gradually forced you, manifestly against your better judgment.

In your attack against brethren who are preaching the Kingdom message without authority from the Society, you make no attempt to show that they are teaching error. Your argument is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the only instrument that the Lord would possibly use to proclaim Christ's Kingdom (although no scriptural reason for such a conclusion is given); and upon this premise you reason that any independent effort to proclaim the Truth is displeasing to the Lord, no matter how sincere or how effective such an effort may be, and that the Lord will vengefully visit upon such tellers of His Truth swift and lasting destruction.

You will agree, I am sure, that Jesus is the Head of His church, and that all laws governing that
body must come from Him. In spite of this, you have lent your name to a wholesale condemnation of consecrated Christians--your brethren--who are proclaiming the Kingdom message because they love it; and in support of your rash action you have not attempted to produce any authorization from the divinely-appointed Head of the church-evidently for the very obvious reason that no such authorization exists.

Haman Class seek to Monopolize
Both you and I well know that after the apostles fell asleep the early church departed from the faith and from the freedom in Christ which the Lord and His apostles had instituted. Priests and bishops then began to usurp authority; to claim a monopoly of the Truth, and to assert an autocratic control over believers. They claimed infallibility for the pope; all independent Bible study and teaching was banned; the priceless heritage of Christian liberty was taken away; and thus was brought about that dark, dismal period in the church's history during which thousands of Christians were burned at the stake or otherwise cruelly mistreated, when they tried to break away from that unauthorized, unchristian bondage of men and claim the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free.

Finally, a successful break for liberty was made and the Protestant Reformation was launched. But one after another of the Protestant sects soon fell away to the very same error against which they had protested; boastingly to assert that they had the power to open and shut the doors of heaven to whomsoever they would. Is history again repeating itself?

This is the kind of openness the Watchtower framers had. Did, it make these people less qualified for their openness, and direct approach? Perhaps, you yourself would suggest this can be seen as a bad association. If this is the case, it would be applied to justify the end means, not the truth. This type of OPED’s can be seen throughout the Watchtower history, including the Zion Tower.

Also, with this illustration, it should be able to give more clarity to other issues.

[JW Insider]

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Yes, Fred was the framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clean under scriptural bases. That didn't make him a hardnose, or an inhumane person to stick with the bylaws of scripture.

Evidently, Fred Franz was NOT a "framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clear under scriptural bases." This was one of the more surprising points in "Crisis of Conscience."

When the Aid Book was being researched and written, it became obvious that the congregations would have been able to utilize all the elders who met the qualifications. By now it probably surprises most Witnesses that there ever was a time when each congregations was "run" by an ONE autocratic "congregation servant" who could hold that position for decades. He reported to a circuit servant who reported to a district servant who reported to the service department in the US or a respective branch servant elsewhere.

When R.Franz showed F.Franz the evidence that an elder arrangement was Biblical, he says that F.Franz appeared to have known this all along but had held off doing anything about it.

(Of course, under Russell and Rutherford, there already had been an elder arrangement, but this is something that Rutherford stopped in favor of the autocratic arrangement he called "Theocratic.")

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Fred was more qualified than anyone at that time.

Just another take on this, but I think that F.Franz was very unqualified to take on the same type of leadership role that Knorr took on. Milton Henschel, definitely, or even Ted Jaracz. I could see Sydlik probably capable but not in the running due to a condition that was rarely spoken about. In fact Max Larson would have been the most equivalent replacement for Knorr had he been anointed and on the Governing Body. F.Franz was very different, and so many of his early talks in public are forceful only in the sense that they were sometimes "shrill." He was more like a nerdy expert witness on a court stand that no one would speak against because everyone thought he was so much more qualified from the perspective of his intelligence. 

If you listen to his talks going back to 1950 and 1958 (some are recorded), you can see that several times he was given these very small talks that should have been called "Bible Greek Trivia," short snippets of linguistic expertise but on topics that would have seemed insignificant in the context of an international convention. Yet, I understand that when his office filing cabinets were opened after his death, it was obvious he had been the primary writer of all Bible-based articles in the Watchtower since Knorr's presidency (1942) and that he had even been the writer of many articles in Rutherford's lifetime. He wrote almost 100 percent of every prophecy book from 1942 through 1988. Articles that were written by others on these same topics merely copied his previously published material and reworded it. 

Jehovah no doubt blessed the decision to go back to an elder arrangement, and I think that F.Franz knew he could not stand in the way of this change, now that someone else had seen how clearly the Bible defines this arrangement. I sometimes think that Witnesses were protected from something quite chaotic and damaging that would have happened had F.Franz been the bureaucratic head and the unchecked spiritual head of the Society at the same time. The Governing Body arrangement was very timely. Jehovah provides.

Of course that didn't stop F.Franz from writing an article that included some non-Biblical speculation when he accepted the elder arrangement, and a very limited Governing Body arrangement in 1971. In the infamous 'tail wagging the dog' article from December 15, 1971, he wrote:

*** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14.

This may be an excellent idea. But where in 1 Tim 4:14 is there any hint that there was a 'chairmanship' among the body of elders, or that this 'chairmanship' rotated among coequal elders? The argument had been built from the idea that Peter speaks in Acts 2, and then James in Acts 15.

*** w71 12/15 pp. 758-759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
The governing body does not have officers such as the Society’s Board of Directors has, namely, president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer and assistant secretary-treasurer. It has merely a chairman, such as the governing body of the first century had. Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

That's why he enjoyed translating scripture into different languages. 

F.Franz was fairly proficient in several European languages and had studied Biblical Greek. He did a lot of work translating Hebrew and Greek into English, but I'm pretty sure he was not involved in translating scripture into any other languages.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

There is far more that can be said, it would take a book to yield such information.

I found him to be a very interesting man. I'd read it.

[JW Insider]

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Since we all should know, 144,000 thousand saints is a literal number, my question to Raymond and Fred early on in my life, was, if some saints were still earthbound, would these saints be the ones to automatically be raptured into heaven to complete the cycle.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980.

 But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others?

And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written:

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After all, everything would have to be complete and set in place in heaven so the heavenly kingdom would have full control of all the earthbound survivors.

Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb.

So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Now, I appreciated Fred’s answer even though it wasn’t an answer. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you, there is no question as to what scripture means. Perhaps I didn’t quite understand then because of my age, but it sunk in as I grew older.

This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. 

And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

On the other hand, when Raymond set me aside, he expressed an opinion with regard to rapture. This is when I asked him to elaborate since scripture clearly states the accounts of Enoch, Genesis 5:24 and Elijah, Second Kings 2:11. 

Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After his comment, this is why stupid children need to grow up to understand, I left it alone. I’m assuming here since he never had kids of his own he had no patience with children.

Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own.

If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

This, however, would be a good argument for the final rapture of the saints “if” there are still some left. Now, not everyone who partakes will eventually be of the anointed class.

That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. 

When was it ever anything else?

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books,

From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize.

JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account.

The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart.

No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant  - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news.

With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home.

Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was  likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist.

Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say?

You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

[FelixCA]

I imagine you have dismissed the OPED I submitted, with how many in charge would be frank and open with their responses. Raymond was no different in private. Perhaps his behavior was more polished in public but that would be something people that liked him would only see.

There are two sides to a coin, and I got to experience both sides. It really didn’t matter to me, since adults at that times were by and large as you stated “child abuse” oriented by today’s standards, not so much by the signs of that time. Perhaps, this is the problem people have today.

They look at every situation with today’s ideology rather than being intellectual and cite with the past.

The ecclesiastical determination allows viewing scripture correctly. The understanding of rapture is defined by how God’s Holy Spirit can and will operate. I believe that has been discussed before.

The inference that Fred was not involved in translating scripture to other languages when at that time there were around 109 languages if memory serves, is not an adequate characterization of Fred’s abilities. I believe that was something that was challenged in court.

While the word “framer” is taken out of context, it was the foundation for best practices for having a judicial system through the congregations, Committee. Which Fred had a fair amount of input on how this committee should be conducted, with various scriptural conditions to support it?

Once again, perhaps this is why you hold loyalty to Raymond. In an ecclesiastical level, there was no one more qualified than Fred Franz.

This, however, will remain one opinion over another. The “actions” of both subjects speak for themselves.

This is why I don’t see how you can effectively contradict arrangements that weren’t part of the Watchtower after 1931.

Before that, each congregation ran independently of each other. There was no central system, even though some continue to insist, Bethel was Pastor Russell main hub when it wasn’t.

Elders in each congregation had the ability to choose for themselves what was best for their congregants. Another reason why other denominations were welcomed to speak at their church meeting. Traveling preachers. If they had internal matters within local congregations, they would form an Ecclesia body of Elders.

“We write to apprise you of the fact that a class of Bible Students of this town have organized as an Ecclesia--24 members --Brother W. Sargent of Halifax officiating; and have voted you in as Pastor and Elder.”

“We have heard of cases in which an Elder refused to speak to one of the Congregation because the latter had not voted for him”

Dear Brethren:

I am writing you this to testify my appreciation of the visit it of dear - Pilgrim Brother Blackburn. I so much enjoyed his sweet fellowship. He seemed so, charged with the Message of love-the Gospel of Glad Tidings­ that there was no room for malevolent backbiting and -slander of fellow-servants . . . Brother Blackburn, in all his discourses, emphasized the possessing of the spirit of -Christ Jesus as the all-important, qualification of Christian character . . . Ali! how can those 'Who have tasted of the heavenly gift be so lacking in the spirit of love as to smite brethren who cannot accept every wild speculation and vagary thrust before them! If those who do such things are thereby manifesting the spirit of the Lord, then I have read the Divine Word in vain.

If the Associated Bible Students were offering "strange fire" when they preach the Truth independently of the Society, not only would their efforts come to naught but they themselves would be cut short, even as your article suggests. But, instead of this, the Lord is richly blessing their efforts, and many have come to a knowledge of the Truth and into full relationship with the Lord as a result of these ministries outside of the Society.

 

 All in all, we choose to believe what Satan has placed before us. If we refuse to acknowledge that effort, we will always play into his handy work. To distort the facts by distorting the truth.

For the Watchtower history, it’s been clear, the framers besides Raymond and former apostates like him, fell in a trap of their own device. Self-destruction by opening their hearts to Satan. Another evidence of this was the writing department in Raymond’s time. Conflict within, what a shame and wasted effort.

 

TTH, it is true some consideration should be given to some that still consider themselves as being part of this organization, but NOT when we are dealing with apostasy. If Raymond resigned and then disfellowshipped for it, how much more slack do you think people here should have? Therefore, you have the same conflict the writing department had back then with misplaced loyalty. But, that's between you and our creator.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

But, that's between you and our creator.

That’s a good way to put it. I like it.

If you cut people absolutely no slack, you almost push them out.

We do cut people slack in most areas. For example, if we cut them no slack on ‘loving violence,’ we would REALLY clamp down on those watching sports like American football, which has been PROVEN to drastically curtail life. (See the movie ‘Concussion’) But we don’t. We allow for the fact that all have missed the mark.

This should not be the one area in which we cut people ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK. JWI spouts off on ‘the way things ought to be.’ So what? He has made it clear many times that he recognizes that there must be headship and that he acqiesces to it. He has picked some obscure backwater channel presided over by some 4th-rate school Liberian who really doesn’t like kids and who is counting the days till her retirement, easing her days with wine, while the children play mean tricks on her, lowering a cat from the ceiling that will first latch onto and remove her toupee like in Tom Sawyer, to pour out how he really feels for the sake of his ‘conscience.’ Let him. If he is a windbag, let that be his vice—probably he is not hung up on violent football. Challenge him on points if you like. I have done so, but every time he does, he defends his point so well that I have learned not to do it. I mean, what am I going to say—that his experiences are not his? He will agree in a heartbeat that what he says is subjective.

Plus, he makes his posts so long that people skip over them, unless they are absolutely fixated on the points he raises, and if they are, they may as well get data from him, rather than from people who decidedly think ill of the JW cause and will make up falsehood. No, Felix, it is not that your point is invalid, but there are bigger fish to fry. 

Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ and MANY say they were driven away on that account. You (forgive my bluntness) are here a case in point, striving very hard to ‘control’ him (with good motive—don’t misunderstand). Of course, it is in the nature of the truth that there is going to be authority, but in light of ALL opposers saying it and MANY friends conceding that it can at times be smothering, it pays to give thought to not being unnecessarily that way.

My blog and book experience has led me to think of other areas where change may one day come. Elsewhere I wrote:

It may be unavoidable, but the scriptural counsel to avoid apostates come what may has a serious downside. If a youngster of ours succumbs to the oldest trap of human nature- going somewhere out of curiosity because he has been advised not to, and he stumbles, he finds himself totally unsupported because we don’t know what is there ourselves. All we can say is that he shouldn’t go there, which opposers spin as proof that he should stay in order to escape from being “controlled.”  I don’t know the answer, but it would be nice if there was one.

[JOHN BUTLER]

Quote TTH "From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. "

Plus belittling people. Making fun of important issues,

And advertising your books. 

And from my viewpoint the 'one of good heart' seeks only truth and justice, along with mercy and honesty. And in doing so looks to God through Jesus Christ for the guidance of holy spirit. Also reading and believing God's word, not mans.  

They do not take the easy, cowardly, way out, by serving 'A body of men' and hiding in an organisation that they know is dishonest and has no true love in it. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

Quote TTH. "Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ "

Opposers do this opposers do that. Apostates do this, apostates do that.

Dear old TTH, he loves to generalise.  Tom, everyone is an individual.

Haven't you watched 'Life Of Brian' ? We're all individuals. 

However if ten people saw a vehicle accident happen and had to give a report to the police, they would all probably give similar accounts.

If you have 50 ex JW's, they will each have their own experiences. If all 50 of them found the Org to be controlling then doesn't that tell you something ?  If you are not blind or deaf, it should tell you that those 50 people found the JW Org to be controlling. 

The only way JW's can get out of that control is by not completely obeying the 'rules'. And it seems that you are saying that the rules are not always enforced. BUT the rules are there none the less. 

Quote TTH "We do cut people slack in most areas."   Please explain.

WHO cuts people slack ? What slack are they cutting ? Do you mean that Elders allow congregants to break the rules ?

So are you admitting that there are those rules in place ?

If so, having those rules in place, is controlling. 

Yes I know we all have to obey rules in everyday life. For instance, which side of the road we drive on, stopping at red lights. 

But the superior authorities will admit they put rules in place, so they are controlling.

So why won't the GB of JW Org ,and you, admit that the Org is controlling ? After all isn't it supposed to be that way ? 

If there are rules it is for the purpose of having control. 

[TrueTomHarley]

24 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote TTH "We do cut people slack in most areas."   Please explain.

 

I did explain. All you had to do was read the next sentence.

[JW Insider]

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Luke 12:32 ^{. . .} little flock; . . . John 10:16 . . .other sheep. . . Revelation 7:3-8 . . . the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. ⁵ From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, . . .

When you juxtapose those 3 verses as you have, it helps to make a case for the idea already presented that the little flock might be Jews and the other sheep might be non-Jews, that is: people out of every tribe and nation. In fact you stopped just one verse shy of verse 9:

(Revelation 7:9) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.

So we already know that in some sense the 144,000 refer to Israelites, and the great crowd refer to Gentiles. The question is whether the reference is literal. We claim the number 144,000 to be literal, but we claim the reference to Israel is not. In fact, we teach that people of every tribe and nation are a part of that 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel, and that even many who are fleshly Israelites can end up being a part of that great crowd from all nations. Saying these expressions are NOT literal might appear to some people to be the equivalent of adding and subtracting from the Bible.

If the number 144,000 is not literal then it is surely not up to us to decide how many literal persons might make up this group. Since this is a discussion which has become centered on the views that R.Franz presented. I'll just present some of what he said on this so that other persons can reference it, and decide if it has any merit, or to point out the flaws in the reasoning.

At the time, there were only two of Jesus' parables that were believed to include the "other sheep." John 10:16 of course, and the "sheep and goats" parable because it mentions someone doing something for Christ's brothers, considered here to be only from the 144,000.

R.Franz points out that even if everything we teach about the 144,000 being literal is true, and only 144,000 will be in heaven, and a great crowd will make up the new earth  --even if all this is true-- it still doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't referring to literal Israelites in the "little flock" and literal "Gentiles" in the "other sheep" when he used these terms in John 10:16. The best argument the Watchtower uses for our current view of John 10:16 is that Christendom teaches they are literal Jews and Gentiles. This is not a real argument because we use Christendom all the time as evidence that we are right when Christendom's commentaries and scholarship agrees with us.

 

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

42 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I did explain. All you had to do was read the next sentence.

You avoid answering the questions I asked though and that was what i wanted you to explain, as you well know. 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You avoid answering the questions I asked though and that was what i wanted you to explain, as you well know. 

The post itself explains those things.

if you don’t mind, I’ll pass, John. Many others have explained these things for you. I haven’t seen any of them make an inch of progress.