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

[JOHN BUTLER]

10 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I remember the last time I confronted an apostate (who said he was a a Christian) and spoke of God, he said he'd kill me even though he was twice my age, even dared me to go to his town and that I'd be praying to wishing God was here in person when he is done with me. It didn't faze me that much because I was right about what I said because he was saying untrue things about God and about Moses and the Israelites. He was angry because he was corrected on the Old Testament. Even before that some of these apostates attacked the hall I was at, and caused someone who is connected to a sister to go to war against the apostates.

Always another day in the office it seems.

Well you would probably call me an apostate, but I'm only apostate to the JW Org. And yes I still believe in God and Jesus Christ. 

But you seem to want to jump on the JW bandwagon about apostates, so be it. 

[Anna]

17 hours ago, FelixCA said:

The argument offered would lead us to what? In ancient times, I can offer many examples where the faithful people of God failed. What is the point, if we don’t allow God to make the necessary corrections rather than rely upon our own heart to make them?

I think his point was, (if he was being genuine) that it wasn't about the failing necessarily, but about how it affected the lives of others (in a bad way) who were completely reliant, and were told to be reliant, on that information, and on those giving that information. 

 

[Anna]

18 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Door to Door

“If the question were put to the headquarters organization of the Watch Tower Society whether each member (if physically able) must do house-to-house witnessing to be a true Witness, in fact to be a true Christian, the answer would probably be that this is not an absolute requirement. (Actually, it would be extremely difficult to get a clear, straightforward answer on such a question; the headquarters organization is remarkably reticent about expressing itself in writing on sensitive issues and, even when given, answers are often couched in ambiguous terms, or evasive and roundabout reasoning.) We have already seen, however, that responsible men in the organization acknowledge that there is serious reason to question whether in reality the Witness community as a whole engages in this activity simply out of a heartfelt desire to do it, as something freely motivated, done without any sense of compulsion.”

To read an error of attempting to argue against the door to door witnessing when scripture clearly states how Jesus would send the apostles are one of a thousand (exaggeration) ways; maybe not Raymond misinterpreted scripture to win the minds and hearts of troubled people. Therefore, his research was NOT incumbent on Bible truth. James 5:16-20

I am not sure what your argument is here. I believe the scriptures are clear on proselytizing. Wasn't Raymond questioning the motivation/desire, or rather the lack of  motivation/desire on the part of the Witness community? I guess I will have to read the whole chapter to get the context...

[FelixCA]

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think his point was, (if he was being genuine) that it wasn't about the failing necessarily, but about how it affected the lives of others (in a bad way) who were completely reliant, and were told to be reliant, on that information, and on those giving that information.

This would be a good view if it was given as a good cause. Unfortunately, Raymond actions became centered in not being genuine but self-serving.

People at Bethel can say whatever they wish as an opinion, but Raymond’s actions spoke for themselves. Sincerity was not an option for him. Blind rage was.

That type of action affected others to promote apostate understandings, not biblical ones. Those that accepted his kind of methodology did so with a willful mind to accept what men claimed as fact, rather than be reliant on the fact that we are guided by God’s Holy Spirit. That makes a world of difference in Bible understanding.

[Anna]

 

 

5 hours ago, FelixCA said:

5 hours ago, Anna said:

I think his point was, (if he was being genuine) that it wasn't about the failing necessarily, but about how it affected the lives of others (in a bad way) who were completely reliant, and were told to be reliant, on that information, and on those giving that information.

This would be a good view if it was given as a good cause. Unfortunately, Raymond actions became centered in not being genuine but self-serving.

People at Bethel can say whatever they wish as an opinion, but Raymond’s actions spoke for themselves. Sincerity was not an option for him. Blind rage was.

Well here we are discussing the man and his motive. We cannot see into his heart. But the principle stays the same. Whether given in a 'good cause' or 'bad cause'. Whether he was genuinely concerned about the lives of others or not,  those lives were still affected.  There were many others whose lives were affected positively. Talking to brothers and sisters we see that most are grateful for having learned the Truth. It improved their life on many levels and gave their life meaning. Those are the positive things we want to focus on. But it doesn't negate those whose life was affected negatively, and the sad part is, quite unnecessarily at times. We don't want to have the attitude of some kind of collateral damage, that that's OK.

5 hours ago, FelixCA said:

That type of action affected others to promote apostate understandings, not biblical ones. Those that accepted his kind of methodology did so with a willful mind to accept what men claimed as fact, rather than be reliant on the fact that we are guided by God’s Holy Spirit. That makes a world of difference in Bible understanding.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean those in leadership positions claiming something as a fact? And that we should accept this because they are guided by God's holy spirit?

[FelixCA]

29 minutes ago, Anna said:

Well here we are discussing the man and his motive. We cannot see into his heart. But the principle stays the same. Whether given in a 'good cause' or 'bad cause'. Whether he was genuinely concerned about the lives of others or not,  those lives were still affected.  There were many others whose lives were affected positively. Talking to brothers and sisters we see that most are grateful for having learned the Truth. It improved their life on many levels and gave their life meaning. Those are the positive things we want to focus on. But it doesn't negate those whose life was affected negatively, and the sad part is, quite unnecessarily at times. We don't want to have the attitude of some kind of collateral damage, that it's OK.

While we don’t know anyone’s heart aside from God himself, Raymond’s actions spoke volumes. It did have a negative impact on Bethel. Only those that revered Raymond thought it was an injustice. Those that learned in a positive way strengthened their faith to understand God was not willing to allow a self-severing person to push the Watchtower backward rather than advance spiritually. What would be his motive now?

I believe JWinsider mentioned there were some at Bethel that saw him as the next “President” of the Watchtower. The unanimous decision to have a governing body was not to overburden only a single individual and it was paramount to develop a body rather than a board. However, Raymond liked the idea of the originator of the Bible Students, Russell. But, if you understand Russell’s ACTIONS, he preferred not to be looked like a leader, rather than a follower of Christ alongside everyone else.

Therefore, Raymond’s Actions were to regress the Watchtower and it had a negative impact. The only good takeaway that can be seen now for true Christians, learn from Raymond’s mistakes. A person that had a positive high responsibility and through it all away for loyalty to a man, and personal desires. All of which goes against, Bible principle.

34 minutes ago, Anna said:

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean those in leadership positions claiming something as a fact? And that we should accept this because they are guided by God's holy spirit?

Understandable. It does get confusing when we try to put our thoughts into print. It gets misunderstood more often than any of us want to admit. Even professional authors are scrutinized for their works. Can the GB claim something factual, YES!, they rely on scripture to make it a fact from a man's point of view. Did Raymond subvert and distort Bible facts to promote his own agenda, YES! therefore, the motive of Raymond would go against God's Holy Spirit, and that's a fact.

[Anna]

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I tended to believe everything my brother told me about any subject. He's my older brother by 8 years, and I thought he had more experience of life than me so I trusted him to teach me the right things. 

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You are totally wrong. I have faith in no human, and trust no human

I am assuming you no longer have faith your brother, but you still do have faith and trust in so many people. You have faith in the milkman that he will bring your milk everyday, (do they still do that?) you have faith in medical staff that they will administer treatment for your benefit, you have faith in the pilot that he will get you to your destination, you have faith in the police force, that they will  help people. Whether that faith is justified or not doesn't matter. The fact is us humans have a need to rely on other humans and put faith in them otherwise it would be impossible to live a normal life. 

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And the people on 'ground level' were good and friendly. BUT that just makes it like a social club. I fell for it all. I did as I was told and didn't ask questions. It all seems to make sense. 

THEN, as time went on, the GB/JW Org changed the meaning of scriptures, changed teachings/doctrine,  ...... 

Maybe that was a mistake, that you didn't ask any questions, but evidently you didn't feel you needed to, if everything made sense....

With the Org changing the meaning of scripture, and teachings, I am assuming you preferred the previous ones better? Or is it because you think there should never be any change?

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

think it's funny that JW's pretend they don't put their faith in men. Whereas it can easily be seen that JW's are told to believe what the GB tells them. JW's do not question the GB's words, hence why wrongdoing has been going on for so long in the JW Org. 

From the examples I wrote about above it's unrealistic to think that JWs pretend they don't put their faith in men. I know in this case you mean the men on the GB. But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job, whether it be the milkman, doctor, pilot or policeman. Yes, Witnesses do put faith in the GB, it is logical they do so and there is scripturally absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as they keep in mind that if there is ever a conflict between what man says, and what God says, then what God says must always take precedent of course. You know the scripture (Acts 5:29). 

With regard to the wrongdoing you mention, I am assuming you mean the mishandling of Child abuse cases? Or were you thinking of some other specific wrongdoing?

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Proof from past Watchtowers shows that the Org presents itself as God's only organisation, and the GB as God's only spokesperson, and again the Org as the only means of salvation. And JW's do not question that.  

Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that the Org. presents itself as God's only orgnisation. Most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. With the GB being the only spokesperson for God, then that is disputable and would be presumptuous in the words of G. Jackson. Every time  a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God. The Org. being the only means of salvation can be a tricky one. Of course it is Jehovah who is going to save, and every Witness believes that. The concept 'means' or 'by means of' can apply to the fact that the requirements for salvation as stated in the Bible have been proclaimed by that Organisation. If the stones were to cry out instead ( Luke 19:40) then it would be by means of the stones

Don't forget about this scripture: "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?  How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” (Romans 10:13-15)

 

[JW Insider]

On 1/24/2019 at 6:51 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think it's funny that JW's pretend they don't put their faith in men.

It's true that most JWs put faith in the GB and in the assembly speakers and in their elders and even put faith in each other to some extent. Taking R.Franz just a bit out of context, he praises the Witnesses for how they have responded in difficult situations, and which often means putting faith (trust) in one another.

Many religious affiliations could benefit from the example of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the area of racial integration, in their deemphasizing
of class distinctions, their comparatively strong sense
of commitment and obligation toward anyone, though otherwise
a complete stranger to them, who is a member in good standing in
the organization. Perhaps some of the most appealing—and dramatic—
features in their history are those occasions when they have
been faced with crisis situations, in times of intense persecution
or natural disasters or war, when many of them have shown a will-
ingness to risk their own safety, possessions or even their own lives
in the interest, in one way or another, of fellow members. The accounts
of the experiences of Witnesses during the Nazi regime in
Germany, during the Duvalier premiership of Quebec, or during
the period of mob violence in the United States in the 1940s, make
absorbing reading. The sincerity of those who demonstrated a courageous
and selfless concern for others rightly goes unquestioned,
and I find their example both encouraging and laudable.  -- R.Franz, "Christian Freedom" p.600

Of course, this comes from a person, R.Franz, who would never have been allowed back into the Organization even if he wanted to. Yet after giving it several years of thought, he still recognized areas where JWs excel. Elsewhere in the same book, he still recognized the value of core doctrines he learned through Jehovah's Witnesses.

I am not one to claim that only JWs are good, or only JWs have the truth about many things. In fact, I have no doubt that we are absolutely wrong about certain things, but I consider them minor compared to more important things. But I do find that JWs have the best overall set of beliefs (for me) because I am a core anti-war, anti-Trinity, anti-Hellfire Christian. I could also list a lot of other things about Christian morality and cleanliness, and Christian activities including public preaching and proselytizing, and emphasis on a God who will accomplish his purpose toward the earth, etc., etc. All these things make the JW faith attractive and comfortable. Imperfect, with a lot of things wrong, but I still don't know of a religion with more "truth." I also think it does an excellent job attempting to put the first-century principles of Christianity into the twenty-first century -- and all over the world at that.

I appreciate how this particular combination of beliefs sets us apart from the rest, almost by definition, and by doing so enhances the cohesiveness of our Christian brotherhood. We are therefore going to stand out as different from other denominations, a good thing, in my opinion. We take upon ourselves a "teaching" ministry. If you ever again want to be part of a "teaching" ministry, and you think that this is an important ministry for the times we live in, then I think there is every good reason to consider JWs again. I'm sure Jehovah looks with favor upon Christians and would-be Christians who take up some kind of charitable ministry, too, or any ministry where their goal is to help fellow humans in response what God has done for them, even if it's just what they perceive that God has done for them.

Jehovah looks at motivations of the heart and our responses that are based on love for Him and love for neighbor. This is the great teaching of Jesus, and it matches the goal that the Mosaic Law could have transitioned a nation to do. And now, we can be a part of that nation. I don't believe that nation must be an organization, per se, even if it was a kind of organization under Israel and the Law. I think it's individuals. But under normal circumstances it will be individuals that join together under the same tenets of faith. And not all those individuals have to be JWs as far as I can see. But JWs set forth an attractive combination of teachings that do a great job reflecting the truth about Jehovah.

I can't tell you that you will be very comfortable as a JW again, but it is good and healthy to try to trust people. And I know that it's always more difficult for people who have been through what you have. Even if JWs are just kind of a social club for now. You did say that you sometimes talked to other JWs about issues related to the organization. I think the organization needs more people who are willing to talk to others honestly about issues. And you will always have the balance of having seen right through those times when fellow JWs are too hooked on following men. It's also true that you might get pushed out again. But in the meantime, you will have given it a try, not just walking away. And you might find some comfort in associating again with your brother, the Elder, and explaining things to him. No doubt he is a true believer and was never trying to trick you.

Summarizing, (I have to throw in that word to encourage myself to stop blabbing on and on) I know that you are referring to how some Witnesses will replace faith that should be in Jehovah and and letting faith in the GB supersede this. I admit that this happens. But it's easy to make this claim without understanding that all faith in Jehovah's ability to teach us will involve being taught by others. Jehovah does not teach us by putting complete understanding in our mind. The Bible tells us to expect teaching to come through others, and to hold fast to the teaching as handed down. We probably could get the basic things on our own, but we wouldn't have the encouragement that comes from a group of persons: some who will need our help and some who will be there to help us.

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

While we don’t know anyone’s heart aside from God himself, Raymond’s actions spoke volumes. It did have a negative impact on Bethel. Only those that revered Raymond thought it was an injustice.

I believe that R.Franz got a few things wrong. His facts were correct, but one can always come to a wrong conclusion based on true facts. But that still doesn't mean that we can judge his heart, of course. A person who disagrees with certain things but doesn't leave his faith over them is not included in the definition of an apostate. And besides, the things he thought we had wrong as an organization included issues he had every right, and even an assigned duty to consider, when he was a member of the Governing Body.

• So he thought we had the generation definition wrong and it would have to be changed within just a few years. It was.
• He thought the Watchtower Society should not be repressing the work of Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico. They stopped.
• He thought that it seemed Scriptural that homosexual or bestial relations should dissolve a marriage. This was changed.
• He thought that the Governing Body should complete the change on avoiding the military through alternative service. They did.
• Although he said there was nothing Scripturally wrong with door-to-door ministry, he thought the Society should also consider other methods of distributing its literature and not focus so much on hours and placements in just one form of ministry. Now it has (website, carts).

Granted, he also thought that based on past historical experience, we should stop setting any kind of date or even a date range as a time limit for Armageddon to occur. This hasn't completely stopped per the new generation doctrine, but since 2010, time-setting is much more nebulous than it has ever been in the past. He also thought that the Greek Scriptures should not be so strictly applied only to the anointed who claim a heavenly hope. In recent years, the GB have come to see this issue in the same way, and specifically stated updates in our new understanding in those very terms used by R.Franz.

For me, even if he was wrong on some matters, it shows the truth of the Bible verse:

• (1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

It's not a matter of R.Franz being right or wrong in a few things, or being wrong in more things than he was right about, or even if he was right about most things. But he was definitely right about some of the issues he brought up, or the Governing Body would not have changed over time toward his way of thinking.

[FelixCA]

Interesting, is this the kind of methodology Raymond found himself in support of? How can “faith” be expressed when the Holy Spirit is generally misunderstood. For that, we would need to understand what “gifts” of the Holy Spirit are. Does everyone receive the same gifts? Acts 2:17

Do these gifts unravel to be interpreted by man’s own thoughts? Or are they an expression of guidance by Gods Holy Spirit, that man must follow. If these gifts were all equal? These types of arguments would be none existent.

In Daniel God gave every knowledge to certain young men. Did he give that gift to a synagogue? The High Priest, the prevailing Jewish governing body?

The apostles received certain gifts that weren’t given to faithful Christians. There is no need for a true Christian to supersede any ideology that goes beyond not understanding how the Holy Spirit works within the body of Christ. Matthew 1:20-23

I’m afraid Raymond didn’t understand this, once he fell from the grace of God. Can anyone truly say, who has an angel looking over them? 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Timothy 1:5, 2 Timothy 3:15  

True Christian follow and have faith on? To the meek, it’s always been Jehovah with the GB being exemplary men (teachers) to give us spiritual food at the proper time. That’s the ideology since 1931. Revelation 2:7

 No one that I know of reveres the GB, in a negative way as in bow down to them but show genuine respect of brotherly love for them being responsible and accountable to God if they personally lead God’s children astray. Another area where Raymond failed. Matthew 18:6

1 Corinthians 12 New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

Gifts of the Holy Spirit

 

12 Brothers and sisters, I want you to know about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 2 You know that at one time you were unbelievers. You were somehow drawn away to worship statues of gods that couldn’t even speak. 3 So I want you to know that no one who is speaking with the help of God’s Spirit says, “May Jesus be cursed.” And without the help of the Holy Spirit no one can say, “Jesus is Lord.”

 

4 There are different kinds of gifts. But they are all given to believers by the same Spirit. 5 There are different ways to serve. But they all come from the same Lord. 6 There are different ways the Spirit works. But the same God is working in all these ways and in all people.

 

7 The Holy Spirit is given to each of us in a special way. That is for the good of all. 8 To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. 9 To others the same Spirit gives faith. To others that one Spirit gives gifts of healing. 10 To others he gives the power to do miracles. To others he gives the ability to prophesy. To others he gives the ability to tell the spirits apart. To others he gives the ability to speak in different kinds of languages they had not known before. And to still others he gives the ability to explain what was said in those languages. 11 All the gifts are produced by one and the same Spirit. He gives gifts to each person, just as he decides.

[FelixCA]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's not a matter of R.Franz being right or wrong in a few things, or being wrong in more things than he was right about, or even if he was right about most things. But he was definitely right about some of the issues he brought up, or the Governing Body would not have changed over time toward his way of thinking.

Are we talking about the same Raymond Franz?

Where in the Watchtower literature does it state,

1.      607BC is not a relevant date, but instead, it’s 587BC. Where in the Watchtower literature does it state,

2.      Russell prophesied about the end of the world in 1914AD.

3.       Where in the Watchtower literature does it state unequivocally the world would end in 1975? The same propositions that Ex-JW’s and opposers alike hold against the organization. What good did it do Raymond to acknowledge those misguided ideals because a treatise was presented to the Watchtower and the Watchtower literature was misrepresented?

4.       Where does it state in scripture that rebuke (reproved) Luke 17:3, and staying away (Disfellowship) from an unrepentant person is not Biblical? 1 Corinthians 5

Yet Raymond deemed it a misuse. Why, because his good friend was disfellowshipped. He placed his personal feeling above God’s commandment to show repentance. Acts 3:19

5.       Centralized authority. Raymond found it a need to criticize the Governing Body,  board ship. Does he not relate that such a group would amount to the same body Jesus was dealing with? Where in scripture does it state to defy all authorities based solely on Christ teachings? Another example of a false narrative. He was disappointed to have been passed on as an authority figure himself. If it was up to him, he would have reinstated the Watchtower presidency. One authority figure. That says more about personal gain than Bible understanding. What he failed to acknowledge was, when there were presidents running the Watchtower, that president had assigned board committees.

I could go on and on, it doesn’t interest me to argue a failed man’s idea of criticizing in effect scripture to promote his personal agenda.

[FelixCA]

Before there’s an ideological misunderstanding, I view the stewardship of 1914 as the faithful and wise servant and 1931 as the faithful and discreet slave. They both have the same context, but I like to keep them separate. That’s my opinion and rendering from a theological perspective. I’m not adding or removing anything from scripture. It is meant to keep past and present understanding of scripture interpretation honest by groups that held the Watchtower as their publishing base headquarters.