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

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Interesting, is this the kind of methodology Raymond found himself in support of?

The entire post of yours that begins with the words I just re-quoted could be taken as a defense of some of the positions taken by R.Franz. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but several of the examples show that you agree with him.

The problem with this post is that the parts that are the most clear produce contradictions within your own post. Yes, the Bible says that the gifts are distributed throughout the entire congregation, the entire body of individuals, not just a special group of prophets, or a special group of teachers, or a special group of evangelizers. Then you mention that holy spirit was given to certain young individuals in the book of Daniel and not to the whole congregation (synagogue). Then you said that the apostles were given certain gifts that weren't given to others in the congregation. This is interesting. Can you name one of those gifts? I can't find any, nor do I believe this is a Biblical teaching.

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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 . . .

I'm afraid you don't either. You can't blame someone for misunderstanding a false statement and your misuse of Scripture.

It looks like your main point of difference is that you are saying that R.Franz could not express a proper "faith" if he doesn't realize that "holy spirit" only works through a certain approved group of men. And it was not specifically the "approved group of men," but in a practical way holy spirit was supposed to work by moving at least two-thirds of this approved group of men to agree on an issue. Therefore the holy spirit worked by motivating a 66.666 percent majority or greater to agree on a vote.

Of course, R.Franz no doubt watched dozens of times when this group would have reached that 66.666 percent majority, except that persons who had expressed to him that they believed their vote should go a certain way, would vote a different way if F.Franz had his up before their own, and they would merely follow his vote. R.Franz says a sizable percentage of the Governing Body would almost ALWAYS vote however F.Franz voted. A couple of these votes were most interesting in that they got the 66.666 percent majority to make the change saying that "alternative service" was now a matter of the individual's conscience, which would have changed the situation in South Korea and many other countries, but Brother Barry changed his vote back when he realized that just one vote had brought them over the 66.666 percent needed, and his vote had been different from that of F.Franz. 

At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine
voted in favor of changing the traditional policy so that the decision
to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience
of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were
then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since
nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, no change was made.
On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote
taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven
voted for changing the policy so that the Witness who conscientiously
felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized
as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation.
This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made?
No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member
Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change,
announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance
of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds
majority. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present,
showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention.14
Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and,
when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing
Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one
vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the
policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected
to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even
though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might
conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight.

So they had the two-thirds majority, and even without it, they had an actual majority voting for the change during six sessions where the vote was always more than 50 percent. More importantly, (to me) it was clear from the letters they were receiving from all over the world that several of the persons in prison were not there for their own conscience, but were asked to falsely claim that it was their own conscience, even though it was really based on a vote of the Governing Body not reaching two-thirds.

If you believe that the current view of the Governing Body is correct, then you are indicating that the CORRECT view was not voted in until 1996. Which means that many brothers were being encouraged to be dishonest about their conscience, and go to prison unnecessarily for an extra 16 years.

Of course, you could argue that it was Jehovah's holy spirit that allowed for an extra 16 years of holding on to an incorrect doctrine, and which led to brothers being asked to go against their own conscience. (Ask @Srecko Sostar what this means if you don't know.) That is the same as saying that Jehovah didn't want things set right on this matter during that period, or withheld his Spirit.

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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.

I doubt that anyone claims that people actually bow down to the GB. I think your statement is generally accurate. And I don't think as John Butler has said, that the GB themselves think they are higher than Jesus Christ, nor do they act that way. They are really a lot like us in that they believe that, up to a point, they should respect the GB, too. But there really is a point when we could end up deferring to them too much, and forgetting that they admit that they sometimes make wrong decisions organizationally and sometimes teach us false doctrines. You seem to take the individual's Christian trained conscience out of the equation.

I think the Governing Body has made a lot of wonderful decisions, and the quality of the "spiritual food" distributed is very good. But this doesn't mean that their own past mistakes should not be learned from. This doesn't mean we should stop thinking using our powers of reason. It doesn't mean that we personally should stop trying to distinguish right from wrong. We should not stop testing every utterance to see if these things are so. We need to make the "truth" our own.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Are we talking about the same Raymond Franz?      Where in the Watchtower literature does it state,

From here you go on to indicate that there were differences between the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz and what is found in Watchtower literature. 

But I get the feeling, now, that you probably did not read his books, or did not remember what you read. Either that, or you found it necessary for some unstated purpose to skew the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz into something he did not say. For example:

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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

He claims that 607 is a hugely relevant date to the Governing Body and to the Watchtower writers. And although he never mentions the date 587 or 586 in either book, I agree that his first book points to the fact that all the evidence he could find supports a date "twenty years later" than 607. His point here is that even though he found no evidence, he acquiesced.

We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All
historians pointed to a date twenty years later.
Before preparing the Aid material on “Archaeology”
I had not realized that the number of
baked-clay cuneiform tablets found in the
Mesopotamian area and dating back to the
time of ancient Babylon numbered into the
tens of thousands. In all of these there was
nothing to indicate that the period of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire (in which period
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign figured) was of the
necessary length to fit our 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything
pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published chronology
claimed.
Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe that our
chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence, that such
evidence was somehow in error. Thus, in preparing the material for
the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to
weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence
that would make erroneous our 607 B.C. E. date and give a different
starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date
different from 1914.
Charles Ploeger and I made a trip to Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island, to interview Professor Abraham Sachs, a
specialist in ancient cuneiform texts, particularly those containing
astronomical data. We wanted to see if we could obtain any
information that would indicate any flaw or weakness whatsoever
in the astronomical data presented in many of the texts, data that
indicated our 607 B.C.E. date was incorrect. In the end, it became
evident that it would have taken a virtual conspiracy on the part of
the ancient scribes—with no conceivable motive for doing so—to
misrepresent the facts if, indeed, our figure was to be the right one.
Again, like an attorney faced with evidence he cannot overcome, my
effort was to discredit or weaken confidence in the witnesses from
ancient times who presented such evidence, the evidence of historical
texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In themselves,
the arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their
intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support.
So, despite our heightened appreciation of certain principles, the
Aid book nonetheless contained many examples of our efforts to be
loyal to the Society’s teachings. In many respects, what we learned
through our experience did more for us than it did for the publication.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Where in the Watchtower literature does it state,  . . . 

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

You misrepresent R.Franz by implying that he made a claim that Russell prophesied about the end of the world in 1914AD.

R.Franz never made such a claim about Russell.

Perhaps you were thinking of J.F.Rutherford's talk 3.3 years after October 1914:

• Back in January of 1918, in the very throes of World War I, the American president, Woodrow Wilson, proposed the League of Nations. The very next month Jehovah’s witnesses, as represented by the president of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, began preaching the startling message, “The World Has Ended—Millions Now Living May Never Die.”  -- https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1958767

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Where in the Watchtower literature does it state, . . .

3.       Where in the Watchtower literature does it state unequivocally the world would end in 1975?

You should have already bee aware that R.Franz never made any such claim like this either.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

You should have already bee aware that R.Franz never made any such claim like this either.

What became of his wife? I never hear about her.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Where in the Watchtower literature does it state, 

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

The person he associated with was not disfellowshipped. Many persons in his congregation still associated with the same man, because he was related to them, and was in a position to help them out financially, running a business that had hired them. Besides 1 Corinthians 5 says the following:

• (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) . . .In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

Which one of these labels do you attach to this former member of the local congregation who was not even disfellowshipped? Was he greedy? Sexually immoral? An idolater? An extortioner? A reviler? A drunkard? Also, even if he was such a person --and I think you probably know he wasn't-- what did Paul mean when he said that we don't stop keeping company entirely with such people. Obviously, for purposes of employment, living in the world, we might need to associate with a person who is any one of these types.

[JW Insider]

@TrueTomHarley I just looked up in Google "Who died first Cynthia Franz or Raymond Franz?", and it only returns the date of the death of Raymond Franz and says he is survived by his wife. No death date given, but I thought I read somewhere that she also died:

• Family-Placed Death Notice FRANZ, Raymond RAYMOND V. FRANZ On June 2nd, Raymond V. Franz (88) passed away peacefully due to the effects of a fall and subsequent brain hemorrhage suffered on May 30, 2010. Ray is survived by his wife, Cynthia. A minister, missionary and Biblical scholar for...

[JOHN BUTLER]

@Anna Quote "but you still do have faith and trust in so many people." ...............  WRONG.

No we don't have milk persons (PC) delivering milk. I don't 'fly' anywhere. I have no faith or trust in medical staff, hence I had to be in excessive pain before the ambulance came and took me in to hospital with pneumonia, and I ask to leave hospital asap after treatment. Was only in three days, then recovered at home. I have no faith or trust in the Police force, none at all. But it is all there in its place, and God's word tells us that these things stand in place with His permission and to serve His cause at this time. 

On this latter issue, the Police. When I was being abused in the Children's home my feelings were that i could not report it to anyone as they 'were all in it together'. Children's home / Local Council - Government / Local Council - Police / Local Council-Children's Department Social Services.... There was no one left to report it to................... Even a few years ago when I finally got some of my personal documents regarding my time in 'care', most of it was 'redacted' / Blacked out. One page completely black. So where is any reason to trust ? 

You are probably right on one thing. It is no longer possible to lead anormal life.............  As for my brother, I sort of feel sorry for him. He has 'given' his life to JW org. If he lost it, it would finish him. He no longer contacts me. I can understand why, but you are right I no longer trust him...

Quote " 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? "

The Creative Days being 7,000 years long, and us being in the 'Rest Day' of 6,000 years , then 1,000 years of Christ's rule. It made sense that all the days were 7,000 years long. God being a god of order not disorder............   But other changes are constantly being discussed on here, such as the F&DS once being the whole 'body' of the Anointed, but now only 8 men............ The teaching about 'this generation' .... the teaching about 'the superior authorities'.............. You don't have to look far to find them do you ? 

Quote " But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job,   " 

Sorry you are totally out of line here.. You are talking about 8 men that dictate to over 8 million people, by pretending that those 8 men are the 'Faithful and Discreet slave'. Those 8 men misuse that title, which they have given themselves, to promote their thinking NOT God's thinking. 

As for the 'wrongdoings', they mount up to the heavens it seems. Giving themselves that title which means they put themselves above other Anointed...... Luke 14 v 11  answers that one............ Deliberately misusing scripture to rule over others.   Reasons for disfellowshipping/shuning, is another.... The Child Abuse situation, and on this one, if only i could find the video, I'm sure a member of the GB said it was 'all lies and just apostates causing trouble'...... 

Quote " Every time a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God.. " 

Wrong...Most times a' brother or sister' speaks, they are being a spokesperson for the GB or JW Org.  They go out with 'literature' more often than they go out with GOD'S word. There is such a big difference. JW's are taught what to say. Please remember I went to the Ministry School meetings / Work book meetings. It is all written in there. What to say, what to offer. It's JW literature, not God's message through Christ.... 

Your last paragraph is of course right.... But that is because you give a direct scripture. 

How wonderful it would be if the GB and it's writing department, and all the other 'people/men' in positions of 'power'  within JW Org / Watchtower, would stick completely to scripture. And only to write the things which they have 100% proof of.  They wouldn't write much of course  

Have a great day Anna. 

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Are we talking about the same Raymond Franz?  Where in the Watchtower literature does it state, . . .

5.       Centralized authority. Raymond found it a need to criticize the Governing Body,  board ship.

Again, you must be talking about a different Raymond Franz as you put it. Raymond Franz found a need to criticize the Governing Body, that's true. Perhaps he should not have. But the reason this makes people angry is not because it isn't true, but because it erases a fantasy many Witnesses have about them. Also, he decided to do this only after being slandered and spoken of abusively. Are you saying he should not have followed the counsel of 1 Pet 3:15?

• (1 Peter 3:14, 15) 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, do not fear what they fear, nor be disturbed. 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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?

Also you should remember that at the time there was no teaching that this group of men, the GB, amounted to the same body Jesus was dealing with. They only claimed to represent the rest of the remnant of the 144,000 which was, according to the teaching at the time, the same body Jesus was dealing with.

And naturally, R.Franz never defied all authorities based solely on Christ's teaching. You might mean here that he thought one should defy authority when it conflicted with Christ's teaching, but we already know what he should have done in those cases. He spent most of his life acquiescing to the same authority the rest of us have recognized. When that became impossible to continue doing, according to his conscience, he wrote a book to explain why. I think the book was written in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15.

11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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.

No he didn't. It was exactly the opposite. This is a point that no one could miss if they read either of his books. I'm not sure how you could possibly have missed it accidentally.

It was Frederick Franz who wanted it reinstated without any interference from a Governing Body. In fact, you can still listen to Fred Franz talk from 1975 where F.Franz sarcastically rails against the idea of a Governing Body, and goes to great lengths to prove that a Governing Body is not even scriptural. In that talk he repeatedly emphasizes that it was only one authority figure who made the decisions of the Watch Tower Society.

11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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. 

You are speaking against Fred Franz, not Raymond Franz.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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.

Fred Franz definitely used a lot of Scriptures to criticize the idea of a Governing Body, but he was outvoted. When the "board" came to vote the actual creation of a Governing Body that could share in the decision-making votes of the Society, and thereby reduce the autocratic power of the office of the Society's President, Fred Franz was quite literally outvoted. But his Scriptural reasoning in his talk was still valid to show how the Bible does NOT support the creation of a Governing Body.

 

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, FelixCA said:

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.

Many at Bethel, and even a non-Bethel elder in the local Brooklyn Heights Congregation saw him as the natural next "President" after F.Franz. But I also thought it was obvious that he would not have wanted it. I also thought it was obvious he would not get it. Schroeder, Henschel and Jaracz seemed to be the most politically active. R.Franz was always quiet and serious and sorry to say it, he just seemed like too nice a guy. The kind of guy that would always finish last. You could listen to morning comments by Schroeder and Jaracz and get an idea of great assignments they had in the past (Schroeder was the UK Branch Servant in London). Schroeder actually mentioned F.Franz' age and started a quick discussion about potential genetic influence on longevity. But almost no one at Bethel even seemed to know that R.Franz had been the coordinator and primary writer of the huge Aid Book. His experiences he related at morning worship were usually of the sort "I once knew a brother or sister who did [this or that]" and it was sometimes an amusing anecdote that made a specific point to highlight the meaning of a proverb or other scripture.

But the decision to have a Governing Body actually came out the research that R.Franz produced for the Aid Book which discussed how the first-century congregations had  the "Elder arrangement." Even here he decided to get "permission" from F.Franz to publish this because it would be obvious that if people read the entry under Elder that he completed in 1969, Witnesses would wonder why we didn't implement the elder arrangement today in our congregations.

By 1971, the Society implemented the Elder arrangement in all congregations with a yearly rotation in place so no one would preside for too long as the "Presiding Elder" ("president" elder in some languages). And the Society's board was turned into a kind of Elder arrangement, too, with rotating committees, so that no one handled any one committee (like the Chairman's Committee, etc) for too long. This didn't have any effect on Society's decision-making however because the Society still had a President and Vice President and Treasurer, etc., and continued to make decisions as they always had. It was basically just another name for the board of directors at that time and it was expanding by three persons, including R.Franz.

It sounds like R.Franz thought this was a scriptural arrangement, and he might have even accepted the Presidency had it been offered. I have no idea. But I don't think he would have wanted it, and he as good as admits that he wouldn't have wanted such a thing.

I think you know that Henschel was given the Presidency after F.Franz. After 2000, the Presidency had nothing to do with the Governing Body any more and it was given to a person who did not claim to be of the "anointed."

[FelixCA]

Then you fail to see the difference of what the Holy Spirit means with gifts, just like Raymond. So your own assessment in wanting to equate my perspective with Raymond is an over emphases in your part, since, I have no reason to subvert the truth.

This is the reason why you can’t find any gifts since your thoughts have been corrupted by ideologies such a Raymond’s and perhaps others that make you believe the Watchtower is always flawed just like Butler, and Anna.

Therefore, the blame of misunderstanding scripture lies squarely on your shoulders. You have a way of placing false statements along with sound statements that make both ideals simply a conjecture in your part.

As for voting since you are changing the subject about the failed ideas of Raymond in his book, the 2/3 majority vote just like it is done now with the majority rule, is NOT applicable to the conscience but to a sign from the Holy Spirit. Men are capable of making mistakes, that’s a given since we are all imperfect. Waiting on a heavenly sign is something else for them to adopt a new understanding if need be.

Here many confused individuals believe the GB make things up as they go along.

The misquote of William Cooper in 1773 of Isaiah 55:8-9, that’s how God Moves in a Mysterious Way. Perhaps someone else will have another text in mind, John 13:7 this is a pun, not a misdirection.

Now perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean by 1996 and the dishonest claim you have about the 16 years in prison? I don’t need to ask an Ex-JW with tainted information from apostate sites, I’m asking you that considers himself a witness with Ex-JW views.

Perhaps this is the reason why you defend Srecko and Bulter. But, if anything, I get the impression Butler believes the GB to be equal to Christ, not above him as you state.

This is why your attempts of correction will run unchallenged, for one we are talking about Raymond’s motive. Initially, he thought 607BC was sound but later accepted 587BC because of the treatise. Could it be, this was a decision to informally mention Carl in his book?

The end results didn’t justify the means, and it doesn’t need to be in the book to know the man. Therefore, my comparison doesn’t squarely rely on his books but the man.

Since you are using the strawman argument and believe you know the man versus his books, which one on Matthew’s could be compared to him with his actions, not motives, but actions.