The Incredible Desert Find: the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats, Destined to Update the Bible Canon

[TrueTomHarley]

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It doesn't stop me from accepting and respecting 98.6 percent of what is published by them.

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supreme Court.

I swear that there are some who would prefer it that way. That way they can personalize it any way they want. Don’t like this or that? Simply interpret it away—no harm done.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

I think he means by taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude, rather than diving in and correcting matters. It does not sound as though they didn’t know just what to correct.

They didn’t go in lockstep back then, is my take, and Paul was confident enough in that to operate freely without ‘checking in’ for authorization. 

But neither do they go in lockstep today, despite obvious greater organization—which is entirely consistent with the greater field (and harvest) that is being cultivated. Many arrangements originate outside of Bethel, which is initially very hesitant, even suspect of them, until they see how it works out, after which it gets behind and magnifies them. Witnessing methods, construction techniques, internet utilization, for example.

[JOHN BUTLER]

@JW Insider Having just read your comment I would say you are too close to the GB to make a balanced appraisal.

If you are 'friends' with them then your judgement could be clouded by such. 

You have said yourself they :  call themselves the "Governing Body"  they have taken upon themselves.  

 Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse.

So here we have 8 men that chose to be the Governing Body, then call themselves the 'Faithful and discreet slave', placing themselves above all the Anointed (Luke 14 v 11).

They deliberately 'err' (do things wrong) and then use the excuse that they are not inspired. 

So these faults that you have mentioned (above) , the GB are spreading Earthwide. Yet you love them for it ? 

The increase in JW's is in uneducated / less well educated lands. The reasons are obvious. Those people do not dig deep enough into the GB and it's Org, before committing themselves to it.  I was also like that of course, I believed all i was told, then believed again when told of changes, I was as blind as those less educated ones are. 

The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons).  So 12 Apostles was too many was it ? 

There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc.

They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.

Which is it ? Do other people handle the communications or do the GB hear the questions ? Basically what I'm saying is that ordinary congregants questions and complaints NEVER reach the GB. I wrote to the London Bethel once and the reply was horrific. They basically told me to not bother them and to ask my local elders. However i wanted an opinion from those I thought would have more knowledge and understanding. How wrong I was. 

They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching.

This one made me laugh !   Is that why they talk so much about young men in tight 'pants' and also about masterbation.  Be real, they have no idea what to teach and what to leaver to people's personal conscience. 

They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from.

Dream on. They knew about the Child Sexual Abuse problem years ago. How 'quickly' have they dealt with it ? 

But it's been a known thing for the JW Org / W/t Soc / Bible students to deliberately drag it's heels when it might upset some folks. 

It took them 30 years to give up Christmas even though they knew it was wrong in the late 1800's.

It took them 70 years to give up Smoking even though they knew that was wrong too.  Not too bright, no, they didn't want to lose congregants.  

It they has sorted the CSA issues properly and quickly I think they would have lost too many elders.

 Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.

Now this is one in my favour I think. I have suggested that anointed brothers from different countries should form the Leaders of the JW Org. With world wide web communication, world wide telephone communication, and does anyone still use Fax  to send hard copy documents ?   There is no shortage of ways of communication around the globe.  So why have mainly 8 American men running the show ?  Would make much more sense to have people that know their countries laws and traditions. 

I'll finish on this one. 

 As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body."

If anyone questions or criticises the GB they are accused of 'causing a division in the congregation' and can be disfellowshipped. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supreme Court.

I swear that there are some who would prefer it that way. That way they can personalize it any way they want. Don’t like this or that? Simply interpret it away—no harm done.

@TrueTomHarley don't talk like a wet cabbage Tom.

It's just your dream that you want opposers, as you call them, to think that way. 

I've already given a suggestion as to how a group of leaders could be earthwide and still act as 'one', and they would have their fingers on the pulse in each country. They would know the laws and traditions and problems in their own country. They wouldknow exactly how to word things and to deal with specific info'

I think you only love it so much as the 8 men are basically all American white men. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

His seeming disdain for those taking the lead is only spun that way by fleshly minds.

I agree 100 percent with everything you said up to this point, and then, of course, I paused a bit at this statement. I expect that it should apply to me as well as others. This was a powerful bit of counsel, and I'm re-evaluating my own position on what Paul is saying in Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. The details of that re-evaluation will be based on the specifics in Anna's posts, which I'll get to as time permits.

I'd like to respond to this, but it's probably too soon, as I might end up taking back my current understanding. In that event, I apologize in advance, to any who were (or would be) unduly influenced by my own opinions and understandings. 

Of course, I would still like to say a little about what I think you are saying here. 

I don't think Paul had disdain for those taking the lead. He had a disdain, or worse (condemnation and "curses") for anyone who interfered with persons who had accepted the "good news." (Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus expressed a "millstone curse" for the same reason.) But this was not a general or continued "disdain" that held a grudge or couldn't forgive when he looked at the overall picture. I assume that Paul did not continue to consider Peter or James as stumbling blocks to the ministry after things began cleared up during the transitional time between Acts 15 and Acts 21. (Jesus didn't permanently call Peter, Satan, when he was a stumbling block.)

I assume Paul is speaking to the Galatians this way, because the Acts 15 meeting had already happened and yet the Galatians evidently still BELIEVE (for some reason) that there was authority (from somewhere) for demanding adherence to Jewish law that somehow overrode the message that Paul had already taught them.

Paul gives the Galatians an earlier example of this same problem on the same issue (where circumcision was the central issue, but by extension it must have also meant adherence to Jewish law and practice. See Galatians 5:2,3). In this earlier example the problem was focused, he says, on certain men from James, who caused Peter be afraid of the circumcised class, and who influenced Peter and Barnabas, so that Paul called them out on their hypocrisy. Paul told Peter face to face that he "stood condemned." (see NWT footnote or Greek Interlinear.) This appears to follow up on Paul's earlier words that anyone who declares as good news something beyond which they had accepted should stand "accursed."

• (Galatians 2:11, 12) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. (NWT, with footnotes inserted in red.)

• (1 Corinthians 16:22) 22 If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed.. . .

• (Galatians 1:8, 9) . . .However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.

But this, as I said, was not a general disdain for those taking the lead. It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own. Still, it was not a simple matter that Peter was  just more comfortable around his own people, and his old habits. Paul says Peter was afraid of these men from James (who were of the circumcised class).

Even of those whom Paul considered to have been made into stumbling blocks to his ministry, he did not blame the persons themselves for that. He counseled the persons who gave too much attention to personalities, personalities such as himself, Apollos or Peter. But he still accepted these "leading men" were ministers through whom the Corinthians had become believers.

(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.”

(1 Corinthians 3:3-6) 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow,

(1 Corinthians 3:20-4:3) 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .

I included all three passages for another reason. It could very well be that it's a product of a "fleshly" mind that might tend to undervalue or even disdain the leadership of those in responsible positions. Some disdain authority for their own iconoclastic reasons or for unknown or illogical reasons. But Paul showed above that it was the "fleshly" mind that gave too much regard to leadership positions. In fact, Paul shows that these leadership positions are unimportant. Those who think that such men are capable of making a human tribunal of some kind of important authority are mistaken. After all, all things already belong to the members of the Christian congregation. It's not a matter of these members reporting to Apollos or Peter or Paul. It's just as appropriate to say that Peter should report to the members of the congregation. Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.

It seems that Paul's point here is that it is the danger of the fleshly mind to look to specific people in the congregations as some kind of authority. But all of us should be servants to one another instead, he says.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

If you are 'friends' with them then your judgement could be clouded by such. 

I don't really know any of them. I know how the position got there, and I know what doctrines and practices they promote. It's because I accept most of those doctrines. 100 percent of the important ones, in my opinion. I don't think of them as a "governing body" except in a functional sense as decision makers who try to keep the teachings as consistent as possible for the sake of unity around the world. This is a positive thing about Jehovah's Witnesses that a consistent set of teachings can be accepted by millions of persons without disorder or contentiousness. The method used produces a danger of making it too easy to accept (and "enforce") false doctrines in the same way, but there are very few "false doctrines" in my opinion. If, in your opinion, there are many false doctrines, or if the specific ones you believe are false are that important to you, then I understand why your judgment of them would be different than mine.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

placing themselves above all the Anointed (Luke 14 v 11).

Yes. I think they are making a mistake in this regard too. But, in general, only a very small minority of those claiming to be anointed seem to think things should be different. I'd wager that the vast majority of them believe they are being well represented by them. Also the GB do not necessarily think of this position as "over" the rest of the anointed. Remember that the service they provide is a ministry of a "slave." One of the ministries that Paul spoke of was the ability to "administer." A portion of the idea that this puts them "above" the rest may spring from the mind of fleshly persons who cannot distinguish a specialized service from being special. However, the idea that they form some kind of tribunal that should judge other anointed, or that others should be obedient to is probably wrong, imo. It might, in fact, spring from the fleshly, unspiritual understanding from their own minds. This doesn't reduce the value of the kind of work they can accomplish in such a unique circumstance, but it is one of the dangers that could befall any of us imperfect humans.

(1 Corinthians 10:12) . . .So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The increase in JW's is in uneducated / less well educated lands. The reasons are obvious. Those people do not dig deep enough into the GB and it's Org, before committing themselves to it.

You may have pointed out a danger, or it could be that less educated are more humble and more receptive to spiritual truth. Therefore a decision has been made to focus the efforts on an audience that should have been focused on even more in the past. A simplified Bible, with simplified publications to go with it, and a simpler study method might all be good things, even from the perspective of Luke 14:11.

Personally, however, I agree that it has been like a pendulum swing to a slightly "simpler" audience after saturating a more sophisticated audience until further efforts on that latter audience appeared wasted.

Many current Witnesses have the idea that this is a kind of "dumbing down" of the audience resulting in a dumbing down of the new ones coming in. If persons are overly concerned about that, perhaps it is based on their own prejudices or an unrequited desire to show off just how sophisticated their own knowledge might be. In our congregational setting, the goal is love for one another. This should be even easier if all of us show more childlike love for one another, and can stop taking ourselves so seriously.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

They deliberately 'err' (do things wrong) and then use the excuse that they are not inspired. 

I think deliberate is a strong word to use with "err." For the most part, I think all the mistakes have been well-meaning. There are some mistakes that reveal a different kind of mental conflict, in my opinion. These can be looked at as deliberate mistakes. Sometimes it can include a deliberate choice to avoid a change when it seems a change is necessary both Biblically and practically. Sometimes it can be from a lack of courage or self-confidence. Similar to Peter and the "James gang" the organization has had a historical problem with cultishness. This is admitted in our own publications that there was a Russell cult. Fred Franz was steeped in that exact kind of cult thinking (parallel dispensations, numerology, date predictions, etc.) so that this mentality remained strong and respected until Fred Franz died. He had so much respect as an "oracle" that all these "class" definitions and prophetic explanations were never challenged much until a few years after he died. So some mistakes are more about deliberate hanging on to tradition, which blinds people to the validity of God's word. This kind of blindness is wrong, but not necessarily "deliberate."

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons).  So 12 Apostles was too many was it ? 

Why would 12 be too many? 8 is about the same. 20 is about the same. Considering the new abilities of technology and the much greater size of the current congregations of JWs compared to the first century congregations, perhaps 1,000 would not be too many, or perhaps there is a way to allow millions to have input, and merely allow a secretary or a technology application "bot" to filter out the noise and produce a consensus. I don't think we'd be quite as comfortable with that. Humans tend to like hierarchies of people, representative government, etc., in spite of the potential errors.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Which is it ? Do other people handle the communications or do the GB hear the questions ? Basically what I'm saying is that ordinary congregants questions and complaints NEVER reach the GB.

Some do. I'm sure of it. But my point was that a hierarchy of people are in place to filter out and merge communications so that the GB aren't bothered by any and every little thing that comes up. Notice that in a response to something Outta Here said I quoted:

(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you.

Paul had no problem "snitching" about where the information came from, and noted they had been able to get their issue to Paul directly, and Paul addressed the issue in his letter. There is a lot of secrecy in these communications today that I think is unnecessary. And there are stories of repercussions by those who used their own name.

Well, I'll stop here.

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own.

I do not think it necessary to understand this on the basis of James being complicit as a Judaizer. I would say that the fact that these men came from James has no more significance than the fact that Acts 15:1 describes men coming from Judea.

The general attitude of of the apostles and elders to such "Judaizing" efforts is expressed at Acts 15:24. So these men mentioned at Galatians 2:12 were expressing their own preferences, not at the direction of James.

Peter, with an ill thought out and cowardly response, rightly incurred the wrath of Paul on this occasion. It all illustrates how easy it is to "talk the walk" as opposed to "walk the talk". The clear and assertive proclamations and decisions made at the circumcision conference in 49CE may well have been easy in view of the fact that the vast majority of Christians in Jerusalem were formerly Jewish, and indeed the entire governing body of the time were the same. However, when Christians of that background found themselves in an environment where far more Gentile Christians were present, it was a different matter.

Cultural and traditional practice has a strong hold on humans and their behaviour when out of their comfort zone in that regard is charcteristically to cluster around what they are familiar with. Judaizers appealed to both religious and racial pride and fear of man. The insidious effect of their teachings however was to separate men from Christ and to work against the interests of Jehovah's ongoing purpose. This was hardly at the forefront of their intentions. However, Paul was fully cognizant, hence his very strong and demonstrative reactions to their influence, both expressed in his reproof of Peter and his subsequent letters.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.

There is no dispute regarding Paul's recognition and admonition to others to recognise Christ as the head of the congregation. However I cannot agree with the notion of Paul suggesting that theocratic arrangements were unimportant. This is simply because it does not agree with Paul's own behaviour.

• His acceptance of the spirit-directed action of the Antioch congregation prophets and teachers to approve his ministry into international territory (Acts13:1-3).
• His subsequent report back to the same congregation on the success of his mission (Acts 14:26-28).
• His delegation by the same congregation  to go to the Jerusalem apostles and elders on the circumcision issue (Acts 15:2).
• His participation in the ensuing conference (Acts 15:12).
• His obvious acceptance of the authorative consideration and scripturally based decisions of those apostles and older men as reflected in his acceptance of being sent as part of a delegation from that same group, and his actually being being dismissed as a part of that delegation to travel back to Antich to relay the decisions of that Jerusalem body (Acts15:22);.
• His subsequent returning to the Gentile territories to deliver the decrees of the Jerusalem apostles and older men for their observance.

His acceptance of such direction, admittedly a recognition of Christ's headship as expressed through the officers of both the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations, demonstrated his acceptance of central authority thus expressed.

His remarks regarding a "human tribunal" relate to those in Corinth who sought to undermine his authority as an apostle.Their assessments of his qualifications were of no consequence. His other references to his authority and his seeming discounting of apostolic approval as a determining factor in the validity of his role as an agent of the Christ, are  to show the Corinthians that his authority at Christ's direction was as valid as and on a par with that of the apostles. There is no doubt however that all the individual apostles, including Paul, were quite happy to subject themselves as individuals to the decisions (decrees) and directions agreed by that body of older men in Jerusalem as a whole. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

Quote " Humans tend to like hierarchies of people, representative government, etc., in spite of the potential errors. "

So you are now admitting that the GB are the hierarchy. 

 hierarchies

1. a system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority.  

    

    

    

[JW Insider]

4 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

a system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority.  

Yes. Of course. Moses had a hierarchy. The Watchtower has admitted that the organization can be thought of in this way.

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. Of course. Moses had a hierarchy. The Watchtower has admitted that the organization can be thought of in this way.

And I always thought that the JW org / Watchtower didn't have a clergy class and a hierarchy. 

But it has both. The GB are the hierarchy and the Elders are the clergy class. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

I never thought of the WTB&TS as having a hierarchy ... the thought never crossed my mind ... perhaps because they did not have the clown suits that the Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, and many others have .... until:

1.) In several court transcripts where the Society was confiscating real estate from local congregations, and the congregations sued the Society, the Watchtower Lawyers declared and asserted under oath that no individual person owned the Kingdom Halls, and that they had the right to appoint and remove trustees in whose positions the Kingdom Halls were titled, BECAUSE, the Organization WAS a hierarchy, EXACTLY like the Catholic Church, and that the "Church" owned all Jehovah's Witnesses'  property, everywhere,  no matter whose name it was in, or how it was titled, and,

2.)  In child sexual abuse cases, the Society in many places, many times has asserted in secular courts, under oath, that the Elders are Clergy, and are entitled to "Clergy-Penitent Privilege" of confidentiality, and as such were not legally obligated to report the crimes.

I had never EVER heard these things asserted at the Kingdom Halls, and in paying attention since 1962, was frankly stunned by these sworn testimony (under oath)  assertions, declarations and/or admissions in the secular civil courts.

That is why I read full transcripts of the Society's court cases, when I find them ... as what is said at the Kingdom Halls, and what is said in court ( ... under oath ... ) is quite often  two (or more ...) dramatically different things.

I never remember any Kingdom Hall assertions, that we were "Clergy", entitled to any special legal privileges ... only that we were "Ministers", and could assert that our commission as ministers was equal to clergy's "ordinations" ...  although I remember from circa 1974-82  that the ex-Bethelite Pioneer Brother that ran off with my first wife  liked to witness in the jails and prisons, as he would pull the "Minister Card", and they would give him clergy privileges to go in and out any time it suited him.

Perhaps the next step is start baptizing young children, and have some kind of special JW clown suits like Christendom has ..... perhaps with a Nautical theme.

I often wonder about the Catholics' Heirchy ... where do they get those 15 pound hats?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

... ever notice that the Popes all look all worn out and hunched over, threatening to fall and impale themselves on their bejeweled  gold sheep catcher sticks ?

... makes me tired just watching !

It's the 30 pounds of clothes, the 8 pound gold crosses, and 15 pound two-story hats glued on with denture cream..

...  a lot for ANY 82 year olds.

Seven more pounds  .. same as a bag of concrete!