Furuli's new book: Is any of it right? Useful? Like Franz?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

This full situation always reminds me of this:

(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

I think this shows that a person does not have to be a JW to serve God through Christ. 

As for the GB being likened to the Sanhedrin, wasn't it them that had Jesus put to death? So yes i can see a similarity. 

And as for the 1st Century 'group of men in Jerusalem' that made decisions, weren't they inspired by God's Holy Spirit ?  Whereas this GB admits to not being so. 

And wasn't it the Apostle Paul that wrote to the congregations, not those men in Jerusalem ?

 And wasn't the Apostle Paul chosen and directed by Jesus Christ personally ? And wasn't Paul inspired of God's Holy Spirit. 

And didn't those men of the 1st Century PROVE that they were inspired by their WORKS. 

And Now :- The Watchtower dated (top right corner) March 2020.  Study articles May 4- 31 2020

Page 6 paragraph 16. from part way down, reads. (I have paper copy supplied by an elder)

" Jesus has appointed a small group of anointed men to take the lead in organising the work that he wants done today. Jesus referred to this group of men as 'the faithful and discreet slave' and they take seriously their responsibility to feed and protect you spiritually. "

What hogwash ! Complete lies or deliberate deceit.

Firstly the GB say they are not inspired, so how would they have been 'appointed' ?

 ALL anointed remnant are anointed of God's Holy spirit hence they know they are anointed. 

All of those of the Anointed remnant were seen as being the F&DS at one time, so when did Jesus suddenly decide to change this ? 

So how was / is this special appointing done ? 

Secondly. Jesus did not refer to these men as the F&DS 

Jesus asked a question ???? He did not make a  statement, and he certainly didn't say who they were.  

But many JW's just want their ears tickled, and many JWs are brainwashed enough to just accept everything written in the Watchtower. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should

This kind of thing often fails because enemies will not let it remain low-key. It has made their day, if not year, and they will pump and pump until it becomes the only story that matters.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—“My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!”

But the young man again said, this time emphatically, “My Lord Moses, restrain them!’ Moses mildly replied: “Not a problem. Chill.”

But the young man once again said: My Lord Moses, restrain them!!!!! Moses mildly replied: “Let’s stay low-key about this.”

But the young man once again said: “MY LORD MOSES, RESTRAIN THEM!!!!  (this is going to be good!!!!)“

[TrueTomHarley]

It is not often that I throw such red meat to Kos for prophetic interpretation and possible escalation to anti-type. A few days ago I put before him for consideration the fact the Dennis Christensen suggests by both name and profession the one for whom he serves as a type.

Now comes the added bone that the two prominent ‘TOD’ (Trashers of Doctrine) in our age have both presented with the initials R.F.

Now those two facts are worth fleeing to the Australian wilderness to ponder over till the end of time!  (I as missing more than ever the prophet JTR, who would also find this a hoot)

[Srecko Sostar]

Question for JW members.

What are GB anointed with?

1) With oil ?

2) With hands of another JW member ? 

3) With holy spirit ?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And Now :- The Watchtower dated (top right corner) March 2020.  Study articles May 4- 31 2020

Page 6 paragraph 16. from part way down, reads. (I have paper copy supplied by an elder)

" Jesus has appointed a small group of anointed men to take the lead in organising the work that he wants done today. Jesus refers to this group of men as 'the faithful and discreet slave' and they take seriously their responsibility to feed and protect you spiritually. "

What hogwash ! Complete lies or deliberate deceit.

If i can recall what Jesus said, it would be this:   

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John,  do you love   me?”  Peter was grieved because he said to him athe third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, byou know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed cmy sheep.

This Bible verse (even in nwt translation too) confirm only one fact: Jesus delegated task, service, obligation about feeding to only one person, Peter.

[TrueTomHarley]

Does Rolf anywhere deal with the verses that say ‘no part of the world?’ If so, what is his take on that. Among the digs on higher education is that it facilitates force-feeding by the world.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does Rolf anywhere deal with the verses that say ‘no part of the world?’ If so, what is his take on that. Among the digs on higher education is that it facilitates force-feeding by the world.

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 

His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Billy the Kid, what rubbish you talk. A Governing Body GOVERNS. RULES OVER. 

The GB of the CCJW rules over 8.5 million people, or there abouts. 

Jesus did not rule over, and He told the disciples not to rule over. He said that was how the 'world' works. 

Do not be lording it over the congregation. 

But you still miss the point of the 1st century 'body in Jerusalem' being inspired by God's Holy Spirit, and they GAVE PROOF OF IT BY THEIR WORKS. 

The GB of CCJW are not inspired and the lies written in the March 2020 Watchtower are laughable. 

For the GB to pretend that they were appointed by Jesus, and that Jesus refers to them as the F&DS.. It's lies or at very least deceitful.  

[TrueTomHarley]

I’d better bring up CSA before 4Jah soars to a font too large for the page.

Does he mention CSA? Ray thought it was an overblown concoction of media. What say Rolf?

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In what sense, that elders before 1931 were "voted" in by the congregation, that later became a spiritual need to be approved by spiritual men? Why is it so important to you to attempt to remove the GB from this structure.

Your question can be taken in several different ways, so I can't assume which question you are asking. Are you asking in what sense the 1944 article explained the Elder arrangement, or 1969-1971 until now, or about elders before 1931?

In general, the 1944 article explained that it should be the way we are doing it now. It was just ignored for 25 years until it came up again for serious consideration around 1970. Before 1931 the congregations would have a larger say in who they thought were meeting the qualifications for elder that were found in the Bible, based on the idea that "as you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith." It's not like Russell and the Bible Student congregations had ignored the qualifications found in Titus and Timothy. But this had resulted in some persons who were not loyal to Rutherford's changes. In some cases elders were too stuck on Russell's ways, and in some cases elders were trying to use scriptures to show how Rutherford was abusing his power. And some were mixing both messages, pro-Rutherford in some ways, and anti-Rutherford in other ways. So Rutherford needed better control of the message for the sake of unity, and changed the whole system to be hierarchical from the Society on down. This is a time period when you see a lot of statements in the literature that obedience to Rutherford is the same as obedience to the Lord. It continued through the 1940's and 1950's, which is probably why the Bible counsel printed in 1944 was never implemented until 1971.

If you think I am removing the GB from this structure it is only because the GB did not exist from well before 1919 and continued to not exist until the 1970's.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The Sanhedrin is just a comparison to a group of men that had a structured authority. . . .Therefore, it's not necessary to misuse the name Sanhedrin.

Yes, I understood that when you compared the Sanhedrin to other "governing bodies." I understood that you were not misusing it. And neither was I. No problem there.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

About 7 years ago when I mentioned Raymond's ideology was to bring back the voting rights of the congregation, you opposed the view, now you support it, which is it.

I still don't believe it was Raymond Franz' ideology to bring back the voting rights of the congregation. Nor do I support the view. Where are you getting that from?

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Did Raymond Franz support bringing back the right to have the congregations take a vote for the elder ship? 

From everything I've read in his books, I'm sure he did NOT. If true, that kind of "news" would have been spread everywhere, but I don't see anyone even thinking about claiming this. But I haven't finished all of "ISOCF." Perhaps you have some evidence?

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In essence, back in 1919, the "board of directors" was the GB at that time. Rutherford just like Fred Franz functioned as the President of the Watchtower.

There are many pieces of evidence that are even admitted from Watchtower publications themselves that there was NOTHING at all like a GB under Russell. Even the way in which the term "governing body" was typically used for many years (from the 40's until the 70's) tells us that there was no governing body in the way we now define it. And there is evidence that Rutherford was even MORE like Russell in personally deciding all matters of any importance from a doctrinal perspective. Still, there might have been small areas where others handled responsibilities that Rutherford didn't care to handle. Ray Franz claims it was still like this even after the governing body was expanded to include additional members besides the board of directors in the 1970s.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What is your understanding about the apostles having to go before the "governing council" that you call the Jerusalem council? The same structure the Watchtower is using now is framed from the first century concept.

My understanding, for it's worth, and that's not much, is that every organization does better with something like a governing body. Religious or secular. And it's human nature for some to take the lead, and human nature for others to prefer following the lead of others. And as I've said on the other thread, it makes sense that some elders would be better at presiding, decision-making, organizing, speaking and teaching. Just as some would be better models for others in the way they bring up their families and provide for them, or show hospitality, or encourage the weak, or find opportunities for charity, visiting the sick, etc.

Therefore, for some elders, being part of a decision-making council makes sense. I would expect it in almost every large religious organization. But especially in our own, due to the importance and magnitude of the preaching work, translating work, distribution of literature, managing assemblies, writing for publications, answering issues that arise, handling legal issues, etc. 

Also, because of our desire to match to the first century, we are generally pleased with the idea that, if they had something like a governing council in Jerusalem, and we know that at least 1 of those persons on that council was an apostle, then we should expect spiritual men with a good level of experience and spirituality to be assigned to such a governing body today. And, while we know they are flawed and won't always say and do the right thing, our current 'governing body' is known to have successfully worked at varying levels of responsibility in their assignments and ministry.

So I have no problem with a 'governing body' even though I think that specific 'title' stuck for secular/legal/bureaucratic reasons and is probably not the right name to represent the position these men should hold. Some of these additional opinions of mine are trivial, however.

On the question about a governing body in the first century, I think that's a little more germane to the topic. I'll get into that if time permits.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does he mention CSA? Ray thought it was an overblown concoction of media. What say Rolf?

Barely mentioned. Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words. But he does have one point about it here in one of the footnotes:

I would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and
other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation, the GB
has been accused of having directed elders to hide such crimes from the authorities.
The first time such crimes were known to elders in Norway was around 1990. Since
then, elders have been advised to take particular measures to protect children, and
always to cooperate with the police. So this accusation is wrong!

Much earlier in the book he did mention it in one paragraph, but not anything controversial:

When I preach the good news, I often say that we Jehovah's Witnesses
believe in the Bible and the Bible alone. We do not accept any creed or
dogmas that are made by humans. In a big organization engaged in
worldwide preaching, there must, of course, be rules made by humans, as
also was the case in 1972. For example, elders in the congregations need
advice on how to deal with different issues, such as the molesting of
children and different legal matters. I am not speaking about such matters.
But I am speaking about decisions made by the GB that interfere direcdy
in the lives of individual Witnesses, and which are not based on the Bible.

 

P.S. One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra T. It sounded like a good name for one of those "male supplement" drugs that spammed my email account in the days before spam filters.

[JW Insider]

BTW, a couple years ago I was given the power to move posts to other topics to keep topics better organized. But this is also the power to delete. I hate to delete anyone's posts but there are times when someone accidentally posts something twice and asks for one of them to be deleted. Also, even when I move something to another topic, it can be a brand new topic, and that topic can be temporarily hidden, which is pretty much the same as deleting if no one wants it back in the topic.

In this topic, I have moved a repeated topic by 4J to a hidden place because it was nearly an exact repeat of an earlier post, and also the post where he makes a point that it had been 9 hours and no one answered him yet, which caused a couple of responses that were unnecessary. If anyone insists, their posts can come back, but it's not necessary to repeat the same exact content in a discussion forum, nor to "harass" people in general for not responding as soon as one would like. If someone says they didn't see a post and wants to see it, there is a way to put a link to that exact post, or just tell them that it about 5 or so posts further up.

Don't think of this as any kind of warning or punishment, because I have nothing to do with that, but I thought that the repeated content it made it more difficult to read and respond to the topic.