Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Many Miles]

47 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, you remember well about that. However, I did not think of that when I listed those 5 points. It is in connection with Gal 1:8.

He spoke to the thesis that JWs are so independent that they can on the basis of the Bible itself, the Bible alone, "notice" (his word) whether the directive/instruction/doctrine that the GB publishes is correct or incorrect.
It is significant that he stopped there, giving no indication that the followers would be allowed to be disobedient. He continues with the thesis that if the directive is in accordance with the Bible, then how can GB expect JWs to accept it.

Notice: to see or become conscious of something or someone

Video- from 3:20

 

 

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.

[George88]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

So maybe I should ask the question this way:

Where has today's governing body's ever applied the statement "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed" to themselves?

The question can be posed in multiple ways but ultimately leads to the same outcome. Paul wasn't only talking about himself; he was also referring to those who are ready to manipulate scripture for their own benefit. This aligns with the stance that the GB take when it comes to biblical subjects. If you carefully analyze the majority of the Watchtower articles, you'll find that this implication is apparent. They are just as resolute as Paul was in their commitment.

[Many Miles]

10 minutes ago, George88 said:

The question can be posed in multiple ways but ultimately leads to the same outcome. Paul wasn't only talking about himself; he was also referring to those who are ready to manipulate scripture for their own benefit. This aligns with the stance that the GB take when it comes to biblical subjects. If you carefully analyze the majority of the Watchtower articles, you'll find that this implication is apparent. They are just as resolute as Paul was in their commitment.

Do you agree or disagree that Paul's statement to Galatia had the effect of telling Christians it was possible that Paul, or the apostles, should be accursed for what they might teach?

If you agree, then do you know of any instance of the society ever stating that it's possible that we should hold it as accursed for what it might teach?

[George88]

Exactly. If Paul was in the wrong and deserving of condemnation, and if the GB is also wrong and deserving of condemnation, then it is only fair to also condemn those who manipulate or distort scripture. However, the crucial question we should be asking is: who has the authority to pass judgment on Paul and the GB in the first place?

In Galatians 1:8, Paul's message to the Galatians carries a significant meaning that is well expressed in this statement. This verse reads, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Here, Paul is emphasizing the importance of gospel authenticity and imparting a warning against false teachings or distorted versions of the gospel. 

The statement captures Paul's strong conviction that any deviation from the true gospel, regardless of the source, should be unequivocally rejected and condemned. The Galatians were being influenced by false teachers who were attempting to impose legalistic requirements on them, questioning the sufficiency of faith in Christ alone for salvation. Paul adamantly opposes these teachings and seeks to reinforce the purity of the gospel message he initially proclaimed to the Galatians. 

By asserting that even if he or anyone else, including celestial beings, were to contradict the true gospel, they should be considered accursed, Paul leaves no room for compromise. This powerful statement underscores the urgency of sticking to the authentic gospel, shedding light on the importance of preserving its integrity and safeguarding the Galatians' faith. In conclusion, this statement effectively captures the essence of Paul's message in Galatians 1:8, conveying his unwavering stance on the need to defend and uphold the true gospel while utterly rejecting any form of deviation or distortion.

Who, then, is the "false teacher"? Is it Paul, the Governing Body, or those who interpret scripture for personal gain, much like the Pharisees?

[Many Miles]

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

Exactly. If Paul was in the wrong and deserving of condemnation, and if the GB is also wrong and deserving of condemnation, then it is only fair to also condemn those who manipulate or distort scripture. However, the crucial question we should be asking is: who has the authority to pass judgment on Paul and the GB in the first place?

In Galatians 1:8, Paul's message to the Galatians carries a significant meaning that is well expressed in this statement. This verse reads, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Here, Paul is emphasizing the importance of gospel authenticity and imparting a warning against false teachings or distorted versions of the gospel. 

The statement captures Paul's strong conviction that any deviation from the true gospel, regardless of the source, should be unequivocally rejected and condemned. The Galatians were being influenced by false teachers who were attempting to impose legalistic requirements on them, questioning the sufficiency of faith in Christ alone for salvation. Paul adamantly opposes these teachings and seeks to reinforce the purity of the gospel message he initially proclaimed to the Galatians. 

By asserting that even if he or anyone else, including celestial beings, were to contradict the true gospel, they should be considered accursed, Paul leaves no room for compromise. This powerful statement underscores the urgency of sticking to the authentic gospel, shedding light on the importance of preserving its integrity and safeguarding the Galatians' faith. In conclusion, this statement effectively captures the essence of Paul's message in Galatians 1:8, conveying his unwavering stance on the need to defend and uphold the true gospel while utterly rejecting any form of deviation or distortion.

Who, then, is the "false teacher"? Is it Paul, the Governing Body, or those who interpret scripture for personal gain, much like the Pharisees?

We may be talking about different things.

My question relates to obedience of teachers taking the lead. Paul was a teacher taking the lead. The apostles were teachers taking the lead. In their time there were other teachers taking the lead. What Paul wrote could be applied to any and all teachers taking the lead, or any teacher at all for that matter. There is also biblical admonition to obey those taking the lead among us. But Paul pointed out a point at which teachers taking the lead should not be obeyed but, rather, rejected as accursed. Paul said this was okay, and he included himself. I don't find any instance where the society has ever given this instruction of itself, as though it were even possibly right to reject what they say when they say it.

[Srecko Sostar]

20 minutes ago, George88 said:

Who, then, is the "false teacher"? Is it Paul, the Governing Body, or those who interpret scripture for personal gain, much like the Pharisees?

I think I know how GB would respond to question about Gal 1:8.
The same way they interpreted Mat 24:45-51. There is only a faithful and wise servant and he gets everything. There is no evil servant because FDS aka GB can never be evil in any way.

So it's a complete joke. A complete disparagement of all readers of these words of Jesus. Another in a series of anomalies of a mind that is proud and does not admit its own defeat.

[Pudgy]

I think George88 and Many Miles above said it all.

I wish it had been in bold print so I could read it easier, but that about covers it.

Their combined posts also covers the “universal smell test” of having good common sense.

 

[Many Miles]

24 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I think I know how GB would respond to question about Gal 1:8.
The same way they interpreted Mat 24:45-51. There is only a faithful and wise servant and he gets everything. There is no evil servant because FDS aka GB can never be evil in any way.

So it's a complete joke. A complete disparagement of all readers of these words of Jesus. Another in a series of anomalies of a mind that is proud and does not admit its own defeat.

The closest thing I can find to the society saying its okay to reject something it says is the article “Is Obedience Always Proper?”  in the The Watchtower of April 1, 1988. After citing what Paul wrote to Galatia, we find this paragraph:

“Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.””

It’s the third question presented that is somewhat of an acknowledgement that it’s okay to reject something the society puts out, but the first question presses what Geoffrey Jackson alluded to under sworn testimony, that the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision-maker about interpreting what they Bible says. Hence the average one of us is led back to what the society says to determine what the overall teachings of the Bible are, which tends to negate the third question. This is unlike what Paul did. Paul just put it out there in so many words. He said, “even if we…” and then got right to it.

And, as for being “different from what we have been taught through ‘the faithful and discreet slave’”, that’s going on all the time! Am I to decide what I’m supposed to believe based on what is taught today, yesterday, or tomorrow? At some point there has to be a clear litmus test offered and respected.

[Pudgy]

How about as a litmus test all commentary has to use standard definitions of words, and terms? And completely eliminate the word “evidently” when there is zero evidence?

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

How about as a litmus test all commentary has to use standard definitions of words, and terms? And completely eliminate the word “evidently” when there is zero evidence?

Oh, “evidently”. That is such a terribly misused term. In presentation it’s a term used for persuasion; definitely should never be used as underpinning for a premise in a logical argument. Maybe to nudge thought on a theory. But it’s such a mercurial term. As persuasion the usage immediately conjures thoughts of a snake oil salesman. 

[George88]

7 hours ago, Many Miles said:

So maybe I should ask the question this way:

Where has today's governing body's ever applied the statement "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed" to themselves?

Paul did that. He presented that statement as a litmus test for Christians to apply to him, and to the other apostles.

Where has the society ever done this?

I understand your point. However, I must emphasize this aspect. We are discussing the same circumstance but from varying viewpoint. I rely on scripture as my guide. In Jesus' time, including Jesus himself, took the lead. Similarly, the Watchtower Governing Body assumes responsibility as men, rather than apostles. It doesn't make any sense to accuse the Governing Body (GB) of being wrong for basing their constitution on scripture and faithfully adhering to God's law. Considering this, we would also have to condemn Jesus and the apostles, who similarly followed and implemented scripture. Clearly, such a viewpoint lacks logic.

*** w11 7/15 p. 15 par. 5 Will You Heed Jehovah’s Clear Warnings? ***
How do false teachers operate? 

*** w18 April p. 19 Imitating Jehovah—A God Who Gives Encouragement***
AN ENCOURAGING GOVERNING BODY

*** w17 February p. 28 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
“REMEMBER THOSE WHO ARE TAKING THE LEAD”

The fact that publicans fail to mention something doesn't undermine the importance of the message. Similar to Paul not specifically mentioning it for himself, but since the Bible mentions it, then it applies to everyone. Consequently, Galatians 1 is intended to denounce false teachers for everyone. So, one must consider when the Governing Body can be deemed false teachers. Furthermore, it is essential to scrutinize those who make such assumptions and verify that they themselves are not false teachers like the Governing Body.

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The closest thing I can find to the society saying its okay to reject something it says is the article “Is Obedience Always Proper?”  in the The Watchtower of April 1, 1988. After citing what Paul wrote to Galatia, we find this paragraph:

 

“Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.””

 

It’s the third question presented that is somewhat of an acknowledgement that it’s okay to reject something the society puts out, but the first question presses what Geoffrey Jackson alluded to under sworn testimony, that the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision-maker about interpreting what they Bible says. Hence the average one of us is led back to what the society says to determine what the overall teachings of the Bible are, which tends to negate the third question. This is unlike what Paul did. Paul just put it out there in so many words. He said, “even if we…” and then got right to it.

 

And, as for being “different from what we have been taught through ‘the faithful and discreet slave’”, that’s going on all the time! Am I to decide what I’m supposed to believe based on what is taught today, yesterday, or tomorrow? At some point there has to be a clear litmus test offered and respected.

 

Now I will use the same type of argument JWs use against those who oppose their organization: "What is their motive?"
This kind of question is asked/pointed out when the question does not suit us, and we turn the blade by calling a question as if it is an "attack"?

So what is the motive for WTJWorg to write an article like this? To appear objective and well-intentioned because they want to warn readers of the possible danger of being deceived. Seems like a good motive, right? But the warning does not apply to "spiritual food" that comes from GB, because this "food" means that all the information on the Society's library (today website) has been checked and is correct. They actually say; "stick to what we authorized," as A. Morris III once said on JWTV.

Any other information, especially that which concerns the "International Brotherhood and Organization", if comes from "this evil world" is dangerous to be taken for granted. 

When WTJWorg participated in the court process in Russia, it was written about and called for mass political activism of the membership colored with religious cloak of freedom of belief. When it was debated in 2015 before the ARC, Australia and the horrors that hundreds of children experienced in the religion of "their parents", in WTJWorg, not a single sentence appeared about it. Total control of information whose sole intent and purpose is to cover up the real situation at WTJWorg. So, even when leading JW people speak in court about their "theocratic practices" which are right in their eyes because they were taught so by the Organization, it was not "allowed" to be seen on JWTV, not even as a brief information. To transmit the entire statements of the elders would be "too dangerous" for the faith of believers.

The article in the mentioned issue of the magazine focuses on the refusal to do something at the request of "unbelievers". Only a weak indication that this could also refer to internal circumstances in the assembly in extraordinary circumstances, probably as the beginning of some kind of initial "apostasy" in the brotherhood. It's the eighties, after all. Not too much time has passed since the "great disappointment" of 1975. But a lot was written against "Babylon".