Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Pudgy]

…

[Pudgy]

….

[George88]

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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"?

The way I see it, there is a straightforward answer to your question, which is supported by scripture and echoed by the Watchtower. Any sincere Christian organization would counsel its members to distance themselves from individuals who have become disobedient due to their wrong attitudes and misinterpretation of scripture. The letter to the Galatia congregation contains a similar warning that can be applied in this situation. The real question is, who are these critics of the ones who are willing to criticize, and what makes their comprehension superior to those they are judging?

In today's world, we often witness what can be referred to as the "Trump effect." President Trump exudes an unwavering confidence in his beliefs and actions, positioning himself as faultless. Even though it begs whether he truly is faultless, he persistently propagates this self-perception. Interestingly, a similar tendency can be observed throughout history, reminiscent of the actions of the pharisees. They cunningly used ancient scrolls to their advantage, neglecting the well-being of the people. Meanwhile, they hypocritically criticized Jesus for rightfully adhering to the principles outlined in those very same scrolls. This parallel strikes a chord when we consider the actions of certain organizations like the Watchtower. Shouldn't they, too, shed light on this situation and strive to guide their dedicated members towards a more genuine and beneficial experience within the organization, set by the standards of scripture, just like Jesus did in his time?

Therefore, what makes the critique correct enough for others to heed it instead of independently evaluating scriptural interpretation? Matthew 12: 31-37

*** w88 4/1 p. 28 Is Obedience Always Proper? ***
When Obedience Is Proper

*** w88 4/1 p. 28 Is Obedience Always Proper? ***
When Obedience Is Not Proper
 

[Juan Rivera]

On 10/26/2023 at 5:20 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Given that Geoffrey Jackson, authorized GB representative, has publicly stated, confirmed by the court seal of the ARC, that the WTJWorg GB is not the only body in this world that can give valid doctrines when representing God as God's speaker of faith, (opposite to your view about GB) then this exposition about different interpretations from different sources is redundant, in the sense that it does not lead us to any single human authority on this issue.

Perhaps the difficulty arises from the fact that all the religious sources discussed are in a phase, a state called "spirit-led." GB is in such mental state. Perhaps other churces have different view and think they are inspired or something else. Should find out. It is obvious from everything presented that being "led by the spirit" is a very weak, flawed, uncertain and imprecise way of establishing true faith in God (without written Bible text).

@Srecko Sostar I've read a few comments from other Witnesses and it seems you already had this conversation elsewhere and in the closed club. I don't think your perspective that Geoffrey Jackson was claiming that they are not the only body in this world that can give valid doctrine when representing God as God's speaker of faith is accurate. Here's their comments:

Comment from JW "Rotherham":

"The literature never states that the FDS is the SOLE channel for dispensing truth, it says God’s organization IS. God’s organization includes everyone who would be considered a minister, man, woman or child. But the scriptures are clear that SOMEONE would be taking the LEAD when it comes to feeding the flock. That is what we believe to be the case with the FDS. So whereas MANY can feed and nourish, there are those who are leaders that Hebrews 13:17 says we should OBEY and SUBMIT to. So I don’t see where Br. Jackson’s comments are inaccurate."

 

Another comment from @JW Insider:

"Angus Stewart asked the wrong question of Bro Jackson. It seemed obvious that he had been prepped to ask "do you see yourself as modern-day apostles, the modern-day equivalent of Jesus' apostles. (The next question about the mouthpiece was meant to draw out the same issue.)

If he had asked the question correctly, there is no telling whether Jackson would have answered differently, even though he knew the reason for the question. Fortunately, Jackson was able to easily skirt the intent of the question and he quickly took advantage of it. However, the GB do see themselves as the modern day near-equivalent of Jesus' apostles. They see the Jerusalem GB as as the first-century equivalent of the on-going teaching role of those apostles, even if the group could have non-apostles participate. The GB have also seen themselves in a modern-day role like the Bible writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, a group which also could have non-apostles participate."

[Juan Rivera]

On 10/26/2023 at 2:17 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

I found one article to educate me more on about this. https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/historical-theology/tax-collectors/

 

I don't really understand why Jesus would use a tax collector in his teaching about internal relationships among fellow believers.
The tax collector was a legally appointed person from the Roman authorities. Nobody likes taxes and tax collectors, both before and today. I will use the cynicism of GB who said that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food". Jesus also did not promise that you will not be taxed by the authorities. He did not promise that taxes would be low. He did not promise that injustice would not overtake you. And so on and so forth. Finally, JWs boast of being completely law-abiding and paying (unjust) taxes, both in the 1st century and today.
Furthermore, everyone will agree with what @Juan Rivera said about ex-JW status. Ex-JWs fall into the category of "neighbors" just like tax collectors and Gentiles.

In the light of the comments that are presented here and emphasize the need for less influence of the written word, the Bible, and a stronger influence of the interpretation of the written word by those who are "authorized and appointed" to interpret it, then the existing interpretation of completely ignoring excluded JWs would need reinterpretation.
Among other things, JWs go to prisons to convert people who have been marked as criminals by a "higher authority", who they say is appointed by God to their position. The same elders who are cordial with the prisoners despise the ex-JW when they see him on the street. That's a normal state of mind and emotion, right? That was Jesus' intention in his teachings, from chapter 18?

 

@Srecko Sostar can you restate this comment, I'm having trouble understanding it after re-reading it a few times, sorry.

[Srecko Sostar]

19 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Srecko Sostar I've read a few comments from other Witnesses and it seems you already had this conversation elsewhere and in the closed club. I don't think your perspective that Geoffrey Jackson was claiming that they are not the only body in this world that can give valid doctrine when representing God as God's speaker of faith is accurate. Here's their comments:

Comment from JW "Rotherham":

"The literature never states that the FDS is the SOLE channel for dispensing truth, it says God’s organization IS. God’s organization includes everyone who would be considered a minister, man, woman or child. But the scriptures are clear that SOMEONE would be taking the LEAD when it comes to feeding the flock. That is what we believe to be the case with the FDS. So whereas MANY can feed and nourish, there are those who are leaders that Hebrews 13:17 says we should OBEY and SUBMIT to. So I don’t see where Br. Jackson’s comments are inaccurate."

Unfortunately or fortunately, I cannot influence how others perceive what GJ said before the ARC. Nor is it crucial that I have their conclusion or they have mine. Of course, it is good to hear another about how he understood something about what was said/written.
Regarding the statement of GB member GJ, I think my mind is clear enough to understand what was said there despite my poor knowledge of the English language. In the end, those whose native language is English also reason/conclude the same.

About said comment. Mr. or Mrs. "Rotherham" in the first sentence wrote an incorrect statement, totally. 

In short, I can say that the term Organization should be distinguished from the term FDS aka GB. "Organization" is a legal entity, registered under the law, that JWs use, so says your literature. The colloquial expression that exists in JWs culture and terminology, the term "organization" has an emotional meaning and includes mainly the entire Brotherhood, but also the Administration that "leads" that same Brotherhood.
The extraction from the term FDS comes from Jesus' illustration in Matthew's Gospel. Only in this century, perhaps in the span of some twenty, thirty years, the doctrine of who the FDS is started to be changed into the latest interpretation that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is none other than the Governing Body, and that they are the only ones who share the "spiritual food" they get from Jesus and YHVH. Let the aforementioned commenter and others who are still unclear about this, turn to "the new light" which illuminated JWs congregations in The Watchtower—Study Edition | July 2013.

Happy reading. :)) 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Srecko Sostar can you restate this comment, I'm having trouble understanding it after re-reading it a few times, sorry.

It would help if you pointed out what is just so unclear or is completely unclear. Thank you.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The real question is, who are these critics of the ones who are willing to criticize, and what makes their comprehension superior to those they are judging?

I can only speak of myself as a "critic", although I listen to and watch other "critics" on the Internet. I do not have any superiority, but I have moved from one to some other positions from which I can look at things.

[Juan Rivera]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It would help if you pointed out what is just so unclear or is completely unclear. Thank you.

Everything on the post😂 . Can you restate it in different wording, because I have no idea what you are saying in that specific post

[George88]

2 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I can only speak of myself as a "critic", although I listen to and watch other "critics" on the Internet. I do not have any superiority, but I have moved from one to some other positions from which I can look at things.

From my perspective, guided by scripture, I have come to understand that... The Acts 6:3 passage inserted in this scenario is a crucial element that should not be overlooked. However, does this mean that the reference to the "faithful and discreet slave" (FDS) found in Matthew 24:45-47 should be completely disregarded? Should we also dismiss Matthew 25:21, as some people argue here? The implication is that these passages hold significance when considering Jesus' return. It seems illogical to classify someone who criticizes a faithful servant as a "wise" servant, doesn't it? Is it really possible for someone who is not a member of an organization to dictate the true meaning of scripture for devoted followers of Christ? I highly doubt it.

While the Acts 6:3 passage is certainly important in its context, it does not necessarily diminish the importance of other passages, such as Matthew 24:45-47 and Matthew 25:21. These passages hold significance when considering the teachings of Jesus regarding his return. It is a parable that Jesus used to illustrate the importance of faithful and responsible service among his followers. The FDS is depicted as one who carries out his responsibilities faithfully and receives blessings from his master. 
 

[Juan Rivera]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:02 PM, Many Miles said:

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.

@Many Miles @Srecko Sostar@George88 @JW Insider Let me know if you guys want to create a new post with this topic in mind (Galatians) here in the open forum or closed.

Here’s two comments. One made by a Jehovah’s Witness and another by a Catholic Philosopher that may shed some light:

Rotherham:

“The Watchtower has never addressed the idea as to what would happen if they apostatized because the notion is considered ridiculous. From what I know of them, I would agree. Going astray is a far cry from apostasy. The organization has been “astray” a number of times. That’s the very reason they change a certain view or teaching or policy, they were astray and they corrected it.

From their standpoint, the notion that they as the GB would apostatize is considered ridiculous. I am not sure why that seems to be such a problem to understand. They are dedicated to the pursuit of Biblical truth and are willing to change their views regardless of the consequences that the change may bring. 

Of course I never stated that such a thing would be impossible, I said it was considered ridiculous. The WT is a self-correcting organization with the Bible as the guideline. All JWs are admonished to let the scriptures be their main guide. The combination of the two would stand as a bulwark against the organization as a whole to fall into apostasy.

As I tried to get you to appreciate, the Bible is the first and foremost guide in a JWs life. Everything else is secondary to the Bible. Within the scriptures there are absolute statements and non-absolute statements. A clear apostate position would be to take a stand against an absolute statement offered in the Bible. I am sure you would agree that there are many. 

Ambiguity or non-absolutes naturally present a difficulty with a clear interpretation, such as prophecy and/or the understanding of certain parabolic features. But if a defined stand were to be made against absolute statements in the Bible, then the result is apostasy as I stated before. 

For instance, if the WT came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so.

Independent thinking is not prohibited in a some wholesale fashion as you seem to want to establish. The entire admonition against independent thinking is within the context of one entertaining and promoting teachings which are not accepted by the GB, who adhere strictly to the scriptures. As I stated, we certainly know that independent thinking is entirely necessary even for a person to live their life meaningfully and with a certain a natural, balanced autonomy. 

And yes, just as the teachings of the Apostles were adhered to in the first century, according to Eph 4:11-17, that same process of gifts of men would be followed until full understanding would be achieved. Teachers, prophets and evangelizers would continue the work of the Apostles that would be responsible for “perfecting/readjusting” the holy ones until that full-grown stature of the church is recognized.

The Bible takes precedent in any teaching within the JW congregations. If there were clear and unquestionable deviation from an established Biblical teaching, if that were maintained and not expeditiously corrected, they would lose God’s favor and be rejected as his earthly organization and God would establish another. Those who appreciate the Bible as the final word would follow as it would naturally result in a schism..

The WT is considered to be like the eyeglass that helps one understand the true teachings from God’s word. It is however, recognized as fallible. The scriptures, as far as they are translated properly, reflect the perfect word of God and the Bible is well known to be our primary textbook. It is infallible and takes full precedent in any understanding, teaching or practice. Therefore, with the Bible at the helm, your above contrived scenario is not an issue.

Although the organization is considered God’s arrangement, that would only be as long as they were devoted to the teachings of the Bible. Just as Israel was rejected for corruption, so could the WT. Israel was God’s nation but became corrupt to the point that God rejected them as a nation. Not individually but as a nation. Jesus told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to nation producing its fruits.

Those who adhere first to God’s Word would clearly see the reason for their rejection, but as I said, the notion is a purposeful contrivance on your part. The WT has proven faithful in changing as they discern error, as they should. They are lovers of truth and will change as the revelation and clarification of truth continues.This would be in harmony with the idea presented in the parable of the wheat and the weeds.

Besides, one can question what they will. The problem is not questions or doubts, it is the promoting of teachings against what has been accepted by the governing body. In the first century, that was the Apostles as all congregation adhered to the teachings of the Apostles. In the harvest it would be the FDS as mentioned in Matthew or the wheat as mentioned in the prophecy about the wheat and the weeds. Ephesians 4:11-17 would be in full support of that type of arrangement.

 

Edward Feser: 

Fathers have the authority to teach and discipline their children, but this authority is not absolute.  They may not teach their children to do evil, and they may not discipline them with unjust harshness.  Everyone knows this, though everyone also knows that there are fathers who do in fact abuse their children or teach them to do evil.  Everyone also knows that it is right for children under these unhappy circumstances to disobey and reprove their fathers, while still acknowledging their fathers’ authority in general and submitting to his lawful instructions.

All the same, probably no father ever says to his children: “Children, here’s what to do if I ever start to abuse you or teach you to do evil.”  The reason for this is surely that the default assumption is that children will never need to know what to do under such circumstances, and that explicitly addressing it in this way would give them a false and disturbing impression.  Children might start to wonder whether abuse or evil teaching is a likely prospect, and for that reason come to doubt their father’s wisdom and good will. 

Hence, in the typical case, what to do in such a situation is left implicit and vague.  The nature of paternal authority is such that this is the way things should be.  Because the presumption that fathers will not abuse their authority is so strong, and because children need to believe viscerally that this is extremely unlikely to happen, the matter almost never comes up in most families.  There is a downside, of course, which is that on those rare occasions when a father does abuse his authority, children are bound to be confused about how to deal with the situation.  What do you do when the man appointed by nature to be your primary teacher and guardian starts to mislead or harm you?

Now, the papacy is like this.  The Church has no official and explicitly stated policy about how to deal with a pope who teaches error or otherwise abuses his office.  That is not because such error and abuse are not possible.  On the contrary, not only has the Church always allowed for the possibility that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra and that he can make policy decisions that do grave harm to the faithful, but both of these things have in fact happened on a handful of occasions – for example, the doctrinal errors of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII, the ambiguous doctrinal formula temporarily accepted by Pope Liberius, the Cadaver Synod of Pope Stephen VI and its aftermath, and the mistakes of Pope Urban VI that contributed to the Great Western Schism.  (I have discussed these cases here, here, and here.)  

But there is in Catholic theology so strong a presumption against a pope making grave doctrinal and disciplinary errors that, as with a father in relation to his children, it would be potentially misleading and destabilizing explicitly to formulate a policy concerning what to in such a situation.  Hence you won’t find in the Catechism a section on what to do about a bad pope.  The very existence and expression of such a policy might give the false impression that bad popes are bound to arise with some regularity.  

The downside is that on those rare occasions when a bad pope does come along, the Church is bound to be flummoxed.  Many Catholics without theological expertise will wrongly suppose that a Catholic must absolutely always support any policy that a pope implements, or assent to any doctrinal statement that a pope issues – even when such a statement seems manifestly contrary to traditional teaching (as in the cases of Honorius I and John XXII).  This will lead to one of two outcomes, depending on the capacity of such ill-informed Catholics for cognitive dissonance. 

Those who are more prone to react emotionally and less capable of clear and logical reasoning – and thus who are comfortable with embracing contradictions – will tend to go along with the doctrinal or policy errors of such a pope.  Their own understanding and practice of the Faith is going to be impaired as a result.  They are also bound to sow discord in the Church, since they will likely accuse those Catholics who do not embrace the errors of disloyalty and dissent.  By contrast, those who cannot bear such cognitive dissonance are liable to have their faith shaken.  They will wrongly suppose that they are obliged to assent to the errors, but find that they are unable to do so given the manifest conflict with traditional teaching.  They will needlessly worry that this conflict between current and past teaching falsifies the Church’s claim to indefectibility. 

It is important, then, for Catholics to realize that the traditional teaching of the Church has always allowed for the possibility of criticism of a pope who teaches error.  Indeed, such an acknowledgment is there in the New Testament, in St. Paul’s famous public rebuke of St. Peter for conduct that “seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law” (as the Catholic Encyclopedia characterizes Peter’s scandalous action).  

 

[Pudgy]

When I get something I don’t understand, I print it out on paper, then read it once fot the overall idea. I have ADD and tricky vision.

Then I read it again for detail, underlining and highlighting points, and making arrows over to the margins for notes. 

All during this I try to build a mental picture that makes sense. Visualizing a portrait with a smushed bug makes the problem obvious, so to speak.

Problematic syntax sentences can be diagrammed (which nobody teaches anymore) to determine exactly what is being actually said. Usually this is not what the author meant.

Sometimes I meditate and let the whole thing sit overnight, and read the text the next day.

I PAID to see “2001  -  A Space Odyssey“ nine times, because I didn’t “get it”. It wasn’t until I bought the Screenplay (book) and read it that I understood the movie.

Many times you can wrestle the secrets out of the Universe if you are willing to do the work, and never submit to not understanding.