Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[JW Insider]

45 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@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.

I would participate gladly in an open-forum Biblical discussion about what we can learn from Paul's letter to the Galatians. If it can inform our modern day view of the GB that's fine, but I think the view of an ex-JW vs the view of a JW is going to be rather predictable on that count. Nevertheless, I'd say 'go for it.'

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

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.)

in the original context, the difference was that Angus Stewart asked "do you see yourself as modern-day disciples?" A lot of people use the term "Jesus' disciples" as synonymous with his original direct "twelve disciples." Of course, Bro Jackson could answer that the GB definitely see themselves as modern-day disciples. [Those taught by Jesus.] The GB also definitely see themselves as modern-day "sent-forth ones" which is the meaning of the word "apostles." And they do speak of themselves in several ways as a modern-day parallel to the apostles, or even as a kind of parallel to the small number of men who ended up writing all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But Bro Jackson knew the danger of trying to explain these "parallels" to a non-JW so he steered clear of it by even pointing out that they, the GB, do not consider themselves to be the sole channel (mouthpiece) of truth today. Mr. Stewart had clearly been prepped with the knowledge that the Watchtower has many times pointed to the Watchtower publications and/or the Watchtower Society as the sole channel for dispensing truth today. This idea has been repeated very directly during the time of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz, but much more subtly in recent publications. 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

@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.

For whatever small contribution it might make toward informing about the governing body as it has represented in the last century up until today, I would engage such a discussion in a public forum. 

It tends to be a touchy subject because, as you cited Rotherham, there tends to be sentiment that it’s ridiculous to even think what we look to as a governing body could knowingly present false teaching (what Rotherham depicts as apostasy).

Not to be overlooked is the writer to Galatia (Paul) was himself a newer convert to the Christ, Jesus. He was an ex-Judaic with firsthand experience with an religion/organization run amuck, which organization had, the old fashioned way, disfellowshipped one among themselves named Jesus. Paul himself had been drawn into this wholly wrongheaded way even to the point of persecuting followers of Jesus. Hence the man had passion for holding leaders accountable, which comes across loud and clear in the letters opening statements.

Nonetheless, I’d engage the topic. 

 

[Juan Rivera]

@JW Insider I agree, and I don’t want to rehash the same conversation. It seems you and other Witnesses have already dealt with Srecko on this topic, but it might help @Many Miles @George88 and me of course to get some insight.  Here’s two comments I found on the forum:

On 1/18/2023 at 11:15 AM, Anna said:

As I see it, the problem is those who think the GB are practically infallible (even though they say they are not) are the ones who become disgruntled and blame the GB for anything that happens in their life because they "listened" to the GB.

The Witnesses do it to themselves. They get so engrossed in looking to man for salvation forgetting that our prime allegiance is to God. Br. Jackson did explain it to the ARC; that if the GB put something out there that was un-Biblical, all Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a Bible would notice it. (A part of me wonders whether Br. Jackson said this merely hoping that this would be the case, I am sure not ALL Witnesses would notice). I have not heard this in any other setting except this secular “court”. There were other things explained there as well that I have not heard or read anywhere else, that I can remember*. For example, the mechanism by which the GB decide on a matter. Some Witnesses still think there is a little “flame” that sits on top of their head, and they “speak in tongues”. In other words that the holy spirit physically guides them to the right answer.  In the same way many think that Elders are appointed by holy spirit in the sense that the holy spirit points its finger at the chosen one, as it were. Many JWs are thus in fear of speaking out against an elder (even if there is valid reason) because they are afraid they would be going against the holy spirit.

Perhaps it would be good if these things were explained clearly to all JWs. Hearing Br. Jackson at the ARC certainly helped me to confirm what I already knew (from R. Franz's book). Probably those at Bethel who work closely with them are very familiar with the facts, but those average JWs in congregations around the world might have a completely skewed idea. I know I did! This is where I say more transparency is needed.  

 And your comment:

On 12/28/2016 at 7:25 PM, JW Insider said:

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.

It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.

Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].

I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 

But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.

This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)

I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.

That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

 

 

[Many Miles]

22 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

@JW Insider I agree, and I don’t want to rehash the same conversation. It seems you and other Witnesses have already dealt with Srecko on this topic, but it might help @Many Miles @George88 and me of course to get some insight. 

 

I’m all for gaining insight. We should learn from one another. The primary issue I’ve raised regarding the letter to Galatia is that the then “governing body” (to borrow a term) was willing to tell the body of Christ when they should be held as accursed, and that doing so was fine as depicted. 

As things stand, right now and for decades there is misleading and patently false information plied by the society to prop up religious positions that, daily, have life and death consequences. This is all demonstrable. Only it’s not revealed by the society.
 

These things have to be found out otherwise, often from letters of correspondence from the society stating things that are never published for broader review and edification. In other cases it’s found in academic peer reviewed professional articles, which when questioned directly the content is confirmed privately by the society but with no broad publication. If it’s good for the goose it should be good for the gander.
 

When I learn of some of these things it is very disturbing, which is only exacerbated knowing if you question what you see happening you are subject to being branded. And, for what? Asking out loud about things that are demonstrably valid? Paul offered that the then “governing body” was subject to making sure they were being faithful in teaching and dealings with the brotherhood, and that it was fine to point to wrongness. Paul offered a litmus test to use of the then governing body. I’ve never read where our contemporary governing body could even possibly be held accursed for reason. It’s treated as a ridiculous notion. 

[George88]

I fail to see the suggested effect that the Governing Body perceives themselves as apostles. Instead, they view themselves as modern-day disciples, taking on the responsibilities of honorable men mentioned in Acts 6:3. They consider themselves, as fellow workers alongside other sincere witnesses as mentioned by Bro Jackson that knew the problem of secular authority not fully understanding scripture and who didn't want to misconstrue the terminology. It appears that there are some within the other circle who are willing to accept the variation of non-witnesses. Hence, it seems that Bro. Jackson's words are being wrongly interpreted.

[George88]

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I’m all for gaining insight. We should learn from one another. The primary issue I’ve raised regarding the letter to Galatia is that the then “governing body” (to borrow a term) was willing to tell the body of Christ when they should be held as accursed, and that doing so was fine as depicted. 

Once again, we find ourselves confronting a recurring pattern. When something is stated in the Bible, it holds true for anyone who chooses to deceive others and distort the scriptures for their own selfish benefit. Everyone is included. These individuals not only lead God's followers astray with their misinterpretations, but they also criticize others who faithfully follow God's laws. They resemble the pharisees by accusing others, just like equating the Governing Body to the apostles, which contradicts their commitment to supporting God's flock, as humble servants and collaborators as instructed by Christ.

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

On 1/18/2023 at 6:15 PM, Anna said:

As I see it, the problem is those who think the GB are practically infallible (even though they say they are not) are the ones who become disgruntled and blame the GB for anything that happens in their life because they "listened" to the GB.

The Witnesses do it to themselves. They get so engrossed in looking to man for salvation forgetting that our prime allegiance is to God. Br. Jackson did explain it to the ARC; that if the GB put something out there that was un-Biblical, all Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a Bible would notice it. (A part of me wonders whether Br. Jackson said this merely hoping that this would be the case, I am sure not ALL Witnesses would notice). I have not heard this in any other setting except this secular “court”. There were other things explained there as well that I have not heard or read anywhere else, that I can remember*. For example, the mechanism by which the GB decide on a matter. Some Witnesses still think there is a little “flame” that sits on top of their head, and they “speak in tongues”. In other words that the holy spirit physically guides them to the right answer.  In the same way many think that Elders are appointed by holy spirit in the sense that the holy spirit points its finger at the chosen one, as it were. Many JWs are thus in fear of speaking out against an elder (even if there is valid reason) because they are afraid they would be going against the holy spirit.

Perhaps it would be good if these things were explained clearly to all JWs. Hearing Br. Jackson at the ARC certainly helped me to confirm what I already knew (from R. Franz's book). Probably those at Bethel who work closely with them are very familiar with the facts, but those average JWs in congregations around the world might have a completely skewed idea. I know I did! This is where I say more transparency is needed.  

 And your comment:

On 12/29/2016 at 2:25 AM, JW Insider said:

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too.

It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of Jehovah's Witnesses" would notice. This has never, ever been true! Every time "some" change is made to a doctrine (and there have been literally hundreds of such changes) then the GB made this change because it was important to be in more complete harmony with God's word. In other words, if the change was made for the new teaching to be in harmony with God's word, then the previous teaching was not in complete harmony with God's word.

Yet, there has never been a case where more than a very few Jehovah's Witnesses spoke up, often none at all, as far as anyone knew. Back in the days when we were more attuned to anxiously await the latest "new light" from the yearly convention, the comments were always about how pleasantly surprised everyone was. No Witnesses are ever asked by the Governing Body what they think of a new doctrine and almost no Witnesses would dare say anything except that they agree completely, and that it was surely "food at the proper time." This is true, even though many of those items of "new truth" that we learned at all the assemblies in my formative years have been nearly scrapped, from "Your Will Be Done on Earth" [King of North/South, antimatter, fear of Sputnik] "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" [type-antitype Elijah as "Rutherford" and Elisha as "Knorr"] to "Babylon the Great Has Fallen" [Revelation "commentary" where almost half the paragraphs are already out of date].

I remember some of the adjustments, and wrong ideas over the years have been explained as "the right thing at the wrong time" or even once as "the wrong thing at the right time." [e.g., "superior authorities" of Romans 13]. Yet, it is always "food at the proper time" as far as perhaps 99% of us are concerned. 

But that's not the biggest problem with the claim. If it were true that even "some" wrong direction were easily detected by "all" then there is no need for a special "slave class" to present doctrines. If Brother Jackson is right, then it would be better to start from scratch and vote on each doctrine democratically.

This is not a complaint about the spiritual food we receive, and it's true that the specific menu of doctrines we enjoy is fulfilling and satisfies our spiritual needs. Over the years, however, much of it has proven to have been served at the wrong time, or it was the wrong thing. Some has even been toxic and resulted in spiritual death and loss of spiritual health for many. And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)

I think most of these things have been corrected, or are in the process of further correction. But I don't blame the bad food on the "faithful and discreet slave" because I don't believe that this parable was a prophecy in the first place. For the most part the "spiritual food" served is wonderful. Where it is wrong it is usually corrected with something that is obviously better. But where someone digs in their heels and holds to false doctrine because of a tradition or inability to admit that it might have been wrong, this is not about an appointed "slave" proving themselves to be an "evil" slave, it's just the common human tendency of people who are looked up to as leaders to become like the Pharisees, and see themselves as more important or righteous. Teachers receive heavier judgment.

That's really the reason for the parable, anyway, as far as I can tell. It's so that a person who takes on the leadership position of Brother Jackson, for example, doesn't forget that he should be in subjection to you, Anna, and that he should be willing to give a literal drink of water to you or visit you when you are physically sick, or give you some actual physical food to eat if you are hungry.  And the parable was also meant to remind you, Anna, not to forget that you should be in subjection to Brother Jackson, and not be quick to judge him harshly even if you see that he has taken a false step. We should try to build each other up with patience and discretion and faithfulness, picking each other up as best we can, and trying to understand each others' mental, emotional, physical and spiritual needs so that we can be an encouragement to each other. As the "day" continues to draw near, we want to show love toward one another, so that all of us continue awaiting Jesus "parousia" without unnecessary distraction from the world and its desires. The point of the parable is that if the Master is away it's easy to lose faith, but by building our congregations up into a family of brothers and sisters who look out for each other with love, we will not be tempted to lose faith in the promise, which can result in disobendience to the Master, and being overly concerned about who is right and who isn't, or finding opportunities to "lord it over" our fellow servants.

I think this is the first time I'm reading this comments from Anna and JW Insider.
I really like their observation about how fewer JWs notice the wrong things coming from GB. There are several reasons for this, in my oppinion. "Boundless" trust in those who lead the Organization from America (I'm talking about many who don't live in the USA, so that part is far for them, which is due to the literal distance, and also because of a perhaps fairy-tale idea about people they've never seen or heard of and never could until digital connectivity came along. Consider that this was especially evident for that part of Eastern European countries until 1990 and other parts of the world with limited communication in many ways as further factor)

People notice things with more or less confidence in their own judgments. However, this is perhaps more obvious when it comes to some more everyday, physical topics. When it comes to theology itself, most (of them, of us) don't even have time to deal with it that much, so that part of  brain activity is slowed down or underdeveloped, so to speak. Also, the idea that after becoming a JW they came "to the truth", came "to have the truth", becomes an obstacle and a trap, because now I am "safe, God is with me, he protects me because I believe in him and his organization". Furthermore, people are different and their current interests and circumstances, age, gender, length of time spent in the "organization", psychological and emotional development of the individual, etc. all affect our current awareness or unawareness of what is happening around us.

About "guide by spirit"

I think there is a difficulty in using this term because we don't really agree on the true meaning and purpose of such an idea. 
When GB uses that phrase about "being guided" it means something different from the words "led, guided by". Look at what it says, how explains this in the WT - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/. 

 

CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

In the first century and today, how have those taking the lead among God’s people been . . .

empowered by holy spirit?

assisted by angels?

guided by God’s Word?

.........5 Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers........

 So today's GB refers to the pattern from the 1st century as legitimacy for its roles today. But here in the text of this magazine it speaks of some kind of "empowerment", not "guidance", also not "poured out on". (Being empowered and guided shouldn't be the same, right?)

But despite this terminological difference or similarity of terms and meanings in use, the WT passage uses the 3rd term to denote the operation of the same Power. It says that the spirit was "poured out" on those in the 1st century. So, three terms are used here to confirm exactly the same position of the Apostles and the position of the GB. Both of them are in a position to legitimately act on followers due to the action of HS. On the other hand, they say that there is a difference between these three words, and the biggest difference should be through the use of the 4th term through the meaning of the word "inspired".

Although all these words are associated with HS and should prove that HS acts on people in one way (to do God's will), it turns out that it is still not possible to achieve the same results during this superhuman action and that HS does not actually have the same power of action today as it had in the past. Because His biggest disadvantage is that  He is not able to "inspire" people today. He could only do that in the distant past. Why can't HS do that today? It turns out that he can't perhaps because God doesn't allow him, or because today's people don't have something that people in the 1st century had, or something else is the cause. WTJWorg claims that HS cannot "inspire" people today, is final result of GB theology.

If this is so, then there is no need to prove one's current Administrative status by comparing it through the structure of the existence of leadership in the past, which then arose only because of the action of HS which caused people to be "inspired".

 In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics... 4 The context of the illustration of the faithful and discreet slave shows that it began to be fulfilled, not at Pentecost 33 C.E., but in this time of the end. Let us see how the Scriptures lead us to this conclusion....Therefore, we may conclude that his words about that faithful slave began to be fulfilled only after the last days began in 1914. Such a conclusion makes sense... In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/

Although WTJWorg explains that Jesus' words about the FDS were not fulfilled on the Apostles in the 1st century, but only from 1919, GB insists that they actually took over the governance model based on the established 1st congregation over which the Apostles were Hierarchical superiors. It is another in a series of inconsistencies. How could something that did not exist then (FDS aka GB class), in the past, become a model for what exists today?

 

The illustration of the faithful slave is part of Jesus’ prophecy about “the sign of [his] presence and of the conclusion of the system of things.”  - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/

On what basis did WTJWorg turn the illustration into a prophecy? When can we expect other biblical illustrations and parables and comparisons to become prophecy?

 

Assisted by angels

Second, angels assisted the governing body. Before Cornelius was baptized as the first uncircumcised Gentile Christian, an angel directed him to send for the apostle Peter...Moreover, angels actively promoted and accelerated the preaching work that the governing body was overseeing. . - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/

For me, it is a superhuman effect on people and their actions. How can angels exert their influence and HS cannot? Experiences that were heard or read by JWs and were publicly published support the idea of superhuman intervention. Controversial to the existing idea of HS not being able to do what angels do.

"Directed, promoted, accelerated by angels" are additional words indicating superhuman action.    

Guided by God's Word

Third, God’s Word guided the governing body. Whether they were settling doctrinal issues or they were giving organizational direction, those spirit-anointed elders were led by the Scriptures. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/

GB says, we hear that on JWTV, they meet and discuss, brainstorm, confront ideas, etc. It's a clash of minds and ideas. A completely normal human activity. Brainstorming and similar methods are called "guided by" the Bible. So what is the difference with "guided by HS"?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

19 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

On 10/26/2023 at 9:17 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.

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The first assumption about someone's "sin" is that someone's action is really "sin". The second assumption is whether it is a "sin" that requires intervention. A further condition is based on the mutual relations between the one who rebukes and the one who is potentially rebuked. Is the "sin" committed directly to the one who wants to rebuke. Or it is someone who is not personally involved in the "damage" that was done to someone. Is it even about damage that someone personally suffers, or is it outside of such a context (someone took a blood transfusion, for example, so it is not damage caused to us personally). The condition would also be set as to whether I have the knowledge and skills to explain what is actually wrong and what is the solution to the problem, because that is, like, the first and basic reason why someone should be approached (ie win over a brother).
However, the problem arises in the legislation of "sin". Because sometimes a sin is a crime. Although it is theologically possible to conclude that in fact every sin is a crime, a crime against God, so it's actually a complicated situation.
If "sin" is rape or theft, etc., then our participation in all this is actually problematic. Is the purpose of our intervention to persuade the offender to turn himself in to the police or to just repent of his actions?
However it all turns out in the end, every person is actually a "neighbor", even an unrepentant sinner. Because there are many walking around the world who do not repent of their sins, and yet we should consider them our neighbors, regardless of what knowledge about them we have or not.
I would understand that I am not being greeted by someone whom I have personally harmed. It is easily possible that I would have retaliated in kind if someone else had wronged me. I am "imperfect" after all. :))

Furthermore, the question is who and what is a "congregation". Judicial Committee or the entire community of believers?

What in today's WTJWorg procedure is close/equal to that of the 1st century? Is the interpretation of today's GB a faithful imitation/copy of the actions of the 1st congregation?

Is it the authority of the individual and the congregation to judge only the "moral and doctrinal" transgressions of its members, or does this authority also apply to all other sins/crimes? Because the Bible speaks of "higher powers that carry a sword to punish". Is WTJWorg then allowed to punish or pardon the sin/crime of its members instead of those whom God has "ordained to that position"?

[Pudgy]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

  …. GB says, we hear that on JWTV, they meet and discuss, brainstorm, confront ideas, etc. It's a clash of minds and ideas. A completely normal human activity. Brainstorming and similar methods are called "guided by" the Bible. So what is the difference with "guided by HS"?

….

[Juan Rivera]

*Typo*

 

[Juan Rivera]

typo