Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology.

No problem. I respect the choice. Individuals within the JW congregation do not need to deal with the legal aspects of their faith, but that is why the legal status of believers in the Church is dealt with by the WTJWorg Corporation. This means that individuals, belonging to each congregation, will be exposed, without their knowledge, to every legal move by JW lawyers.

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Srecko Sostar “Inspiration”is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. It refers to the written or verbal revelation that Jehovah gave. Guidance(spirit led) refers to the holy spirit prompting to truth. In Acts 15 the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ, and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. The reason they can do that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration. Claiming they were inspired in Acts 15 when the passage nowhere mentions they were inspired its an unfounded deduction. This is similar to the Apostles in the first ten to fifteen years of the Congregation (before any Scripture was written), when exercising their authority over the Christian congregation as their appointed representatives, and yet not speaking inspired Scripture.

I think you are equating inspiration, with the assistance of the holy spirit. The holy spirit works in and through the fallible Christian congregation not apart from it nor does it dispense with the human factor.  With respect to the notion of the holy spirit’s  guidance of the Governing Body, the events of the Jerusalem council in Acts can again be helpful. It is important to understand that the spirits guidance of the Governing Body  is not to be thought of as magical or mystical, or in any manifest way noticeable in the concrete reality of the Governing body’s activity. The spirits guidance is more subtle, powerful, and comprehensive than that. In reading the account of the gathering and conducting of the Jerusalem council, there does not appear to be anything especially divine about how the proceedings develop. There is heated argumentation and debate, and finally, after various opinions and objections had been placed on the table, those taking the lead (James and Peter)speak and make something like an executive decision with respect to the question of circumcision. From a purely human point of view, it does not appear to be much different from what one might encounter in a Fortune 500 board room. And yet, when the decision or decrees of the council are drawn up for promulgation to the various congregations, it includes a rather extraordinary claim regarding the identity of one of the parties involved in the process. For it begins: “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”. This correspondence between the activity of the Governing Body and the spirit in promulgating definitive teaching is the prototype for all their activity going forward.

 

Yes of course, we could establish a clearer meaning of the terms "inspired" and "led". For this purpose, a book should be published on JWlibrary, so that believers can be educated.

From my point of view, I accept the idea that the ant is not "inspired" but "led" by the HS as it walks the underground corridors in search for food.

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

@Pudgy I wish that was true. Believe me, I really do, it would of made my life so much easier growing up and I would of avoid so much heartache and suffering and could of used that time energy and efforts and investing it in the ministry helping others.

But If that were true, disagreement regarding which doctrines are essential could be due only to illiteracy or malice. But when we engage in on-the-ground dialogue with Christians in other interpretive traditions, we find that the people with whom we disagree on such matters are generally neither unintelligent nor malicious. That implies that resolving the disagreements regarding which doctrines are essential is not as simple as pointing to Bible verses. Otherwise, after the last five centuries of reading and studying Scripture, then even if there was not an initial agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture, there should be at least a convergence of biblical interpretations among all students of Scripture. Instead there has been a continual multiplication of doctrinal disagreements among the various traditions. For these reasons, Scripture alone is not capable of answering the "essentials" question.

We have a five-hundred-year experiment called Protestantism. Protestant history is a history of fragmentation upon fragmentation, dividing not over what was believed to be secondary issues by those separating, but over what was believed to be orthodoxy and heresy. People do not break unity over issues they themselves believe to be secondary, indifferent adiaphora. Someone could claim that in each such case someone was failing to engage in honest exegesis, but it seems to me that such a claim would be ad hoc. There is no good reason to believe that in each case of  fragmentation, one or both sides were being dishonest in their exegesis of Scripture. The evidence is to the contrary. Likewise, someone could claim that in each case of fragmentation one or both sides did not have the spirit. But again, that would be ad hoc. Moreover, honest exegesis in the present is not bringing denominations back together. Given all the exegetical work published in academic journals and books over the last few centuries, which denominations have reconciled because of it? None if any. And again, it would be ad hoc to claim that they are not doing so only because of dishonesty or exegetical ignorance. Do we see all New Testament scholars moving toward one denomination’s theological position, over the past 500 years? No. All this shows that personal interpretation of Scripture is not a reliable way of distinguishing fully and accurately between orthodoxy and heresy.

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).

[George88]

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

Your cynicism intrigues me. Could you please clarify your statement about GB's claim that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food"? I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide evidence supporting this assertion. I am eager to read it myself and form an informed opinion, ensuring that there are no misunderstandings regarding the intended meaning of their words.

It seems you missed some important points in my post. I want to emphasize that ex-witnesses are part of our community. Although I may have been overlooked as a poster, I believe my words deserve recognition. Putting that aside, Jesus made an insightful comparison between those who had the chance to "repent" like a tax-collector and those who had already repented but had sinned against God. 

Here's a scenario: If an atheist were to come to your home and, in an attempt to show that person the Bible, that person forcefully takes it from you and strikes you with it, would you still regard that person as your neighbor? Would you consider calling the authorities and subsequently distancing yourself from them, even going as far as shunning them for their aggressive behavior? 

Unless that person sincerely apologizes, repents for their behavior, and asks for forgiveness, it is doubtful that they would be warmly received into your house.

Matthew 9 reveals Jesus' powerful message that anyone, including tax collectors, can find redemption through repentance. On the other hand, Matthew 18 teaches us that Christians who have strayed from their commitment to God must seek his guidance and forgiveness. In this regard, it is important to recognize that we should not judge or criticize those who faithfully adhere to God's commandments, no matter how much we may disagree with the methods described in scripture. As followers of Christ, we cannot selectively accept or reject parts of the Bible based on personal preference.

[Srecko Sostar]

50 minutes ago, George88 said:

Your cynicism intrigues me. Could you please clarify your statement about GB's claim that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food"? I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide evidence supporting this assertion. I am eager to read it myself and form an informed opinion, ensuring that there are no misunderstandings regarding the intended meaning of their words.

It seems you missed some important points in my post. I want to emphasize that ex-witnesses are part of our community. Although I may have been overlooked as a poster, I believe my words deserve recognition. Putting that aside, Jesus made an insightful comparison between those who had the chance to "repent" like a tax-collector and those who had already repented but had sinned against God. 

Here's a scenario: If an atheist were to come to your home and, in an attempt to show that person the Bible, that person forcefully takes it from you and strikes you with it, would you still regard that person as your neighbor? Would you consider calling the authorities and subsequently distancing yourself from them, even going as far as shunning them for their aggressive behavior? 

Unless that person sincerely apologizes, repents for their behavior, and asks for forgiveness, it is doubtful that they would be warmly received into your house.

Matthew 9 reveals Jesus' powerful message that anyone, including tax collectors, can find redemption through repentance. On the other hand, Matthew 18 teaches us that Christians who have strayed from their commitment to God must seek his guidance and forgiveness. In this regard, it is important to recognize that we should not judge or criticize those who faithfully adhere to God's commandments, no matter how much we may disagree with the methods described in scripture. As followers of Christ, we cannot selectively accept or reject parts of the Bible based on personal preference.

“WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?”

12. Since the Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible, what questions arise?

¹² The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283

 

 "Consider, too, the fact that Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force. (Zech. 4:6) Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book. Many persons of the world are very intelligent, capable of understanding complex matters. They can read the Holy Scriptures, but they cannot understand their deep meaning. Yet God's people can comprehend such spiritual things. Why? Not because of special intelligence on their part, but as the apostle Paul declared: "For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God."" Watchtower 1973 Jul 1 p.402

 

"The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. God feeds his own people, and surely God uses those who love and serve him according to his own will. Those who oppose The Watchtower are not capable of discerning the truth that God is giving to the children of his organization, and this is the very strongest proof that such opposers are not of God's organization." Watchtower 1931 Nov 1 p.327

 

[Srecko Sostar]

"Today, Jehovah guides his people by means of the Bible, his holy spirit, and the congregation. (Acts 9:31; 15:28; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17) The guidance that we receive from him is so clear that it is as if ‘our own ears hear a word behind us saying: “This is the way. Walk in it.”’ (Isa. 30:21) In effect, Jesus also conveys Jehovah’s voice to us as he directs the congregation through “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45) We need to take this guidance and direction seriously, for our everlasting life depends on our obedience." Watchtower 2014 Aug 15 p.21

"God gives us the direction we need in order to look after his people. (Compare Exodus 24:12.) His Word directs us and his spirit assists us beyond our natural abilities in caring for responsibilities. (2 Cor. 4:7)" “Pay Attention to Yourselves and all the Flock” p.11

"The mysteries locked up in the book of Revelation have for long baffled sincere students of the Bible. In God's due time, those secrets had to be unlocked, but how, when, and to whom? Only God's spirit could make known the meaning as the appointed time drew near. (Revelation 1:3) Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God's zealous slaves on earth so that they would be strengthened to make known his judgments. (Compare Matthew 13:10, 11.) It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8) God had a channel for communicating Revelation in John's day, and John was the earthly part of that channel. Likewise, God has a channel for giving spiritual nourishment to his 'slaves' today. Revelation, Its Grand Climax At Hand! p.9, 15

 

The Organization operates under the confusing concept of "Provisional Infallibility." On the one hand, Watchtower information is to be accepted unquestioningly as from Jehovah; on the other hand, Watchtower admittedly contains significant mistakes. 

This is justified by the irrational concept that holy spirit directs the Governing Body, but they are not inspired. This is illogical - inspired means to be directed by holy spirit. The concepts of infallibility and inspiration are simple, yet discussing them in line with Watchtower teachings becomes complicated because by definition it is impossible to have direction of holy spirit but not be inspired. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

 

• Infallible; "Incapable of erring" (therefore to be infallible means to be perfect)
• Inspire; "to affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence" (or in other words inspired means to be directed by holy spirit)

Presented as formula highlights the flaw in the Watchtower reasoning, the Watchtower contradicts itself when saying that God's Holy Spirit directed its doctrines, yet they are not necessarily correct.

source:https://jwfacts.com/watchtower/directed-by-holy-spirit.php

[George88]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This is justified by the irrational concept that holy spirit directs the Governing Body, but they are not inspired. This is illogical - inspired means to be directed by holy spirit. The concepts of infallibility and inspiration are simple, yet discussing them in line with Watchtower teachings becomes complicated because by definition it is impossible to have direction of holy spirit but not be inspired. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

I found your submission quite intriguing.

Matthew Henry once said: The apostles were not guided by worldly principles. They had the revelation of these things from the Spirit of God, and the saving impression of them from the same Spirit. These things they declared in plain, simple language, taught by the Holy Spirit, totally different from the affected oratory or enticing words of man's wisdom. 

The foundation of his wisdom was 1 Corinthians.

NAS  1 Corinthians 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (1 Cor. 2:10 NAS)

It appears that you doubt God's ability to bestow his Holy Spirit upon faithful individuals, as well as questioning the guidance that the apostles received from it. Allow me to clarify: Were the apostles truly infallible in their actions?

[Srecko Sostar]

22 minutes ago, George88 said:

I found your submission quite intriguing.

Matthew Henry once said: The apostles were not guided by worldly principles. They had the revelation of these things from the Spirit of God, and the saving impression of them from the same Spirit. These things they declared in plain, simple language, taught by the Holy Spirit, totally different from the affected oratory or enticing words of man's wisdom. 

The foundation of his wisdom was 1 Corinthians.

NAS  1 Corinthians 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (1 Cor. 2:10 NAS)

It appears that you doubt God's ability to bestow his Holy Spirit upon faithful individuals, as well as questioning the guidance that the apostles received from it. Allow me to clarify: Were the apostles truly infallible in their actions?

I wouldn't look back at the 1st century so much in the context of one's beliefs (mine or yours) about events in the distant past.
Our reality today is to decide/discern whether we should accept or reject or more thoroughly consider, unencumbered with the influence of WTJWorg, GB's statements about their claims to be the only ones who correctly interpret the Bible the way they do, from their inception to the present day.
With the abundance of archival material available to us, authored/written by the people at WTJWorg, it is possible to see a chronology of doctrine. The text from the publications gives us a certain insight into the personality and condition of those behind the text. Also, by relating it to events inside and outside WTJWorg, we can see more clearly why some things (doctrines, instructions, interpretations) were written in one way (as irrefutable and the pinnacle of true knowledge) and later changed, more or less modified, adapted or completely rejected. And with some doctrines, it happened that they were thrown out for a while and then reintroduced as correct after a certain period of time (the so-called flip-flop).

It is unnecessary to question whether an individual believe or does not believe in God and his ability. That doesn't solve anything. The question must be asked whether we should believe in People who claim that God is speaking contradictory things through them, and that both are true.

[Many Miles]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

...

The Organization operates under the confusing concept of "Provisional Infallibility." On the one hand, Watchtower information is to be accepted unquestioningly as from Jehovah; on the other hand, Watchtower admittedly contains significant mistakes. 

...

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.

Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.

One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.

Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

[George88]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I wouldn't look back at the 1st century so much in the context of one's beliefs (mine or yours) about events in the distant past.
Our reality today is to decide/discern whether we should accept or reject or more thoroughly consider, unencumbered with the influence of WTJWorg, GB's statements about their claims to be the only ones who correctly interpret the Bible the way they do, from their inception to the present day.

Maybe, how can that be possible if Christianity is founded on the ancient teachings that Christ and the apostles embraced? If this were true, it would suggest that there is no necessity for the Christian faith. My belief is that this conclusion has been repeated in various manners throughout history, particularly during the pre-flood era, and there are numerous other instances of rebellion against God's authority. We can draw a parallel to the Israelites who challenged the prophets because they did not wish to hear about impending doom and judgment; similar attitudes exist to this day.

Isn't the Bible a collection of ancient books that continue to shape our present? Shouldn't we consider that a library or an archive of books?

[George88]

3 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see.

I firmly believe that they practice this on a daily basis. Just as witnesses are held responsible for their actions according to God's law, so are they. I don't think it is necessary for them to show more to their fellow brothers than what the brothers are inclined to show them. The elevated standard they demonstrate is ultimately intended to earn God's approval.

The separation between doctrine between the Bible students and within the Jehovah's Witnesses is an ongoing divergence of interpretation. Nowadays, Bible student groups that are still rooted in Russell's teachings have differing opinions on certain aspects. It's important to note that even in the past, not all Bible student associations aligned with Russell's views.

[Many Miles]

14 minutes ago, George88 said:

I firmly believe that they practice this on a daily basis. ...

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?

What is the litmus test today?