Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Relying solely on one's own understanding can be a significant mistake and should not be promoted by any religious authority.

I agree with that statement 100%.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

True wisdom, according to religious beliefs, emanates from a higher power rather than from human beings.

Biblically, I'd agree.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

True wisdom, according to religious beliefs, emanates from a higher power rather than from human beings. Therefore, our understanding of logic and fallacy is limited by our individual interpretations.

What you write in this case is just false insofar as the latter statement is concerned. Logical conclusions are not at the mercy of individual interpretation. This is because logical conclusions are falsifiable, just like math is falsifiable. So, for instance, is someone said "2 + 2 equals 5" my response would be that can't be true because "5 - 2 does not equal 2. Logical conclusions are falsifiable just as mathematical solutions are subject to falsification.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Religious texts often urge us to be discerning of those who possess a mindset similar to that of the Pharisees rather than questioning those chosen by God to guide and oversee his followers.

Yes, over and over again the conduct of the biblical Pharisees demonstrates the need to be weary of teaching from supposed religious authority. This is a good reason to learn the discipline of logical construction.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The fallacy, therefore, rests on our limited comprehension of scripture and our reluctance to pay attention to God's message as conveyed through the deeds of others.

Though a person's behavior might signal whether they're trustworthy, whether someone is trustworthy has nothing to do with whether something they say is or is not true, so long as what they say is falsifiable. A known liar could tell me it's raining outside and because I can't trust him does not change whether it's raining or not outside. I don't need to trust them about the rain, because whether it's raining is falsifiable; I just need to look out the window.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

What motived Christ, the apostles, and his followers? Christ was the only human being who was perfect in every way. Did that undermine the actions and abilities of the others? If you're not familiar with the concept, I strongly suggest you pursue its study.

I'd say a big motivating factor was Jesus' miraculous feats of supernatural power. Any person who can resurrect a man that's been stone cold dead for several days has my unfettered attention. Were the same man to have shown himself to me after being dead himself for several days, the things he tells me would be burned into my head as absolute truth.

But we don't have this firsthand experience. We have the record of those who did. So, to avoid our own interpretations we should learn and apply the well known and accepted conventions of logical construction to that written record in order to form conclusions that are falsifiable in order to grow our knowledge of what God wills. 

[George88]

1 minute ago, Many Miles said:

What you write in this case is just false insofar as the latter statement is concerned. Logical conclusions are not at the mercy of individual interpretation. This is because logical conclusions are falsifiable, just like math is falsifiable. So, for instance, is someone said "2 + 2 equals 5" my response would be that can't be true because "5 - 2 does not equal 2. Logical conclusions are falsifiable just as mathematical solutions are subject to falsification.

Mr. Pudgy came up with this concept, but it is based on a false premise. I recommend that both of you become better informed and express your opinions independently, as continuing in this manner is starting to seem foolish.

4 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Yes, over and over again the conduct of the biblical Pharisees demonstrates the need to be weary of teaching from supposed religious authority. This is a good reason to learn the discipline of logical construction.

In essence, the inferences here as well, especially those attached to pharisees outline of understanding.

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Though a person's behavior might signal whether they're trustworthy, whether someone is trustworthy has nothing to do with whether something they say is or is not true, so long as what they say is falsifiable.

What you're suggesting is that the actions of the apostles or those Christ commissioned were not trustworthy. How can that possibly make sense?

9 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I'd say a big motivating factor was Jesus' miraculous feats of supernatural power. Any person who can resurrect a man that's been stone cold dead for several days has my unfettered attention. Were the same man to have shown himself to me after being dead himself for several days, the things he tells me would be burned into my head as absolute truth.

The point that you seem to have missed is the question of who was truly flawless and who was not, but still possessed the same potential with those superpowers?

11 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

But we don't have this firsthand experience. We have the record of those who did. So, to avoid our own interpretations we should learn and apply the well known and accepted conventions of logical construction to form conclusions that are falsifiable in order to grow our knowledge of what God wills. 

Excluding God, as you propose, lacks logical reasoning and should be completely inconceivable for a genuine Christian.

[Pudgy]

The reality check is this:

Got Milk?

If you do not instantly understand what I just said in TWO WORDS, you may be highly educated, but you are also clueless.

You need to re-read Many Miles last three posts out loud at least three times.

 

[Pudgy]

… but you won’t.

BECAUSE YOU’RE …

CLUELESS!

[Many Miles]

Logical conclusion, a bit about:

 

Here is an example of a logical argument valid in form:

Premise: Abel lived pre-flood and ate fat

Premise: Abel was human

Conclusion: A pre-flood human ate fat

In the above argument, if each premise is true then the conclusion is sound (valid). This is because the argument is, in form, valid.

 

 

 

Here is an example of a similar argument but with a false premise:

Premise: Abel lived pre-flood and offered fat to God so we know Abel ate fat

Premise: Abel was human

Conclusion: A pre-flood human ate fat

In this instance, though in form the argument is valid, its first premise contains an unsubstantiated claim, which makes it false. It is presumptive. Because one of the premises is false then the conclusion is unsound (invalid).

 

Comment

 

The reason I’m showing this is because sometimes a conclusion can be true (valid) though an underlying premise is found false (presumptive in this case). This means a conclusion is false (invalid) insofar as it stems from an argument with a false premise. But the conclusion could still be true in the same argument form were it to have valid premises.

In the case above of the initial example of a logical argument, both premises are demonstrably true hence the conclusion is true because in form the argument is valid.

[Srecko Sostar]

What is not clear in the commandment. ""We must obey God rather than human beings!"?

The apostles were not to obey the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the highest Church body. Who is the highest Church body above JW members today? Somehow the same level of authority, regardless of how they got to their position.

Is there any "if" in command, if someone is an elder, a Bethel elder, CO, GB member, then such a person must be obeyed? If it's a policeman or the Court, then obedience is "relative"? JWs please, think about.

------------------------------------

The next question is, does FDS aka GB have legitimate authority?
Also ,what is it authorized for?

If we want to believe the claims about how Jesus chose them in 1919, we can develop that assumption as a possibility and continue the discussion.

But then we will face the following. In the previous interpretation, the same FDS claimed that Jesus placed them "over all Jesus' belongings" in 1919. We all know what WTJWorg explained to include "Jesus' property".
But now let's stop and remember that the illustration, from Matthew 24, to which FDS refers is exclusive in the task for FDS. And that is to share food, nothing else.

The task of FDS is to distribute food, not to manage property, not to govern people, not to interpret Word. This "prophecy" as WTJWorg called it, says absolutely nothing about the "position of authority", nor about the "position of interpreters" as the role the Lord has given them. Finally, in the illustration, Jesus uses the word "servant" and not "manager or director, steward".

Jesus did not say a word about alleged task for FDS - the ability or authority to interpret God's Word. There is no such thing in a single letter, not even in a comma.

--------------------------------

A further problem that the FDS has caused itself is the reinterpretation of the first interpretation about 1919. They claim today that Jesus will put them only in a position in the future from where they will "manage all Jesus' property".

That means only one thing today. That they are illegally in a place that Jesus did not assign to them. Or perhaps even worse. They gave, handed over Jesus' property (over which they ruled illegally for over 100 years),  to the people whom Jesus did not authorize for that task (because that is some future event according to interpretation). This happened when they  decided to separate the FDS aka GB from the formal Management, Administration (the various power structures in the WTJWorg )and distributed all that management and financial powers to people who were not included/provided by the promise of Jesus to deal with it at all. Because, the assumption is that FDS is not 144000 or 144000 is not FDS (or people who are even not part of that class, but are now in role to manage property) but only GB.

Jesus did not give FDS aka GB authority to interpret the Bible.

He did not give them authority to rule over property and over people.

If we want to believe something.., then He gave them the task of printing and distributing Bibles around the world and through that spread the gospel. 

Sharing food does not mean that FDS should cook and bake it. Because we see quite clearly how it turns out when GB cooks and bakes it.

[Many Miles]

15 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What is not clear in the commandment. ""We must obey God rather than human beings!"?

Indeed!

Before the Jewish high court the apostles exclaimed “We must obey God as ruler rather than men." These same men (apostles) also warned their fellow believers that if they (the apostles or any one of them) ever changed their testimony of Christ that they taught and believers accepted about the Christ, that those believers should hold them (the apostles or any one of them) as accursed.

In ancient Aaron's case, Moses was told by God that he (Moses) was to serve as "God" to Aaron. At Meribah Aaron was still condemned for the sin of disloyalty for standing in passive support of the one who served as "God" to him. Why? Because Aaron knew Moses was just a spokesman for God and that Aaron's ultimate loyalty belonged to that One and not His spokesman. 

As it was true for the apostles is was in Aaron's case, and always. We must obey God as ruler rather than men.

 

[George88]

34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The apostles were not to obey the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the highest Church body. Who is the highest Church body above JW members today? Somehow the same level of authority, regardless of how they got to their position.

Is there any "if" in command, if someone is an elder, a Bethel elder, CO, GB member, then such a person must be obeyed? If it's a policeman or the Court, then obedience is "relative"? JWs please, think about.

Did Luke not question the interpretation of the Pharisees, who believed that their own laws were superior to the words of God written in the scrolls? Did he suggest the Jews should follow the Pharisees' authority rather than what was truly written by God? What was Jesus consideration in Matthew 23?

Can you present any evidence of instances where the Governing Body has acted similarly to the Sanhedrin, without misrepresenting anything to do with the Watchtower?

34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If we want to believe the claims about how Jesus chose them in 1919, we can develop that assumption as a possibility and continue the discussion.

We would need to once again consider your personal interpretation of Galatians 1:8.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

Regarding information testing. It is true that WTJWorg is writing something about it.

However, what JWs fail to do is that they do not apply these methods to their own "source of spiritual food", which is their Organization.

Fear of the "outside world" is spreading among the members. Danger for JWs is that they are already so well "trained" by the WTJWorg, that any information that comes from "worldly people", from the media or from the authorities, is highly suspect, because the whole world is under the power of Satan, so almost all this information from that world is colored by "satanic lies", as David Slane explained on JWTV. 

JWTW and other WTJWorg digital persuasions successfully manipulate and control information. Success is also guaranteed by the method of sowing fear of the so-called "apostates" who lie as soon as they open their mouths. "Don't listen to the apostates, it's all lies. Listen to us (GB) we love you .....". haha

 

[Many Miles]

7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Regarding information testing. 

Testing. As an underlying factor that's what this whole discussion is about; what test does today's governing body lay itself bare to so that its teaching or teachings are falsifiable?

This is what Paul's letter to Galatia offered in its introduction. In essence, the apostles informed Christians who looked to them as leaders/teachers that should they (the apostles or any one of the apostles) ever change the testimony they taught about the Christ and was accepted by his followers of the Christ, that they should be held as accursed. Those words, and others elsewhere akin to them, offered a means of falsification to protect Christians from teaching allegedly of Christ that may not be of Christ. As much as I look for it, I see no place where the contemporary governing body lays themselves bare to a means of falsification as a protection to all those earnestly seeking the Christ, Jesus.

[Srecko Sostar]

27 minutes ago, George88 said:

Can you present any evidence of instances where the Governing Body has acted similarly to the Sanhedrin, without misrepresenting anything to do with the Watchtower?

It is a difficult task. Because the Sanhedrin did not change doctrines every few months, years.

Even Jesus said that the people should do according to the oral instructions of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. That's a little strange to me, but that's what it says that Jesus said. If the Sanhedrin interpreted the Scriptures correctly and the people were supposed to obey them, then I don't know why the apostles refused to obey?

So the problems are hidden or people don't see them, when JWs don't question themselves about their "Sanhedrin" in the USA. The apostles challenged their Sanhedrin.

[George88]

17 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It is a difficult task. Because the Sanhedrin did not change doctrines every few months, years.

Even Jesus said that the people should do according to the oral instructions of the Pharisees and teachers of the law.

Indeed, the Sanhedrin believed that the laws they inscribed on the scroll were the absolute truth, but this led to their misconception. Consequently, their continuous deceptions were not truths that demanded compliance, whereas their authority as the highest court did.

Adhering to the laws of the land is equally important as obeying secular authority. While one may have reservations about certain laws, one must still abide by them unless they are modified. Acting as a rebel goes against the principles of Christianity and should be avoided at all costs.