Noble Berean

I think the issue is not that people are taking the lead. That's understandable. The issue is that the GB has total, unchallenged control over scriptural interpretation. What scriptural basis can be used to defend that? Is there evidence that the apostles behaved this way?

I think the issue is not that people are taking the lead. That's understandable. The issue is that the GB has total, unchallenged control over scriptural interpretation. What scriptural basis can be used to defend that? Is there evidence that the apostles behaved this way?

...then they must must have spent the last ten years in a coma... [or something to that effect]
Of course, this could have slightly more effect if we hadn't been saying almost exactly the same thing for the last 138 years and counting.

If you don't want the corrections, when the updates come in to the computer, you can tell it No.  And keep your bound volumes.

January, 1989
The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." (w89 1/1 12 "The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them" [as originally published in the Watchtower magazine]).
Rewritten
"The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our day." (w89 1/1 12 "The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them" [as it appears in Watchtower bound volumes & CD-ROMs])
[bold added]

"Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world" (1 John 4:1).

From the teachers of course, and as you say, those who are taught themselves become teachers. I don't think that is a problem. What is being questioned here I think is that there is one group of teachers , 7 at present, who have the final say and also who make adjustments to their prior teachings. It is to be noted though, that there are many who have already understood some teachings to be "wrong" even before the 7 have made adjustments. This would indicate that others CAN interpret the Bible correctly by themselves. How I understand the arrangement is that although others have insight too, it is only those who are classed as the Faithful and Discreet Slave who distribute this knowledge to others. After all, they have the means to do it, (publications, talks etc.) whereas we do not.

People of "noble mind" are those who carefully study the scriptures. The Bible was written for all mankind. The Bible teaches that if you seek truth with constancy and impregnation, you find it - Proverbs 2: 1-5
Each of us, individually, has the duty to study the Bible.
Judgment will also be a personal thing.
If any of you prefer to believe that they are always "the others" to study and dig for you, you are free to believe it.
Unfortunately this is not what the Bible teaches.
If you think that every topic should be tested with the scriptures, okay.
If, on the contrary, you think you do not have to study, look for and understand why "there are other people in charge of doing so", I'm sorry for you.
Perhaps one day you will find that the Bible encouraged you to study and understand it personally.
I have nothing else to add because these conversations are a waste of time.
Those of noble mind, such as the Bereans, will seek in the Bible if an affirmation is true or false

I don't think he was endorsing Martin Luther's life, but just sharing a relevant quote. Although I agree that the Reformation failed in that it replaced one tyranny with another. History is tragically cyclical. One group recognizes the tyranny of [insertname]Church, they branch off, and then form another tyranny. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm not a fan of Martin Luther but the principle of studying the Bible and being guided by it is valid.

"Because Your Majesty and Your Lordships want a unambiguous answer, I will answer without ambiguity and without bitterness. Unless I am convinced with Scripture and with clear reasoning (since I do not accept the authority of popes and conciliators who contradicted each other), my conscience is bound to the Word of God. I can not and I do not want to retract anything because it is not right or healthy to go against conscience. Here I am. I can not do otherwise. God help me. Amen". Martin Lutero

I am well aware of the claim, and that it accounted for a portion of the Watchtower's chronology differences. But are you are saying that this is related to why they were so wrong about 1914?
So you are saying that the reason no one discerned the parousia or Jesus' kingship in 1914 is because it would only be witnessed by a few? So why was it discerned by NO ONE in 1914, if it was supposed to be noticed by a few.
Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would END, not begin, in that marked year. But then, less than a decade before 1914, they changed this to a time of trouble would begin in that year based on the idea that all human institutions would fail that year, so that it would only be a few months before complete chaos ruled instead of any kings or national groups. So evidently they could not have imagined just how inaccurate that prediction turned out to be. 

Dear brothers,
you should not blend the nonsense of numerologists or persecute prophecies with biblical scriptures.
Be clear that I disown these people and these religions.
The article may be fair or contain errors, but the only thing we need to do is understand whether the subject is a personal idea or is supported by the Scriptures of the Bible.  There are many false prophecies and many false prophets for which it is right to be cautious.
However, "being cautious" does not mean that we have to close the Bible and not strive to understand. We can all compare the scriptures, is not it?
We all have the Bible, is not it?
We do not pass to the other extreme!
The only true authority is the Bible and each of us has the chance to understand it.
We can do an honest Bible examination without prejudice.
The article can be questioned but it must be done through the scriptures.
I invite you to take every single affection and test it in the light of biblical truth - John 17:17
If there are mistakes, then let us help ourselves to understand something more but do not adopt a superficial and passive attitude towards prophecies.
If the prophecies have been written, it is evident that we can understand them.
 

And now you know what acts as a restraint, in view of its revelation the appointed time. In fact, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now acts as a restriction is not out of the way. Then, in fact, will be revealed illegal, that the Lord Jesus will suppress the spirit of his mouth, and reduced to nothing by the manifestation of his presence "- 2 Thessalonians 2: 6-8   Who acts as a restraint to the man of lawlessness? Part of the discussion that follows has already been mentioned in the article entitled "The beast that ascends from the sea and head slaughtered to death" * (see footnote) However, that article was devoted in particular to the beast that John saw as "slaughtered to death" and the false prophet so easily is not given due attention. The scriptures are so cleverly linked together that you can not delve into a subject without going to touch others. This reinforces the belief that the method is correct and, therefore, also the intention. To correctly understand "who acts as a restraint," and when, then we resume the discussion starting from the beast with two horns lamb. The description of this beast is very similar to what the Bible says the man of lawlessness, and so we must also seriously reviewing what we know about its possible "restriction" - Compare 2 Thessalonians 2: 9-12 with Revelation 13:13, 14 The apostolo Paolo says this man of ell'illegalità "stands in opposition and exalts himself above all that is called" god "or object of reverence, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing publicly be a god "- 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12 Needless to deny that this description "looks like" the one that makes Daniel in chapter 11 and verses 36 and 37 ... "The king really do according to his own will, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god; and he will speak marvelous things against the God of gods. It certainly will be successful until [the] complaint has not come to fruition; because the thing decided upon must be done. He will not consider the God of his fathers; and will not take into account the desire of women and any other god, but magnify himself on anyone. " These two scriptures seem to connect? As we have already seen, the fact that this beast possesses lamb horns is not simply indicative of its image "peaceful" (among other things does not seem very peaceful from the description which is made of) but it is a contrast with what is said shortly after the 14th chapter of Revelation. This beast with two horns lamb is a contrast to the true Lamb - Compare Revelation 13:11 with Revelation 14: 1 This contrast is so embarked, that is suggested , that even the mark of the beast is contrasted with the "seal" or the name of the Lamb and His Father that the 144,000 are on their foreheads - compare with Revelation 13:16 Revelation 14: 1 So it is clear, if we read without prejudice, you are talking of a "something" that you put in contrast to the true God and true worship. Thing? Who can get in opposition to God and to true worship? But it is clear! He says the apostolo Paolo in 2 Thessalonians 2: 4: "He stands in opposition and exalts himself above all that is called" god "or object of reverence, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing publicly to be a god "- See also Daniel 11:45 So we're talking about the man of lawlessness, of course, pretending to be what he is not, is also a "false prophet" - Revelation 19:20 So far we have been told that the apostles were to act as a "restriction" (or, at least, the first-century Christians). In fact after the death of John apostasy exploded in all its power and before the end of the second century there were already seven divisions and utterly false beliefs. Although we are talking about the false prophet, and then the events for the last days, this is not a contradiction in what the apostle said that this lawlessness "was already at work" in his day. It should be noted that there is a fundamental difference between "being at work" (which may occur behind the scenes and with limited means) and the open "revelation." Paul is talking about a particular period of time ... "about the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him" - 2 Thessalonians 2: 1 He says that before this had to be the man of lawlessness. As soon as possible? He meant perhaps 2000 years before? To understand this we must identify two key events: the presence of the Lord and the gathering together unto him. In simple words the apostolo Paolo is saying ... "Seeing this ... then we can talk about the presence of Christ and our gathering together as spiritual creatures with him." It is evident that, although the man of lawlessness was already at work at the time of the apostle Paul, it would be completely revealed in the end time and precisely the approach of "gathering together unto him." Needless to say, the gathering with Christ, which is the spiritual resurrection, did not occur at the end of the first century, Jesus began to rule the world at that time. So if the prophecy of the Apostle Paul had an initial and partial fulfillment at the end of the first century (there is no doubt that at the end of the first century, the congregation was corrupted at the speed of light), it is in the end time we have to wait the full revelation of this false prophet. This is fully in keeping with the last book of the Bible. Whatever idea we made about it, if we read in chronological order Revelation 11: 7 and then 13: 11-14, everything will become clear. The beast with two horns lamb is also known as a "false prophet" and says it is misleading the entire inhabited earth because of the "signs which he had power to do." This is reminiscent of the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 24:23, 24. In harmony with the words of the Apostle Paul, only in the vicinity of the abduction at Christ the man of lawlessness he would be truly revealed. When it begins, according to Revelation, the spiritual resurrection? In that time, the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of Christ? Let's try to read the following verses in chronological order - Revelation 11: 12-15 If, then, Daniel, Matthew and Revelation are connected ... who is to act as a restraint against the man of lawlessness? In the book of Revelation it is clear: are the two witnesses in sackcloth . Exactly as it happened towards the end of the first century with the death of the last apostle, an event that started the apostate Christendom, in the end time we expect a second and complete fulfillment. What happens as soon as they are "out of the way"? Once killed, quickly it appears this beast with two horns lamb which you adore and performs signs exactly as it is described in Daniel and in Matthew. Another interesting detail confirms this understanding. Again the apostle Paul, speaking of the same subject, says that "the Lord Jesus will suppress the spirit of his mouth, and reduced to nothing by the manifestation of his presence." Yet Babylon the Great, which would include the man of lawlessness (according to the official intent) is not suppressed either directly by Jesus or God. We know that God (not Jesus) puts in the hearts of these kings that make up the wild beast to destroy Babylon the Great, but not destroy it He directly. Instead, with respect to the false prophet, the Bible says ... "And the wild beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who had performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the beast and those who render worship to its image. While they were alive, they were both cast into the lake of fire burning with brimstone "- Revelation 19:20 The scripture references are so many: just put them together. The death and resurrection of these two witnesses, an event that kicks off the general spiritual resurrection and at the sound of the seventh trumpet that makes the kingdom of the world the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:51, 52), you see this strange beast - Read Revelation 11:12, 15; 12: 1, 5; 13:11 If we read Revelation chronologically it will become much simple.    

To most of us, I suppose this verse means wait and see what the Governing Body tell us about this. And the Governing Body has already told us that they think these numbers refer to some time periods in the 1910's and 1920's. So there is nothing to discuss.
I would add that it's the personal responsibility of each one of us to let our reasonableness be made known to all.
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For me, if there is no contradiction with other Bible verses or Bible prophecies and our traditional explanations are presented as likely scenarios based on good evidence -- and not stated dogmatically -- then this is reasonable enough to accept without being too concerned. A wait and see attitude is a good thing, especially if we have nothing specific to offer as a viable replacement for the current explanation.
But there are a couple problems with the current scenario that could reasonably be questioned. Should we question it then? If we see an issue, or a contradiction with the current scenario, should we let our reasonableness become known to all men? If someone has pointed out something that might be reasonably wrong with our current thinking are we under any obligation to "make sure of all things"? Or are we under scriptural obligation to sit and wait for "the prophets"?
Today we tell everyone that Jehovah did one of the most important things he has ever done in all of human history in the year 1914. Yet if Amos 3:7 is appropriately applied above, we should have expected that Jehovah would not have done this unless he had previously told his servants, the prophets. Yet, not one person in advance of 1914 had any such thing revealed to them. Even after 1914 came and went not one person was able to say what had happened that year. There was no prediction in advance of 1914 that Jesus would become present in that year (still considered 1874) or that his kingdom would start in that year (still 1878). Not one prediction for the year 1914 turned out to be correct, not even the idea that the Gentiles would no longer trample literal Jerusalem, because those Gentile times had now ended. 
So what does it really mean to say that Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his prophets? Who are his prophets today? What does it mean to be a prophet who has Jehovah's confidential matters revealed? Also, just because Amos said this in reference to a specific upcoming judgment, does it mean that these specific words are applicable to all future judgments. What if Jesus were to tell us that another future specific judgment would come as a thief in the night? Does that mean that this particular verse becomes wrong? or that Jesus was wrong?
What about the rest of Amos 3, or the entire book? Is all of it generic to apply to all future prophetic scenarios, or only especially verse 7?
So far, I'd say that it is reasonable to question the current explanations, because if there is a contradiction then this would mean that our belief might be contradicting the Bible and we should be careful not to contradict the Bible. But I will also say that I think the explanation given is not fully reasonable either.
And on the issue of requiring that if we find a problem, we should be required to find something better, this is the best scenario, but it should not be required. The first step is to see if there really are contradictions and therefore be noble-minded enough to "test" whether these things are so. We could always send our questions to the Governing Body to see if they can come up with a scenario that does not create contradictions.
I note that we have been asked to focus on the topic of today's anointed "prophets" in the current Bible reading. So far, in a much more reasonable way than we were asked to focus on today's anointed "prophets" in the years leading up to 1975.
-----------------------------
Life and Ministry Meeting Workbook  |  October 2017
 TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3
“Your Sons and Your Daughters Will Prophesy”
Anointed Christians share in the work of prophesying. They speak about “the magnificent things of God” and proclaim the “good news of the Kingdom.” (Ac 2:11, 17-21; Mt 24:14) The other sheep support them by participating in this work
Ask yourself, ‘How can I support the anointed in their work of prophesying?’

Dear Brothers, we must make sure of everything in the light of scripture - 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Corinthians 13: 5
I am willing to question any statement. I'm not inspired and I have no pretending infallibility.
However, it is incorrect to have a passive attitude towards prophecies and the Bible in general - 1 Thessalonians 5:20
We have the duty of studying the Bible, meditating and praying to understand it.
it is wrong to think that the others must always be doing it for us. We have a responsibility. I want to remember that even the judgment will be personal - Romanos 14:10
What has been written can be objected and discussed. I am willing to discuss and even retract if Scripture convinces me that we must do it.
Unfortunately, many brothers have an attitude of subjection to the one who takes the directive. You can not object, you can not discuss anything that comes "from above".
Does our total loyalty go to a group of people or to the word of God?
The Word of God says that we must seek, dig, engage - Proverbs 2: 1-5
Some prophecies are fulfilling under our nose and almost no one realizes it. Kids wait for someone to tell them what to do.
But God has given us the Bible and said to use our faculty to reason.
If anyone wants to contest the article is free (and encouraged) to do so. Together we can get to understand something more.
However, every challenge must have the support of the Bible. it is pointless to make a "political forum" where everyone says what he thinks. Every subject must be supported by sacred scriptures.
 
 

Oh dear.....................Let's just wait and see eh?
Why don't you go to work on what this scripture means: 
"For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets" Amos 3:7

From a medical point of view, I would submit that it is not just the children, but very few JW parents themselves could "demonstrate an ability to understand the implications of the consequences of refusing treatment." I would also posit that very few JW parents have even fully considered the Biblical point of view on blood transfusions for themselves either. We can surmise this from the fact that the vast majority of JWs accepted what the Watchtower said about rejecting all organ transplants as final, right up until the time the Watchtower changed its position on them. Immediately, the vast majority of JWs accepted the opposite position about accepting all organ transplants as final. Clearly, JWs had not considered the matter for themselves, and had not been using their own thinking abilities or even their own conscience in the matter.
If any have had any dealings at length with persons on the Hospital Liaison Committees (HLCs) in various congregations, then it is likely obvious to that JWs do not generally make up their own mind on the matter of blood, either. We merely submit to the "mind" of the Watchtower. JWs continually consult with the Society or HLC members about what blood-related therapies could be acceptable to their conscience and which ones are not allowed to be acceptable to their conscience.
(Romans 14:1-5) 1 Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand. 5 One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others; let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.
There is a relatively new problem that medical professionals and medical authorities have been dealing with and this is finally being considered in the laws of the "superior authorities." (Romans 13:1-5)
(Romans 13:1-5) 1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. . . . 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience.
The new problem is that there are now several Jehovah's Witnesses who have "surprised" the medical professionals and medical authorities by asking that they or their child be treated as an exception to the general rule for Jehovah's Witnesses. They will accept blood or otherwise "forbidden fractions" for themselves or children and make this a matter of conscience. These Witnesses make this decision in spite of the risk to their spirituality and/or the risk to their standing and acceptance in the congregation. This new problem has already been discussed in several respected medical journals. It's difficult to imagine the complication that this can cause for hospital professionals, even where the HLC has done its best to explain the Watch Tower's position. (The medical journals even discuss the legal implications of keeping the final decision of the parent or child from getting back to the HLC or other representative from the congregation.)
Even putting aside the Biblical aspect for the moment (i.e., consideration about prospects for eternal life), many JWs simply reject that there is ever a time when a blood transfusion offers the best chance of saving (i.e., extending) the life of the patient. There are supposed to always be alternatives, and even if not available, the risks of blood transfusion have been so magnified that many JWs often believe that the medical risk of accepting always overrides potentially life-saving medical benefits.
But the Society has admitted that blood transfusions (and other blood therapies that JWs do not accept) are often actually life-saving (from a medical viewpoint, not a spiritual viewpoint). 
To understand the complications, therefore, let's assume that there are times when the Society is right and the medical authorities are right, and that there really are times when a blood transfusion (or related therapy) is the best chance for saving the life of the patient. We are only considering those types of cases below.
Now consider the Law, for example and consider what should be the JW view toward the "superior authorities" in the following circumstances? How much effort should the HLC (or other consulted elders) put into convincing parents or child to conform to current "Watch Tower" policy in these situations?
What is listed below are 28 different situations with the following "variables:"
The person faced with the question is either:
6 or 16 years of age  (6/16) - the 6-year-old is only considered in these cases with JW parents. Baptized or Unbaptized (B/U)  - only applied to the 16 year old, where a 16 year old may be associating with Witnesses even though the parents are not JWs Parents are JW or not JW (PJW/NJW) - "mixed" marriage where only one spouse is JW is not included in any scenario. The child herself either wants to Accept, Reject or is Unconscious [and without directive] (A/R/U) The parent of the child either wants to agree with the child's decision or disagree (PA/PD) - note that if child is unconscious, then disagreement with a stated decision does not apply (although it is possible that a child carries a blood directive that JW parents reject at time of emergency) In other words, as an example, case #1 means that the child is 16, unbaptized, parents are JW, but the child wants to accept a blood transfusion, and the JW parents agree that she can choose to accept it. Case #28 is a 6-year-old unbaptized child with JW parents, where the child wants to reject a transfusion, but the parents disagree, and want her to accept it in this case.
16,U,PJW,A,PA  16,U,PJW,A,PD 16,B,PJW,A,PA 16,B,PJW,A,PD 16,U,PJW,R,PA 16,U,PJW,R,PD 16,B,PJW,R,PA 16,B,PJW,R,PD 16,U,PJW,U,PA 16,U,PJW,U,PD 16,B,PJW,U,PA 16,B,PJW,U,PD 16,U,NJW,A,PA 16,U,NJW,A,PD 16,B,NJW,A,PA 16,B,NJW,A,PD 16,U,NJW,R,PA 16,U,NJW,R,PD 16,B,NJW,R,PA 16,B,NJW,R,PD 16,U,NJW,U,PA 16,U,NJW,U,PD 16,B,NJW,U,PA 16,B,NJW,U,PD 6,U,PJW,A,PA 6,U,PJW,A,PD 6,U,PJW,R,PA 6,U,PJW,R,PD The complication of a child having one JW parent and one non-JW parent, is not considered at all here, and might be further complicated by the acceptance of gender roles, where, for example, a husband who is a non-JW demands that he be accepted as the "scriptural" spiritual head of the family. Also, even where the parent and child are in agreement, they may still be at odds with either the medical professionals or the HLC. The "law" of the superior authorities can also become a concern, and may also be a concern that the JW parent (or child) will see differently than the HLC based on their conscience. All these scenarios might be a clue as to why the Apostle Paul rejected the kind of Pharisaism that would try to account for all the various scenarios and merely left "legal" matters up to each individual conscience.

Well one reason would be the scrripture at Dan. 10:20-21 (You quoted partially.) The angel speaking here mentions the princes of Persia and Greece in the same breath as Michael "your prince". (the prince mentioned at Dan. 12:1). The context itself indicates to me that these "princes" are all spirit creatures and the angel speaking these words provides an insight on what is going on "behind the scenes" as it were.  Isn't that reasonable? 

"Beware, my brothers. In the last days there will be false apostates among you."

Come on, he just felt as if. We all, including him, know it has nothing to do with actual facts, only the warm and fuzzy feeling of relief you get when you have got away from something safely.

Nice phrase. This sums up nearly the entire story of the world since nearly the beginning of the world.

MATTHEW 24:14
the Truth will be preached again in Russia. I believe The Lord when he says it will be preached throughout the ENTIRE inhabited Earth as a witness 

Somebody sent out one this morning. Will check.

It has everything to do with it since we are talking about the generation that was anointed before 1914. (Jesus talking about the signs of the last days which began in 1914 and THAT generation not passing away). Therefor the person would have to have been baptised before 1914. So it's that generation.  .
Which is where we encounter the problem because THAT generation is all but dead now and it does not apply to M. Sanderson, since he was baptised and became one of the anointed well after 1914 BUT, and this is the whole point of the overlapping generation, his life OVERLAPPED (between approx 1977 when Sanderson was baptised and 1992 when Franz died) with the life of one of the anointed who was baptised before 1914 (Franz).