Noble Berean

Perhaps I haven't been very clear with my wording on this forum. I don't actually disagree with a Governing Body existing over the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be like me questioning why each congregation has an elder body. It is clear that the GB fulfills the role of an elder body over the entire congregation on earth.
What I take issue with is the unquestioned obedience that the GB demands. I have yet to receive satisfactory, Scriptural evidence for this view. Is this how the first century apostles perceived themselves? Any questioning by JWs is compared to the fatal murmuring of Korah and his associates, but Moses was a prophet for Jehovah God. When he spoke to the people, it was like God himself spoke. He was granted the authority by Jehovah to lead the Israelites like God. Jehovah made his divine support of Moses clear when he parted the Red Sea and performed many miracles in his name. When Moses spoke to the people with a thought generated by his own imperfect mind rather than God's, Jehovah actually removed his blessing of the Promise Land. The GB don't speak as prophets, and it is clear they often speak and direct with thoughts generated by imperfect, human minds rather than God's mind. They acknowledge that they have erred in their direction throughout the organization's history. So, how can they expect the same level of obedience that Moses received? It doesn't add up in my mind. Besides, it is Jesus who is the greater Moses and not the GB.
Now, you may say that prophets don't exist anymore, so it's unfair to expect prophets in this day and age. That's true. We no longer need prophets, because we have God's complete word in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ's leadership is expressed through the Bible. It trumps all human authority. It is the "check" to us all. The Bible stands alone. In my research, I pondered why Jehovah separated the roles of apostles and prophets into two groups in the first century. I have my own theory that Jehovah did so to prevent one  group from gaining too much authority--sort of like the checks and balances in the US government. But the GB acts as those taking the lead and guardians of doctrine. Instead of the Bible "checking" their authority as an independent entity (like an auditor), it has become completely intertwined with the GB. They have stated that they alone have been granted the capacity from God to properly interpret the Bible's message. So, no one else can use the Bible to check them, because they can simply discredit that individual by saying that he/she was not chosen by God to interpret the Bible. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid.
It's like when the gov't does an internal investigation...we roll our eyes. We know that it won't be too critical against itself, but instead create an outcome that is the most favorable. The GB has interpreted the Bible and structured the org in such a way that gives them maximum control and minimum accountability. They essentially play both sides of the fields: God's channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and the imperfect human group that err. Having to be submissive to a GB who play these 2 conflicting roles is very frustrating for me. I don't know how to work with them.
And while I've said a lot, I just want to be clear that I don't want to usurp anyone's authority--especially in God's religion. My questioning is how I make my faith and my ideology firmer. I'm a work-in-progress. I'm not so dogmatic to claim I have all the right answers. My views are evolving, and I appreciate the discussions on here.

If you downvote, you could at least contribute to our discussions

heehhe Librarian would give you little monition (again), because you offend me and underestimate my life experience, past/history :))))))))

Perhaps I haven't been very clear with my wording on this forum. I don't actually disagree with a Governing Body existing over the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. That would be like me questioning why each congregation has an elder body. It is clear that the GB fulfills the role of an elder body over the entire congregation on earth.
What I take issue with is the unquestioned obedience that the GB demands. I have yet to receive satisfactory, Scriptural evidence for this view. Is this how the first century apostles perceived themselves? Any questioning by JWs is compared to the fatal murmuring of Korah and his associates, but Moses was a prophet for Jehovah God. When he spoke to the people, it was like God himself spoke. He was granted the authority by Jehovah to lead the Israelites like God. Jehovah made his divine support of Moses clear when he parted the Red Sea and performed many miracles in his name. When Moses spoke to the people with a thought generated by his own imperfect mind rather than God's, Jehovah actually removed his blessing of the Promise Land. The GB don't speak as prophets, and it is clear they often speak and direct with thoughts generated by imperfect, human minds rather than God's mind. They acknowledge that they have erred in their direction throughout the organization's history. So, how can they expect the same level of obedience that Moses received? It doesn't add up in my mind. Besides, it is Jesus who is the greater Moses and not the GB.
Now, you may say that prophets don't exist anymore, so it's unfair to expect prophets in this day and age. That's true. We no longer need prophets, because we have God's complete word in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ's leadership is expressed through the Bible. It trumps all human authority. It is the "check" to us all. The Bible stands alone. In my research, I pondered why Jehovah separated the roles of apostles and prophets into two groups in the first century. I have my own theory that Jehovah did so to prevent one  group from gaining too much authority--sort of like the checks and balances in the US government. But the GB acts as those taking the lead and guardians of doctrine. Instead of the Bible "checking" their authority as an independent entity (like an auditor), it has become completely intertwined with the GB. They have stated that they alone have been granted the capacity from God to properly interpret the Bible's message. So, no one else can use the Bible to check them, because they can simply discredit that individual by saying that he/she was not chosen by God to interpret the Bible. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid.
It's like when the gov't does an internal investigation...we roll our eyes. We know that it won't be too critical against itself, but instead create an outcome that is the most favorable. The GB has interpreted the Bible and structured the org in such a way that gives them maximum control and minimum accountability. They essentially play both sides of the fields: God's channel that deserves unquestioned obedience and the imperfect human group that err. Having to be submissive to a GB who play these 2 conflicting roles is very frustrating for me. I don't know how to work with them.
And while I've said a lot, I just want to be clear that I don't want to usurp anyone's authority--especially in God's religion. My questioning is how I make my faith and my ideology firmer. I'm a work-in-progress. I'm not so dogmatic to claim I have all the right answers. My views are evolving, and I appreciate the discussions on here.

There's many more anointed than GB members, but according to the GB salvation comes from strict obedience to them alone. Based on the increasing number of partakers...I wonder if a generation of younger anointed ones is rising up. This seems to be a worrisome trend to the org, because it throws a wrench in their current generation theory. Like I said, I believe the anointed will play a vital role in the future. But I digress...
I meant the faceless legal entity that exists in name only. It behaves like a person would...seeking it's best interests. But I'm concerned about the people and not an organization. 
I get that he can do anything he wants, but I'm concerned about what he has done to verify what he's doing today. Do you think it's at all possible that Jesus could communicate with the anointed directly? And not rely on a centralized GB? If that were the case, would that be acceptable to those taking the lead? 
Is it an unreasonable fear? If unchecked authority was what caused the Clergy class to form, shouldn't we be concerned about the unchecked authority of the GB today? "Oh this time just trust us." I believe power is always corruptive. 
It's concerning because the organization promotes a mindset of not questioning anything. That flies in the face of 1 John 4:1. Jehovah wants us to test the inspired expressions. The bereans were called noble for that reason. If it is the truth, it should stand up to critical thought. 

Jehovah God gave ample evidence to first-century Christians to verify the apostle Paul's divine backing:
In Acts 14:10 he heals a man so that he can walk. In Acts 19:11-12 his handkerchief causes diseases and demons to be expelled. In Acts 20:10-12 he resurrects a boy. I admit that I can't dogmatically say that Jesus Christ has no representatives on earth. I just was trying to point out that in the Bible Jesus Christ doesn't need a centralized body to achieve his will, so it throws a wrench into the GB's theory Jesus operates in a pyramid, trickle-down structure. I do believe that Jehovah God has and is still using anointed ones to direct the preaching work and to direct his people. I believe that the anointed will become increasingly important in coming years as guides for his people. I do believe that the worldwide reach of the preaching work by the JW organization indicates that God's temple of anointed is associated with this organization (a religion established by anointed ones and still supported by anointed ones). I see the temple of God as the anointed ones--a people rather than a faceless organization that exists legally (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). God's temple is IMO not contingent on a legally created organization, but is a brotherhood that will exist regardless of what happens to the JW org.
I think the GB has made it pretty clear that we can only make it into the new system by closely obeying their singular direction. There's a very narrow pathway to get to the other side of this system of things, and it's tied to unquestioned obedience of the GB. The organization is very high control with no room for dissent. The GB has set it up that no one can question their direction under threat of expulsion. That alarms me, because when you have unchecked authority things usually don't go well. And I think it's also concerning that JWs don't seem to "...test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). And I am one of those "loonies" that believe the Man of Lawlessness will play some role in the future.

Acts 3:22,23 is referring to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is often called the "Greater Moses". We know that Jesus Christ is our undeniable leader and we should "Listen to him" as it says in Matthew 17:5. Now, how should we expect to receive direction from Jesus Christ today and in the coming years? Is it direct from Christ or from a body of men acting as representatives for him? This isn't meant as an attack on the GB, but I just wanted some clarification on this matter. Because in the first century, Jesus Christ was able to direct Saul/Paul directly to preach on his behalf. He didn't go through a centralized body to see that work done.

Suggestion: If you make the posts a little shorter you might get more comments on them.
 

Yes,  agree.

I see the Mark of the Wild Beast as a symbolic mark that civilians will receive when they throw their support behind the Image of the Wild Beast. In the time of the end, the Satanic one-world government (likely the UN) will demand civilians give their full allegiance to it. This will put true followers of Christ in a trialsome situation, because they can only give their allegience to Jesus Christ.

Jehovah God gave ample evidence to first-century Christians to verify the apostle Paul's divine backing:
In Acts 14:10 he heals a man so that he can walk. In Acts 19:11-12 his handkerchief causes diseases and demons to be expelled. In Acts 20:10-12 he resurrects a boy. I admit that I can't dogmatically say that Jesus Christ has no representatives on earth. I just was trying to point out that in the Bible Jesus Christ doesn't need a centralized body to achieve his will, so it throws a wrench into the GB's theory Jesus operates in a pyramid, trickle-down structure. I do believe that Jehovah God has and is still using anointed ones to direct the preaching work and to direct his people. I believe that the anointed will become increasingly important in coming years as guides for his people. I do believe that the worldwide reach of the preaching work by the JW organization indicates that God's temple of anointed is associated with this organization (a religion established by anointed ones and still supported by anointed ones). I see the temple of God as the anointed ones--a people rather than a faceless organization that exists legally (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). God's temple is IMO not contingent on a legally created organization, but is a brotherhood that will exist regardless of what happens to the JW org.
I think the GB has made it pretty clear that we can only make it into the new system by closely obeying their singular direction. There's a very narrow pathway to get to the other side of this system of things, and it's tied to unquestioned obedience of the GB. The organization is very high control with no room for dissent. The GB has set it up that no one can question their direction under threat of expulsion. That alarms me, because when you have unchecked authority things usually don't go well. And I think it's also concerning that JWs don't seem to "...test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). And I am one of those "loonies" that believe the Man of Lawlessness will play some role in the future.

Acts 3:22,23 is referring to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is often called the "Greater Moses". We know that Jesus Christ is our undeniable leader and we should "Listen to him" as it says in Matthew 17:5. Now, how should we expect to receive direction from Jesus Christ today and in the coming years? Is it direct from Christ or from a body of men acting as representatives for him? This isn't meant as an attack on the GB, but I just wanted some clarification on this matter. Because in the first century, Jesus Christ was able to direct Saul/Paul directly to preach on his behalf. He didn't go through a centralized body to see that work done.

I see the Mark of the Wild Beast as a symbolic mark that civilians will receive when they throw their support behind the Image of the Wild Beast. In the time of the end, the Satanic one-world government (likely the UN) will demand civilians give their full allegiance to it. This will put true followers of Christ in a trialsome situation, because they can only give their allegience to Jesus Christ.

(Isaiah 55:6-8) 6 Search for Jehovah while he may be found. Call to him while he is near.  7 Let the wicked man leave his way And the evil man his thoughts; Let him return to Jehovah, who will have mercy on him, To our God, for he will forgive in a large way.  8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah. 
 

I like that you like your own posts @Queen Esther! Toot your own horn!

The acronym is COTBOE, with a silent T, pronounced "ko-bee". 

Jehovah doesn't want anyone to miss the kingdom message  Matthew 24:14  and this good news of  the  Kingdom  will  be  preached  in  all  the  inhabited  earth,  for a witness to all the nations and then  the end will come.
 The good news for all people that is Jehovahs will !

Says who? Paul himself, mostly, plus a handful that could testify he had experienced some sort of religious experience, though they were not able to catch any of the words. Skeptics on this forum would not have been impressed.
 What if those first century Christians had refused to listen to him or read his letters, saying 
 
Why could they not have reasoned similarly? Let Jesus speak himself, if he has something to say! Why could they not have refused to listen to Paul the Middleman? When the verse says "Listen to him" it is not speaking of Paul.
Perhaps there were some who did argue that way. I don't see why there wouldn't have been. Where are they now?
The good news enjoyed tremendous growth under Paul? Big deal. It has done the same under the direction of the GB, yet that makes no difference to critics here.
Practically speaking, what do you propose we should do if we allow no one to represent Christ, but insist on communication from Jesus himself?
 
 

Hi @The Librarian I still see posts in threads from users that I've ignored.

Acts 3:22,23 is referring to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is often called the "Greater Moses". We know that Jesus Christ is our undeniable leader and we should "Listen to him" as it says in Matthew 17:5. Now, how should we expect to receive direction from Jesus Christ today and in the coming years? Is it direct from Christ or from a body of men acting as representatives for him? This isn't meant as an attack on the GB, but I just wanted some clarification on this matter. Because in the first century, Jesus Christ was able to direct Saul/Paul directly to preach on his behalf. He didn't go through a centralized body to see that work done.

"Delay, and be stunned; be blinded, and be blinded. They are intoxicated, but not with wine; they moved unsteadily, but not because of intoxicating liquor" - Isaiah 29: 9     The so-called "masters of the Law" despised the common people and certainly does not put to argue with the first passing on the Word of God. Indeed, anyone who tried, even indirectly, would run the serious dangers - compares John 9: 30-34 Apart from a few happy exceptions, they were the ones who had "sat in Moses' seat" and therefore thought to possess the Truth - Matthew 23: 1 According to their traditions and their own interpretation of the Scriptures , only they were allowed to understand and explain the Word of God. We can imagine that if a hypothetical Israelite had asked, "What does the Scripture say about this?" He would receive a reply like, "What do the Pharisees? Did you ask one of them?". Let us, in our small way, to immerse ourselves in the environment and in the period. When the Lord Jesus Christ began his work of witnessing clashed many times with these "teachers of the Law." It is true that the Lord had a great authority and was certainly the wisest person ever existed, but if we focus on this means that we have not understood the point.   Is coming "northern." Who is awake enough to notice?   The Lord, in his speeches, he often used the expression "it is written" - compare Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10; 11:10; 21:13; 26:24, 31; Mark 7: 6; 9:12, 13; Luke 10:26; 20:17; 22:37; 00:46; John 6:45; 8:17; 10:34 And 'indisputable that the Lord, because of your position, could boast of the freedom for which it was not required to comply with all the precepts of the Law nor the human tradition - compare Matthew 12: 8; 17:25, 26 We also know that Jesus came to fulfill the Law that could, rightfully, add or specify commands to those already written in the law, in fact, many times he said, "but I tell you" - Compare Matthew 5:27, 28 Christians, in fact, thanks to the One who delivered them, do not live under the Law. However, every time he said "it is written" was like saying "I say so, says the Word of God" - compares John 5:31, 32 So to understand the point, let's try for a moment to forget that Jesus was the Son of God. Imagine that the last of the Israelites, perhaps even the poorest and the worst, in any of his speeches clearly said "it is written" in the likeness of the Lord. Would it matter? - 2 Corinthians 3: 4, 5 Of course we should see if the references are correct, and even if the explanation of a particular writing is correct because this person would certainly not the Son of God , and would not even inspired. It could be wrong, as happens to all human beings. Definitely could not afford to add one point to what is written, let alone say a kind of "sentence but I tell you ..." - compares Galatians 1: 8, 9 Surely his words should be examined in the light of the Scriptures as certain people are allowed to do even with Paul - Acts 17:11 Having established that what was said by the last of the Israelites actually "written", would change something if he were the poorest, the worst and maybe even the least intelligent of the nation? - 1 Samuel 16: 7 In the choir each of us would answer "Do not change anything ... because it is the Word of God that counts." But it would be just words. We try to make an honest self-criticism. When the Bible speaks of judgment, punishment and reprimands always apply other. This blog has reconsidered many interpretations and the article entitled "We are staggering like drunks?" He has highlighted the logical reasons and Scriptural that what Joel wrote against backsliding Israel, may not apply to Christendom. Obviously the article has tried to show that the punishment he is about to fall on the people of God and not on Christianity is something written. In practice it is written. What should a Christian, especially those who have positions of responsibility but without exception, to see "if this is so"? The answer should be simple enough. You should take the Bible and seek references and applications carefully assessing if the argument presented is correct or has errors. After all, as we said, there might be too large errors. This little blog has never claimed divine inspiration; on the contrary, it is born in order to "pay attention to the prophecy." As we saw in "the last Jew", he might well have misapplied the Scriptures. In good faith (and this will only know the Almighty God) you may have simply wrong. What should a Christian in this regard? - Acts 18:26 You should always refute through the scriptures and received, all together, to a better understanding of the Truth - Ephesians 4: 11-13 This would demonstrate love and genuine interest in the truth. He would demonstrate even love for the one who is wrong - Galatians 6: 1 But what happens in reality? It happens that "you are not the Faithful and Discreet Slave" and then you are not allowed to study the Bible on your own (or better: you are allowed to study the Bible on your own until you go against the official intention). You are not "guided by the Holy Spirit" so you can not truly understand God's Word - Proverbs 2: 1-6; 2 Corinthians 13: 5; 1 Thessalonians 5:21 We are the People of God and that is enough, no? - Isaiah 28:15 In our minds we are all of Tyndale or Bruno as well as in elementary school we were all Galilei once learned of vulgar ignorance of the church. The reality, though, could be quite different - compares John 16: 2; Matthew 7:22, 23 We cringe reading of narrow-mindedness and arrogance of the scribes and Pharisees, but, apparently, history repeats itself - compares Romans 2:21 and Hebrews 3: 16-19 If we had not become the modern scribes and Pharisees (including those who are simply afraid of exposing themselves, like Nicodemus) we would not have any fear of deepening certain teachings. Even if these teachings were the supreme organ. If the apostle Paul could be contested (at least potentially), who is "the faithful and discreet slave," which also acknowledged that not be the faithful and discreet slave until Christ will not come as executioner? * (See footnote) If the Bereans had found "something wrong" in the words of Paul, it would be called "Only he can understand and explain the scriptures and then just accept it" or they contested with the Scriptures themselves? And the apostle Paul, unlike anyone else, was really inspired. But today if you compare the scriptures and bring out something that goes against the official understanding you are not considered a noble mind and do not get some praise. On the contrary, the risks of being "out of the synagogue." Equally significant is the attitude of the individual brothers, "aware" included, which reinforce this policy with their laxity. Some of these even cite Tyndale as a symbol of their "battle" ... unless But really learn who he was and understand what Tyndale challenged. Maybe Tyndale challenged the "bureaucracy" of the church, individuals and not the official teachings? Well they look, some conscious, from discussing Tyndale challenged various official beliefs including the fact that Christ was not God, and other important things. Today, modern Tyndale (those who believe themselves such) discuss reforms on "contributions", the lack of transparency of the sales of the buildings, on the single "theocratic cowboys" ... Woe to discuss a formal understanding. Moreover, as we said, we are the others to have to do research and determine what to believe. A teacher of the Law may also say something that is not written but everyone else, not teachers of the Law, will not be heard even if what they say is written - Matthew 15: 3 Perhaps it would be useful to reflect that, although those who have become masters will receive a more severe judgment, judgment will always be individual - Romans 14:10 Try to wake up, drunkards. Do not worry about who writes what. If you had love for the Word of God you would care to see if what has been written is really written - Amos 3: 2; John 17:17     Footnote: See the study articles in The Watchtower of July 15, 2013  

Wow, that issue was settled almost 3/4 of a century ago and stated unequivocally that as a matter of conscience you cannot force students to pledge allegiance to the flag. Unsettling, but not surprising that this issue pops up now and again.
I commented to my wife last night when a commercial for a new movie was playing that there does seem to be more patriotic movies being produced this year then in times past. However, these are not directly war movies, but more directed at the home front and the need for citizens to support the military. I suppose soft-patriotism might be a way to describe them. They are not in your face patriotic, but rather seek to persuade by showing how soldiers are dedicated to country and family.
Back to the teacher, she does not seem to have gotten the message and is instead using the hard sell method to force student to violate their conscience. 

I like tacos

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a part of the community?
As the ARC pointed out .... matters not reported to the police as a matter of NATURAL CONSCIENCE ... puts the community as a whole at risk .... not JUST Jehovah's Witnesses.

LAST MINUTE
Our brother Dennis Christensen, imprisoned in a Russian jail since May 2017 awaiting trial, has been sentenced to another 3 months, so he must be locked up in difficult conditions until 23 February 2018. He can then be sentenced to several more years.
Judge Andrei Tretyakov during the 3-hour hearing did not satisfy the defense's request to replace the preventive measure in a softer one, such as house arrest. In addition, the court did not take into account the formal guarantees of the Royal Danish Embassy (the brother is a Danish citizen) who, for humanitarian reasons, has given assurances that he does not provide a new passport for Christensen captured by the investigators and is not going to Promote your trip outside the Russian Federation.
Dennis Christensen is completely innocent.
I will persist in denouncing the shameful repression on this and all the other Russian witnesses, with an attitude towards defenseless and innocent people. - https://jw-russia.org/news/17112020-262.html