Srecko Sostar

17 hours ago, George88 said:

Slaughterhouses nowadays have a significant capacity, making it unnecessary to have a rabbi present to ensure the meat is kosher. That's part of their process as well, to pray over the meats. However, this also means that an equal amount of cow blood is left in both kosher and non-kosher meat, as well as in any meat containing blood. Given this, one might consider whether we should all become vegetarians, including those of Jewish faith. Your assessment is indeed accurate, as it is impossible to completely drain meat of blood. Therefore, an individual with a moral conscience can make an informed decision about consuming meat that may contain traces of blood, which aligns with your previously mentioned point. How else can we apply your view?

Well, I'm just emphasizing the problem in the definition of "abstaining from blood", as well as in the interpretations of that definition.

What is the difference if you eat 10 drops of blood in meat or receive 3 deciliters during a transfusion?
Does the amount of blood make a difference? If this is the intention of the legislator, then it should not be extended to something that is not written, and say that eating through the mouth is the same as injecting into the veins.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Governing Body owns the Watchtower?

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

They control it.

My amateur opinion is that things are intertwined here and they are moving in some kind of change of supremacy in opinion between the groups that are the current rulers in WTJWorg. As in any Corporation that has a business/monetary aspect and a real estate business, the survival of Organized Religion in its current form depends solely on money and business moves. How much control GB can have in this, and how much other players are unknown to most of us.

Regarding GB's theological control over religion, I think they have it to the greatest extent.

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.

Statement from the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry

https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/our-progress/news/statement-from-the-abuse-in-care-royal-commission-of-inquiry/#:~:text=The High Court has announced,Australasia) Ltd has been dismissed

In June, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Australasia, which oversees 170 New Zealand congregations, filed for a judicial review to exempt itself from the inquiry, arguing it does not have historical abuse cases within the inquiry's scope. 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497240/jehovah-s-witness-church-spends-3-years-fighting-scrutiny-of-royal-commission-of-inquiry

The High Court in Wellington has dismissed a legal bid by the church to be excluded from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/500982/jehovah-s-witness-bid-to-be-excluded-from-abuse-inquiry-dismissed     25 October 2023 

"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

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?”

16 minutes ago, George88 said:

As humanity continues to deplete and harm the ecosystem, it becomes increasingly important for people to learn the essential skill of fish bleeding. In the future, it is quite possible that individuals will need to rely on fishing to sustain themselves. In this scenario, I envision two possibilities in the Northwestern region: either fish will miraculously approach humans, offering themselves to be consumed with a small amount of blood, or alternatively, individuals will need to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, akin to the harmony observed in the Garden of Eden. Regardless, the urgency of educating ourselves about these matters cannot be overstated. It is imperative that we prioritize learning and awareness now, without delay. What is the difference between whole blood and fractured blood? Would former members object to a procedure that involves a drop or two of cow blood for transfusion purposes, even though there are numerous ex-witnesses who consider the blood issue to be repugnant, and object to it not being used, even whole blood?

At this moment, I came face to face with a cannibal who stared at me hungrily, envisioning me as a delectable feast. He sternly informed me of his intent to suspend me upside down, and let every drop of blood drain from my body, as an act of obedience to God's will. 

I assume that in Judaism a special system of slaughtering animals was developed to be consistent with the idea/prohibition of eating blood. If this is true, then JWs today should only buy meat from those butchers who have such a procedure (the Jewish procedure should be the one God approved for the Israelites in ancient times, i guess).

If the purpose, of the ban on not eating blood, is not to make the meat completely free of even a single drop of blood, then any insistence on a "total ban on the use of blood" is open to criticism. This is exactly what is happening today with JW. They eat the blood in the meat, because there is always blood in the meat, regardless of the fact that most of it came out during the slaughter. However, no one at WTJWorg insists that the meat be completely bloodless. From this, we could conclude that the only important thing is to slaughter the animal, during which the blood comes out of the body unhindered. Obviously, the "prohibition of eating blood" in that case was reduced to the process/method of taking the life of an animal, and not so much to the insistence on unconditional "abstinence from blood".

I remembered the everyday situation in which our gums bleed. How many times have we swallowed our own blood. And by that, everyone like that has broken the "commandment". All such JWs should be called before the JC and asked if they are repentant or unrepentant sinners and then exclude them. :))

I don't like blood as a medical issue only because of health dilemmas, because blood controls and storage are not done properly, and everyone donates blood who shouldn't.

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).

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.

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.

12 hours ago, George88 said:

tax-gatherer

I found one article to educate me more on about this. https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/historical-theology/tax-collectors/

I don't really understand why Jesus would use a tax collector in his teaching about internal relationships among fellow believers.
The tax collector was a legally appointed person from the Roman authorities. Nobody likes taxes and tax collectors, both before and today. I will use the cynicism of GB who said that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food". Jesus also did not promise that you will not be taxed by the authorities. He did not promise that taxes would be low. He did not promise that injustice would not overtake you. And so on and so forth. Finally, JWs boast of being completely law-abiding and paying (unjust) taxes, both in the 1st century and today.
Furthermore, everyone will agree with what @Juan Rivera said about ex-JW status. Ex-JWs fall into the category of "neighbors" just like tax collectors and Gentiles.

In the light of the comments that are presented here and emphasize the need for less influence of the written word, the Bible, and a stronger influence of the interpretation of the written word by those who are "authorized and appointed" to interpret it, then the existing interpretation of completely ignoring excluded JWs would need reinterpretation.
Among other things, JWs go to prisons to convert people who have been marked as criminals by a "higher authority", who they say is appointed by God to their position. The same elders who are cordial with the prisoners despise the ex-JW when they see him on the street. That's a normal state of mind and emotion, right? That was Jesus' intention in his teachings, from chapter 18?

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Where's the dancing frog when you need him, lol!

https://www.wikihow.com/Bleed-a-Fish

People should be educated, and that means sending everyone to a fishing course. Move/to displace people to live in places with water so that they can hunt for themselves and have fresh fish in their hands. This will be possible only in NW system :))

9 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

In fact, you and I wouldn't be in disagreement right now, because the spirit would have already guided us into the very same unity of the faith. Presumably, your response will be that either I'm not listening to the spirit, or that I'm not being reasonable, one of the two. Well, if you think I'm not being reasonable, feel free to show where and how. But if you think I'm not listening to the spirit (but you are listening to the spirit), then we need to talk about how we know who is really following the spirit, and who is co opting the spirit to support their own opinion.

I assume that the spirit has an action that is not related to our wishes. Well, I allow the possibility of interpretation that the spirit acts according to its will and judgment about how, when, where, whom and whether it will unite someone in the same thought, in the same spirit. 

8 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

In my experience many of the criticisms that you and others have mentioned do not take into account, nor make the distinctions between the different declarations that the Governing body makes and the answer those declarations require of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

So you must distinguish between the Governing Body’s  teachings on faith and morals on the one hand, and on the other hand prudential judgments, disciplines, or practices. Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 

Not all of the Governing Body's declarations have the same level of authority and not all of them are open to the same conditions. What do I mean by that? Well, some declarations deal with provisional aspects of policies, practices, worship, prudential judgements and discipline. This category always has space to be better formulated, clarified and defined. It would be an oversimplification to think that either we must submit to all the teaching statements of the governing body or that we are entitled to disagree from anything not formally taught. But it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that as Witnesses we are expected to give our private and public assent to the Governing body’s teachings. Sometimes we are giving prudential admonitions or judgments by the GB and congregation elders. Other times we receive concrete applications of biblical principles. We should give serious consideration and attention to these, but we can legitimately differ or disagree. Some of our teachings have different status of obligatory force, not all of them are in the same category or levels of authority. For example, when the Governing Body departs from or changes some prudential measure observed previously, they are not necessarily saying that they were wrong before. They can be saying that this is what they believe Jehovah is calling them to do in this present time for some particular reason.  Even if it were to turn out that they are wrong that Jehovah is calling them to these actions or that it is prudential for them to take these actions at this time. It does not mean that the way things were handled before are wrong or incompatible with the way things are handled now. Such measures can be for a particular person, or a particular season, because of what it is needed for a particular time or circumstance.

This writing is a good basis for a new manual to be studied with possible new "converts" to the JW faith. These kinds of things are not even considered in the regular weekly JW meetings.
This material could be a good tool to make a better screening in joining the Organization. It would help the newly interested to gain a better insight into what they are getting into. The current BS management method is insufficient to make a quality "informed decision". 

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

What I give, I can take away. So if my consent is that by which I give to those taking the lead authority over me, then removal of my consent is that by which I can remove their authority over me. This is precisely why Jehovah's Witnesses can (without rightly being charged with rebelling against ecclesial authority) leave our community when they cease to agree with its interpretations even if our authority forbids them to leave. So if ecclesial authority arises by consent, and if I come to disagree with the doctrine/interpretation shared by those who by their consent established the existing ecclesial authority in which I presently exist, then that existing ecclesial authority in fact has no actual ecclesial authority over me, for I no longer participate in that act of consent by which it can have authority over me. 

So you have to make a distinction between those parts of a publication that are direct quotations from Scripture, and those parts that are interpretation of Scripture. The parts that are direct quotations from Scripture have authority because God is their author. But strictly speaking, they are not statements of faith; they are just small 'photocopies' of parts of the Bible. The other parts of the publications (besides the direct restatements of Scripture) have no authority, because the only possible basis for their authority is that someone agrees with them, and 'agreement with oneself is an insufficient basis for authority over oneself.

You have described well the true state and position of followers within WTJWorg. Namely, in the changes to the baptismal question that is publicly asked of the candidates immediately before the baptism, this reality was highlighted. The candidate does not tie his affiliation and loyalty to God and Christ, but only and exclusively to the Legal Entity that is registered as a non-profit Corporation/Organization.

2. Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization? -https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014954

I'm glad someone here has given a clearer view of the legal position of (ordinary) JW individuals, who are not considered as "members" in the new terminology, but only individuals, as "one of".

Of course, this will only be useful to those who will read this on a forum or blog, because the candidate with whom the "Bible study" is being conducted will not learn this from his "teacher".

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

We cannot justifiably rebel against the Lord’s anointed when he sins,

Is the exclusion of a sinful anointed a rebellion? 

Is ignoring/shun a sinful anointed one rebellion?

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Acts 17:1 – If you get a chance to examine this passage about the Bereans who search the scriptures after Paul told them that Jesus was the Christ. This is highly misinterpreted by people who are trying to support biblicism, because they think that because the Bereans are checking scripture they only believe scripture and that somehow Paul is beneath the scriptures and the Bereans are using scripture over Paul and as the authority over Paul.  But that is not the case at all, as a matter of fact what is occurring here as you read the whole chapter. Paul comes to them and says that this Jesus that I tell you about is the Christ of the old testament. Now that would give them pause because the Old Testament never named the Messiah. It never called him Jesus. Now here, Paul is coming with new revelation to them, apostolic authority no less. And he is saying that the Jesus that I preach is the Christ. So they go back and read those passages about the Messiah “the Christ” and they say: “yeah, he was going to suffer and die, he wasn’t going to be a king, yes we can agree with Paul that this Jesus who suffered and died in the torturing stake is the Christ of the old testament”. You see what the Bereans are doing? They are not saying that scripture is the authority over Paul. Paul just gave them a revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. Where did he get that revelation? It wasn’t from the Hebrew Scriptures, it was directly from Jesus. Jesus talked to Paul on the road to Damascus and told him I am Jesus whom your persecuting, that’s where he got that revelation from. So no, the Bereans are not practicing biblicism, here, as a matter of fact they are getting an education on how to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures. That is what the education is all about here.

I can accept the presented logic in which the Bereans come to believe that Paul's claim that he received revelation from Jesus is an argument that convinces them of his position.
The difficulty that exists today is that the GB cannot prove that Jesus gave them a "revelation". Paul was able to do this because he had witnesses and because he performed miracles.
GB has no witnesses to its installation, and the "miracles" it performs are only theological acrobatics.
Paul did not deny "inspiration". GB persistently denies that HS "inspires" them. Of course, even if GB claimed that they were "inspired", that would be a reason to doubt them even more than the claim from the first version.

Today's potential followers of WTJWorg are left with the only method you called "misinterpretation". It remains for them to come to the conclusion based on the Bible only, what is offered to them. And that only the Bible is above the authority of any man. Well, don't JWs say they conduct Bible studies with newly interested people. If that would be the wrong method, as you give immpresion about Paul, then JWs should study with the new ones about What and Who The GB is.

Education models are changing in WTJWorg. GB has today abandoned the models of the past and introduced a "new approach" to the biblical text. One of the latest results of the newly established method is the establishment of the conclusion that man "does not know".

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

Every time we appeal to the Bible, we are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. The only real question is: whose interpretation?

Agree.

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

And if you can’t call elders and the apostles a false prophet, then you couldn’t call the Governing Body appointed by Jehovah in Acts 15 false prophets. Those are important distinctions you need to keep in mind.

Sorry, but they put themselves in this or that category with their doctrines. They publicly say/claim that Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through the FDS.

Hey,  didn't to a single JW in the world explode his own brain after GB member Gerrit Losch stated that on JWTV? Memories fading.., collectively?

Gerrit Losch, to this day, has not been sanctioned for his statement by the rest of GB.

In fact, he should not be sanctioned because Jesus did not promise to distribute perfect spiritual food through WTJWorg GB, ..........but through HS.

But the rest of the GB team should have removed him for a simple reason. It causes public embarrassment, scandal and threatens followers' faith in the Organization.

28 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Paul is saying that the Galatians must not abandon the gospel which he and all the other Apostles had preached to them.

33 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

If an elder came along who taught contrary to the Apostolic faith that had been taught and believed throughout the Christian Congregation, we must not follow him because he is a going against it. But the standard is not our own private interpretation of Scripture, rather, the public and communally-shared faith received by the whole Congregation from the Apostles is the standard. It is public and communal, not a standard of private interpretation. So the Governing Body was not requiring anyone to give more obedience to those taking the lead after the Apostles than did Paul, because Paul was not teaching that each individual had supreme individual interpretive authority. The duty to submit to present interpretive authority is not incompatible with a duty to hold to what has previously been given. The two duties go together, and neither nullifies the other. The duty to hold on to what has been handed down does not give us a green light to pick as our ecclesial ‘authorities’ those who teach according to our own interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the duty to hold on to the Apostolic faith and not to forsake it does not justify doing what Paul condemns in 2 Timothy 4:3,4, choosing one’s ecclesial ‘authority’ on the basis of their agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

The dilemma is 2000 years old. For/To WTJWorg GB, the Gospel was not transmitted from the Apostles.  So the chain of reliability of information transmission was broken a long time ago.

On a personal level in modern times (20th and 21st century) all generations of newly baptized persons are faced with the fact that the doctrines they accepted through BS with a brother or sister has been changed in the meantime. If they would adhere to the principle stated in your comment, then these people should not subject themselves to new interpretations that arose after their baptism.

Which statement is stronger? Perfect Direct Instruction from Galatians or the Imperfect Interpretation  by GB based on the biblical passage about "the light that shines more and more"?

The first thesis (direct instruction), is based on a clearly expressed position of the writer. Is the apostle's statement open to some interpretation that might be softened by the GB's interpretation about "progressive knowledge"? Shall we allow to water down the Apostolic faith?

One excludes the other, and GB must decide which Doctrine, between these two, it wants to implement in practice.

As an illustration of how an individual should act in such cases, we can use the well-known "command" to obey God more than people. In the JW doctrine that explains the position of Christians before worldly authority, it is ordered to disobey the authorities when that something goes against God's commandments. Any JW would therefore be able to reject GB doctrines and instructions without consequence, as he would HAVE to use his conscience in deciding. Not WTJWorg Doctrine and Instruction, but own Conscience.

The issue of shaping/reshaping the JW member conscience is a new topic.

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

Sure, but the Bible also teaches, as DOCTRINE, that we are to submit to the Congregation.

A congregation is a group of people, believers. The JW congregation is led and governed by elders. Elderse is set by GB. Consequently, the GB governs all doctrines and instructions in the congregation, not the group of believers. 

Submission to the JW congregation is direct submission to the GB at US Headquarter.

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Ever pondered on the strategies employed by other religious organizations? I vividly remember when the Australian Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a Cardinal who had been accused of sexual child abuse.

Experience and facts tell us that such institutions are interested in having a clean face in public.

58 minutes ago, George88 said:

Therefore, it is only logical to question the source of spiritual food.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. - 1 John 4:1

GB said people; do not question our doctrines or you be labeled as apostate.

Bible gives power to individual to try, test doctrines made by GB. GB said you have no right to test. 

Again; Some say one thing, and some say something completely different.

5 hours ago, Pudgy said:

asking someone not to ask certain questions reeks of petty tyranny at worst, and arrogance at best.

We touched on the topic of "tyranny" in previous comments. WTJWorg uses some forms that can be classified as "tyranny", because it does not allow members to question the GB, does not allow the asking of "uncomfortable" questions, does not allow the use of arguments that are not in accordance with the GB doctrines.