Foreigner

Check and see what comments I have made regarding ill-advised behaviour and statements of others in the past. 
The offensive behaviour individuals display toward each other on  forum space is for themselves to sort out generally. The parameters and guidelines are there for all to apply. Moderators can be appealed to by protagonists if they so wish, and of course moderators can intervene as they see fit.
However, slanderous and offensive statements made about millions of decent people worldwide  exceed the boundaries of acceptable use of this forum, be it open or closed, that is if those guidelines listed above are still in force. If they are not, then let those who made them rescind them.
They have already been set.
 
 
 

Just because they are not THE faithful and discreet slave of Matthew 24:45, it doesn't mean that they aren't part of A class of faithful and discreet slaves, just as all of us should be. It has nothing to do with whether one is anointed or not. It's just a matter of whether we are being discreet and faithful as required when waiting for judgment at the parousia. In fact, as Jesus said, no one knows the day and hour of the parousia, because it would come as a surprise, similar to how the judgment quickly swept people away in Noah's day where people took no note of a warning. And similar to how the judgment on Sodom quickly swept people away with no particular warning at all.
So if they feel the responsibility of a faithful and discreet slave, then great! These are elders who should then take on the responsibility to feed Jesus' little sheep. And they are definitely working on that very effort. What they tell us to do is rarely anything different from read the Bible, accept an obvious understanding and explanation -- which is probably correct 98 times out of 100. I'd guess that, in spite of difficulties in Bible translation, the number of verses that ended up perfectly well translated was an even better ratio than that.
Also it's not correct to say that they claim only THEY can give instruction to God's people. Every publisher is allowed to present the good news of the Kingdom to those who may become God's people. Every speaker from a platform can be giving instruction to God's people. Every older sister who encourages a younger sister, every younger brother who encourages an older brother, etc. All the congregation feeds one another by building one another up and encouraging one another.
I bring up the point about the parousia, even though you didn't, because it is that specific teaching that makes the GB believe it is absolutely necessary for the GB to take on the responsibility of a specific faithful and discreet slave for the purposes of feeding the entire worldwide congregation of God (since about 1919). It still doesn't mean that the rest of us should shirk our own responsibility to also be faithful and discreet slaves helping to build up the congregation of God. So it doesn't need to interfere with our Christianity. As Paul said, there will be sects among you. For most Witnesses, who prefer not to question, and not to make sure of all things,  it probably makes them more comfortable this way.

Technically, you are correct. The Watch Tower Society publications come very close to saying the same thing in the NWT Study Bible when discussing Romans 1:2:
*** nwtsty Romans Study Notes—Chapter 1 ***
1:2
the holy Scriptures: Here referring to the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. In harmony with this verse, the New World Translation contains in its title the expression “the Holy Scriptures.” Other terms used in the Christian Greek Scriptures for this collection of inspired writings are “the Scriptures” and “the holy writings.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) At times, the terms “Law” (Joh 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1Co 14:21) and “the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12; Lu 16:16) are also used in a general sense to refer to the entire Hebrew Scriptures.—Mt 22:40; see study notes on Mt 5:17; Joh 10:34.
There were no collected Christian Greek Scriptures at the time. Except in the sense that the Greek LXX was the Christian Bible as well as the Jewish Bible in that time period. The LXX was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (into Greek). Paul and all the Gospel writers quoted from the LXX. It is rare for any "NT" writer to ever quote from the "OT" in a way that shows preference for the Hebrew (as we know it today) over the LXX Greek.
Of course, the letters of Peter also treat Paul's letters as inspired, and of "life and death" importance. If we accept that the Christian "church" is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, then we will, by extension, include the "NT" as inspired along with the "OT." Of course, it's not merely an internal claim that they are inspired, otherwise any text could have made the claim. It's the acceptance that inspired scripture can only be included if it is accepted as the words of apostles and those who had the approval of apostles during their lifetime. It also must harmonize with the rest of scripture. Where there is or was a question as to the harmony or authorship, we have a useful directive from 1 John 4:1. What we have really done of course, is accept the earliest collected manuscripts that were already accepted by consensus by the earliest known "Christian fathers" in the 2nd and 3rd century.  Their criteria matched their beliefs about apostolic authorship and supportive contemporaries of apostolic authorship.
By accepting the choices of the early "church fathers" we are actually putting faith in the fact that Jehovah made sure that sufficient manuscripts meeting the necessary criteria were saved and sufficiently "revered" to remain true to the purpose of scripture, uncorrupted. The scriptures were copied so often that we can now trace back (sometimes) to within a hundred years of the death of the last apostle (usually a bit over 200 years) and find that there was a high consistency to the copies of manuscripts, and enough manuscripts to remove any corruptions that did find their way in.
 

Wow! Is there something holding you back from saying what's really on your mind?
My father and grandfather attended KM school in Pittsburgh back in the early 70's about a year apart from each other. So I would often hear them compare notes as to what Bro. Schroeder had said on a topic. Schroeder was still of the "Rutherford" school when it came to how the entire world was "inspired" of Satan, which influenced his speech about who would die at Armageddon and why we don't celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc.
As part of their training, Brother Schroeder would give them questions that the "Press" might ask them, so elders could practice answers that were "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves" so to speak. For example:
Question: Do you think the Pope will be destroyed at Armageddon?
This gets lots of snickers, and a few brothers willing to say, 'Of course he will be destroyed!.' So Brother Schroeder says that, well, we all know the answer, but what do we tell the Press? He recommended saying:
Answer: "He'll get what he deserves!"
This gets uproarious laughter, and must have been treated as if Jesus had just said "Pay back Caesar's things to Caesar." It becomes kind of a joke between my father and grandfather, so that they only needed to say: "He'll get what he deserves!" when hearing about other infamous happenings in the world (e.g., Watergate, Nixon Impeachment, US Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade, Spiro Agnew).
I don't know whether Schroeder himself mentioned people with Christmas trees, but I remember being a bit taken aback that my father and grandfather even applied it for a while to people with Christmas trees, people singing Christmas carols on TV, etc., even though they started to say it in a kind of joking way, knowing that the phrase was getting old.
When you mentioned that the Society knew that Christmas was wrong before 1900 but kept celebrating until the late 1920's it reminded me of this. Imagine if Armageddon had actually come in 1915, or 1918, or 1925, as they sometimes expected. In effect, my father and grandfather were saying that Rutherford and all the people in the entire Watch Tower Society would have been destroyed. I can imagine how we, as an organization, would have felt if we knew that certain people or groups who had already stopped celebrating Christmas were looking at the Watch Tower Society at the time and saying "They'll get what they deserve at Armageddon."
When it comes to all this judgmental speech, here in this forum, I try to remember to test it by thinking what we would say if we were guests in a Mormon forum, or a Catholic forum. Would you, for example, go into a Mormon-centric forum right now and say that 15 million Mormons (LDS) are all inspired by Satan. (And yes they have had trouble with child sexual abuse and cover-ups.) And because a high percentage of Catholics support the Pope, would you go into a Catholic-centric forum and say that 1 billion Catholics are inspired by Satan.
To me, it seems a bit over the top, even though you could probably find a near equivalent problem in the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church for every problem you see among Jehovah's Witnesses.
I'm not one to tell you to stop saying whatever you want to say, as you probably feel like a good part of your life was wasted among Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm sure this drives a lot of the "tone." I am reminded of the "tone" that Rutherford took against the clergy, especially the Catholic hierarchy, and he could rationalize that he was protecting the world from Catholicism -- just as you probably think you are trying to protect the world from Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least to protect a few other Jehovah's Witnesses from themselves.

Some of the posts here are thoroughly offensive and bigoted and seem to be bringing the forum down to the level of a mere exchange of personal "flaming" messages.
Moderator, @The Librarian , someone ! The forum has a minimum level of standards to prevent a complete loss of credibility. Please moderate!

Charles Taze Russel, whom the Bible Students cling to.  Unless I'm mistaken, his “Studies in the Scriptures” seems to be their second Bible. 
The Watchtower buries his teachings, but exalts the man.  https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/LatestVideos/pub-mwbv_201907_4_VIDEO  (Beginning at 1:16)
I view both takes as hypocritical. 
Russell:  “While it is true that the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other, we are to remember that there are wide differences in the same Caucasian (Semitic and Aryan) family; and also we should remember that some of the qualities which have given this branch of the human family its preeminence in the world are not such as can be pointed to as in all respects admirable...
The secret of the greater intelligence and aptitude of the Caucasian undoubtedly in great measure is to be attributed to the commingling of blood amongst its various branches; and this was evidently forced in large measure by circumstances under divine control. Zion's Watch Tower (July 15, 1902), pp. 215-216
 

Inside WTJWRG Institution one thing is of crucial importance. Who are those people who have authorization to govern, rule, lead this organization and people who are members/believers? Who are those people who represent JHVH and Jesus and their Will?
In this WT article authors tried to explain history of this.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
Why this article is interesting (again) in connection to topic? Here is some quotes from pages of this article:
CAN YOU EXPLAIN?
In the first century and today, how have those taking the lead among God’s people been . . .
empowered by holy spirit?
assisted by angels?
guided by God’s Word?
.... Jesus had given his followers a commission: “You will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) How could they possibly complete that assignment? True, Jesus had assured them that they would soon receive holy spirit. (Acts 1:5) Still, an international preaching campaign required direction and organization. To direct and organize his people in ancient times, Jehovah used visible representatives.
Famous paragraph 12:  The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. 
As we can see from box in WT magazine under question Can you explain? author AVOID to use direct word "Inspired" and instead this explicit sort of spirit manifestation as it is commonly viewed while reading Bible (for example, to write holy scriptures, to tell something as prophecy or command from God, to heal the sick....etc) author put word - empowered by HS. And now author give factual example from 1 century:  
Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body to make a decision regarding the issue of circumcision. 
Author highlights 2 things. First is ROLE of OVERSEEING. And second is about MAKING DECISIONS. In contrast or continuation to this  1 century example, author of article later emphasized this:  
In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45)......
Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! (Read 1 Corinthians 2:10.)
Here we have just statements of author who firmly say that FDS aka GB been appointed by Jesus in 1919. But another thing is something what call on more alarm. As Evidence of holy spirit is, situation when this Body grasp something as Truth under holy spirit helping or empowering. 
In this explanation one thing is very questionable and somehow danger. In period from 1919 (we shall not talking about 1 century GB or about Angel Assistance today) this entity who "share" food under title: Bible Truth, with supposed help of holy spirit, in fact they had  spread "Fake Truths", they later changed into "Real Truths".  Some doctrines they  produced in few steps as yes-no-yes ... truths. Here we comes to possible conclusion how reason for that errors, according to this article, was not in Human Representatives of Jesus here on Earth. No, reason and cause for that is in holy spirit who has "empowered" them in that confusing way and direction.
Because other two elements in this equation (assisted by angels +  guided by God’s Word) was not been sufficient and powerful enough to correct wrong direction made by empowering influence of holy spirit. :)))) 
Here we see how "blame" for errors and imperfect food can be found in the same reasons why food can be good and eatable too, after some period of time (in refrigerator :))), of course. The way how this article try to prove the credibility of GB for task of sharing the food,  becomes nonsensical.
But, pay attention to this: 
empowered =
having the official authority or freedom to do something  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/empowered
having the knowledge, confidence, means, or ability to do things or make decisions for oneself                       https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empowered 
Here we see how this definition changed our view on issue and article. Why they used word EMPOWERED in connection to spiritual food? In fact, according to Dictionaries, WT magazine talk about Power of GB Over People. Here it is not ISSUE about Food Quality, Truth or Lie, Perfection or Imperfection. IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL.  

I was mostly thanking you for the jpg idea. I might buy the software that does that myself. I've had applications that were supposed to do this automatically, but they often fail the scrolling. In this one you have I understand that you just scroll down yourself, manually. I'm interested in the speed at which you can scroll down and it still captures everything.
On the issue of whether the Jerusalem "GB" were avoided by Paul on purpose, I don't know. Perhaps it was at first his own need to meditate on a life-changing experience, and then, when ready, he was fired up to begin full-speed ahead to his missionary journeys. 
But Paul does make it clear that it was IMPORTANT to him and this particular audience in Galatia, that he had in fact avoided much contact with Jerusalem for the entire first three years after his conversion, then a two week visit, and then another 14 years without direct interaction with apostles and other so-called pillars in Jerusalem. I assumed that this distancing himself from the J-GB was what was surprising, and as this was your own take on it, I agree that it surprises a lot of people when it's pointed out.
It might not have been completely on purpose, but Paul definitely turns that apparent avoidance into a "positive" thing. That's a little different from Witnesses I know who just must make that trek to New York at least one more time before they die. And many of them think "out loud" about "maybe meeting someone from the Governing Body."
On the issue of trying to tie Galatians to a version of the same problem Paul points out in the Corinthian letters (and even Romans to an extent), this is a conjecture. I'm just talking it out here, hoping to get some good feedback.
On the issue of understanding the difficulties in the Jerusalem apostles' attitudes, at this particular time period, we know there was a resolution from Acts 15. But we don't know that all the apostles held fast to that solution, or if these major problems are from some hold-outs who never accepted the Acts 15 solution. But what we do know is that there was a direct relationship between the false brothers who were smuggled in to spy on Paul, and the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem. Paul indicts James for sending such men to Antioch, and he indicts Peter for not holding fast to the solutions that he had been a part of in welcoming Gentiles into the Jewish congregations.
There are ways of looking at this the way Anna has pointed out. And I've seen these offered as a specific solution against what seems obvious: that Paul is trying to warn them about these persons who say they represent the apostles themselves, or were actually sent by the apostles themselves, and for some period of time, may have actually included the apostles themselves.
If you had to judge by the word count which side might be right, then I have to admit that my "long version" tends to sound like I am "bullying" a version of events. Like I'm trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. But that's just to raise attention for those who are interested enough to read pages and pages on the topic. (I'm actually surprised you had read what I wrote, and this was part of the reason for the "Thank You" I tagged to your post. I was honored that you read it.)

Well, JWI did weigh in on my take on what he had to say .... without objection. 
So I PROBABLY interpreted Galatians as JWI emphasized it correctly.
Since, if that is the case.... that was Paul's opinion, perhaps I saw it because I ALREADY believed it.
It was completely consistent with my own personal experiences, communicating with the Governing Body.
You know the old saying ....
"If I had not believed it, I would not have seen it."
Perhaps JWI will further comment to clarify, But the first chapter of Galatians is ALREADY quite clear.
I am not immune to agenda driven WDS, either.
The difference is, that it embarrasses me.

I would guess that this particular understanding might have become popular because it moves the conflict away from the hands of Peter, James and John. But I think that Paul makes it very clear that he is referring to these same ones. Note:
Chapter 2 (1-5) says that Paul (after FOURTEEN YEARS away from Jerusalem), went up, not because they called him, but because he had a revelation from Jesus Christ, to pay "them" a visit. Who do we think that "them" refers to? So far, the only persons he has named from a previous visit to Jerusalem are Peter and James(1:18). And he had said back then that he hadn't yet gone to Jerusalem to meet with those who were apostles before he was. So, I think you already agree that "them" refers to apostles and older men in Jerusalem. 
Paul met privately with these men who were "highly regarded." He didn't want any big blow-up. And he didn't want to give anyone a chance to completely undercut his ministry before he had a chance to defend it PRIVATELY to at least a few of these "highly regarded" men in Jerusalem. Paul had already made it clear that he himself didn't show any HIGH REGARD to any persons, no matter what their reputation. He was ready to curse any highly regarded person, even an ANGEL, if necessary, and went on to say that he wouldn't have gone there to please any men. (1:8-10) He did this to make sure he was not running in vain. Now Paul already said that he knew his ministry was directly from Christ Jesus, so he already knew that his teaching and his ministry was not in vain. He was not looking for approval. He was looking to see if this visit was an opportunity to clear up a problem that brothers from Jerusalem had started to spread to other congregations.
But notice that he is still at this private meeting with apostles and older men at Jerusalem. For surely he could only see this problem get cleared up if he met with those who were held in the highest regard. He could not go to some fringe element of brothers who were not so well known, and expect that this would somehow solve the problem of people undermining his ministry to the nations.
Therefore, it's with respect to meeting with apostles and older men at Jerusalem that he says NEVERTHELESS, NOT EVEN TITUS was compelled to be circumcised, EVEN THOUGH he was a Greek. The dynamic is that Paul is writing to people in Galatia who would have expected to hear that the APOSTLES would have surely forced Titus into submission. Sure, maybe Paul could stand up to them and argue theological theory, and they could do nothing to him because he was already circumcised anyway! But the real AUTHORITY to make people submit, they all "knew" (or thought they knew) could not be denied if it came from the apostles.
So these Galatians were assuming the necessity of submitting to the authority of the apostles. This would be the reason why Paul went to so much trouble to "diminish" the supposed authority of the Jerusalem apostles and elders.
Paul says "that matter came up because of false brothers brought in quietly." Well who brought them in? Who sent them? Is Paul referring to the experience back in Antioch, or something that just happened in the middle of his "private" session with the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem? Granted he calls some false brothers, and probably is referring directly to the ones who were "sent" or "brought in quietly." This is not a mistaken translation. It means persons who were smuggled in sneakily. We don't like to think that Paul could have referred to any of the elders or apostles themselves as "false brothers," but remember that he just potentially called such ones "ACCURSED" up in 1:8-9, so it is possible that he refers to a point in time when they were acting falsely. At the very least Paul does nothing to exonerate the apostles from the idea that they, the apostles, had secretly brought these "spies" to a private meeting, or involved them somehow.
If Paul is referring to false brothers brought in back in Antioch, then we already know that these men were sent from James. (2:12) No matter what, though, we know that the so-called pillars are Peter, James and John from 2:9. We also surmise that the matter was apparently cleared up for the moment, as is indicated in Acts 15 -- after no little disputing!
There is also a parallel in 2 Cor 11, which is also the only other place in the Bible where Paul uses a word that means "false brothers." It's clear that Paul was not always referring to Jerusalem whenever he mentioned apostles, false apostles, and false brothers (at Corinth). But note something that might be even more important in this parallel to Galatians 1:
(2 Corinthians 11:4, 5) 4 For as it is, if someone comes and preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you receive a spirit other than what you received, or good news other than what you accepted, you easily put up with him. 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing.
We tend to understand it as if these Corinthians had their own "superfine" apostles. "Superfine" only in their own eyes. But, first, the Greek does not support the word "your" here. And, second, the term "superfine" is not the most likely meaning of the phrase, which is used only here in 2 Corinthians and nowhere else. That specific translation, not just in the NWT, might be preferred because it would then seem that there was no conflict between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem at this particular time in their ministry.
However, the Greek text might only be saying. "I have not proved inferior to THE (not "your") EMINENT APOSTLES." The words making up the phrase actually mean just that, literally. In no other context do we find it necessary to make such words mean "super" as if in some snide or sarcastic sense. Therefore some translations say the following, instead:
https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/11-5.htm

Berean Literal Bible
For I reckon in nothing to have been inferior to those "most eminent apostles."

New American Standard Bible
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

King James Bible
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

New Heart English Bible
For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For I think that I have not come short in anything compared to those Apostles who greatly excel.

New American Standard 1977
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

King James 2000 Bible
For I suppose I was not the least behind the very chief apostles.

American King James Version
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very most chief apostles.

American Standard Version
For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For I suppose that I have done nothing less than the great apostles.

Darby Bible Translation
For I reckon that in nothing I am behind those who are in surpassing degree apostles.

Webster's Bible Translation
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very greatest apostles.

World English Bible
For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.

Young's Literal Translation
for I reckon that I have been nothing behind the very chiefest apostles,
Those translations sound more like they refer to the prominent apostles in Jerusalem. (Even as it stands, it could be Paul's way of referring to the Jerusalem apostles, similar to "those who seemed to be something." Now, if Paul has just given a parallel to Galatians in this portion of 2 Cor 11, then it could easily explain why, in 2 Cor,  he might also be following it in this very next sentence with a statement about the apostles in Jerusalem. It could then be for the same reason he called them the "so-called pillars" which he named in Galatians 2:9 as Peter, James and John. These men were "chiefest" apostles in Paul's words because as he said in Galatians, these were the apostles who came before him. (1:17) He considered himself the "least" of the apostles because he had persecuted the congregation.
(1 Corinthians 15:5-9) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 But last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God.
(Galatians 1:13) . . .I kept intensely persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it; (Ephesians 3:8) . . .To me, a man less than the least of all holy ones,. . .
(1 Corinthians 9:2) 2 Even if I am not an apostle to others, I most certainly am to you!. . .
It makes more sense that Paul thought of himself as "least" in comparison, not with local eminent apostles in Corinth, but compared with the "most prominent and eminent" apostles in Jerusalem, which in the same context he names as "James, then to all the apostles."

This is why the Governing Body in Jerusalem did not add any further burden to the Brothers .... it was mid winter and bitter cold when Paul entered Jerusalem.

YEAH!
I had not realized to what extent Paul went to to completely avoid any interaction with the Jerusalem Apostles, AKA the "Governing Body.!
I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO SAVE THIS WHOLE PAGE FROM THE TOP, , TO KEEP IT IN CONTEXT, SO I MADE A .JPG, WHICH IF YOU FEEL SO INCLINED, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD.

Paul specifically mentions Peter as coming to Antioch and being clearly in the wrong when Peter "feared those of the circumcised class." But look who sent those men of the circumcised class:
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.
It was specifically because these men had such a "superfine" reputation as the leaders in Jerusalem that Paul went to the trouble of saying that "even if it were an angel from heaven declaring a different good news" they should CURSE that angel.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
The focus was on "whoever" even if that "whoever" turned out to be "we" -- the persons the Galatians would have trusted, even an APOSTLE like Paul himself --  or even an ANGEL. Well what was considered the closest thing to an ANGEL for the congregations in that day? 
I think we know that the most likely persons were the apostles at Jerusalem who were actively trying to Judaize or the apostles who knew better but allowed their own peers at Jerusalem to influence them to Judaize. Why else would Paul immediately try to distance himself from these very apostles? Why would he immediately follow this up by showing how he distanced himself from any supposed authority or teachings coming out of Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:10-2:7) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? . . . the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God . . . thought good 16 to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . 22 But I was personally unknown to the congregations of Ju·deʹa. . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. . . . 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary,. . .
Why do we think that Paul tries to show that he never had much interaction at all with Jerusalem, and the "supposed" pillars there? Why is it important that he say he did NOT go up to Jerusalem "to those were apostles" but ran off to Arabia instead? Even after three years he only just spent two weeks in Jerusalem staying with Peter, and he happened to see James while he was there -- but NONE of the other apostles?
What is the main point here that he wants the Galatians to be sure they remember he is not lying about? It can only be that he must do his best to smash this myth that Jerusalem is the seat of some kind of authority they should accept. These Galatians are complying with Judaizers, the same problem in Antioch, because they thought that Jerusalem had authority to impose such doctrines on them. So Paul makes it clear that even when he was right there in Jerusalem, that they were not compelled to follow the Judaizers, and the "false brothers" in Jerusalem who wanted to enslave them back into aspects of Jewish law, the most obtrusive of which was "circumcision" - which Paul also utilized as a key expression to summarize the entire egregious idea of being put under law. 
You can see that here when circumcision is expanded to mean any kind of placement under law:
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
But it also included putting themselves under stewards and supervisors. Now that they were no longer under law, they should understand that they are all sons and heirs, and have no reason to go back under human stewards and supervisors. This might refer back to Paul's comments about the supposed "pillars" at Jerusalem, whose authority he didn't accept.
(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .Now I say that as long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of all things, 2 but he is under supervisors and stewards until the day set ahead of time by his father. 3 Likewise, we too, when we were children, were enslaved by the elementary things of the world. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God. 8 Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?
I think we can take from this that even where the supposed pillars and supervisors (governing bodies) and stewards are faithful and give us good instruction and a good example to follow, that we never should accept that "authority" is coming from them. It should never be the Governing Body we think of them as persons to "obey." Except in the sense of following good examples that their experience has proven to be worthwhile to imitate. Just as we do should do for any elders taking the lead.
(Hebrews 13:7-17) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. 9 Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them. . . . 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.
Those who think their changing teachings are "food" forget that Jesus is the same, unchanging, and it is undeserved kindness that is much more important than various and strange teachings. Therefore, the ones taking the lead that we are obedient to, are not ones where we feel we must be obedient to any specific teachings. We are obedient to their concerns and counsel about our CONDUCT to the extent that we respect how their own conduct and faith has turned out. This probably sounds like heresy to those who can't get over the idea that we need to be OBEDIENT to the teachings of the Governing Body, or even OBEDIENT the teachings of faithful stewards. We are actually obedient to the counsel of those who are concerned about our Christian conduct, and if we can see that this counsel conforms to their own good example. The real spiritual "food," where we should get our motivation and energy, is our response to Christ's "undeserved kindness." Our "will" should be to Jehovah's will, and find good leading examples that can help us do his will. That should be the motive. God has given us the greatest example of doing good for us, so we wish to also "do good and share what we have with others." These are the good works and conduct that should also be the "meat" of our meetings:
(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . .
Considering (remembering/comtemplating) one another so as to incite (lead/motivate) to love and fine works. This is the reason for meeting together and encouraging one another.

Pillargate?

No. Certainly not! They were Judaizers. So he said they "seemed to be pillars."
(Galatians 2:6-9) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . .

I am under the impression that these brothers were not who Paul had in mind, but he was talking about the "Judeizers" 
Didn't he call James, Peter and John pillars? I'm not on my pc so I can't check. I will probably have to come back to this later with some scriptures...

That's how I had always read it, too. But there is also a strong possibility that he really means that he wanted to be sure that everything he was doing was not being undone by these superfine apostles from Jerusalem (like James, Peter, and John). James and Peter had influence outside of Jerusalem, obviously all the way up to Galatia, where James sent people to undermine Paul's work, and Peter actually visited himself and ended up setting a bad example for the brothers, there.
Under another topic you already responded to some of these points, but I'll pick up on them again here.
Remember, too, that Peter was a big influence in Corinth, too, so that some were saying they belonged to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Paul drops several hints even in Corinthians that the superfine apostles included the "James gang" and others from the "Jerusalem party."  It was easy for the Corinthians to see these apostles appointed by Jesus as a kind of Governing Body representing themselves as THE (superfine) FAITHFUL STEWARD. So Paul made a point to them that he was not a steward that needed such a human "tribunal."
(1 Corinthians 4:1-3) . . .A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . .
It's also pretty clear that Paul is speaking of this same tribunal that he speaks of in Galatians. Even the timing is set for us.
(2 Corinthians 12:1, 2) . . .I have to boast. It is not beneficial, but I will move on to supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in union with Christ who, 14 years ago—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows—was caught away to the third heaven. (Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation,. . .

Ah so you were bored but not now :) 
And I agree with you about numbering verses. I'm probably as guilty as anyone for taking a vese out of context. 
When we look at Paul's writings as the letters to congregations that they were, the we get a much better meaning from them. 
I would have loved to have met him. A man that wasn't frightened to speak his mind. Not all mamby pamby like the JW Org pretends to be. 
I've always found that the Org here in UK tries to act toooo posh. 
There was an old Elder in the Honiton congregation and he was an ex farmer. Henry was his name.
He would pronounce Honiton as Onitun, and Exeter as Hexeter. Poor man was always being told off by other Elders. But it was him, his character, the man he really was. But it was easy to see the other Elders didn't like it. 
It was so easy to see, and so funny, that congregants would put on a posher voice in the KH. Then once outside or away from the hall, even on the ministry, then would be back to their 'real self'. 
In my opinion God does not want posh. Jesus did not chose posh people for his disciples / apostles.   

That is horrendous, funny but horrendous.  Are you totally bored too ? 
I'll get back to listing on Ebay at least that is productive / proactive and positive. 

Whenever a new version of Scripture appears that is colloquialized, paraphrased, or just plain dumbed down, the refrain is heard: “If it gets modern people to read God’s Word, it is worth it.” How far you want to take this trend is anyone’s guess. Suffice it to say that the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats pushes the boundaries as they have never been pushed before. It is an incredible find from the dry desert where it has been preserved for thousands of years. (though there are a few critics at the Whitepebble Institute who claim it has only been around two weeks and was discovered in the glove box of Harley’s car)
And yet—and yet—though it takes outrageous liberties and outright manufactures a few things, it does serve to convey the basic idea of the entire Book of Galatians. Is it right to spoil the book for everyone else in the course of getting a good grasp of it yourself? Your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway, here is the text of the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats edition of Galatians:
Chapter 1
Dear Galatians: Hi. Remember me? It’s Paul. How are you? (1:1-5)
The reason I say ‘remember me’ is because I’m not sure that you do! I can’t believe how quickly you are screwing up! Is that chair I used to sit in even cold yet? What is this about louts trying to change the whole narrative? They’re not allowed to do that! Look, even angels are not allowed to do that! (6-9)
You remember what a jerk I was. Nobody made more trouble for you than me. But after God let me hear about it right there on the Damascus road and that other fellow was sent so that I could see again, I went off to Arabia for three years to think about it. (13-17)
Then I came back to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for a couple of weeks. But no one else—wait, I did see James, but none of the others. Then I went off again. What! You think I am fibbing? For years and years, had you asked those apostles about me, they would have said, “I dunno. Your guess is as good as mine. He used to be the nastiest fellow. Now it looks as though he is on our side. Cool! We’ll take it!” (18-24)
Chapter 2
About 14 years later I figured that maybe I had better give those guys a call. I had Barnabas with me by then, and Titus—fine fellows. I met with them privately, of course, just in case I was not doing something—um, kosher. “You okay with this?” I said to them. “You’re not going to make Titus do that Jewish thing, are you? I don’t see any need for it.” They didn’t either! (2:1-3)
It probably wouldn’t even have come up were it not for those pinheaded louts trying to drag us down, wanting us to everything Jewish that we don’t have to do anymore. We blew right past them, and it was for your sake just as much as for ours. (4-5)
Okay, so I consulted with these ones—I mean, I guess they are important. I wondered if they might try to rein me in, but no!—they said, “Whatever you are doing, keep on doing it. We’ll stick with preaching to Jews, but you—I mean, Peter unlocked that door for the nations, so go for it! Just don’t ignore the poor.” Sure, I can do that. (6-10)
But then Peter came calling later on and suddenly he himself goes all Jewish on me. Oh, sure, he pals around with these new Gentile Christians easy enough, but when his buddies show up, he acts like he doesn’t know them. I said, “I don’t believe it! Here you are living the free life, telling others to be like that, and then the narrow-minded fuddy duddies show up and you get all scaredy cat? (11-14)
Yeah, well he’s a good sort, but he goes a little weak at the knees sometimes. You don’t have to do any of that Jewish stuff! What do you think the Lord is for? (15-21)
Chapter 3
What on earth is wrong with you? How can you be so dumb? You break free but then turn around and go back because you forgot your leg irons? Are you kidding me? (3:1-5)
Don’t pull this Abraham stuff on me. Wait, no. If you want to talk Abraham, let’s talk Abraham. You think he earned anything? No! He “put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” THAT’S what you want to take away from Abraham—his faith, and how he pointed the way for other people to have faith. Not the later Law—that Law did nothing but show you up for the basket cases that you were! Did you manage to keep it? No! All you did was screw up. That’s why when Christ comes along, you are supposed to say, “Exactly what we need! Thank you, thank you, thank you. (6-11)
You don’t go back to the Law again—what’s wrong with you? The Law has nothing to do with faith. Christ pulled us out of that—THAT’S what Abraham was pointing to, and you want to dive back in again? (12-14)
Okay, now look—let’s take this real slow. Take notes if it will help. So Abraham gets a promise that means the Christ will come through his lineup, but how does the Law figure in? It comes 430 years later. Does it change his promise? I don’t think so. (15-18)
Why the Law? It’s because you guys kept messing up, that’s why. And it was supposed to dawn on you that you DID keep messing up and that you’re never (and yes—me, too) going to come out like the champion of Jeopardy. You weren’t supposed to think that dotting all the ‘I’s and crossing all the ‘T’s would get you there—besides, you missed lots of them. (19-22)
Yes, it gave you something to do and kept you off the streets. But now that the real thing has arrived, you can set down your slates. Class is over. You can join in with that promise to Abraham. (23-29)
Chapter 4
It took a long time for you to get to where you are. A lot of work went into it. Don’t mess it up. (4:1-8)
You had real freedom. I mean, real freedom in Christ. And now you want to become law nerds again and focus on dotting ‘I’s and crossing ‘T’s? Really? What! Do I have a death wish or something? What am I doing this for? (9-11)
Remember the good times we used to have? Remember how you used to loan me your specs? You didn’t then stick out your foot to trip me up. What’s gotten into you? (12-16)
Do you think that these pinheaded louts are your friends? They just want to be your bosses. “Meet the new boss—same as the old boss.” (17-20)
Go back to Abraham, you law nerds, and take a point. Two women, remember? One a concubine, one a wife. Hagar gave birth first because Sarah thought she was too old to have a child. No mystery about how Hagar conceived. You see it all the time on TV. But Sarah! THAT’S where God’s promise came in, and she didn’t even believe herself it could happen until it did! 
The two women stand for two groups of people. Hagar, the one of ordinary birth, is mother to the ones of Law (that you want go back to!) Sarah, the one of the promise, is mother to the ones putting their faith in Christ. (21-28)
The Hagar kid made trouble for the Sarah kid back then. It’s the same today with these pinheaded louts trying to force their Law on you. But what does the verse say? “Take this Law and shove it! I ain’t workin here no more!” Keep it that way! (29-31)
Chapter 5
You are free from slavery. Don’t go back to it. Or if you do, you’d better not miss a single one of those ‘I’s or ‘T’s. (5:1-6)
You were doing so well. Who tripped you up? Who made you think you need circumcision? It ain’t me, babe. Those Jews would give me a free pass if they thought I was turning Christianity into just one of their outposts. “Just you wait, enry iggins”—they’ll get theirs. (7-11)
In fact, I have half a mind to come and kick them in the nuts so hard that they won’t qualify to serve in the temple that they want to drag you into! (12)
No, brothers, don’t go there. Just don’t. You don’t need their picayune Law. It all boils down to love anyway—that is the greatest part of it—so if you get you head around that, you’ll do just fine. You start nitpicking at each other over every pissy little thing and you’ll tear each other apart! (13-18)
Don’t do bad things. Do good things. What do you mean, ‘What bad things?’ “No back-biting, no ass-grabbing, you know exactly what I mean!” [thank you, Randy Neuman] It shouldn’t be hard, if you really are following the Christ. Do the best you can, and don’t go thinking that you are better than the other guy. (19-26)
Chapter 6
Okay, let’s wrap this up. Don’t be babies—man up, but pull each other out of the crud when you have to (be sure you don’t fall in yourself). (6:1-5)
Don’t try to Play around with God. You can’t. Keep on keeping on—it will all pay off. Lend a hand where needed. (6-10)
See the large letters I make, all by myself with my own hand? Why? Because I am blind as a bat—that’s why. I dunno—it comes and goes. That’s why I insulted that pompous character before I knew he was the high priest. I asked God to take it away, but he said, “Nah, it keeps you humble.” And it has. It’s not an altogether bad thing to have a thorn in the flesh. (11)
Now, remember—they are pinheaded louts trying to lay their Law on you. And why? They’re just chicken themselves—like Peter might have been, but he saw where he was heading and corrected himself. They don’t want to stand out among their cronies, and they want to find strength in numbers by having you do what they do—it will hide their cowardice. What! You think they do the Law themselves? No way! They just want to do some back-stabbing and ass-grabbing themselves and then throw in a gerbil or something for sacrifice to make it all good again. Come on! Please—you are too smart not to see through them. (12-16)
I’ve suffered for carrying the good news of the Christ. So have you. Don’t turn back to be a law nerd again. Press on ahead. God will back you. So will Christ. (17-18)
***
What a bunch of idiots there at the Whitepebble Institute—tossing this amazing new manuscript in the dumpster! The place has gone right downhill ever since the director, Wayne Whitepebble, took a course on critical thinking and tried to kiss up to the evolutionists by adding an ancient skull to his library alongside the globe and old maps because he heard that is what smart people do but then it turned out that his ancient skull was actually missing evidence in the Mugsy McDougal ax murder case and he got into serious hot water with the authorities.
Plainly, this new find belongs in the Bible canon.

 
 

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supreme Court.
I swear that there are some who would prefer it that way. That way they can personalize it any way they want. Don’t like this or that? Simply interpret it away—no harm done.

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double honor" for their hard work and the heavy responsibility they have taken upon themselves. Granted that this does not excuse them from false teachings and doing nothing about traditional false teachings from the past. Nor does it excuse them for not doing enough to expose the potential gravity and extent of child sexual abuse and child physical abuse. I'm not trying to divert this topic to the specifics of any other issues of doctrines and procedures.
I know you'll disagree, but this is just to explain my own view. It's just that I wanted you to know that I think these particular elders, who call themselves a Governing Body, have put themselves in a unique and valuable position for the overall benefit of congregations worldwide. 
They have years of experience studying, speaking, and teaching on Bible topics. They are in a position to discuss certain difficult doctrinal issues with others who have years of experience studying the Bible. The size of this group of elders focusing on the study of the Bible for teaching purposes is kept manageable for purposes of efficient discussion and decision making (8 or so persons). There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help handle related issues of logistics or issues of lesser importance. There is always a ready "crew" of persons who can help research issues, handle their incoming and outgoing communications, translation printing, etc. They are in a position to hear questions and concerns about current doctrines and procedures that could potentially come from all over the world.  They have years of experience working with various congregations. They have years of experience traveling to congregations in various places in the world to be aware of various customs and practices that differ from their own. They have a mindset that makes them want to imitate the serious responsibility that the early Christian apostles had when they devote themselves to prayer and teaching. They have the ability to respond to questions and issues very quickly and consistently in a way that the entire world of congregations can benefit from. Of course, this is fraught with all kinds of dangers and potential abuse. Or a small mistake can quickly turn into a large one. Things that are legal and expected in one country might get the congregations in trouble in another country, for example.
There are other things, of course, but these ones are important to me.
Surely you would think that in any church or congregation there might be a need for organization and leadership. Agreeing on meeting times, topics to speak about, topics for Bible study, activities, care for the building, what to do with contributions, and even issues of who might join the church, who might need to be dismissed from the church, who might need counsel or adjustment, who might have special needs the church can take care of, etc., etc.
Most people would have no problem with this on a local church-by-church basis. But here we have tens of thousands of these congregations all around the world, and all of them are happy to teach exactly the same message. A group of elders who are deemed capable of handling this bigger responsibility is, in essence, no different than the local congregations. It's just that some of their functions will necessarily carry even greater responsibility.
This might be true. But it can also just be a logistical problem. Remember how Moses handled the millions in a single "congregation" that began draining his time and energy. He ended up appointing a "hierarchy of command" similar to any large army or large business corporation, so that concerns could be handled more efficiently. Also, on a personal level, while at Bethel I sat at meetings with as many as 5 GB members at the same congregation meeting. While visiting Warwick several months ago, I sat in a meeting with 2 members of the GB and 3 GB "Helpers" (and the wife of a deceased GB member, Sydlik). I could have gone up to any one of them after the meeting to ask questions. In fact, I did. I asked Brother Morris, "How are you?"
Anyway, in my opinion, the Governing Body provides a practical committee of elders handling issues that elders should handle. The difference being that they handle issues that come in from the worldwide congregation. As long as all the persons who listen to them are willing to question and critique the doctrines and processes, as all Christians have a duty to do, then there is nothing wrong with having a "Governing Body." (You might know that we are not the only religion that happens to call such a committee of "church decision-makers" a "Governing Body.") That might not be the best phrase, but it's clear that the congregations generally agree that it's appropriate to have such a group.
I personally don't agree that any such group should make a claim that they are THE faithful and discreet slave prophesied to come into existence at a proper time beginning in 1919. It's indiscreet and unfaithful to the teachings of the scriptures to accept them in that specific capacity. I'm sure they are making a mistake in that regard, but again, this is just my own opinion. It doesn't stop me from accepting and respecting 98.6 percent of what is published by them.

I am finding it soooooo funny, this pretence that the modern day GB is just a 'follow on' from the J-GB as you folks are now calling it. Is this GB / W/t / JW org brainwashing ?  Or are you people so indoctrinated as to actually believe it or make it up yourselves ? 
Is there any mention in the Greek scriptures, of words that directly / exactly translate into Governing Body ? If so please put proof up on here so that I can check it out for myself. 
There is one thing however that I've found interesting, it seems it was only by some people complaining / objecting to certain 'rules' being made, that anything was done to change the situation. 
It also seems that the Apostles and older men were available to talk to directly, to be able to make complaint. Totally different to today's GB who seem to hide behind locked gates and won't even do interviews or answer questions from ordinary people. 
I do hope Anna knows that 'err' has a double meaning. It can mean deliberate wrongdoing.  And relating those anointed Apostles to the GB now is quite funny. Remember Anna your GB is not inspired, the Apostles were.  
 
 

Now't as strange as folk.  As olde Amos Brearly would say.  

One thing I have said many times before .... with humans, there is truly ...
INFINITE VARIETY