Thinking

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.
Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.
So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 
But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.
I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.
Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 
What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.
@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna
Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 
I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?
@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)
When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.
When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.
Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.
Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural:
(Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4  But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5  For each one will carry his own load.
 
The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth.  Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite:
(Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 
I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime. 

In the end God will look at our life and answer the question of whether we fear (respect) Him and work righteousness to the best of our knowledge and honestly. I think we must both agree on that.
 

Chinese society is its own special crossroad of dictatorial governance, wealth, societal development, information access and technology. Not too long ago a group I was with were laughing out loud because huge billboard sized photos of us were broadcasted near the intersection we had just j-walked. It was an instance of trying to shame us into using crosswalks. Later that day a hotel staffer approached us about the violation. Facial recognition had IDed us and authorities located our accommodation and instructed staff to straighten us out. Real 1984ish stuff! 

I love Russell but I don’t understand what he is saying here,.
 

I seen many years ago on another site which I think is redundant now….i was never sure what to make of it…..this oath must have had many brothers and sisters who travelled overseas compromise themselves.

As a side note, perhaps (?) forms were printed locally?
This is a “typo” currently worth about $1.6 million dollars. (!)

From the Awake! magazine, relegating the curiosity to a minor curiosity:
 

I have never held one, and don't recall the exact wording, although I vaguely recall seeing a picture.  I recall finding some material in a University Library on Malawi, from a huge UN-sourced publication, in the very late 1970s and it tried to give a completely different impression of what had happened in Malawi and why. I chalked it up to governmental propaganda. Banda propaganda.
I never thought about it much until I saw it brought up again in RF CoC. Then it struck me as something I should have looked into, because as a Southern Californian, we used to visit Mexican congregations as a child, and their meetings still stuck out as something that needed more explanation, which my parents tried to explain to me as best they could.
Do you have a copy to share? Or a link to a picture of one? 

Certain witnesses gave proof somewhere. Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, Elihu, Cornelius. All, names of men who feared (respected) God and worked righteousness, and whose worship was accepted by God. They honestly just wanted to do right by God. Really, when we read the Genesis account, that's all God ever looked for in Adam, and then Eve. Both, His creative work. Now we are where we are. The aforementioned names all testify to the points you make. Each knew and understood the ultimate authority, and their personal responsibility. Respectively, it was God, and themselves. Between themselves and the Creator, they squarely placed their loyalty to Him, regardless of personal consequence. It's scriptural.

The same follower of Jesus that took time to put Jesus' prayer to paper also took time later on to comment about the unity of which you inquire.
At the very end of his first epistle, John wrote "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ."
God gave us His written word. Today we call it "the Bible". This is God's inspired written testimony. God created the natural world we see all around us. God's creative work is His inspired testimony in the form of object lessons. Both of these inspired testimonies are equally of God. His testimony is truth.
Jesus' prayer included this, "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."
So, we have God's testimony, which is truth. We have that word in two forms. Inspired words are God's truth, and inspired creation is God's truth. And, getting back to the closing words of his first epistle, we have what John said of Jesus, that "he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one."
This is what I've said in more concise terms on several occasions. God gave us His testimony, and He gave us brains, and He expects us to use them both. What it looks like is this:
1) Things that are present in creation or presented in express terms in the Bible, we accept for what they are, for what they say. Each of these serve as propositions useful to use our brains to deduce sound conclusions of what those express propositions imply.
2) Deductions we form of those propositions must conform to conventions of logical construction. That is called using our brain. This is called forming logical (sound) conclusions.
3) We assert express terms for whatever each proposition says.
4) We assert what is deduced from those propositions to the extent we can prove those deductions. Deductions of logical conclusions can vary in veracity, based on the strength of premises (propositions) applied.
5) Things we cannot soundly reason we leave people to decide for themselves, which is as it should be.
6) Aside from express propositions found in either the Bible or creation, every deduction we form must be falsifiable. This is part of logical conclusions.
Then is when and that is how we have the unity Jesus spoke of that relies on the truth of God and the intellectual capacity given by Jesus. We then have a community where all of us as friends are encouraging one another to use our brains, and where we find we are wrong we embrace the moment and rejoice that we've learned and grown as Christian men and women. But we do not ostracize (or otherwise beat!) those who ask that we prove something true and then fail to prove that thing true on the bases of solid testimony from scripture (or creation) or sound conclusions thereof.
 
 

@Many Miles @JW Insider I'm hesitant with any explanation that uses or is very close to some type of deconstruction by way of psychological analysis (fear of schism). I think we can simply observe the factors or reasons(theological) the Congregation has already given/offers/claims to be the cause. I lean in this case towards a philosophical error of judgment.🙏
I'm just going to use the same term (uniformity) with a different definition. I agree that the unity to which Christ calls us in John 17 is not an all encompassing unity that includes or conflates within itself evil and sin. Rather, is a unity in faith, worship and hierarchy. 
I'm sure you would agree that uniformity is not bad when it's uniformity in the one faith. In that case it's actually something beautiful (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 1:10) It seems your concern is with the extreme of absolute uniformity. I'm concerned about the other extreme, which is the absence of a shared faith. So, we are both interested in reaching a middle position (diversity within unity), where the teachings of the organization set the boundaries for our unity, providing a framework within which we can respectfully explore different understandings of our faith. In other words, that what the Congregation requires be only uniformity of truth. 
You reminded me of one of Pope's Francis Homily's in 2014: 
"It is true that the Holy Spirit brings forth different charisms in the Church, which at first glance, may seem to create disorder. Under his guidance, however, they constitute an immense richness, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of unity, which is not the same thing as uniformity. Only the Holy Spirit is able to kindle diversity, multiplicity and, at the same time, bring about unity. When we try to create diversity, but are closed within our own particular and exclusive ways of seeing things, we create division. When we try to create unity through our own human designs, we end up with uniformity and homogenization. If we let ourselves be led by the Spirit, however, richness, variety and diversity will never create conflict, because the Spirit spurs us to experience variety in the communion of the Church."
I am wondering what you think the sort of unity Christ prays (in John 17) His followers would have, would look like? I mean, what is the nature of that unity Christ wants His Congregation to have? Is it doctrinal agreement? Only on essentials? How are those determined?  Does it include institutional unity? That's the first set of questions. How is that first set of questions even to be answered? By consensus? Majority vote? Who gets to participate and vote? Who gets to supervise and moderate and make the rules? What would be necessary even for there to be an agreement about how to answer that first set of questions? And if by long and knock down public debate we finally did somehow manage to come to an agreement regarding the answers to those questions, how would we possibly go about achieving that unity (whatever the sort of unity is that we agreed that Christ wants His Congregation to have)? Reading through this whole discussion, it seems to me that if Christ intended His Congregation to be one (so unified that it would testify to the world that the Father sent the Son), then He would not have left us in a kind of each man does what is right in his own eyes situation. He would not have left the unity of His Bride up to the power of combox arguments to bring unity out of the chaos of sheep without a shepherd. The whole discussion above is evidence of the impotence of such arguments. Without a unified ecclesial authority established by Christ, the prospects for even getting some sort of robust visible unity off the ground, let alone preserving it till Christ returns, look extremely bleak! So either there is no point striving for robust visible unity (and we can gloss John 17 in some watered-down way), or the question is not, is it morally wrong to associate oneself with a Christian body that teaches anything whatsoever that is doctrinally false?  but rather, where is the Congregation that Christ established, and what does it have to say about all these questions?

I think you alluded to the diversity without divisions point,  on this post:
I'm familiar with the old principle/quote "In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom, in all things love". The problem arises once we get to what is the basis/criteria for distinguishing between schisms and heresies. If there is no ground for distinction, this type of unity collapses into individualism and/or arbitrarily sets up a standard of unity (agreement on a indeterminate set of doctrinal propositions) and with finding a lowest common denominator minimalism like the Mere Christianity position or (like Greg Stafford's three fundamentals of the faith) as the ground for unity.
Either way, the result is a unity/uniformity, but it is only a uniformity of like minded individuals, which is not a criterion that establishes that what is believed by the like minded individuals is, in fact, the truth. Uniformity of belief could mean nothing more than a bunch of like minded individuals confess what is false teachings.
You reminded me of previous comment by @TrueTomHarley which made me consider the difference between the unity of a political party, and the unity of a family. The political party is united by a shared set of beliefs, planks in a platform. When the party’s position shifts sufficiently, or the individual voter shifts positions, the voter just shifts parties because the unity is that of shared beliefs. It is not a material unity like family (united by blood) but more like a formal unity.
Let me follow up tonight with the first comment of this thread below:

My argument against  Synthetic Human Blood is two fold:
1.) it’s REALLY COWS’  BLOOD.
2.) It’s NOT synthetic human blood, it really REALLY  is …. REAL BLOOD.
Filtering it and adding supplements does not magically eliminated that fact..
——————————————-/—————-
Somebody, somewhere, at some time may have occasionally eaten carrion … partially decayed meat … but as a staple, it is a statistical impossibility.
When in the news, someone eats roadkill … IT’S NEWS!

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier. I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .
Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

Did Jehovah think it just a little loss of temper..or Aaron’s failure to be strong in his faith . Jehovah was goi g to strike him dead except for Moses begging for his life.
Do I feel sorry for either of them…absolutely..more for Moses than Aaron….as there for the grace of god go I…….I ponder on both of them…and I think,,,….Thinking … your dead...

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier. I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .
Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

Hopefully I'm not outside acceptable boundaries by citing the source I'm about to cite. If I am, please just let me know.
Today I was shown a recent article published by Rolf Furuli. His article addresses the biblical account of Noah and the great flood. Specifically he cites Genesis 6:21 and then he says, "Neither Noah nor the animals ate meat, so only plants were taken into the Ark as food."
- So we have this: No meat.
- More stringently, we have this: Only plants.
So, what about milk? What about water? What about natural earth elements such as mineral deposits (e.g., salt licks).
Because the Genesis account said humans could use plants as food, is that supposed to mean that was the only thing humans could consume as food?

I disagree. 
The harder life is, the more important are “military protocols”.
Even Spock realized that.

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 
OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.
i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.
there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 
 

Many Countries offer Social Benefits to their citizens to give them a helping hand. These Benefits were meant to be given for a limited time. Those precious benefits will come to an abrupt end as the Political Kings of the earth turn against the World of False Religion to confiscate and plunder her Wealth.
Look! I am about to throw her into a sickbed, and those committing adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. (Rev 2:22) And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. (Rev 18:4) “And the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality with her and lived with her in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her when they see the smoke from her burning. (Rev 18:19) The Wealth and goods obtained will be used to fund their armies and enforcers to do a house to house check to see if you and your family are bending your knees to the Wild Beast in worship. (Rev 13:4) By the time of the Enforcement comes, your assets will have already been confiscated to weaken your resistance and your family members could be used as bargaining chips for your cooperation whether you are willing or unwilling. “Whoever seeks to keep his life safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive.” (Luke 17:33)
The Bible points to who makes up the members of Gog of Magog, and if you are uninformed, what is coming your way will make you shutter. The shock that will overcome you will be such a traumatic experience you will look for death but not able to find it. (Rev 9:6) If you have faith, it will severely be tested and if you have no faith, you will be swept away not knowing which way to turn like a caged wild animal.
Your Social Benefits will cease and be used to fund the Enforcement. Maybe your Health Benefit expires, then all of a sudden your food benefit. Your complex in not knowing what is going on and then your shelter benefit is removed. Maybe you are forcibly removed from your house for not paying your taxes. You can’t buy or sell anything, your funds no longer exist that were in your bank account, all access is closed and you’re locked out. The Bank will not respond or answer any questions. The government issues a notice if you have any cash to exchange it with the Wild Beast for pennies on the dollar. Those who have cash but refuse to exchange their cash will lose it because there will be a certain date of expiration on all currency in any form, including precious metals such as gold and silver. (Daniel 11:43) No matter how much you have saved or stored up for yourself, you will lose it. If you worship any god other than the Wild Beast, you and your family will be thrown into the lion’s pit sort to speak.
All the royal officials, prefects, satraps, high royal officers, and governors have consulted together to establish a royal decree and to enforce a ban, that for 30 days whoever makes a petition to any god or man except to you, O king, should be thrown into the lions’ pit. (Daniel 6:7) It won’t matter what religion you are or even if you’re an Athiest. Worship the Wild Beast or start losing your family and friends one by one while you stand there motionless in shock as the life drains away from your loved ones. AS the members of Gog and Magog are gathered by the demonic forces to get ready for the Enforcement, there will be one people left. Those who are holding onto their integrity to the One True God which enrages Satan to Act:
You will say: “I will invade the land of unprotected settlements. I will come against those living in security, without disturbance, all of them living in settlements unprotected by walls, bars, or gates.” (Ezekiel 38:11) According to Bible Prophecy, it is Jehovah’s Anointed One that will Destroy Gog of Magog for coming after his Named People. The scriptures give us insight and a warning regarding to listening to instruction from the two spies whom gave specific directions to Rahab. “You should gather your father, your mother, your brothers, and all your father’s household with you into the house. Then if anyone goes out the doors of your house into the open, his blood will be on his own head, and we will be free from guilt. But if harm comes to anyone who remains with you in the house, his blood will be on our heads.” (Joshua 2:18-19)
  Let the scripture interpret scripture. Compare the Spies instruction to Rahab to the following:
Go, my people, enter your inner rooms, And shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a brief moment Until the wrath has passed by. (Isaiah 6:20) Rahab and her family were saved while those on the outside were destroyed. And sanctuary is promised to those who enter our congregations of inner rooms meaning they have a good standing with Jehovah. But notice the scripture that we often use for the great tribulation.
Jehovah said to him: “Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done in the city.” And to the others he said in my hearing: “Go through the city after him and strike. Do not let your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.” (Ezekiel 9:4-5) The marking on the foreheads is the mark for survival. These ones keep on living through the great tribulation and enter into the new world as survivors known as the great crowd. But notice it happens at a time of ‘sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done’. Also, notice where the slaughter of the wicked starts from? Old man, young man, virgin, little child, and women you should kill off completely. But do not go near to any man on whom there is the mark. You should start from my sanctuary. So they started with the elders who were in front of the house. (Ezekiel 9:6) Our current understanding of this scripture is that it occurs after the great tribulation begins which we believe is in the near future. So the term ‘My Sanctuary‘ may need some refining as to the meaning. It certainly has to do with ‘Pure Worship’ and if that is the case then the Congregation of God would be ‘My Sanctuary’. The Temple of God would be Jesus Christ and the 144,000. Also, the action of removing or the cutting off ‘started with the elders who were in front of the house’, those who willingly forsook the offering of worship services, and praise which began in 1919. (Matthew 13:37-42) Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Matthew 24:29) Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. (Matthew 13:40) Allow the scripture to guide you. There are two meanings, one, is in the literal sense after the period of the Last Days has ended which is coming to a conclusion now or second, it is Spiritual and happening at the Beginning of the Last Days in 1914. After all, an Arabic rendering applies to a Ruler being removed from their office of Rulership is that ‘his heaven has fallen‘ which happened to Satan being hurled out of the Heavens in 1914 which the World rejects today. Not to mention that Charles Taze Russell gave us divine warning that Daniel 12:1 would undergo fulfillment in 1914 as the End of the Gentile times.
  Indication and scripture points to 1914 and the Beginning as to ‘My Sanctuary’ started with the elders who were in front of the house in 1919! The elders in this sense were Unfaithful Brothers who rejected the Presence of Christ and became apostates to turn others away from the organization of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. The Book of Matthew continues, “Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30)
Again two meanings, if literal it would occur after the Last Days have concluded. But if Spiritual, the prophecy began unfolding in 1919. Why? Aren’t all the tribes of the earth beating themselves in grief today? Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses grieve today because of the three horsemen? Not only does the World grieve the three horsemen, but do they not shun the Rider of the fourth horse whose Name is the Word of God? (Rev 3:20)
Wake Up O Sleeper! It’s very interesting when scripture reveals itself how people become so stubborn. “The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood Before the coming of the great and awe-inspiring day of Jehovah.” (Joel 2:31) Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Matthew 24:29) And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. (Daniel 12:1) 1914 or a future date? To claim we have not entered into a time of distress such as has not occurred since is to deny Prophecy. The Last Days of Satan’s System of things do not go on forever, they do and will come to their End!
“Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” (Psalm 110:1- 2) Those enemies are not instantly destroyed but are bundled up to die a permanent death like that of Adam and Eve. The fiery furnace is symbolic speech for everlasting death. For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the PRESENCE of the Son of man will Be. (Matthew 24:38-39) It’s Spiritual…. otherwise you would have no need to prove yourself ready.
On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. (Matthew 24:44) Three Phases of Christ’ Presence “As for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.” (Joshua 24:14-15) If you like Bible Based Videos please watch some @ Bible Teachings

I wonder if B.W. Schulz mentions this. He is a big Russell historian. I will have to check it out...

i have had that in my files for a very long time. the difference is, my copies are readable.
Unreadable “proofs” are by definition utter nonsense, only bluster .

@Many Miles Hey Miles, I understand that when we are dealing with a person who has such a different position from our own, it is easy to despair, and resort to confrontation. It takes a great deal of commitment and patience and determination to work backward, together, to discover our common ground, so that we can then work forward from that common ground to adjudicate rationally our fundamental points of disagreement. Otherwise, we’re many miles apart, and don’t have the necessary common ground (and common point of view) to address directly the question in a way that allows us to reach the same conclusion through a process of rational dialogue.
I think you have misunderstood what I was saying on the first point, perhaps I wasn't clear as I should of been. So let me try again with the help of what a friend wrote:
 
"Imagine that you are transported back to first century Palestine, and are standing before Jesus of Nazareth who has been performing miracles and teaching as if he speaks with the authority of God. He confronts you with a question “who do you say that I am?” What are the dynamics here? You have before you three factors:
1.) An apparently flesh and blood man claiming to speak with the authority of God
2.) Some amazing verifiable historical activities which are said to support this claim
3.) Yourself – a fallible human being who is being asked to answer the question
1.) Notice that without 1, there is no pressing decision that you need to make, because there would be no one claiming to speak with divine authority. If Jesus were to claim only to speak with common, human, fallible authority; you would have no reason to pay more attention to his interpretation of the Law and the Prophets than your own since he sports no claim to formal temple academic training. Even if he had such training, without his explicit (and shocking) claim to divine authority, he would only present another educated opinion, and surely there will be equally educated opinions which disagree with his exposition. The long and short of it is that, without 1, there is simply no DIVINE (as opposed to fallible) access to the content of revelation worth paying much attention to. There is only fallible theological opinion. If you are going – even in theory – to have non fallible access to a divine revelation; at the very minimum, you at least need something or someone making a claim to speak with divine (that is non fallible) authority. Hence, the surprise of the people (and the anger of his religious opponents) who recognize that; “he teaches as one with authority”, and NOT as the Scribes and Pharisees.
2.) If you have 1, but not 2, then you have nothing but a raw, unsubstantiated authority claim. Anyone can make such a claim, Jim Jones to David Koresh. Sure, one could go ahead and embrace such an authority claim (and unfortunately many have throughout history); but it is unreasonable to do so. On the other hand, notice – and this is crucial – that the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth performs, even if you encounter him risen from the dead; do not PROVE that he speaks with divine authority. That a lame man walks, or a blind man sees, or a man known to be dead rises from the grave, are surely extraordinary events; but they do not necessitate the conclusion that the one who effects such events speaks for God. What such events do is lend credence to the antecedent or consequent authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth. So, you have an authority claim from Jesus of Nazareth (“I speak for God) and a set of events which Jesus (or his followers) put forward as evidence that his claim is true. YOU are invited to connect the two in an act of faith – a reasonable act of faith – because it is clearly reasonable (but not necessary) to believe that the events do, in fact, verify the authority claim being made. Still, you must BELIEVE or make an “assent of faith” – you do not get the luxury of a proof. Besides, if you think real hard about it; what would it really take to constitute an absolute “proof” of a supernatural authority claim?.
3.) Now in light of the above, consider 3. You are NOT being asked in this scenario to go figure out theology or the de fide content of revelation. You are being asked to accept the authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth who claims to speak the divine truth. You are being given the two things necessary to put you in a position to make this life altering decision; namely the divine authority claim itself, and a set of evidence given in support of that claim. Still, you are not being given incontrovertible evidence, only probable evidence. If it were otherwise your salvation would not be based on any faith or trust at all. If his claim were supported by undeniable proofs, you would be forced – intellectually – to accept those claims. What does Jesus ask of you? He asks for your faith. He does not ask for an irrational, fideistic faith; since he provides evidences for his claim. Still, all the evidence in front of you might admit of an alternate interpretation. Many of Jesus contemporaries, who have experienced everything as you have, WILL reject the evidence as supportive of the claim. Nothing forces your intellect to make the connection between the events and the claim. Still, he asks if you will be a believer or an unbeliever. If you make an act of faith (in reality you will do so with the assistance of divine grace); then you embrace WHATSOEVER Jesus tells you. He will hand on to you the de fide content of divine revelation – you will not need to construct it whole-cloth. If you refuse to believe, you turn your back on the only possible, non fallible, access to the content of divine revelation on the market since most do not make an divine authority claim (the temple academics) and those that do (such as an occasional Jewish zealot), offer no evidence which might lend any credence to their claim. You must either go away empty handed so far as any hope of “getting at” divine revelation is concerned, or else embrace Jesus because he “has the words of eternal life”.
The entire dynamic tension of the gospel accounts could be summed up as a conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish religious authorities ABOUT the proper interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Introducing novel meanings is exactly what the religious authorities of Jesus’ day accused him of; and it is not hard to see why. Consider the following (paraphrased comments of Jesus): “you know neither the scriptures nor . . .”; “if you knew the scriptures you would know me – for they speak of me”; “you have heard it said – BUT I SAY to you”; “I tell you today that this prophecy is fulfilled in your midst”; “before Abraham was, I am”; “have you been so long the teacher of Israel and yet you do not know these things?”. Then we could talk about the removal, by the apostles, of the requirement of circumcision; the admission of gentiles into the faith, etc. We see all this as natural and “obvious” because we live 2000 years removed from the heat of the events. But imagine yourself as a first century Jew who has studiously poured over the writings of the Law and the Prophets. Who is this carpenter from Nazareth, without any formal theological training; introducing, strange novel meanings against the “clear” teachings of the Law and the Prophets. What an arrogant, authoritarian bluster. As if, the meaning of the text could be twisted to encompass such odd notions. Does he actually think that the truth laid down by Moses and the prophets in out holy books somehow “develops” or admits “alternate” meanings? Does he really expect us to believe the HE has the proper, perfect, infallible interpretation of the text? Really? We are to accept the teaching of this carpenter over against all the exegetical skill and training of the scribes? So he does some miracles. It seems entirely more likely that his power derives from an evil source, rather than from God, ESPECIALLY given the novel and even blasphemous nature of his scriptural twists and malignancies."
 
 

…