Juan Rivera

@George88 George, I can understand your perspective. I’m actually coming to the table with a stronger view than probably everyone here. I have said before that I do not trust the Governing Body because I think that the elders and overseers have better knowledge of doctrine and theology than other Brothers I respect in person and here on the forum. My experience has led me to believe that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have more in-depth knowledge of some topics and specifics than many elders, and perhaps even than some overseers and Governing Body members. But that is irrelevant. I trust the Governing Body because I believe its authority is God-given, not attained by human study or genius. Thus its authority is charismatic, not academic. And I believe that because it’s the only basis I’m aware of for distinguishing, in a principled way, between an authentic authoritative interpretation and human theological opinions. So I have chosen in good conscience to accept the Governing Body’s claim for itself. That means that, when a theological opinion of mine turns out to conflict with their teaching, I conclude that I’m the one who’s wrong, not the Governing Body. So they enjoy the presumption truth and my sincere efforts to assimilate their teaching In light of your other comment: The easy way to dismiss those who come to disagree with us is to chalk it up to something less than noble in them. The more appropriate, and charitable response is to address the reasons, evidence, arguments, etc., the other person give for *why* they think their position is true, and our position false. That's the essence of rational dialogue. But deconstruction is a kind of ad hominem (i.e. "you only believe that because you ..."), and hence it can be used both directions, with no progress forward toward mutual agreement. That's why it is better not to make use of deconstruction at all, and always assume (unless given good reason to believe otherwise) that the other person is motivated primarily by a desire for the truth. But I understand your concern. If I have a submissive attitude to a problematic teaching I will be willing to engage in further study of the issue with others here. Perhaps my questions are the consequence of poor education as a witness, and that is my fault not of others. If the teaching in question is in regards to matters of morality, than I should examine my conscience. This means asking myself some difficult questions regarding the nature of the difficulties I am having with a given teaching. Am I struggling with this teaching because I cannot discover in it the will of Jehovah, or is it because this teaching, if true, would demand some real change? Believe me that I constantly consider whether my difficulties lie not with a particular teaching but with the very idea of a teaching office.

@JW Insider @Many Miles JW insider, I’ll write something up shortly, but feel free to change the title to narrow down the discussion or if @Many Miles wants to lay the issues out. I don’t want to impose, or give the wrong impression to whoever wants to participate.

@JW Insider I agree, and I don’t want to rehash the same conversation. It seems you and other Witnesses have already dealt with Srecko on this topic, but it might help @Many Miles @George88 and me of course to get some insight. Here’s two comments I found on the forum: And your comment:

@Many Miles @Srecko Sostar@George88 @JW Insider Let me know if you guys want to create a new post with this topic in mind (Galatians) here in the open forum or closed. Here’s two comments. One made by a Jehovah’s Witness and another by a Catholic Philosopher that may shed some light: Rotherham: “The Watchtower has never addressed the idea as to what would happen if they apostatized because the notion is considered ridiculous. From what I know of them, I would agree. Going astray is a far cry from apostasy. The organization has been “astray” a number of times. That’s the very reason they change a certain view or teaching or policy, they were astray and they corrected it. From their standpoint, the notion that they as the GB would apostatize is considered ridiculous. I am not sure why that seems to be such a problem to understand. They are dedicated to the pursuit of Biblical truth and are willing to change their views regardless of the consequences that the change may bring. Of course I never stated that such a thing would be impossible, I said it was considered ridiculous. The WT is a self-correcting organization with the Bible as the guideline. All JWs are admonished to let the scriptures be their main guide. The combination of the two would stand as a bulwark against the organization as a whole to fall into apostasy. As I tried to get you to appreciate, the Bible is the first and foremost guide in a JWs life. Everything else is secondary to the Bible. Within the scriptures there are absolute statements and non-absolute statements. A clear apostate position would be to take a stand against an absolute statement offered in the Bible. I am sure you would agree that there are many. Ambiguity or non-absolutes naturally present a difficulty with a clear interpretation, such as prophecy and/or the understanding of certain parabolic features. But if a defined stand were to be made against absolute statements in the Bible, then the result is apostasy as I stated before. For instance, if the WT came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so. Independent thinking is not prohibited in a some wholesale fashion as you seem to want to establish. The entire admonition against independent thinking is within the context of one entertaining and promoting teachings which are not accepted by the GB, who adhere strictly to the scriptures. As I stated, we certainly know that independent thinking is entirely necessary even for a person to live their life meaningfully and with a certain a natural, balanced autonomy. And yes, just as the teachings of the Apostles were adhered to in the first century, according to Eph 4:11-17, that same process of gifts of men would be followed until full understanding would be achieved. Teachers, prophets and evangelizers would continue the work of the Apostles that would be responsible for “perfecting/readjusting” the holy ones until that full-grown stature of the church is recognized. The Bible takes precedent in any teaching within the JW congregations. If there were clear and unquestionable deviation from an established Biblical teaching, if that were maintained and not expeditiously corrected, they would lose God’s favor and be rejected as his earthly organization and God would establish another. Those who appreciate the Bible as the final word would follow as it would naturally result in a schism.. The WT is considered to be like the eyeglass that helps one understand the true teachings from God’s word. It is however, recognized as fallible. The scriptures, as far as they are translated properly, reflect the perfect word of God and the Bible is well known to be our primary textbook. It is infallible and takes full precedent in any understanding, teaching or practice. Therefore, with the Bible at the helm, your above contrived scenario is not an issue. Although the organization is considered God’s arrangement, that would only be as long as they were devoted to the teachings of the Bible. Just as Israel was rejected for corruption, so could the WT. Israel was God’s nation but became corrupt to the point that God rejected them as a nation. Not individually but as a nation. Jesus told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to nation producing its fruits. Those who adhere first to God’s Word would clearly see the reason for their rejection, but as I said, the notion is a purposeful contrivance on your part. The WT has proven faithful in changing as they discern error, as they should. They are lovers of truth and will change as the revelation and clarification of truth continues.This would be in harmony with the idea presented in the parable of the wheat and the weeds. Besides, one can question what they will. The problem is not questions or doubts, it is the promoting of teachings against what has been accepted by the governing body. In the first century, that was the Apostles as all congregation adhered to the teachings of the Apostles. In the harvest it would be the FDS as mentioned in Matthew or the wheat as mentioned in the prophecy about the wheat and the weeds. Ephesians 4:11-17 would be in full support of that type of arrangement. Edward Feser: Fathers have the authority to teach and discipline their children, but this authority is not absolute. They may not teach their children to do evil, and they may not discipline them with unjust harshness. Everyone knows this, though everyone also knows that there are fathers who do in fact abuse their children or teach them to do evil. Everyone also knows that it is right for children under these unhappy circumstances to disobey and reprove their fathers, while still acknowledging their fathers’ authority in general and submitting to his lawful instructions. All the same, probably no father ever says to his children: “Children, here’s what to do if I ever start to abuse you or teach you to do evil.” The reason for this is surely that the default assumption is that children will never need to know what to do under such circumstances, and that explicitly addressing it in this way would give them a false and disturbing impression. Children might start to wonder whether abuse or evil teaching is a likely prospect, and for that reason come to doubt their father’s wisdom and good will. Hence, in the typical case, what to do in such a situation is left implicit and vague. The nature of paternal authority is such that this is the way things should be. Because the presumption that fathers will not abuse their authority is so strong, and because children need to believe viscerally that this is extremely unlikely to happen, the matter almost never comes up in most families. There is a downside, of course, which is that on those rare occasions when a father does abuse his authority, children are bound to be confused about how to deal with the situation. What do you do when the man appointed by nature to be your primary teacher and guardian starts to mislead or harm you? Now, the papacy is like this. The Church has no official and explicitly stated policy about how to deal with a pope who teaches error or otherwise abuses his office. That is not because such error and abuse are not possible. On the contrary, not only has the Church always allowed for the possibility that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra and that he can make policy decisions that do grave harm to the faithful, but both of these things have in fact happened on a handful of occasions – for example, the doctrinal errors of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII, the ambiguous doctrinal formula temporarily accepted by Pope Liberius, the Cadaver Synod of Pope Stephen VI and its aftermath, and the mistakes of Pope Urban VI that contributed to the Great Western Schism. (I have discussed these cases here, here, and here.) But there is in Catholic theology so strong a presumption against a pope making grave doctrinal and disciplinary errors that, as with a father in relation to his children, it would be potentially misleading and destabilizing explicitly to formulate a policy concerning what to in such a situation. Hence you won’t find in the Catechism a section on what to do about a bad pope. The very existence and expression of such a policy might give the false impression that bad popes are bound to arise with some regularity. The downside is that on those rare occasions when a bad pope does come along, the Church is bound to be flummoxed. Many Catholics without theological expertise will wrongly suppose that a Catholic must absolutely always support any policy that a pope implements, or assent to any doctrinal statement that a pope issues – even when such a statement seems manifestly contrary to traditional teaching (as in the cases of Honorius I and John XXII). This will lead to one of two outcomes, depending on the capacity of such ill-informed Catholics for cognitive dissonance. Those who are more prone to react emotionally and less capable of clear and logical reasoning – and thus who are comfortable with embracing contradictions – will tend to go along with the doctrinal or policy errors of such a pope. Their own understanding and practice of the Faith is going to be impaired as a result. They are also bound to sow discord in the Church, since they will likely accuse those Catholics who do not embrace the errors of disloyalty and dissent. By contrast, those who cannot bear such cognitive dissonance are liable to have their faith shaken. They will wrongly suppose that they are obliged to assent to the errors, but find that they are unable to do so given the manifest conflict with traditional teaching. They will needlessly worry that this conflict between current and past teaching falsifies the Church’s claim to indefectibility. It is important, then, for Catholics to realize that the traditional teaching of the Church has always allowed for the possibility of criticism of a pope who teaches error. Indeed, such an acknowledgment is there in the New Testament, in St. Paul’s famous public rebuke of St. Peter for conduct that “seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law” (as the Catholic Encyclopedia characterizes Peter’s scandalous action).

Everything on the post😂 . Can you restate it in different wording, because I have no idea what you are saying in that specific post

@Srecko Sostar can you restate this comment, I'm having trouble understanding it after re-reading it a few times, sorry.

@Srecko Sostar I've read a few comments from other Witnesses and it seems you already had this conversation elsewhere and in the closed club. I don't think your perspective that Geoffrey Jackson was claiming that they are not the only body in this world that can give valid doctrine when representing God as God's speaker of faith is accurate. Here's their comments: Comment from JW "Rotherham": "The literature never states that the FDS is the SOLE channel for dispensing truth, it says God’s organization IS. God’s organization includes everyone who would be considered a minister, man, woman or child. But the scriptures are clear that SOMEONE would be taking the LEAD when it comes to feeding the flock. That is what we believe to be the case with the FDS. So whereas MANY can feed and nourish, there are those who are leaders that Hebrews 13:17 says we should OBEY and SUBMIT to. So I don’t see where Br. Jackson’s comments are inaccurate." Another comment from @JW Insider: "Angus Stewart asked the wrong question of Bro Jackson. It seemed obvious that he had been prepped to ask "do you see yourself as modern-day apostles, the modern-day equivalent of Jesus' apostles. (The next question about the mouthpiece was meant to draw out the same issue.) If he had asked the question correctly, there is no telling whether Jackson would have answered differently, even though he knew the reason for the question. Fortunately, Jackson was able to easily skirt the intent of the question and he quickly took advantage of it. However, the GB do see themselves as the modern day near-equivalent of Jesus' apostles. They see the Jerusalem GB as as the first-century equivalent of the on-going teaching role of those apostles, even if the group could have non-apostles participate. The GB have also seen themselves in a modern-day role like the Bible writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, a group which also could have non-apostles participate."

I don’t understand what you mean Pudgy😔 … sigh….

@Pudgy I wish that was true. Believe me, I really do, it would of made my life so much easier growing up and I would of avoid so much heartache and suffering and could of used that time energy and efforts and investing it in the ministry helping others. But If that were true, disagreement regarding which doctrines are essential could be due only to illiteracy or malice. But when we engage in on-the-ground dialogue with Christians in other interpretive traditions, we find that the people with whom we disagree on such matters are generally neither unintelligent nor malicious. That implies that resolving the disagreements regarding which doctrines are essential is not as simple as pointing to Bible verses. Otherwise, after the last five centuries of reading and studying Scripture, then even if there was not an initial agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture, there should be at least a convergence of biblical interpretations among all students of Scripture. Instead there has been a continual multiplication of doctrinal disagreements among the various traditions. For these reasons, Scripture alone is not capable of answering the "essentials" question. We have a five-hundred-year experiment called Protestantism. Protestant history is a history of fragmentation upon fragmentation, dividing not over what was believed to be secondary issues by those separating, but over what was believed to be orthodoxy and heresy. People do not break unity over issues they themselves believe to be secondary, indifferent adiaphora. Someone could claim that in each such case someone was failing to engage in honest exegesis, but it seems to me that such a claim would be ad hoc. There is no good reason to believe that in each case of fragmentation, one or both sides were being dishonest in their exegesis of Scripture. The evidence is to the contrary. Likewise, someone could claim that in each case of fragmentation one or both sides did not have the spirit. But again, that would be ad hoc. Moreover, honest exegesis in the present is not bringing denominations back together. Given all the exegetical work published in academic journals and books over the last few centuries, which denominations have reconciled because of it? None if any. And again, it would be ad hoc to claim that they are not doing so only because of dishonesty or exegetical ignorance. Do we see all New Testament scholars moving toward one denomination’s theological position, over the past 500 years? No. All this shows that personal interpretation of Scripture is not a reliable way of distinguishing fully and accurately between orthodoxy and heresy.

@Pudgy Let me try one last time. To boil it down for convenience, my central argument has been that, without an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, we would have no way of distinguishing between what's objectively divine revelation and what's only human opinion about the scope and interpretation of the sources. That distinction is not primarily about how we attain certainty. Rather, my argument is about how we identify the primary subject matter of theology, i.e. divine revelation itself. Now if the subject matter of theology were primarily a set of texts and practices, make that set as broad or narrow as you please, then theology would be just like other disciplines such as philosophy, history, and sociology. Accordingly, it would not require positing inerrancy or infallibility. We would study the texts and practices, come to reasonable but provisional conclusions about their truth and/or value, and call some of our conclusions our theology. That's the methodology in departments of "religious studies." I spent some time in that methodology when I was younger, and I learned things thereby. But as Christians we know that such a merely human discipline does not suffice for the purpose at hand. Thus, even though it often utilizes methods of inquiry like those of other disciplines, theology itself is not like other disciplines. What we're after in theology strictly speaking, as distinct from natural theology, which is a branch of metaphysics, is identifying the content of something we could never know or identify just by human inquiry, i.e. what Jehovah has revealed. And we take for granted that Jehovah is "infallible," in the sense that he knows whatever can be known, and can neither deceive nor be deceived. So, we want to know how to identify what Jehovah himself has revealed, as distinct from, but not always as opposed to, what mere man has said or done about him. The latter is not protected from error, and hence cannot be relied on for knowledge of what Jehovah has revealed. In the nature of the case, knowledge of something as divine revelation can only be attained by recognizing certain sources of information as produced or authorized by God and thus protected by him from error. My argument is not over that point, but over the scope of those sources. Given as much, another way of putting my central argument is this: Without a living body that is divinely authorized to speak with divine and thus infallible authority, we would have no way of distinguishing reliably between theology and religious studies. That's because we would not even have a way of definitively settling the question what the relevant sources of transmission are, much less what they mean. You might personally choose to regard a certain set of texts, i.e. “Scripture," as the inerrant "Word of God," which is what you do; you might regard certain early interpreters of those texts as pretty reliable guides to interpreting them, which you also seem to do; you might even recognize certain traditions and concrete practices as relevant sources of information, which you could do consistently with your position. But your grounds for doing so would be human reasoning and opinion alone, not the teaching of any living body whose leadership we recognize as authorized by God to speak definitively in his name. Hence, all your conclusions would remain fallible and provisional. But you don't seem any more content with that than I am, nor should you be. That is why I've said to you before that your only alternatives to such an infallible interpretive authority are "rationalism" or "enthusiasm," whose concrete correlates would be an academic governing body. There is no third alternative that does not reduce to one of those two, or to some ramshackle combination thereof, such as (JW insider) (if I’m not mistaken) idea that the scope and meaning of the biblical canon can be recognized with certainty by a combination of literary/historical analysis and the inner promptings of the holy spirit. Hopefully that clears up what I’ve been meaning to say. Thank you for you time, I’m bowing out.

@Pudgy I hear you, but here’s what worries me about that simplicity principle you mention and then I’ll leave you alone. Either you are using simplicity as a criterion for truth, or not. If you are, that's using a human-derived criterion (i.e. human philosophy) to judge what content gets to count as divine revelation. That's making 'divine revelation' in your own image. On the other hand, if you're not using simplicity as a criterion for truth, then there is no reason (other than rhetorical) to appeal to simplicity as a reason to adopt your own view rather than the JW perspective. The working philosophical assumption that theology and ecclesiology must all be simple it’s an assumption which the person is presupposing that it all must be simple, and that because what I'm saying includes digging deeper into things, therefore it cannot be true, because it is not simple, or at least as simple as your position. But that’s just making theology conform to your own philosophical presuppositions, rather than being open as a child to whatever level of complexity, sophistication or simplicity is to be found in Jehovah’s self revelation. It is his revelation, not our creation. So if we are to be open in faith, we have to be open to whatever God reveals, rather than try to force it into our preconceived notions concerning what it must be like. So if Jesus established a congregation with a Governing body, and entrusted to her the scriptures, then persons of faith should embrace it rather than reject it and replace it with something simpler. Given your simplicity principle, any person could reject your theology as too complex, and replace it with simpler theology still. There is always someone with a position simpler than one’s own. So let me leave you with one last thought to think about and perhaps you can see where I would like to focus my efforts and attention in the closed forum or elsewhere. I believe once you and other current and former Witnesses start seeing this distinction, it would be the equivalent of "taking the red pill” or leaving the set of "The Truman Show". It seems to me that if we are not going to worry with distinguishing false teachings from true teachings , then while we might possibly continue to argue that there are grounds for thinking that Jehovah has communicated something to mankind, somewhere at some time (i.e. given a revelation), a stance of ambivalence with respect to the need to distinguishing which current explanatory or descriptive accounts of that revelation match what Jehovah intended men to know (true teachings), over against errant disfigurements of what Jehovah intended men to know (false beliefs), has the practical effect of undermining the very notion or purpose of any divine revelation at all. Such a stance explicitly, and in principle, shrouds the content which Jehovah intended to reveal within a cloak of human opinion from which it cannot escape to reach the mind of any modern seeker as a revelation from Jehovah distinct from some other fellow human’s opinion. And this would mean that the purported answers concerning human meaning and destiny which Christianity claims to provide are just opinions and can, therefore, command our assent no more than the thousands of other competing truth claims about human purpose and destiny which are all around us in a pluralistic society. The Good News reduces to an opinion column and so becomes old news. If all Christianity has to offer modern man is yet another wacky set of notions about Jehovah, afterlife, morality, etc. – then to hell with it. The whole point of a “revealed” religion is to offer truth claims which ostensibly stand in contrast to what man can know, or guess at, on his own. Hence, a revealed religion which simultaneously, and in principle, claims that what God intended to communicate to men via revelation is no longer decipherable beyond the level of that same human opinion to which we all had access before ever exploring revealed religion, simply defeats the very purpose of revealed religion. What is special about the Good News, or the deliverances of Christianity regarding human meaning and destiny, if we give up on the distinction between True beliefs and false ones? I, for one, cannot say. Regards,

@Srecko Sostar “Inspiration”is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. It refers to the written or verbal revelation that Jehovah gave. Guidance(spirit led) refers to the holy spirit prompting to truth. In Acts 15 the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ, and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. The reason they can do that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration. Claiming they were inspired in Acts 15 when the passage nowhere mentions they were inspired its an unfounded deduction. This is similar to the Apostles in the first ten to fifteen years of the Congregation (before any Scripture was written), when exercising their authority over the Christian congregation as their appointed representatives, and yet not speaking inspired Scripture. I think you are equating inspiration, with the assistance of the holy spirit. The holy spirit works in and through the fallible Christian congregation not apart from it nor does it dispense with the human factor. With respect to the notion of the holy spirit’s guidance of the Governing Body, the events of the Jerusalem council in Acts can again be helpful. It is important to understand that the spirits guidance of the Governing Body is not to be thought of as magical or mystical, or in any manifest way noticeable in the concrete reality of the Governing body’s activity. The spirits guidance is more subtle, powerful, and comprehensive than that. In reading the account of the gathering and conducting of the Jerusalem council, there does not appear to be anything especially divine about how the proceedings develop. There is heated argumentation and debate, and finally, after various opinions and objections had been placed on the table, those taking the lead (James and Peter)speak and make something like an executive decision with respect to the question of circumcision. From a purely human point of view, it does not appear to be much different from what one might encounter in a Fortune 500 board room. And yet, when the decision or decrees of the council are drawn up for promulgation to the various congregations, it includes a rather extraordinary claim regarding the identity of one of the parties involved in the process. For it begins: “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”. This correspondence between the activity of the Governing Body and the spirit in promulgating definitive teaching is the prototype for all their activity going forward.

@Pudgy Feel free to call the five absolute true statements of the Bible as Gobbledygook. The stakes are far too high to treat this as a game, and treating as profane what is consecrated to God is the sin of sacrilege, which is grave matter, so I don't need to spell out the seriousness of that error. @Pudgy 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. That approach results in us becoming a law unto ourselves and Scripture is interpreted according to our conscience and reason. Everything is evaluated according to our final standard and "opinion" of what is and is not scriptural. We, not Scripture, is the real final authority according this approach. The Bible nowhere gives any hint of wanting every individual believer to decide for himself and by himself what is and is not the true meaning of Scripture. Following what I said in a previous post, Congregations/ Churches can maintain natural authority, just as the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies have natural authority over those who wish to be members of such societies. This sort of authority, however, can never bind the conscience in an unqualified way, but it can bind the conscience regarding what one must do if one wishes to participate in that congregation or civic society. The state is a natural society, but the Congregation is a supernatural society. Authority in the natural order is divinely established, as the New Testament teaches. For this reason, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience, or to violate the divine law. Voluntary civic societies also can have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. This is true of sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority, i.e. on the natural order. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. It remains at the level of nature. Hierarchy and authority are natural to human society, whether that society be the immediate society into which we are born (i.e. the family), the larger society into which we are born (e.g. USA), or voluntary societies which we form or enter (e.g. Rotary Club). Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a club, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their club. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for club membership. Rather, the club leaders having the [merely human] authority to exclude others from this club (as do leaders of the Elks club, the Rotary club, etc.), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for club membership. Thus the so-called 'authority' of the theological opinion is in actuality a cover for the governing authority of the club leaders, masking the actual locus of authority. That would be ok if the club leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are orthodox and which are not. But, if the club leaders don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority), then the club and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. It is just a club, and since its leaders have no divine authority, their theological opinion has no divine authority. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that club, but it is still only an opinion of men. @Srecko Sostar I have no interest in your legal and lawyer arguments, I deal with theology. Now, you know that I am Jehovah’s Witness, not a good at that, but still identify as one. Our relation to the act of consent of becoming a Witness, can take one of two forms. Either we inherit it by being born into it (like a child born into a religion), or we choose to participate in that act of consent (either by joining the institution or by forming an institution). But even the child eventually chooses either to participate in that act of consent (by remaining in the institution) or not (by leaving that institution). So ultimately, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then it has its ground in the consent of the individual. In other words, if ecclesial authority comes from man, then its authority over me is grounded in my consent. If I do not consent to the authenticity of that ecclesial authority, then it has no authority over me. That is precisely why your local Episcopalian priest, Presbyterian pastor, Baptist pastor, Catholic priest, charismatic pastor, etc. have no authority over you or me. You have not consented to their authority, and thus not given them authority over you. One does not sign a legal contract when one joins a church. That is why anyone in the Jehovah's Witness community or Catholic or Mormons or any of the 8,000 denominations can (and should) leave as soon as he realizes that it’s not in the true Congregation that Christ established, but in a counterfeit institution. Even if Catholics, Evangelicals etc.… or JWs or Mormons did sign legal contracts upon becoming members, they should violate those contracts as soon as they recognize that they are false religious institutions. No one is under an obligation to fulfill an oath that would require injustice to fulfill. We are not to give ourselves to false shepherds, or false religious institutions. We should give ourselves (in religion) only to the Congregation Christ established. That is why all false religious institutions have no actual authority, for men not only owe others (i.e. the true shepherds) the obedience that these false shepherds illicitly receive, but men are required by God not to give their obedience to false shepherds. On another note, when I hear people say that they just want people to be "faithful to the word of God," what they really mean is that they want them to be faithful to their own interpretation of Scripture. And that is why there is an implicit presumption of governing authority in the very claim they are making. As for statements about conscience, of course I agree that a person must never violate their conscience. But, a person with a poorly formed conscience can do much evil without violating his conscience. And therefore it is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide. A large portion of Christians, including believing Ex-JWs at some level resonate with Luther's statement at the Diet of worms, "My conscience is captive to the word of God, and it is neither safe nor wise to act in violation of one's conscience." Precisely. This is the fundamental principle of this framework, the principle of the individual as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

@Pudgy There comes a time I believe that should rare and exceptional😉, that on the basis of personal research and reflection, we find a discrepancy and become convinced that a teaching is inexact, erroneous or in need of revision. Then we find that in conscience we cannot accept it or act on that teaching . Because this has to do with our intellect , our mind is incapable to assent to this teaching while retaining doubts whether it is true or not. Another scenario I can think of is of a Jehovah’s Witness choice (whether for or against remaining a Witness) which is a free and self-determining choice, not a coerced choice or a choice without the ability to do otherwise. In Jehovah's Witnesses understanding, the congregation has the right to coerce its members by applying disciplinary measures for breaking the congregations laws. This is why disfellowshipping is possible. This the very of nature of law, which binds the conscience. While it doesn't bind the will, it does bind the conscience in this sense. Once a Witness knows the law, then they know it is wrong for them to act against it. Likewise, once a Witness knows the Congregation's authority, and her doctrines and laws, then his conscience is bound. If one’s conscience is in error, then a third option (besides following our erroneous conscience and violating our erroneous conscience) is to seek to inform one’s conscience. This is the third option typically overlooked in claims that the Congregation’s rules sometimes forces persons to violate their conscience. So we all have a duty to seek to inform our conscience. So here's the context of that scenario : 1. The Cong. teaches we have the duty to inform our conscience. 2. The Congregation may not/cannot force us to act against our conscience. 3. The Cong. teaches that we must follow our conscience. – w06 3/15 pp. 21-25. 4. The Cong. has the authority to interpret the scriptures and explain doctrines and make laws. 5. The Cong. has the right and authority to enforce/impose her discipline and laws, so in that sense coercing the offending Witnesses with penal sanctions. A Witness under these sanctions must still follow his conscience, though he should by all means seek to inform his conscience, to determine whether or not he is in error. If he truly believes that the Congregation has no divine authority, then his conscience is not bound by the Congregation's laws and sanctions. But insofar as he knows that the Congregation has divine authority, then his own conscience tells him to submit to the Congregation, and the sanctions in that case only provide an incentive to follow his own conscience. So based on this we have to qualify the terms ‘coerce’ and make some distinctions. So, first, in an unqualified sense, no one has the right to coerce someone else to embrace the Jehovah’s Witness faith against their conscience. That is true even though our conscience may be in error. But, there is a qualified sense in which, someone may be both coerced and bound in conscience and this is why disfellowshipping is possible. Let me know if this helped

Once more, a false dilemma. Notice the Apostles in the book of Acts. To the question: Who was leading the early Congregation in the years following Pentecost, the holy spirit or the Apostles? The answer is, both. He makes the Apostles the foundation stones of the Congregation Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14. We are to submit to the leaders of the Congregation : “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.” (Heb 13:17) One question we may have to ask ourselves is if, Christ ever guaranteed to protect his Congregation from error in all practical problems of life. Consider the way in which we view authority in other spheres of our lives. One analogy that might helps us it’s that of a doctor. There is a remote possibility that he will misdiagnose or make a medical error, but that remote possibility is not an impediment to(acknowledging) his authority and trustworthiness. The difference with the teaching authority in the Christian Congregation is that is of divine origin and as such it has the assistance of the holy spirit. I understand that if the Congregation at some point is faced with the necessity of revising it’s current position on an issue that has affected some it would be difficult for many to accept. “How could it be possible that all the agony and misery, all the sacrifice, was needless and in vain? How could God allow such a thing in his Congregation, which he has promised to guide with his Spirit? It would undeniably be a hard and bitter experience if the Governing Body eventually revised its position on some difficult doctrine. But there is a serious reason to question whether at any time or in any place God promised that those who trust in the Governing Body would be spared such a bitter experience. In establishing the Governing Body, Jehovah and Christ entrusted to it the task of proclaiming the Good News not infallibly, but just authentically. Is it therefore not legitimate to conclude that at least implicitly Christ gave us to understand that even those who listen to the Governing Body cannot recognize the will of Jehovah in all things without error? If this argument is convincing after being layed out it would mean that Jehovah's Witnesses should not be surprised if now and then they fall into error because they have trusted in the Governing Body for direction; whoever understands what kind of competence Christ intended for the Governing Body must be resigned to such occurences. Unless you want to talk about the concept of "Infallibility" and argue philosophically why the Governing Body requires to be infallible so that we can submit to them, then this is the conclusion we end up in. What is needed is a deeper realization of the fact that the faith of JWs in the guidance of the Congregation by the holy spirit justifies their confidence in the general reliability of the teachings of the Governing Body, even when this guidance does not actually guarantee the infallibility of such teachings, so as to exclude the possibility that on some particular points it might eventually be seen to need correction. There are a great many instances in the course of human life when it is obviously reasonable, and indeed necessary, to base important decisions on judgements made by 'authorities' whom one has reason to respect as reliable, even though ones knows they are not infallible. It is all the more important that Witnesses should understand the reasons which they have to respect the Congregation’s teaching as generally reliable, as enjoying the presumption of truth, as deserving their attitude of docility, and their sincere effort to give it their intellectual assent. The divine authority of Christ , and his union with his Congregation as the Head of the Body and the guidance of the Congregation by the holy spirit is a hint that he who listens to the Congregation listens to Christ and that what the Congregation as a whole does, Christ is doing. The congregation is not an ordinary body, because Christ, who both established it and governs it, is not a mere human. So, in what sense are those taking the lead “spirit-led,” uniquely and solely, as opposed to any other Christian or Christian organization? How are Jehovah’s Witnesses differently “spirit-led” than others? They are spirit-led in the same sense that the scriptures show the spirit was with the 1st century church and is alive and active now in “all” those who are called christian helping them, imparting knowledge convicting them of sin and many other things – Acts 16:7, 1 Corinthians 2:12, Romans 8:9,13 , 1 Corinthians 3:16, Ephesians 5;18 , Jude 19– see this article – Questions from readers April 15, 1952 , Watchtower So what is the difference between the Governing Body as opposed to the people who also have the Spirit of God? The “difference is that Jesus appointed and gave authority to the GB(Apostles & elders) and JWs also claim that Jesus gave the Congregation the same power & prerogative that it had in the first century… now you may not believe it but what we are saying though is that the GB has the power to do and to make those same decisions as the 1st century Congregation did. We claim that is not a man made institution, God set it up in the person of Jesus – Ephesians 2:20 If you believe Jehovah has appointed a teaching authority in the Congregation assisted by the holy spirit to give authoritative guidance for the formation of her conscience (moral judgment). Then part of the role and duty of the Governing Body is to interpret the faith as a decisive force in real life and to apply it to new human situations as they arise. It is incumbent on the GB to give directives to the congregation in matters of belief and practice, and the concrete situation can call for the issuing of such directives even when it is not yet possible to arrive at a definitive decision. The GB cannot allow themselves to be caught in the dilemma of either defining the issue or saying nothing at all. When there is confusion or doubt concerning, matters pertaining to the Christian belief or practice, it is up to the bearers of the pastoral authority (GB) to provide the authoritative guidance that is needed at the time. Obviously, they can only provide the answer which they are convinced is true, and they are obliged to make every effort to be sure that what they will say is true. But it will not always be possible to provide an answer that could not possibly be seen eventually to need correction. To maintain the true and ultimate substance of faith she must, even at the risk of error in points of detail, give expression to doctrinal directives which have a certain degree of binding force, and yet, since they are not definitive definitions, involve a certain element of provisional even to the point of being capable of including error. Otherwise it would be quite impossible for her to preach or interpret her faith. In such a case the position of the individual Christian in regard to the Congregation is analogous to that of a man who knows that he is bound to accept the decision of a specialist even while recognizing that it is not infallible. There are a great many problems facing human society today about which it is hardly possible to make absolutely certain, irreformable, judgments, and yet about which Jehovah’s witnesses, and indeed many other thinking people, look to the GB and the overseers as reliable spokesmen of the Christian point of view. Indeed, these spokesmen come in for severe criticism and are accused of grave dereliction of their duty when they fail to speak out on pressing moral issues. The GB and overseers are called upon to exercise a prophetic role in the world today, as spokesmen of a well-informed Christian conscience. If even non-believers listen with respect to their voice, there is all the more reason for Jehovah’s Witnesses to do so, even without the mistaken belief that every pronouncement they make must be infallible. We have a choice, we can either trust Christ by trusting the Governing body He has authorized to explicate and define the faith (just as the early Christians trusted in Christ by trusting Christ’s Apostles), or we can rely on our own private judgment to determine what is the content of our faith. It is the same choice, down through the ages.

@Srecko Sostar We are spinning wheels here and arguing in circles. So let me give you the bottom line, so we can move the discussion forward. Perhaps no one has told you this, so let me level with you in the big picture grand scheme of things and perhaps it would help you stop thinking and writing so much about Jehovah’s Witnesses and go back to square one. Going back to what I told you previously at the beginning of your post. According to the JW framework and a great majority of Christians, specially those EX-JWs who still consider or identify as Christians, an individual person works out a set of doctrines from Scripture, and then finds those persons who are teaching it and joins their community and submits to them. An apparent problem with this framework (or rather, one apparent problem with this framework) is what this means if it is true (which is what the majority of the thousands of denominations of Christianity believe). It falls prey to the authority problem, namely, that authority chosen on the basis of agreement with oneself is no authority at all. To submit to others only when one agrees with them, is to submit to oneself. But submission to oneself is an oxymoron, because it is indistinguishable from not submitting at all, from doing whatever one wants. It is an expression of the maxim: “When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me. A Congregation that is not infallible, cannot bind anyone’s conscience, because the individual knows that everything the Congregation says could be false, and no one can be bound in conscience to believe what he knows could be false. So long as those taking the lead are fallible, they cannot bind the conscience, and so long as they cannot bind the conscience, people may reject what they say, and may do so without culpability. They are only ‘binding’ if you want to stay in that Congregation, i.e. if that Congregation’s interpretation fits your own. And that’s not binding at all. I cannot be bound by a Congregation’s decision if the basis for my ‘submission’ to that denomination is its conformity to my interpretation of Scripture. What I give, I can take away. So if my consent is that by which I give to those taking the lead authority over me, then removal of my consent is that by which I can remove their authority over me. This is precisely why Jehovah's Witnesses can (without rightly being charged with rebelling against ecclesial authority) leave our community when they cease to agree with its interpretations even if our authority forbids them to leave. So if ecclesial authority arises by consent, and if I come to disagree with the doctrine/interpretation shared by those who by their consent established the existing ecclesial authority in which I presently exist, then that existing ecclesial authority in fact has no actual ecclesial authority over me, for I no longer participate in that act of consent by which it can have authority over me. So you have to make a distinction between those parts of a publication that are direct quotations from Scripture, and those parts that are interpretation of Scripture. The parts that are direct quotations from Scripture have authority because God is their author. But strictly speaking, they are not statements of faith; they are just small 'photocopies' of parts of the Bible. The other parts of the publications (besides the direct restatements of Scripture) have no authority, because the only possible basis for their authority is that someone agrees with them, and 'agreement with oneself is an insufficient basis for authority over oneself. We can go in depth on this topic, but I do advise you to stop writing about Witnesses so much as if you have a personal vendetta against them and examine your own Philosophical and Theological Framework. At some point you have to ask yourself where are you getting your starting assumptions and have the courage to see if they are true and properly grounded. So this is not about putting labels on people and things or ideas, but rather it’s about seeing the nature of things as they are.

Every time we appeal to the Bible, we are appealing to an interpretation of the Bible. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the the Bible to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. The person who fails to recognize this is failing to know himself. Obeying Jehovah rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. We cannot justifiably rebel against the Lord’s anointed when he sins, except if he were to command us to believe or do something that contradicted prior authoritative teachings, in which case witnesses must not follow them. The standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any brother taking the lead who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is by that very act in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. In my experience many of the criticisms that you and others have mentioned do not take into account, nor make the distinctions between the different declarations that the Governing body makes and the answer those declarations require of Jehovah's Witnesses. So you must distinguish between the Governing Body’s teachings on faith and morals on the one hand, and on the other hand prudential judgments, disciplines, or practices. Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? Not all of the Governing Body's declarations have the same level of authority and not all of them are open to the same conditions. What do I mean by that? Well, some declarations deal with provisional aspects of policies, practices, worship, prudential judgements and discipline. This category always has space to be better formulated, clarified and defined. It would be an oversimplification to think that either we must submit to all the teaching statements of the governing body or that we are entitled to disagree from anything not formally taught. But it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that as Witnesses we are expected to give our private and public assent to the Governing body’s teachings. Sometimes we are giving prudential admonitions or judgments by the GB and congregation elders. Other times we receive concrete applications of biblical principles. We should give serious consideration and attention to these, but we can legitimately differ or disagree. Some of our teachings have different status of obligatory force, not all of them are in the same category or levels of authority. For example, when the Governing Body departs from or changes some prudential measure observed previously, they are not necessarily saying that they were wrong before. They can be saying that this is what they believe Jehovah is calling them to do in this present time for some particular reason. Even if it were to turn out that they are wrong that Jehovah is calling them to these actions or that it is prudential for them to take these actions at this time. It does not mean that the way things were handled before are wrong or incompatible with the way things are handled now. Such measures can be for a particular person, or a particular season, because of what it is needed for a particular time or circumstance.

I should point out that you misunderstood what I said as though I were suggesting that only the Governing Body is the Congregation. That is not what I was saying or implying. The divinely appointed shepherds of the Congregation are a very important organ in the body of Christ, but they are not the whole body. When the Bible speaks about the Congregation and its prerogatives to judge, you will find, for example, in Acts 5:1-6 when Annanias and Saphira were judged by Peter as hoarding money, with the result that they were struck dead on the spot. Acts 15, as I said in an earlier post, speaks of the Apostles and elders judging whether Christians could partake in various practices. 1 Cor 5:1-11 speaks of Paul judging the man caught in fornication and telling the elders to remove him from the Congregation. There are many more such instances. Peter and Paul are not acting independently, but as leaders of the Congregation of that day. And thus, whatever Congregation you think existed back then, it was the Congregation that was judging individuals. I agree that Jehovah was not bound to do it this way. Jehovah, being omnipotent, could have done it other ways. He could have set up His Congregation such that it had no visible hierarchy, and each man was guided entirely by the holy spirit through his own reading of Scripture. But, that would be entirely unfitting to human nature. We are social beings, and our nature is expressed in societies, as Aristotle explains in his Politics. In addition, Jehovah delights in allowing us to participate in His work, and by setting up a hierarchy, Jehovah and Jesus have given men the gift of participating in many unique ways in the extension of their work, with their authorization. The Body is an extension of the Head. The Apostles and those taking the lead have been given the great gift of participating in a very special way in the work of Christ, governing Christ’s Congregation, sharing in ministry, and guarding and providing the interpretation of the faith. Ecclesial egalitarianism with respect to interpretive authority is precisely the individualism that makes each man his own Governing Body. The decision of the Jerusalem council (of Acts 15) was definitely more authoritative than any Bob or Joe's interpretation of Scripture opposing that council's decision. (I'm hoping that we at least agree on that point.) If Christ's ecclesial setup was that each Christian has a direct, unmediated pipeline to God regarding the truth of the content of the gospel and the proper interpretation of Scripture and the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, such that there was no need for Apostles and elders but something like Montanism were true, then Christ wouldn't have chosen, trained, authorized and commissioned Apostles. Instead, on the day of Pentecost each person would have been zapped by the holy spirit directly, and there never would have been a Jerusalem Council, because the spirit would have already guided all Christians to the same position, so the resolution of the dispute at the Council would have been unnecessary. In fact, you and I wouldn't be in disagreement right now, because the spirit would have already guided us into the very same unity of the faith. Presumably, your response will be that either I'm not listening to the spirit, or that I'm not being reasonable, one of the two. Well, if you think I'm not being reasonable, feel free to show where and how. But if you think I'm not listening to the spirit (but you are listening to the spirit), then we need to talk about how we know who is really following the spirit, and who is co opting the spirit to support their own opinion.

@Srecko Sostar Here’s my understanding of some passages that are used by former and current Witnesses alike. Perhaps it can help you understand your nagging questions in a broader context and light. I don’t think any Witnesses here would agree with my understanding. But as I have already stated before, I have a stronger view of Ecclesiology than the members here in the forum, so take it for what is worth. There is nothing wrong with the scriptures people present and every Jehovah’s witness will concur. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11, Revelation 2:2) I agree what 1 Th 5:21 says, but the Bible also teaches, as DOCTRINE that we are to submit to the Congregation.(Hebrews 13:17, Acts 1,5 & 15) That is a teaching of the Bible, just as much as the ones that tell us to make sure of all things. Regarding Galatians 1:8-9, Paul is not teaching that individual christians should subjugate the teaching authority in the congregation to their own interpretation of Scripture. Paul is saying that the Galatians must not abandon the gospel which he and all the other Apostles had preached to them. The foundation laid is absolutely true and therefore must never be torn up and re-founded on something different. That initial apostolic preaching is an infallible and irrevocable foundation. But the gospel that Paul and the others had preached was not defined as the individual Galatian believer’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. It was something much bigger than that. It was the faith that had been preached throughout the world by the Apostles. There was a communal, historical and personal dimension to the received faith and its identity. To see whether someone was teaching a novel teaching, one would compare the message in question to the teaching universally received from the Apostles throughout the whole Congregation. The standard by which to measure the message in question was not “my interpretation of Scripture.” Otherwise, anyone following his own novel interpretation of Scripture could claim to be following the original gospel. Instead, Paul is exhorting the Galatian believers to test the spirits against what had been originally given to them and to the whole world by the Apostles, namely the Apostolic faith. He is not advocating the authoritative supremacy of private interpretation of Scripture but rather the irreversibility and irrevocability of the Apostolic message received. If an elder came along who taught contrary to the Apostolic faith that had been taught and believed throughout the Christian Congregation, we must not follow him because he is a going against it. But the standard is not our own private interpretation of Scripture, rather, the public and communally-shared faith received by the whole Congregation from the Apostles is the standard. It is public and communal, not a standard of private interpretation. So the Governing Body was not requiring anyone to give more obedience to those taking the lead after the Apostles than did Paul, because Paul was not teaching that each individual had supreme individual interpretive authority. The duty to submit to present interpretive authority is not incompatible with a duty to hold to what has previously been given. The two duties go together, and neither nullifies the other. The duty to hold on to what has been handed down does not give us a green light to pick as our ecclesial ‘authorities’ those who teach according to our own interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the duty to hold on to the Apostolic faith and not to forsake it does not justify doing what Paul condemns in 2 Timothy 4:3,4, choosing one’s ecclesial ‘authority’ on the basis of their agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. Now in regards to 1 John 4:1 – No one is expecting you to be a blind follower @Srecko Sostar, but God does expect you to distinguish between when you have such prerogatives (test the inspired expressions) and when you don’t. For example if you were back in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, and you saw the elders and the apostles make the proclamation of doctrine that they did for the whole Christian Congregation in Acts 15:10-12, would you have the prerogative to stand and say “Hey Guys, I don’t believe what you are saying is right. God has led me by the Holy Spirit that it is wrong. And if you don’t change it, I’m leaving and starting my own church?” If you did, the next thing you would have experienced is disfellowshipping. That is the way the Congregation works, and that is how we keep “ one Lord, one faith, one baptism. On the other hand if, according to 1 John 4:1 some false prophet comes to you and says “Jehovah isn’t God”, naturally, you have the right to turn away and reject him. In other words, you can call him a “false prophet”, but you would not be able to call the elders and the apostles false prophets. And if you can’t call elders and the apostles a false prophet, then you couldn’t call the Governing Body appointed by Jehovah in Acts 15 false prophets. Those are important distinctions you need to keep in mind. Acts 17:1 – If you get a chance to examine this passage about the Bereans who search the scriptures after Paul told them that Jesus was the Christ. This is highly misinterpreted by people who are trying to support biblicism, because they think that because the Bereans are checking scripture they only believe scripture and that somehow Paul is beneath the scriptures and the Bereans are using scripture over Paul and as the authority over Paul. But that is not the case at all, as a matter of fact what is occurring here as you read the whole chapter. Paul comes to them and says that this Jesus that I tell you about is the Christ of the old testament. Now that would give them pause because the Old Testament never named the Messiah. It never called him Jesus. Now here, Paul is coming with new revelation to them, apostolic authority no less. And he is saying that the Jesus that I preach is the Christ. So they go back and read those passages about the Messiah “the Christ” and they say: “yeah, he was going to suffer and die, he wasn’t going to be a king, yes we can agree with Paul that this Jesus who suffered and died in the torturing stake is the Christ of the old testament”. You see what the Bereans are doing? They are not saying that scripture is the authority over Paul. Paul just gave them a revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. Where did he get that revelation? It wasn’t from the Hebrew Scriptures, it was directly from Jesus. Jesus talked to Paul on the road to Damascus and told him I am Jesus whom your persecuting, that’s where he got that revelation from. So no, the Bereans are not practicing biblicism, here, as a matter of fact they are getting an education on how to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures. That is what the education is all about here. The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s apostolic authority on the identity of the Messiah, not because they could extract for themselves from the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Thus, their “examination” of Scripture was limited to reevaluating those passages which spoke of the Messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Messiah. Before Paul’s teaching, the Bereans, like most Jews, thought that the Messiah would be recognized by a majestic appearance and a subsequent conquering of the Gentiles. It was not until Paul pointed out that the Old Testament passages which spoke of God’s servant as one who had to suffer must be interpreted to apply to the Messiah and, more importantly that his name was Jesus. The typical Jew, although he knew his Scripture, invariably skipped over the numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggested his Messiah had to first come as one to suffer and die. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16: But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. After Paul was done teaching, the now enlightened Jew could read a passage like Isaiah 53 and see it in a whole different light (cf. Luke 24:26;Acts 8:26-35). It was in connecting Paul’s divine revelation of the person of Jesus with the suffering passages of the Hebrew Scriptures, that the Berean “examined Scripture to see if what Paul said was true.” The Berean did not first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then examine Scripture to see if Paul’s identifying of Jesus as the Messiah was true. No, he examined the Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” about whom Paul spoke was indeed the Messiah. His faith was based on accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, while Scripture served mainly as a witness to what Paul preached. Scripture could not serve as the sole determinant of what Paul taught for the simple reason that Scripture never identified “the Christ” specifically as “Jesus.” He was designated with names like “the prophet” (Deut. 18:15) In addition, the practice of Jewish non-Christians being evangelized by a Christian should not be taken as normative for Christians already incorporated into the Congregation. Non Christians would not yet have recognized Paul’s authority as an Apostle, since they did not yet recognize Jesus as the Son of God. But those persons already incorporated into the Cong. recognize the authority of the Apostles and those appointed by them. That’s not to say that Christians should not search the Scriptures, but Christians search the Scriptures not in order to come to faith, but to grow in the faith, not to determine whether their doctrines are true, but to seek to understand how they are contained and presented in Scripture. This passage in Acts 17 is about the truth-seeking open-mindedness of the non-Christian Jews of Berea to the preaching of the Good News. Paul was explaining to them that Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophesies and covenant of the Hebrew Scriptures , and as Jews, they were examining the Scripture to see whether what he was saying about the Hebrew Scriptures was true. They didn’t yet recognize the authority of Paul as an Apostle. The truth-seeking open-mindedness of the Bereans is a model for us all. But their way of verifying what Paul said is not a model for how baptized Christians should relate to the Apostles or to overseers or Governing Body (of Acts 15). That’s because becoming a Christian means to come into the Congregation and thus come under the authority of the elders and overseers (Governing Body) Of course coming under their authority doesn’t mean that one can’t look up verses if they say, for example, “The prophet Jeremiah tells us in Jeremiah 31 that in the New Covenant, God will write His law on our hearts.” But it does mean that the Cong. determination of what the Bible says (i.e. what is orthodoxy and what is heresy) is authoritative for us, rather than our interpretation of Scripture being the standard by which the Cong. is judged to be orthodox or heterodox. In Regards to Revelation 2:2 and putting to the test those who say are apostles. The present letter is written to the overseer of Ephesus. He is praised for his hard work and his rejection of evil men. He has a knack for spotting “false apostles” and exposing them. If the overseer at this time was Timothy, then we can see echoes of the Revelation letter in Paul's epistle to Timothy, referring to some of the members of the Ephesian Congregation in 1 Tim 6:4-12. All this to say that the ultimate judge as to who is following the Bible is not you or me, but the Congregation that God has put in authority to judge such things. The Bible is just as adamant against vigilante Christianity as it is about false prophets.

Sure, but the Bible also teaches, as DOCTRINE, that we are to submit to the Congregation. That is a teaching of the Bible, just as much as the ones that tell us to watch out for false prophets. Think about it. The problem here is that you assume that the way to "test everything" is by determining whether it matches your own interpretation of Scripture. In short, you get out of these verses the very assumptions you bring to them, and these assumptions you are bringing to Scripture are foreign to the faith of the early Christians, for whom the final decision in the resolution of interpretive disputes belonged to the Congregation, not the individual.

@Pudgy I don’t answer rhetorical questions. There is another, better way, to engage in dialogue, and we will not be able to overcome our disagreements until we choose to enter the more noble truth-seeking, unity-seeking way of dialogue. I rarely participate in the open forum, precisely because I’m trying to cultivate charitable, rational dialogue, and that requires screening out those who are just looking for a soapbox, those who do not refrain from personal attacks, or those who have no interest in genuinely engaging the evidence or argumentation of others, or engaging the topic to which the comment box is attached. Yes , the Ex-JW is our neighbor. Everyone, including our enemies are our neighbor regardless of race, nationality or religion. Questions do not establish anything, nor are they a substitute for an argument. All I said was that If someone wants to argue for a position, then they need to use statements, not questions. If their questions are merely rhetorical, and not sincere questions, then there is no reason for us to answer them, or for them to post them. The general rule of thumb within the context of genuine dialogue aimed at the pursuit of truth is that we should only ask sincere questions. A sincere question is one whose answer we do not yet know and by which, in the very act of asking the question, we are requesting enlightenment from our interlocutor concerning the answer to our question. So, if someone has a sincere question, I’m sure people here will be glad to answer them. But if the questions are merely rhetorical, then please refrain from making use of such questions.

Are these sincere questions, or merely rhetorical questions intended to scandalize (i.e. cause to stumble) those seeking to find Christ’s Congregation? If you have sincere questions I’ll be glad to answer them. But if your questions are merely rhetorical, then please refrain from making use of such questions. Questions do not establish anything, nor are they a substitute for an argument. That is sophistry and it suggests insincerity and an unwillingness to make a positive case.

@Srecko Sostar We all share a common humanity, and it is important to recognize that we do. And diversity of the sort that does not compromise the truth is truly beautiful. But Christianity is about much more than our shared humanity. You can’t reduce religion to humanism or simply morality, that would be Kantianism. This is dangerous and repugnant to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Helping your neighbor and those in need is an essential aspect of a Christian’s life, but that is not all the life or the mission of the Congregation. Insofar as this type of unity is intrinsically inclined to humanism, it is intrinsically inclined to fall short of the truth of Christianity, which is a divine revelation of Jehovah through Jesus Christ who is the Truth. Love requires truth because love becomes authentic only as informed by the truth. Without truth, loves degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.

@Srecko Sostar Your cynicism It’s not a consequence of Ecclesiastes 8:9. JW’s teach that “the existing authorities” can be said to “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Relative to Jehovah’s supreme sovereign authority, theirs is by far a lesser authority. However, they are “God’s minister,” “God’s public servants,” in that they provide necessary services, maintain law and order, and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1,4, 6) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/watchtower/the-watchtower-1996/may-1 People outside of the JW community are capable of imitating God righteousness and mercy: “The apostle Paul comments on the conscience, or at least a vestige of such, that still persists in fallen man, even though in many cases he has strayed from God and does not have his law. This explains why all nations have established many laws that are in harmony with righteousness and justice, and many individuals follow certain good principles. Paul says: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.”—Rom. 2:14, 15. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ad/3090 Here’s what you are missing about human nature : Unity with non-Christians is not something to be desired (other than to convert them), but we need to distinguish between different types of unity.Obviously we cannot be spiritually united with those who do not share our faith. And this is why we ought not marry unbelievers. But, we can and should strive for civil peace with unbelievers. Paul teaches us "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Rom 12:8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews similarly writes, "Pursue peace with all men" (Heb. 12:14). And civil peace is a kind of unity. We can and should pursue the common good in society, together with unbelievers. They too have a conscience, and the desire for the common good in civil society. They too want peace in our society, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods, order and beauty in society, just judges, etc. In other words, in the realm of the civil society, we have a great deal of common ground with unbelievers, as we pursue with them a civic unity, the unity of a civil society in its pursuit of the temporal welfare of that society. And again, that's because faith builds on and perfects nature, faith does not destroy nature. So the same civic goods we rightly desired as unbelievers, we still desire as Christians, along with those who are still unbelievers. You seem to think that what is heavenly or supernatural, must be the opposite of what is human and of nature. Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not "lord it over" them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

@Srecko Sostar Before I resume these lengthy and increasingly intricate discussions you keep posting about everyday under different topics, I need to understand your motivation. Is your primary motive simply to understand these subtle aspects of JW theology, so that you can then go on to decide for yourself whether JWs are at least reasonable enough to accept? Or is your primary motive to keep probing for a difficulty that as Witness we are not able to resolve, in the hope that your viewpoint will thus be vindicated? A sincere answer is important to me. If your primary motive is the former, then we are companions on a path of inquiry, and we are conducting dialogue in that spirit. I would see that as potentially quite fruitful. But if your primary motive is the latter, however I do not believe the outcome would be fruitful and would not wish to engage further. @Pudgy I agree that no Governing body member is immune to the temptation of the corruption of power, but the Congregation is the Body of Christ, not a mere human institution. It would therefore be improper and unfitting to treat the Congregation and her leadership as if she were a merely human institution or equivalent to such, and not also divine in the life and power and wisdom in which she lives and moves and has her being. This is why Christ’s words to Saul were, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” @Pudgy I also agree that if we have evidence from a person’s prior words or actions that he is more interested in power than in justice and benevolence, then when he exercises authority in such a way as to expand his power, we could be justified in assuming that he is doing so primarily to gain power. But, if we have no such evidence, or if we have evidence to the contrary, then such an assumption is contrary to love. And there is no evidence that the Governing body is more interested in power and control than in faithfully shepherding the flock entrusted to them by Christ. The evidence from their life and leadership indicates just the opposite, namely, that they are righteous and pious men, deeply devoted to serving Christ and His Congregation. @Srecko Sostar No historical study has ever shown that all persons in authority, when exercising that authority, are more interested in exercising power than in upholding justice or truth.Your stance, it seems to me, is one of cynicism, which, if applied consistently, would undermine your own position. Your cynical stance used as an argument against Jehovah’s Witnesses is question-begging, because it presupposes that there is no individual or group of persons who are in fact exercising authority for the good of those over whom they have charge. But that is precisely what is in dispute between ExJw’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely, whether or not there is a divinely established Governing Body that faithfully shepherds Christ’s flock for the good of His sheep. So assuming that there is no such group of persons assumes precisely what is in question between us, and in that respect begs the question. In order to compare the frameworks, you need to attempt to approach the question without begging the question. Such a stance would likewise entail that every judge, when rendering a verdict, is only doing so in order to maintain and exercise his own power, not in order to uphold justice. It would imply that every police officer, when arresting a criminal, is doing so only to exercise power, not to uphold and maintain justice. Such cynicism is common today, but it is unjustified, and is destructive to society as a whole. It is a reflection of the “Question Authority” motiff of the 1960s. If the Devil had a bumpersticker, that would be it. It would also have made you a cynic toward Jesus in the first century, and toward the Apostles. If Christ promised that the Congregation would be the pillar and ground of truth, then we exercise faith in Jehovah and Christ through trusting and obeying those whom He has established to speak and govern in His Name, until His return.