Evacuated

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In my opinion, the scope creep that is much more dangerous to true Christians is that it legitimizes a similar view that tells us we should elevate to a kind of rulership or at least "governorship" of small group of sinful humans in our day. It tends to make us want to put our trust in nobles, in whom no salvation belongs. It tends to make us forget that we should let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.

This is certainly true. This kind of attitude led the Israelites into demanding a king which Jehovah saw as a rejection of himself, despite the fact that he went along with the arrangement and gave them a succession of human "leader"s (for example: 1Sam.9:16; 13:14; 2Sam.1:35; 1Ki.14:7; 20:5; to name a few). There are leaders mentioned in a number of approved contexts other than kingship.

So the real problem is not that there would be leaders, this is a natural human characteristic and appears to be part of Jehovah's design of humans. The problem is how leaders view themselves, how they project themselves, what the privilege of leadership does to them;  and how those whom they lead view them. And the added ingredient of imperfection into the mix complicates matters.

But of course this how humans are isn't it? Jehovah knows all the implications of this. So does Jesus, and he went to great pains to demonstrate how leadership should be excercised. (John 13:14-13). His comments on being the only Leader were in the context of vainglorious Leadership. He wasn't doing away with leadership (Heb.13:7) was he?  

So as long as we all keep this in mind. I remember once acting as chairman for a GB member who gave us a talk. He called me aside and said quietly "please don't introduce me with a fanfare as a member of the GB. Just say I am a visiting speaker"

Due you think that was mock humility?

As I see it, true leadership is a role designated by Jehovah on a needs basis. Even the glorified Jesus recognises this 1Cor.15:58.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

deficient in self-esteem

Mission control....We have a problem......

Seriously even though it's all a bit Ripley now I am still fascinated by it.

Actually, are you embarrassed by all this connection with unadulterated quackery?

On 7/25/2018 at 8:38 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

a DECREASE in active Jehovahs' Witnesses by over 700,000 publishers last year,

You did say this in another post about the 700,000:

"So, have we actually had that much decrease, and does anybody have any "official" numbers to verify what I heard today from the platform?

Did you get that figure verified? 2016 peak plus 2017 baptised comes up about 168,000 short (not unusually) but this in an overestimate particularly when based on peak figures as some of last years will be included in the baptism figure. We don't have average pub. figures for 2017, (or I can't find them).

Anyway, it sounds a bit similar to that recent report on the forum of a brother announcing at the assembly that the GB think the preaching work has now been completed. I beleive he got "beamed up" somewhere after that!

Whilst acknowledging the obvious emotional content of your rant, I am still trying to understand your reason for it.

The idea that kingdom fruitage which ALL must produce relates to the actual word of the kingdom does not appear to be out of harmony with the illustration Jesus used? (Matt 13:19 etc). And to relate that fruitage to the effect of the kingdom message on an appreciative heart as being the point of the parable doesn't appear to be a cause for consternation. After all, Jesus himself said that speech would be a product of the heart's abundance didn't he? (comp.Matt.12:34).

Remembering that Jesus is actually the sower of the good news is important too, because his genuine followers, whilst not able to do all that he did, can do that which was his core activity (Luke 4:43). The requirement that all produce fruitage is significant, because not all individually make disciples, although all can have a collective share. So it seems entirely reasonable that the evidence of good soil is the production of more seed, the fruitage expected of one preached to is that...they preach (Rom.10:8-10).

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Russell and his movement represented the larger fulfillment of the messenger

Oh that. Wow, I thought it was some sort of cultish thing going on over in the US somewhere.

Right, so are you talking about the notion that the work done by active Bible Students prior to 1914 was like a preparatory work similar to that carried out the 1st century by John the Baptizer prior to Jesus appearance as the Messiah?

So of course they wouldn't be considered any more a "messenger [Gk. "angel"]" in a spirit creature sense than John was, although a group rather than an individual. I mean, anybody Jehovah sends with a message is an "angel" right? (Hag.1:13, Mal.2:7), although in English the word seems to be reserved for spirit creatures(apart from some references in Revelation).

So do you have a concern that this idea might have be subject to a sort of "scope-creep" in reverse and got funneled down into CTR as the messenger in some minds, a bit like the GB getting condensed out of all the anointed as the FDS?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But we are not supposed to concern ourselves with Russell as a person, or defend him as if he were some kind of canonized saint. We should be concerned with the truth and "wholesomeness" of the teachings that we have basically inherited from the body of teachings he collected.

Absolutely. My goodness, what goes in in your neck of the woods?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

but who's to say?

I meant it is a case of: "Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand." (Rom.14:4). And Jehovah actually does have  to make him stand now doesn't he, in view of the passage of time. (Not minimising Jesus's role in judgement of course).

For those who are still are followers of Charles Taze Russell though, there might be a need to elaborate on his foibles and eccentricities, but really, who would believe that gobbledegook element now anyway? Pyramidology and those Divine Plan of the Ages Charts? The Laodicean messenger? It's all a bit Ripley isn't it? Actually, I have met one Pyramidologist and one British Israelist who called himself a Rutherfordite (probably not enamoured by CTR actually), in the ministry, so they are out there, (I know some have a web presence, even contributing to this forum),  but that's it in all the years.

These antiquated ideas have a fascination of course, and I love learning about them. But they are a bit like phrenology surely? Although even this may still have a following? Actually, the theory of evolution seems to have some sort of connection with phrenology now I come to think of it......(Muse, muse....another post somewhere else I think).  

: 

 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, I think it's easy to read what I said as a kind of "attack" on the "Governing Body" or even "the faithful and discreet slave."

Yes it is. And this is (should be) of particular concern if such a "perceived attack" is absorbed by someone who lacks the necessary resources to evaluate the information. The labelling of such as "Contraversial" whilst presenting in the public domain is hardly an adequate safeguard. Remember, what is committed to internet stays on internet.

There is no doubt in my mind  that Jehovah's Witnesses are who they say they are, and that the current arrangement for directing the organisation is perfectly acceptable to Jehovah and Jesus (the Head of the congregation). I don't personally have the advantage of being raised in a 3rd generation witness family with an anointed and Bethel pedigree. I literally came off the street to become a witness, and am now the oldest in a large family that has a minority serving Jehovah. However, all I have in the truth, I have fought for vigorously because I recognised the life-saving nature of the information when I read my first Watchtower (which. incidentally. was a single sheet from a magazine being used as rest room "tissue" in a squatted property I happened to be staying in!). So I am not about to bite the hand that feeds me now!

Having a forum like this is a great source of background and additional information on a whole range of topics (to which you make a great contribution). It is also an opportunity to air views or sharpen argument on subjects that would definitely be considered far too "left of field" in a normal congregational setting, in fact would probably result in a rather undesirable labelling.

However, I still think that there is a need to avoid stabbing thoughtlessly at Jehovah's servants (Pr.12:18). And to ensure that all we say or propose is appropriately seasoned with salt (Col.4:6), that it has a tendency toward building up and not tearing down (2Cor.13:10). And we need to strongly promote the idea that sticking with Jehovah's organisation and it's Governing Body today is as vital as was sticking to the faithful Israelites, with Moses and Aaron etc in charge, in the wilderness years. After all, it was a slant on the same information and experience that made the difference as to who actually did survive at that time....wasn't it? (Nu.11:5; Nu.13:26).

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

I think we are all on the same page regarding the need to avoid creature worship, "pet" theology, going beyond what is written, and all the other pitfalls that those who have time and inclination to study more than the standard spiritual fare must be alert to. Paul's warning about the puffing and clashing effects of knowledge are more vaild today than ever due to the sheer availability and volume of information on Bible teachings we have access to.

This could just as likely read "I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the theories of @JWInsider; rationalisations of @GoneAway etc. (And I know who you really are!)".

Both the Bible and modern history is full of the glaring mistakes of those who nevertheless love Jehovah. And yet the Bible account speaks of one of the most error prone as still (looking back) having a "complete heart", (1Ki.11:4), and that assessment by one before whom no man could stand if errors were what he watched for, (Ps.130:3).

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

Russell, like Paul, sacrificed a lot for the good news. However he was clearly wrong if he appeared to be roping himself into that unique sacrifice that Jesus gave.

I agree with the other scriptures you have contributed. Exactly along the lines I was thinking too.

Russell had many things wrong but who is to say? We have the benefit of so much today compared to the pioneering work done in those early days on the basis of what they knew. The courage and determination shines through regardless of any of the tarnishing error in the thinking displayed.

I wonder what the passage of 100 years or so will do to the understandings we hold so dear today? May we be there to share the laughter!

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"

I like the analogy here and I suppose it really begs the question: Faithful and discreet slave. Prophecy or Parable?

This WT quote might have a bearing on the answer: 

*** w13 7/15 p. 22 par. 10 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
Who, then, is the faithful and discreet slave? In keeping with Jesus’ pattern of feeding many through the hands of a few, that slave is made up of a small group of anointed brothers who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food during Christ’s presence. Throughout the last days, the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave have served together at headquarters. In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Note, however, that the word “slave” in Jesus’ illustration is singular, indicating that this is a composite slave. The decisions of the Governing Body are thus made collectively.
 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]?

I don't think you will find an explicit statement where Russell states "I am the faithful and discreet slave".

Jesus unanswered question in connection with this matter could well be followed with the often bracketed phrase found at Matth. 24:15; "(let the reader use discernment)".

Russell was faced with a Hobson's choice in his understanding of this matter. Given the fact that there was no faithful and discreet slave in existence at that time, and also that his framework of understanding regarding chronology was basically wrong, then his interpretation of the matter was the best alternative open to him apart from leaving it unanswered. His likening the role as no different from that enjoyed in the past by servants who took a lead in speaking out on Godly matters to others indicates to me that that no vainglorious status was attached to the role. Work and not position was at the center of his focus. Why would a man who was not convinced that he was speaking for Jehovah engage himself in such an increasingly unpopular and arduous task comprising:

• exposing and condemning the established religions of the day
• rexamining and constructing a complete understanding of Bible doctorine and prophecy
• putting lock, stock, and barrel into a preaching effort to deliver that information to the ends of the earth
• managing the response

I think he was arguing for the only reasonable option available to him at the time, given the fact that his perception of the time in which he found himself was completely wrong. His understanding of the matter was therefore wrong, but it served an end as there is no doubt that he took the lead in the time in which he lived in matters relating to the outworking of Jehovah's purpose regarding His Messianic kindom, and got matters done as a result.

I don't see the modern GB as having had a struggle with Matt 24:45 any more than I did. I think that the understanding has just been refined. The current explanation is very simple and logical. Certainly more palatable than the previous rather awkward view. I see Russell struggled because he was trying to see something that was not there. We have the benefit of hindsight in both looking at the erroneous conclusions of the past and the outworking of prophetic matters AFTER the event.

Jesus clever use of a question without an answer allows us to draw our own conclusion in the matter now. I for one am completely happy with the our current understanding that a supervisory arrangement for the global Bible educational work currently progressing under the auspices of the Governing Body constitutes the answer to the question Jesus raised at Matt 24:45.

On 7/22/2018 at 5:27 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

do you actually think Abraham, Jesus, and the 12 Apostles would ACTUALLY agree with things like Caleb and Sophia teaching children biblical morality, and the "Overlapping Generations" doctrine,

Can't think for Jesus and the 12 Apostles, but I am sure Jesus will put a stop to anything he's not cool with in due time.

As for Abraham, I wonder how much influence he had in teaching Jacob about sheep breeding? Gen30:37-42. I am sure he will be as interested in our "six honest serving men" as we will be in his.

46 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

I imagine they would say someone found gods true organization by flushing a toilet.

I did!

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the only mention of Day Dawn in the Proclaimers book, and therefore implies that it was only published after Paton left the Watch Tower.]

Seems Paton published a first edition in 1880 prior to his defection. This edition was endorsed by Russell and was obtainable direct from the publisher or brokered through the WTS.

A second, revised edition was proposed in Aug 1881.  The text of the revision was objectionable to Russell, particularly a new chapter entitled The Atonement which was seen as implying a denial of Christ's Ransom.Both Russell and the original publisher refused further involvement with Paton. Paton then decided to publish the revised book himself. Paton gives the reason for his revision in a later issue of his magazine:

"Since sending out the first edition, by a careful examination of the Word, my mind had undergone a change as to the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, and the Atonement. I did not deny the Ransom, as some have positively affirmed, but only denied the correctness of their, and my own former theory of the matter. I now saw that the idea of Substitution, or that Christ died instead of mankind, was unscriptural and untrue, as we all die. The unity of Christ, as the Second Man, with the whole race, I saw to be the Apostolic idea, so that all died and rose in him. So this fundamental and vitalunion with Christ, as the basis of a practical and experimental at-one-ment with, or reconciliation to God, took the place of substitution in DAY DAWN, when revised." The World’s Hope. February 15, 1890. (Volume 8, number 4).

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, I can't explain why he troubled himself to say that this also made it appropriate to apply to himself and others of the "high calling" additional titles such as "Eternal Father" and "The Prophet Greater than Moses."

These kind of remarks (Russell's) might seem rather vainglorious without consideration of the context of his statements.

For example, this one:

The Lord at the time indicated would especially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages.” (Watchtower, April 15. 1904, p. 125.)

might indicate on face-value that Russell was arguing in favour of himself being viewed as "the faithful and discreet slave" (Shock! Horror! Arrogance surely!).

But on examination it appears that Russell was wrestling with the same problem of doctrinal understanding experienced in far more recent times. That is, if the faithful and discreet slave is to be viewed as the body of the anointed, how then can how it be said to be providing that same body with food at the proper time? His prolific output of spiritual food at the time made it likely difficult to view other than an individual (himself) in that role. Yet he does not seem to indicate an arrogant self evaluation, if only by the fact that he suggests the slaves reward for faithfulness "should not be understood to apply to future glories and honor, but merelv to a more general charge or stewardship as respects the dispensing of the Lord’s “goods” or truths due to be protected or disbursed during the remainder of this “harvest” time. In other words, the steward through whom the Lord will dispense present truth in this “harvest,” will, if found vigilant, humble, faithful, be continued in the stewardship and be used of ttie Lord more and more in the service of the household - down to the close of the “harvest.” " (Ibid.)

The passage of time has provided us with a much better grip on this concept. We have dispensed with the idea of an individual slave, also the clumsy notion of a composite that feeds its individual members, and settled on the more wieldy notion that those taking the lead within the anointed have overall responsibility for the Bible educational program, with a 1st Century parrallel.

So to the applying of a range of what appear to be exclusively Christological descriptors to the anointed Christians, including Russell himself.

Russell appears to be grappling with the notion, (scripturally presented), that anointed Christians constitute the "body of Christ", in the context of Christ being termed the Head of that body, yet located in a different realm.. He also weaves in Paul's words regarding the transformation of humans "I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19) and other such expressions. He appears to attach more significance to illustrative vocabulary concerning the earthly position of anointed Christians than is scripturaly warranted. 

His, what for me can only be described now as, "rather religious ramblings" are a reflection of what Paul called "partial knowledge" 1Cor.13:9. We have an infinitely better understanding of all of these concepts today so it is remarkable that  those 19th Century Christians were able to do what they did in promoting an examination of the Scriptures independent of the religious mainstream of their day, and in pulling together and focussing the energy of those who responded. Unless, of course we allow for the favourable influence of the Creator and His Son in recognition of their determined sincerity and love of God.

On the basis of what we know now, it might well seem incredible that anyone could have proclaimed "This is the truth!"  if we look at many of these teachings in isolation. But we must not forget that the dispensing of basic doctorines such as those relating to "the Ransom", "hellfire", "immortal soul", "religious clericalism", along with eschatolgical expectation regardless of the speculative elements, including the concept, however unclear, that one could be destined to serve as a heavenly king-priest with Jesus, and things like these would have made a sufficient impact to move many in the face of Christendom's spritual torpor. And that even if other more "mysterious" notions went a little over their heads.

This insight into past belief I find to be extraordinarily encouraging, when one gives it some thought. However, this does not seem to be a generally held view because there are those who see such information as faith-damaging and prefer a revisionist approach.

1 hour ago, indagator said:

there are some things for you to think about here

Actually, I was hoping for something akin to what you mentioned earlier:

1 hour ago, indagator said:

biblical scholarship in the wide meaning of the term. By that I mean not just stale 19^th-century commentaries that predate critical scholarship but real, current biblical scholarship, not foolishly accepting whatever such ones say (impossible to do anyway since such scholars are in frequent disagreement) but finding what is useful and true, separating the wheat from the chaff—all from the perspective of a faithful believer but also a genuinely critical thinker.

But, as you state, you are under a time constraint.

Very interesting speculations on the book of Acts and the events recorded/not recorded nevertheless, and thanks for that, although there is nothing here that hasn't been said elsewhere by others is there?

Expanding the time frame for the activity of faithful ones castigating those not conforming to Jehovah's revealed requirements is certainly valid, but given the nature and degree of unfaithfulnesss dealt with by the prophets of old, and indeed the time span of their activity, I don't see a great deal to compare overall with 1st Century or more modern events (20/21stCent.) amongst Jehovah's people, although there certainly are some comparsons in terms of parallel of principle in the experience by individuals..

(Naturally, I am leaving out the record of that apostate imitation, the usurper, so-called Christendom, who's blatent record of behaviour puts unfaithful Israel into the very kindergarten of wickedness.)

Anyway, looking forward to something more substantial when you have time.

2 hours ago, indagator said:

I surely do not know what Jehovah has in mind for his people at this time

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:

Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."

Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"

Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"

2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

5 hours ago, indagator said:

Did that early GB never openly criticize each other before the flock as today's GB is so careful to avoid doing? The incident at Antioch shows otherwise (Gal. 2:11-14)

Isn't this an exceptional case? Apart from obvious censuring of apostatates within the Christian congregation at that time, am I overlooking another similar example in Scripture? 

On 5/31/2018 at 6:33 PM, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower printed its last article in support of the Trinity doctrine in 1880

Could you give a reference for this one please.

On 5/31/2018 at 6:09 PM, JW Insider said:

Obviously, we aren't going to find Russell using those words, "I am the Christ."

This isn't really as controversial as it seems. The term "Christ" or "Messiah" was used scripturally  in the past of a number of priests, kings, prophets, (both faithful and unfaithful Israelite) and even Cyrus, a pagan king. It only becomes sensational when viewed against the great significance of the term when applied to Jesus Christ and also in the light of eschatological warnings regarding false christs. So Russell's musings on applying the term to the Christian congregation of anointed followers so clearly termed as the "body of Christ" in Scripture are quite understandable, especially when viewed against Peter's words at 1Pet.2:9.

That these "musings" should be blown out of proportion in the manner outlined by @JWInsider is for me a combination of what, very likely, was the effect of such statements in the mind of impressionable contemporaries. One only has to look at the reaction today of similarly impressionable folk today when "religious pronouncements" are made by those deemed as having the authority to do so. This must be coupled, I might add, with with some highly creative writing in observation of those latter 19th-early 20th Century beliefs.

As for the erroneous perception of Christ's parousia and the fanciful the chronology of late 1800s, is this as far-fetched as it appears at first sight?

Indeed, Jesus himself stated that he would be with his followers until the conclusion of the system of things. (Matt.28:20). And I think it would be safe to say that this statement would be applicable to his true followers only, in the light of Matt 18:20 and Matt.7:22-23. So it seems to me entirely plausible that sincerely motivated followers of Christ could be made aware of a presence of Christ, who, after all,  is the active head of the true Christian congregation, ( comp. Rev. Chaps.2&3), regardless of any errors members of that congregation made in the timing of their eschatolgy, and their interpretation of whatever was taking place at the time. What men believe is of no consequence to Jehovah or Jesus in terms of ensuring that their will is carried out. Correction of thinking can be carried out later, as long as the priority actions are in progress. Compare Prov.21:1:"A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.".

Hence the feasabilty of the following observation in connection with Charles Taze Russell and associates, both contemporay and subsequent:

On 5/31/2018 at 5:48 PM, JW Insider said:

his success is sometimes looked at as proof that God blessed his efforts in spite of his doctrines, not because of them.

?

On 7/17/2018 at 8:05 PM, Queen Esther said:

She cries for joy

Must be He cries for joy? (If he isn't just protecting his eyes). Or is there someone not in the picture?

On 7/17/2018 at 7:59 PM, Queen Esther said:

the new understanding,

It may be for many that this is a new understanding.

However, the thought has been expressed with varying degrees of clarity over the years. I thought this quote from the 2003 WT  in a discussion of John 15:8 was pretty clear:

*** w03 2/1 pp. 20-21 pars. 9-11 “Keep Bearing Much Fruit” ***

9 To answer properly, we need first to understand what constitutes Kingdom fruitage. Would it be correct to conclude that bearing fruit means making disciples? (Matthew 28:19) Does the fruit that we would bear refer primarily to individuals whom we help to become baptized worshipers of Jehovah? No. If that were the case, the situation would be deeply discouraging for all those dear Witnesses who have been faithfully proclaiming the Kingdom message for years in less responsive territories. Why, if the Kingdom fruit that we bear is represented only by new disciples, such hardworking Witnesses would be like the barren branches in Jesus’ illustration! Of course, that is not the case. Then, what is the primary Kingdom fruitage of our ministry?

Fruitful by Spreading Kingdom Seed

10 Jesus’ illustration of the sower and the different types of soil points to the answer—a heartening answer for those who witness in less productive territories. Jesus said that the seed is the Kingdom message found in God’s Word and that the soil represents man’s figurative heart. Some seed “fell upon the good soil, and, after sprouting, it produced fruit.” (Luke 8:8) What fruit? Well, after a wheat stalk sprouts and matures, it produces as fruit, not little wheat stalks, but new seed. Likewise, a Christian produces as fruit, not necessarily new disciples, but new Kingdom seed.

11 Therefore, the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities. Since the seed that is sown is the word of the Kingdom, the fruitage must be a manyfold duplication of that seed. The bearing of fruitage in this case refers to making expressions about the Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14).

Where there is a bit of a change of emphasis is the inclusion of this footnote on p.14 in the 2018 WT article:

While “bearing fruit” also applies to producing “the fruitage of the spirit,” in this article and the next, we focus on producing “the fruit of our lips,” or Kingdom preaching.—Gal. 5:22, 23; Heb. 13:15.

This in itself is not new, but does appear to contradict the statement in para 11 of the 2003 article (the fruitage in this case is neither new disciples nor fine Christian qualities), and is a return to the thought expressed in a number of earlier (ancient) articles which include the "fuitage of the  sprit" with the "fruitage of lips" as appropriate evidences of active Kingdom seed. For example:

*** w83 8/15 p. 23 par. 14 United Fruit Bearers ***
they must “keep bearing much fruit.” This they do by producing Christlike qualities of the new personality, including “the fruitage of the spirit.” (Galatians 5:22, 23; Matthew 28:19, 20; Colossians 3:5-14) But to be really fruitful they give active expression  to such qualities by sharing in the work of preaching “this good news.” (Matthew 24:14)

*** w60 9/1 p. 537 par. 6 Awake Worshipers in the Time of the End ***
 However, the one who hears the Word of truth and gets the sense of it really does bear fruit of a right kind. He brings forth in his life fruitage of Christian qualities, referred to at John 15:8, and which brings glory to the Father. He is consistent in offering “to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name.” (Heb. 13:15) 

This inclusion of the fruitage of the spirit along with the preaching was reintroduced in WTs in 2004 and 2011:

*** w04 1/1 p. 9 par. 4 Let All Declare the Glory of Jehovah ***
4 Jesus Christ told us how to glorify God. He said: “My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.” (John 15:8) How do we bear much fruit? First, by sharing whole-souled in preaching the “good news of the kingdom” and thus joining with all created things in “telling” about God’s “invisible qualities.” (Matthew 24:14; Romans 1:20) Moreover, in this way we all have a share—directly or indirectly—in the making of new disciples who swell the chorus of praise to Jehovah God. Second, we cultivate the fruitage produced in us by holy spirit and strive to imitate Jehovah God’s superlative qualities. (Galatians 5:22, 23; Ephesians 5:1; Colossians 3:10) As a result, our daily conduct glorifies God.
 

*** w11 4/15 p. 18 “The Fruitage of the Spirit” Glorifies God ***
The fruit Jesus mentioned includes both “the fruitage of the spirit” and “the fruit of lips” that Christians offer to God by means of the Kingdom-preaching work.—Heb. 13:15

So it is all really another confirmation of Jesus's words at Matt.13:52:

“That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”

?
 

17 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

ex JW is opposite (they are in opposition) toward (in relation to) JW.

not necessarily.

But an antonym of Jehovah's Witness could be Satan's Participant

Now, that is funny....

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

ex JW is opposite (they are in opposition) toward (in relation to) JW.

not necessarily.

28 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

yeah..... and Antonym of "JW" is "ex JW" :))))))) 

Actually....thats probably incorrect   ? :

2 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

those who are "prominent" in WTJWorg can be useful to KGB

Then of course our understanding in context would have to be informed by whatever meaning the KGB attached and whatever criteria they used in deciding who was or was not "prominent".

For those with an interest in applying bible definitions, the counsel Jesus gave at probably stands up whatever the language used. "But the greatest one among you must be your minister." Matt.23:11.