JW Insider

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting reference

If you have the time, this might be interesting. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/12/howard-mazzaferros-defense-of.html

He appears to get flustered and finally go for the ad hominem sometimes, but otherwise he uses some interesting arguments.

@TrueTom

I read, I don't know, perhaps upwards of 30% of "No Fake News..." This is an excellent and enjoyable read, by the way, and in a style that I would love to have the skills to attempt myself, in order to break down co-worker prejudices against the Witnesses' world view. 

Don't take this wrong, because I found everything I read to be nearly error-free. However, I find it impossible to read anything without noticing little things that other readers might find distracting. I really could care less if someone spells it "buses" one minute and "busses" on the very next line. But if you would like someone to point out a typo in the word "circumvent" or places where "they're" replaced "their," etc., then, you know, one man's errorist is another man's moderate. 

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I find this experience regarding the 1975 furore quite intriguing. Although I did pick up on excitement about the end of 6000 years earlier, (probably 1972 was my first encounter with a brother who had cancelled his life insurance on that basis), this kind of thinking I found to be the exception rather than the rule in my (possibly) narrow field of experience.

Of course there were those who expressed their conviction centred on that date. In fact, there was one prominent brother, know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie", who had made very strong statements about the proximity of the end for years, earning that nick-name. But these type of views were seen rather as eccentricities than doctorine in my circle.

You made some very good points. I was not referring to the type of people who cancel a life insurance policy, or stop paying their loans back on time, sold their homes, or put off all dental appointments and elective surgery, etc. I did know about people who claimed they were putting off the dentist for the next couple of years, but this was often said in jest. I knew of only one person who took that a little too seriously (the Gilead missionary) and I remember it because my father had hired him to work in one of the engineering labs at the university. I often hung out in the electronics labs in the afternoons after pioneering, and this brother's enthusiasm for 1975 was a little too embarrassing for my father. He had to tell him to tone it down, and I then heard them get into a discussion that turned toward the idea of why everyone else had faith in the "1970's  date." But "many" according to the Awake! made significant life-altering decisions:

*** g74 11/8 p. 11 Is This the Time to Have Children? ***
The evidence is that Jesus’ prophecy will shortly have a major fulfillment, upon this entire system of things. This has been a major factor in influencing many couples to decide not to have children at this time. They have chosen to remain childless so that they would be less encumbered to carry out the instructions of Jesus Christ to preach the good news of God’s kingdom earth wide before the end of this system comes.
 

Even my own parents sold their house to move into a rental near the Kingdom Hall. They also talked my brother out of using a full scholarship to a nearby university (he was good at electronics) so that he ultimately opened up an office cleaning business instead. But this might have happened anyway, and I still never think of this as related to 1975.

For myself, I was to graduate in 1975 and was allowed to quit school if I passed the GED (high school equivalency) to start pioneering in May 1973. I know full well that my own experience was related directly to 1975, because I had a serious discussion about it with my parents who were split on whether I should finish high school or not. My mother was not a fanatic about it, but often said she believed it was more likely to come in 1974 since everyone would be looking for it in 1975 and after. My father, the congregation's presiding overseer at the time, spoke about living a reasonably ordinary life because we hoped the end would come as soon as possible, perhaps even tomorrow, but we can only know that it will come within this generation, which could last from 1914 to 1994 for all we knew.

My father had been given district assembly parts in the past, but had not even been assigned a circuit assembly talk ever since he was disciplined by a district overseer for toning down a pro-1975 talk at a 1970 or 1971 circuit assembly. (These assignments started up immediately again in 1976 or 1977.) I heard my father discuss that experience with my uncle who was a circuit overseer in another circuit at the time. I know that the discipline was based specifically on his addition of Matthew 24:36 to the talk, and he was reminded about the Watchtower's comments:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.
 

We were in Missouri at the time, but yearly we visited my uncle who was a circuit overseer in California, and he was of the opinion that 1975 should be promoted strongly (this was in 1973) because even if the end doesn't come in 1975, we still know that it will be here before the end of the 1970's (1979). I didn't get involved too much in the conversation, but I must have believed about the same thing, because I remember thinking that even if it didn't come by then, I would like to apply to Bethel, and could even be there from 1976 and beyond the four years I had originally intended.

Immediately after the 1976 Watchtower, however, ideas changed completely, and everyone's view seemed to suddenly normalize. My mother claimed to never have put any weight on 1975. My uncle said it was never really emphasized that much anyway. It was surreal to me, and by the time I got to Bethel, there was absolutely no talk of working the rest of our careers at Bethel, this side of Armageddon. Mentioning 1975 was a taboo, and the July 15 issue quoted was one of the very first issues we studied for the Bethel Watchtower study after I got there. The comments by the conductor were just as surreal about putting the blame on the brothers who read too much into the "Life Everlasting" book. 

But my point was that, if you were spiritually mature, you were expected to make changes in your life based on the idea that the 1970's would bring the end of the generation, and that this idea, along with the end of the 6,000 years, would make it the "appropriate time for God to act." If you had Bible students you were expected to give them an ultimatum about making up their mind within 6 months. If you didn't believe the end would be here by the end of the 1970's you were pretty much required to believe it would be here by the end of the century (1999/2000).  

Our family also knew Brother Toutjian in California and we laughed at the way his own experience was toned down from a "1975 rootin'-tootin' Toutjian" to the way he states his own experience in a 1984 Watchtower:

*** w84 2/15 p. 25 Always Ready for the End ***
Decades of expanded activity passed quickly, and the question now was, What will the 1970’s bring? My two sons, Duane and Jonathan, and my daughter, Carmel—a fourth generation—were grown and had families of their own. We were expecting that 6,000 years of man’s existence would be reached in 1975. Would this date bring us to the start of Christ’s Millennial Reign? That possibility intrigued us.
Now we can look back on that year and appreciate that the words of Jesus at Matthew 24:36 do not allow us to fix a date for the end. 

At the time, 1984, my father admitted to me that he laughed at that line about how "that possibility intrigued us." By then my mother, still pioneering, had forgotten all memories of 1975 fever, and was already claiming that the Society never said anything about 1975 even being a possibility, even though Brother Toutjian was probably still on tape somewhere (from a 15-year-old assembly talk) embarrassing himself. 

10 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.”

It was quite interesting that this actually is referring to the understanding of our circuit overseer, our district overseer, our elders, myself and most of my relatives, the Gilead couple who had just returned back to our congregation, and EVERY person in the congregation who was considered spiritually mature. It is saying that this understanding was based on wrong premises. Therefore, the wrong premise was taking to heart the spiritual food that came from the Watchtower publications without questioning it. The right premise therefore would have been to appreciate this idea that was being forwarded as "truth" but recognizing that it had to be questioned and tested against the Bible first. This is the right premise for all the teaching and instruction we get. If we have the right kind of appreciation for spiritual truth, then we will question and test everything presented to us as spiritual truth. If we were to accept a statement from the governing body without questioning it, we would treating it as if it is inspired. But even if it was inspired, we are still to respect it enough to test it:

• (1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .
• (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.

Also, the entire 1976 article is informative in the way that it tried to not only blame the victim, but then said that even though you shouldn't change your life for a date, it could have been a good thing after all if you changed your life for a date:

*** w76 7/15 p. 441 pars. 15-16 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
15 But it is not advisable for us to set our sights on a certain date, neglecting everyday things we would ordinarily care for as Christians, such as things that we and our families really need. We may be forgetting that, when the “day” comes, it will not change the principle that Christians must at all times take care of all their responsibilities. If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.
16 However, say that you are one who counted heavily on a date, and, commendably, set your attention more strictly on the urgency of the times and the need of the people to hear. And say you now, temporarily, feel somewhat disappointed; are you really the loser? Are you really hurt? We believe you can say that you have gained and profited by taking this conscientious course. Also, you have been enabled to get a really mature, more reasonable viewpoint.—Eph. 5:1-17.

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, JW Insider, summarizing. Of course I’d like the GB would show more humility, that he would be more open indicating his own doubts in form of possibilities, not “lights or flashes.”

The biggest things that came from "lights or flashes" as the "GB" claimed at the time were 1925, 1935, and the "higher powers" of Romans 13 (not civil authorities, but Jehovah and Jesus). We've since dropped all three of those interpretations. Romans 13 was considered to be one of the most "inspired" of all the teachings that the GB (Rutherford) ever came up with, and was even made to be the fulfillment of prophecy. By that I mean that prophecy was supposedly fulfilled by the very fact that the interpretation was made known, and that coming up with this (wrong) interpretation had proved the superiority of the Watchtower over Christendom's teachers. Since then, we have gone back to teaching what Russell and Christendom had taught about Romans 13.

• (Romans 13:1-6) 13 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose.

There may have been a tiny bit of ambiguity about the exact phrase "superior authorities" (or "higher powers"). But the teaching about Romans 13 was not at all necessary to make the point we were then making from it. More importantly, it didn't change the meaning of its own context, which makes the same older point, and there were still other scriptures that made the same older point that Romans 13 had previously been understood to make:

• (John 19:10, 11) . . .Do you not know that I have authority to release you and I have authority to execute you?” 11 Jesus answered him: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been granted to you from above. . . .
• (1 Timothy 2:1, 2) . . ., 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness.

We already knew from other scriptures that Jehovah and Jesus were superior authorities. We already had the Bible teaching that "We should obey God as ruler rather than men." (Acts 5:29)  So I'm not sure why anyone thought it was necessary to make a scripture in Romans mean something other than what was already clear from the context. Perhaps Rutherford thought he had to be definitive as a way to compete with the kind of respect that had been afforded Russell. Perhaps it was a way to show that we could make definitive statements about teachings that were not obvious on their own. It was to show that Rutherford had taken a very powerful stand against the authority of the civil powers by interpreting them out of Romans 13:1.

Similarly, calling the end of the anointed calling in 1935 a "flash of light" was evidently done for the same reason: there was no specific, definitive, scriptural statement about a certain time when the "door to the heavenly calling" would be closed, so it became a point of claimed superiority that we (the GB) were able to come up with this one.

But to me, these aren't mistakes that reflect badly at all on the "faithful and discreet slave" because that phrase is apparently not significant in terms of making a point about a special group assigned to serve up true doctrines at the proper time. That would mean that the phrase is not about a specific set of men who will be punished if they serve up mistakes in their spiritual food. All of us must learn to discard tradition where it makes the word of God invalid, and all of us must learn to be faithful and discreet in our stewardship within the household of faith. All of us must answer for our lack of humility when we tell a Bible student that we know that a certain scripture must mean this or that, when we have not questioned it thoroughly to be sure. It might please men that we accept their word without questioning it, but it does not please Jehovah. So, one more time for this verse:

• (Galatians 1:10) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.

2 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Do you remember the short period (perhaps in the 80, I don’t remember) when were given instructions to report TWICE each month? I’m not sure how long was this arrangement, perhaps only months! Now, I’m an elder in the congregation on those days and I feel this disposition is completely silly (well, it was), and I begin to discourage the brother to inform two times monthly.

I think that started in 1977. I was already in Bethel for about a year, and a lot of brothers stopped reporting twice a month before the end of the year. I think it was still expected in the United States (or at least my congregation) until well into the next year. In 1978, I was the book study conductor in my congregation for one of the two groups that met in the Kingdom Hall. The purpose was so that, especially the book study conductors (Congregation Bible Study conductors) would know by the middle of the month who might need encouragement to get out in field service before the month was over, so as not to be counted as "irregular." I don't remember when or if this was officially dropped, but it was never encouraged officially after 1978 in our congregation.

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Imagine attending the meeting in your congregation and listening some teaching about the, let’s say the “other sheep.” Now, you attend next weekend another congregation and listen just the opposite. What a mess! How could we follow the scriptural advice in 1 Cor.1:10 “Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

That is a very simple example. Those who wish to teach should always guard their teaching. It's possible to say two completely different things about the "other sheep" and yet cause no divisions, and always speak in agreement. Here is an example:

Pretend this is a quote from the first meeting you attended in your congregation:

• "When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that he was at that time addressing his Jewish apostles and disciples, and he asked them only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So it may be that when he spoke of having other sheep who would later be brought in to the same flock under the same shepherd, that he was preparing them for something that would prove to become a "sticking point" for some, it would "shock" some of them, and some would have to overcome long-held beliefs and prejudices to get the full impact of the fact that they would very soon -- within just a few months -- need to accept Gentiles into their congregations. But remember that Jesus did not say exactly what he meant at this point, so we shouldn't be saying that we know for sure. It's something to think about however isn't it? Because, if this is what he meant, it would show that Jesus was, like a good shepherd, gently nudging the flock in the right direction, preparing them, for some "rocky terrain" as it were. As with other things, they might not have been ready to hear it all at once, but they could look back and say: Oh that's right, remember when Jesus was with us, he told us about this matter.  etc. etc. ...the olive tree of Romans and Revelation, etc."

Then the next week in the other congregation:

• "When Jesus spoke of having other sheep which are not of this fold he could have been referring to the fact that the apostles and disciples who were listening to him had a special privilege of being part of the flock at that particular time, but that there were other things they just weren't ready to know at the time. Notice that Jesus doesn't say exactly who these persons would be. Perhaps it is something that would be revealed over time. We know that the book of Revelation is a book that was not immediately clear to the disciples at the time it was written, yet it contained a lot of things that would be revealed over time. The very name of the book indicates that it is about things to be "revealed." Perhaps, Revelation 7 is giving us a glimpse of who these other sheep are. Recall, that Jesus spoke to the disciples and called them a "little flock." Yet they clearly grew to become thousands in just the first few short years after Pentecost. Was there a separate group that could be called a "great crowd" even when compared with thousands? In the 7th chapter we have a group of 144,000 which would probably seem to be a huge group to most of those first century Christian disciples. They would be imagining a group that was as large or perhaps larger than any group they had ever seen before at one time.  Perhaps when they attended yearly festivals at Jerusalem. But now we have this group compared with an even bigger crowd, a great crowd that no man could number. It must be in the millions! It's true that Revelation 7 indicates that the 144,000 were from the Jewish nation, and these perhaps "millions" would be from all nations, Gentiles. But notice how the tribes were each numbered 12,000. Could this indicate that we are not speaking of literal tribes of Jews but this is a reference to "spiritual Israel" -- meaning all the chosen, holy nation of kings and priests? And if this is so, then this group of 144,000 could very well mean that those with the heavenly hope are limited to 144,000 kings and priests. This could mean that Jesus was referring to the fact that those from the nations would be a great crowd of millions at the time of this great tribulation. This could also resolve the issue of how there would be a completion of Jehovah's purpose for a "new heavens" and also a "new earth." The Lord's prayer...etc."

Note how neither one of these teachings is wrong. They are both expressed as possibilities, and they are both therefore true, because both are expressed as true possibilities. They are not expressed as something that you need to believe one way or another to be baptized. That is the same as starting a sect. This is why the scriptures speak of "starting a sect" as a problem of pride. Pride makes someone believe that a certain teaching that is not expressed, but only interpreted, must still be followed as a teaching.

In our case, we have a body of elders whom we respect writing up their reasons for the second view in the Watchtower magazine which is the way they share their understanding with all the congregations. There would be nothing wrong with this body of elders, if they all speak in agreement themselves on this matter, explaining all of the reasoning that went into their preference for the second version. If there are any dissenters, they should also explain exactly why the dissenter believed what he did, and explain how and why that particular idea was considered to be less likely. But it could never be called "wrong" as long as it also fit the rest of the scriptures. Neither of these can be called "wrong." They both might fit the scripture. One may seem more likely to some and one might seem more likely to others. 

Yet, the congregations could still be in perfect agreement about the way in which it could refer to either scenario. That would be "the truth" about it. Over time, it would be much easier to discuss it without pride, or without the fear that a change would destroy a body of truth. If you think about it, it's usually pride that results in any determination that a certain way of looking at something must be the only right way. Pride is both the source of such claims and it also feeds more pride when one begins to think that they are privileged to know the only correct interpretation when more than one are possible. Pride can also create class distinctions among us, a teaching class versus a learning class, for example, which might make it more difficult to admit when we need to extricate ourselves from a certain set of teachings that turn into a "tradition" over time, and become even harder to break.

15 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Derived from this view, we should respect them and obey them, following the Heb.13:17 counsel: “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account”

Yes, this is exactly what I believe. I also agree with everything in Eoin's previous comments (above, from Friday). Of course, Hebrews 13:17 would have referred primarily to the local elders of local congregations, according to the same logic of the 2013 Watchtower, which Eoin also agreed with:

On 2/2/2017 at 2:04 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

So for me, the concept of the "faithful and discreet slave" being an arrangement for spiritual nourishment as a part of the sign of these last days now in progress is quite acceptable. There was absolutely no need for such a question in the 1stC preceding the apostasy, in the same way that the term "Christian" was unambiguous, so no need to ask "who really is" at that stage.

*** w13 7/15 p. 21 par. 7 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
In the first century, there was hardly a reason to ask such a question. As we saw in the preceding article, the apostles could perform miracles and even transmit miraculous gifts as proof of divine backing. (Acts 5:12) So why would anyone need to ask who really was appointed by Christ to take the lead?

Therefore, there would be no need for Hebrews 13:17 to be reminding members of any congregation about following the lead of the apostles, or any type of "governing body" in the first century. So this verse must be referring to those who take the lead in the local congregations: "those taking the lead among you."  As members of the congregation could see how the faith and conduct of their overseers has turned out, they should imitate their faith, and in this way follow their lead in whatever "good works" they wish for their particular congregation to participate in.

In principle, however, Hebrews 13:17 still applies to all elders. In every way in which their conduct and actions can be rightly imitated, we should follow their lead:

(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
 

Everything they do, should be appropriate to imitate. This is the type of obedience the context is talking about. We should be doing what they are doing. In the way that they show brotherly love and hospitality, we should too, according to Hebrews 13:1,2. In the same way that these brothers take the lead in visiting those in prison, we should too, according to the next verse (3). In the same way the "governing" body of elders sets the example in their own marriages, we should govern ourselves with their same moral example (verse 4). In the same way that this "governing body" shows itself "free from the love of money and content with the present things" (verse 5) we should obey that same example. In the same way in which this body of elders teaches us to not rely on legalistic rules but to rely on undeserved kindness as our motivation, we follow that, too (verse 9). These are the kinds of things that the body of elders will take the lead in; this is the scriptural context that we are "obedient" to:

(Hebrews 13:16) .Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.
 

And this doing "good works and sharing what you have with others" is, of course, the doctrine that this particular body of elders should be teaching by example. Where we fall short and need assistance or counsel, this body of elders should also be able to admonish us and encourage us with their own example. This is why nothing they do should be hidden from any of us. There should be no secrecy among such a body of elders. The verse you quoted (v.17) is not specifically about teaching doctrine, but about shepherding. (NWT links it to Acts 20:28) This can include doctrine, too, of course.  We should appreciate that a body of elders who takes on the responsibility of multiple congregations might be in a position to see dangerous trends and may be able to provide counsel and prepare others for strengthening their faith and resolve. Even the ability to report on what is going on in other countries among the brotherhood is often an encouragement, especially if they may be facing hardships that we have not yet faced. And such elders who take on a wider responsibility of multiple congregations would be in a position to learn about programs of charity due to emergencies (famine, flood, earthquake, war, persecution, disaster, economic hardships, pestilence, etc). 

16 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Two. JW Insider disagree with the application of the slave’s parable to these brothers.

Well, and what’s the matter? It isn’t the main point to obey the brothers leading the congregation, even the universal congregation? Does this obedience depend of the meaning of one parable? What if (our understanding of) the meaning changes? Should we then, stop obeying them?

Yes, this is much closer to what I was saying. The main point is to have respect for the good examples of elders in all parts of the congregation, both local and worldwide. We don't do this based on our understanding of Matthew 24:45 because Jesus made it very clear what that parable was about. But with or without any specific interpretation of Matthew 24:45, this has no effect on our wish to show respect for good examples, and showing the proper respect for their counsel and admonition. This is why the Christian congregations are instructed to appoint elders in the first place. We already have portions of the scriptures dedicated to the qualifications for elders. We already have portions of scripture showing us why we show them respect, and even give them a little more "benefit of the doubt" if an accusation is brought against them.   

We also wish to show the best kind of respect for the teaching they share with us, and the ultimate way to show respect for it is to be "noble-minded." This means to take it seriously enough to question it, test it, discuss it, and see if it's really so. When and if we see that it is so we should be happy to share it, too. This is what will surely happen most of the time. Yet, if our serious study and testing of any particular teaching indicates that it might not be so, especially if it seems to contradict scripture, then we should be just as willing to imitate the lead of this body of elders in expressing our view about that, too. We are not talking about "counsel" here, which is something we should always submit to humbly. Bible teaching is something we are asked to prove to ourselves. We are asked to let our reasonableness be known. We are asked to let our reasons be known. (1 Pet 3:15) Anything related to teaching and doctrine that we learn from humans, such as a body of elders, we need to make sure about, and take it very seriously, and never just accept it because our congregation's body of elders believes it.

(Galatians 1:8-10) 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . .
 

Imagine how much faster we would have been blessed and progressed past the 1925 fiasco if Bible Students had truly believed that it was always important to question everything. Imagine how much less embarrassing the 1975 fiasco would have been if more persons spoke up and quoted Matthew 24:36 as the reason to question it. Imagine how much more loving it would have been to help prepare our fellow brothers and sisters, and encourage them to meet any and all of the possibilities that might lie ahead of us, instead of focusing on a narrower set of beliefs held at the time by a body of elders, who repeatedly claimed, for example, that this old system would be over by the end of the previous century.

*** it-2 p. 278 Love ***
However, love is not gullible, for it follows the counsel of God’s Word to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God,” and it tests everything by the measuring rule of the Bible. (1Jo 4:1; Ac 17:11, 12)
 

7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

By the way JWinsider. I see you friends at this forum are beginning to attempt to "BLOCK ME" Good luck! where there's a will, there will always be a way.

I thought they were beginning to block me. For the last few days I couldn't get here because FireFox won't let me in. I have been gettting this error:

Quote

 

Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to www.theworldnewsmedia.org. The OCSP server suggests trying again later. Error code: SEC_ERROR_OCSP_TRY_SERVER_LATER

    The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
    Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.

 

But even when I go to advanced settings, and ask the OCSP server to ignore any problems, I still can't get in. I tried Chrome instead of FireFox, however, and I'm able to get in today. 

Anyway, I hope no one here blocks you. If anyone tries, I'll put in a good word for you, but I'm not really friends with anyone here in that sense. 

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

But I do see quite simply a similar circumstance in that an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time (i.e. The Governing Body), is disputed internally and made out, subtly, to be a self-appointment on the part of participants, rather than a divine provision.

Pardon if I misunderstand. I am sure clarification will be forthcoming if this is the case.

Your last line quoted here appears to be a reference to whether or not you think I'm saying that the Governing Body is a principal aspect of an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time. I think the other side of that same coin is made out to be that if they are not that, then they are therefore self-appointed, and are not therefore a divine provision.

In so many circumstances, the most dangerous thing a human can do is speak about someone's leaders. For most of us, we find our comfort zone when we understand our own fixed place in an ideological hierarchy, and humans have been known to squirm, fight, or even kill when that ideological comfort zone is disturbed or threatened.

So, yes, there may yet be a significant portion of this discussion that needs clarification.

If you are trying to understand my own position on this subject, then I appreciate the opportunity to explain. Unfortunately, we have so much invested in the Watchtower's current explanation of Matthew 24:45 that any different view might prove to be quite difficult to explain without taking a couple more steps back to get a fresh look at the parable. 

I believe I have already stated that bodies of elders should be found in every congregation and they should serve as leading examples, overseers, administrators, teachers, etc. It is therefore inevitable that groups of congregations who work together or share assemblies together will also find a need for different kinds of administrators and leaders, and in effect a body of elders might be found for various groupings of congregations. We have utilized circuit overseers, assembly servants, branch or zone overseers, etc., to form such bodies (or committees) of elders. An even more important leadership role will inevitably be needed over the global set of congregations, and this is, from another perspective, a single congregation, too. It will also have whatever type of body of elders is deemed useful, wise, and important for that particular need. As Fred Franz pointed out in a previously referenced speech, it seems that most major large religious denominations invariably end up with some type of "governing body" even if it's called by another name.

Are they self-appointed? Not really. Remember that we follow the Biblical instructions for qualifications of elders, and therefore elders are appointed by previously appointed elders, who were all apparently approved due to meeting scriptural qualifications. And the very fact that some will reach out for the office of overseer (or qualify as a spiritually mature older man) is a good thing. Some of these men will be better at teaching, some at speaking, some at evangelizing, some at comforting, some at managing, some at visiting the sick, some at looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation, some at judicial matters, some at helping married couples, etc., etc. These are "gifts in men" as we sometimes say. Jehovah has given everyone an opportunity to find areas of sacred service no matter what our personalities. So it would be very unfair to point to the members who have been selected as a committee or body of elders for the overall congregation, and say that they were self-appointed. We need to recognize that the entire orderly arrangement for any congregation is all part of an arrangement from Jehovah. And for our particular type of ministry as Jehovah's Witnesses, there is going to be a strong desire to see men in leadership positions who tend to best represent that ministry to the entire world. We would expect to see good, sincere, faithful examples who are well-spoken, have excellent reputations, understand the scriptures, and have decades of experience in full-time ministry. And this certainly shows up in the selected appointees to the Governing Body. And it is an important part of our preaching and teaching ministry that the Governing Body takes a lead in making choices about the Bible-based publications, Bibles, and various types of Bible-based instruction that the congregations appreciate.

But back to the interpretation of the parable. There is nothing in the parable that says that the faithful and discreet slave prepares spiritual food. There is a faithful and discreet slave that is put in charge of food operations in this household while a master is away. But this is a parable that Jesus says was to point out the different kind of attitude between a faithful slave and an unfaithful slave. It's actually more about the several ways that a slave might show himself to be UNfaithful. The basic idea is that it's easy to imagine how many ways a slave might show himself to be unfaithful if a master puts him in charge of the smooth operation of the household. So the important question is therefore, how will a slave prove himself to be faithful when the master is away and there are so many temptations to get away with things, especially if you don't know how long the master will be gone, and he seems to be delaying. Will food always be served on time? Will the slave let that little bit of power go to his head and start beating his fellow slaves? Will he open up all the wine for himself and start acting like a confirmed drunkard?

Just like the parable of the neighborly and un-neighborly men in the scripture about the good Samaritan, the money given to the innkeeper isn't spiritual money. The beating and the robbery that the victim received was not a spiritual robbery. It was not a spiritual inn or innkeeper. No, it was a practical example about what it means to "love your neighbor" and answer, "Who really is your neighbor?"

In the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, we have the same idea before us. A situation is described in practical terms so that we will all understand that we make judgments every day about how we will live and what decisions we will make to prove that we are really being the sort of person who is in expectation that the master will return at any time, no matter how long the delay. It's easy for us to imagine how likely we are to fail in our assigned duties. It was very poignant for a Jewish audience to hear a story about how a Samaritan showed a more neighborly attitude than the complacent Jewish "neighbor" who ignores fellow human suffering. But Jesus taught that Christianity means doing something about the sick, homeless, those lacking clothing, the hungry and the thirsty. And like the Jewish "neighbor" we too might think we are doing enough by preaching and teaching and therefore become complacent. It's easy to imagine the appointed slave falling into trouble perhaps more easily than the others, as he lets power go to his head, or abuses his authority.

Both situations, just as we would expect of Jesus' parables, are about:  (2 Peter 3:11)  what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,

These parables are not about actually staying up all night to keep thieves from breaking into our houses, or actual robbers beating victims, or actual stewards getting drunk or beating up fellow servants. And they are not about spiritual thieves, or spiritual robbers, or spiritual drunkards. They are circumstances to make us think about what we would do in these particular situations, and how these apply to the kingdom.

The idea of food and a house with a master who has gone away is very appropriate, but there is nothing about a small group feeding "spiritual food" to a larger group in the Bible. This was not a question about who would lead. There is nothing in the Bible about any "sole channel" other than Jesus himself. Our food, like Jesus, should be doing the will of our Father. The most important part of the parable of the slave is not about the food but about our response to the circumstance, as indicated above. This is proven, too, by the way that Mark summarizes it in Mark 13:

• (Mark 13:32-37) . . .. 33 Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man traveling abroad who left his house and gave the authority to his slaves, to each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to keep on the watch. 35 Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether late in the day or at midnight or before dawn or early in the morning, 36 in order that when he comes suddenly, he does not find you sleeping. 37 But what I say to you, I say to all: Keep on the watch.”

In Mark's account there was nothing particularly important about the fact that food was involved. Mark doesn't even mention food, but focuses on the doorkeeper, and the fact that each one of the slaves was authorized to do his work. It was about whether the slaves remained obedient in their assignments, and remained watchful, in expectation of their master's return.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Comparing the parable of the Good Samaritan with the prophecy of the faithful and discreet slave and extrapolating on this with the aim of dismantling the current explanation provided in the Watchtower is, for me, a fruitless, (pardon!), "apples and oranges" type excercise, (idiomatic use regardless of Smithsonian debate).

As I'm sure you know, for many years the Watchtower already did make distinct "class" applications to groups that were supposedly represented by the Good Samaritan, the robbers, the road, the innkeeper, the money, the victim, and the road-crossers. There were specific class applications made to the parable of the Prodigal Son that were said to be prophetic and referred specifically to changes in the heavenly and earthly classes of Christians that had their start in the 1918/1919 period, and resulted in specific rewards and conditions in the 1931 to 1935 period. This was said to be specifically what Jesus had in mind prophetically when he gave the parable.

So, yes, there is a certain ridiculousness to drawing parallels between and among some of these types of interpretations. I'm sure that the ridiculousness of turning such parables into prophecies and identifying only a specific group (or groups) within the Good Samaritan parable was finally noticed by the writers of the Watchtower articles. This is why some of these "class" explanations that had lasted for many decades were finally exposed to be fruitless in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower.

Yet we still twist and strain logic to try to keep treating this particular parable of "the faithful and the unfaithful slave" as a prophecy. (This can easily be shown if you observe the logic and reasoning of the July 15, 2013 article you referenced previously.)

That article also says that "It is vital that we recognize the faithful slave." That same article indicates that "in the past" (the previous 130-plus years) we had not recognized that slave correctly.

Without getting into any of those reasons given in the July 15, 2013 article, I would only hope that we could recognize that we might be making an important mistake. If Jesus wanted all of us to apply this parable to ourselves, and we say that we want that parable to apply not to ourselves but only to seven members of a Governing Body, then isn't it quite possible that we have rejected an assignment by our Lord? Would we really want to reject an assignment of sacred service?

But, we might say that we don't want to accept this particular assignment. Surely, some men will step up and take the lead for us. That's what always happens with groups of people. Then we won't have to carry our own load. It's certainly a lot easier to be the one served than to be a steward who is also responsible for the operation of the household of faith. Besides, once we accept that these men are our leaders, doesn't it become an act of disloyalty and rebellion to go back and claim that we were all -- each one of us -- supposed to be faithful stewards? Each one of us would have to be responsible to pay attention to ourselves and our teaching. If we merely follow, we don't really have to think that much on our own. We can just do what they tell us. Who needs to prove to ourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God? Let someone else do the proving. Let someone else be noble-minded and do the searching. Surely it would be chaos and disunity if all of us were allowed to question things that a body of elders have agreed upon.

I know that many of us think, or prefer to think in the way described in that last paragraph. But I think it shows a lack of faith in Jehovah to question his Word just so we can make a non-biblical doctrine out of one verse of a parable, especially if that doctrine relies on a rejected type of interpretation, and conflicts with the context of that same parable and conflicts with the rest of the Christian scriptures.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Phew!!!

What if Jesus told us an illustration about, let's say, a "Good Samaritan" and we said that this didn't apply to us because we know of a specific body of elders within our organization who already identify themselves as the fulfillment of the "Good Samaritan." If that specific body of elders actually becomes known for a ministry that is very much like the good Samaritan of the parable, and they manage such a ministry on a world-wide basis and encourage others to join them and help them, then I'd have to say that they really are fulfilling the role of the "Good Samaritan." 

There would be nothing wrong with such a ministry even if (or especially if) millions of people sincerely followed them, obediently followed the lead of their instructions, displaying a combination of such charity, motivated by love of God, and combined with their confident expressions of faith that indicated that their motivation was heartfelt. There would be nothing wrong with identifying that special body of elders as the "Good Samaritan" class or group or body.

But would it be right to say that only the persons of that group of elders should be identified as the "Good Samaritan" and that Jesus had assigned this particular group of elders to that position? Would it be right to say that Jesus had only this particular group of elders in mind in a prophetic sense and that the phrase "Good Samaritan" can only refer to persons appointed into this group during a specific time period?

This might sound ridiculous, but the two parables actually provide a much closer parallel than might appear at first glance:

With respect to the good Samaritan, Jesus was answering the question:

WHO REALLY IS MY NEIGHBOR?

• (Luke 10:29) . . .“Who really is my neighbor?. . .

With respect to the parable of the faithful and the unfaithful slave Jesus was answering the question:

WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE?

• (Luke 12:42) . . .“Who really is the faithful steward,. . .
• (Matthew 24:45) . . .Who really is the faithful and discreet slave. . .

For some reason the Watch Tower publications now say that one of these "Who really is..." questions applies to millions of us all around the world, and the other one applies to only about seven of us: only a specific body of elders in New York. 

As I said before, however, this is simply a matter of not yet noticing the contradiction between this explanation and other passages of Scripture. This does not mean there is anything wrong with the "faithful slave" or that the "faithful slave" has turned unfaithful, because the phrase was never intended to identify a small group of seven "New York" residents in the first place. It would really be no different than if the same group had called themselves "The True Neighbor class" or "The Faithful Steward body" or "The Good Samaritan group." It doesn't mean that they don't belong in the group, or that they might even take the lead in trying to represent the group in the most effective way. It does not mean that Jehovah won't bless their endeavors either. They are trying to do the right thing in the best way that they currently understand the scripture. In time however they will probably recognize the contradiction that this understanding produces against several other passages of scripture. This has happened with many other understandings. It's simply a matter of context and conformity with ALL the scriptures on the particular subject.

I'd say that the Watchtower has already come very close to dealing with one of the contradictions, and their conclusion apparently led them to the right answer, in spite of the contradiction. Therefore, this one contradiction was already noticed, but this was not enough yet to overturn the entire entrenched teaching. At least it digs around it a bit. The following Watchtower paragraph deals with the idea that this particular "faithful slave" will become entitled to a greater reward than the rest of the "domestics" whom they were serving. This is the obvious implication of Jesus' parable, yet those who formulated this latest interpretation also realize that it would be a mistake to interpret it in the same way that Jesus implied. It would produce too strong a contradiction with other passages:

• *** w13 7/15 p. 25 par. 19 “Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?” ***
• Does the faithful slave receive a greater reward in heaven than the rest of the anointed? No. A reward promised to a small group in one setting may ultimately be shared by others. For example, consider what Jesus said to his 11 faithful apostles the night before he died. (Read Luke 22:28-30.) Jesus promised that small group of men that a fine reward awaited them for their faithfulness. They would share his throne of kingly authority. But years later, he indicated that all of the 144,000 will sit on thrones and share his rulership. (Rev. 1:1; 3:21) Similarly, as stated at Matthew 24:47, he promised that a small group of men—the anointed brothers who make up the faithful slave—will be appointed over all his belongings. In reality, all of the 144,000 will share his vast heavenly authority.—Rev. 20:4, 6.

So what we end up with is this: a small group of men prove faithful until Jesus returns and this particular slave therefore is rewarded with an appointment over ALL the master's belongings. If Jesus returned tomorrow, then these seven elders who make up the Governing Body would therefore be expected to receive a reward much greater than any reward promised to the domestics whom they were serving. The contradiction required an explanation. The explanation correctly shows that there is NO special reward that these 7 elders receive that is any different from 143,993 others who were also included in the domestics. The only explanation is that all of the 144,000 get the EXACT same reward, instead of what Jesus indicates. What the writers hadn't noticed is that the contradiction doesn't need to be rationalized away, because there is no contradiction if we change the premise by accepting the explanation of Matthew 24 that we find in 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

7 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So, are you really suggesting that todays governing body are some how synonymous with the aforementioned apostasy from true Christianity because they identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt.24:45?

Not at all. In fact, the Governing Body must identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave." They would be wrong not to identify themselves as such. 

15 hours ago, Anna said:

For some reason my responses are merging into one post....I cant seem to change it....never did this before...

I find that was happening to me too. Only recently in the last couple of weeks. I thought it was when I had created two responses back to back where no one else had created a response in the meantime in the same thread/topic. I assumed the software was smart enough to only do this when both of your back-to-back posts were to the same person, which might make sense. (Except for me, since each of my responses is already too long and wordy and this new feature just makes it too long, twice over.) But yours seems to have happened in responses to two different persons.

32 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

With respect (still), these references to the words of Jesus and Paul are there to substantiate your viewpoint NOT to show why this viewpoint differs substantively from that expressed at Numbers 16:3.

Fair enough, but to me, it's pretty simple. If the words of Jesus and Paul substantiate the viewpoint that Christians should avoid looking to any kind of Governing Body as a "sole channel" then we are jumping the gun by worrying about any particular response to any Governing Body that makes that claim. We first need to deal with whether the claim is proper. I have no doubt that the claim of Moses was proper. The Bible said it was. I also have no doubt that this particular claim of the Governing Body is improper. The Bible said it was.

To me, it's exactly as simple as having a group of very respected and authoritative elders in the congregation claiming that we should celebrate Christmas, for example. Not likely to happen, but for the purpose of this illustration, let's say that it will happen in 2018. If these are very respected elders who are pillars in the congregation and good examples and have offered a lot of excellent spiritual teaching in the past then perhaps many in the congregation will go along. But let's say that some others are still respectful, but don't go along with these elders. Let's say that those who don't go along are told that they are acting like Korah, Dathan and Abiram. In such a case, I think the first thing to concern ourselves with is whether the reference to Korah et al is appropriate. It's only appropriate if the respected, authoritative elders are really in a situation comparable to Moses.

To someone who believes that the elders are in a situation comparable to that of Moses in Numbers 16, then obviously the situation would appear similar, and nothing could likely be said that could easily convince them otherwise.

That's why I refer directly to the words of Jesus and Paul that address this exact kind of situation. It was Jesus and Paul who said that it was the spiritual responsibility of all of us to be servants of each other. Jesus spoke out directly against any kind of governing body that would think of itself as if they were in a similar situation to the seat of Moses. And Paul spoke out directly against a situation that had occurred due to problems emanating from the congregation where the Jerusalem council provided leadership, and went so far as to show how he did not treat the Jerusalem council as if they were a governing body for other congregations. 

4 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?”"

There are other reasons, too, of course. But I thought I had already provided enough Biblical evidence to get the conversation started. Another perspective on this, of course, would be the fact that Moses was a "type" of Jesus himself. This is not one of the questionable type-antitype applications that were merely made up in order to create class distinctions among us. This was one that the Bible itself makes clear:

*** w65 6/15 p. 368 par. 6 The Great Potter Molds Human Vessels ***
In fact, Moses himself foretold that a prophet like him would appear: “A prophet from your own midst, from your brothers, like me, is what Jehovah your God will raise up for you—to him you people should listen.” (Deut. 18:15) That he foretold the coming of Jesus Christ, the apostle Peter shows at Acts 3:22, 23, where he quotes from this prophecy and applies it to Jesus Christ.

So, yes, Moses was a human who was to be treated as the "sole channel" appointed by Jehovah. But any others, then and now, who put themselves in the "seat of Moses" are not following the Christian model, where we have no leader but Christ.

(Matthew 23:1-10) . . .: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. . . . 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. . . .10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.

The same argument could be said about the position of Aaron, whose was also questioned about being the sole channel, in effect:

(Hebrews 8:1-10) 8 Now this is the main point of what we are saying: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister of the holy place and of the true tent, which Jehovah set up, and not man. . . .  6 But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry because he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established on better promises. . . . 10 “‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

How does your statement differ from what was expressed here about Moses? (With respect).

I was thinking that someone would ask this very question, which is why I responded to it in the two previous posts with the answer that Jesus gave about leadership, and the answer Paul gave to the Galatians about the respect given to the Jerusalem council.

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, it will not go well for those who choose to disrespect Jehovah's arrangement or way of doing things and that includes their attitude to those whom Jehovah assigns shepherding responsibility.

Please don't think that just because I believe the Governing Body has made a serious error of judgment as to doctrine that this is some disaster. They have already admitted to hundreds of errors over the years, and this would not be much different. They are elders of a congregation and therefore not above error and not above criticism. We should take to heart Paul's counsel to Timothy in 1 Timothy chapter 5. He knew that Timothy might be much younger, but should not let anyone look down upon his youth. He told Timothy that older men (elders) should be respected and not severely criticized, but also that they were not above criticism. Those elders who preside in a fine way are worthy of double honor, even "wages" (1 Tim 5:17,18). But he also said that accusations against elders would occur, and some would need to be reproved before all onlookers. Timothy was not to show prejudice or partiality:

5: 1 Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers. . . 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “. . .  “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.

Paul made the same point about partiality in Galatians just before he mentioned that he had to reprove elders with respect to Peter, James, John and Barnabas, and the problems they had caused both in the Jerusalem congregation and which had spread as far as Antioch and Asia Minor.

(Galatians 2:6) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.

(Galatians 1:10-12) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. 11 For I want you to know, brothers, that the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ.

The Word of God is our revelation by Jesus Christ. We are taught our doctrine from that source, and if anyone has tried to add any gospel to that, then they are "accursed" according to Galatians.

(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.

And then Paul went on to show how this applied not just to himself or an angel from heaven, but even to the so-called Jerusalem council, which today we might call "the Governing Body."

(Galatians 1:16-20) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.

(Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded,. . .

(Galatians 2:6-13) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . .  when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . . 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense.

It seems now that it is almost too scandalous for some commentators to notice that that it was actually men from James, the "leader" of the Jerusalem council, who were the very "false brothers" sent to spy upon the "freedom" of the Antioch congregation. Paul goes to very great lengths here to show how he resisted the men from James and especially the effect they had on Peter and Barnabas and other Jews. He speaks of the "council of Jerusalem" as if it were something that he was right to almost ignore completely for 14 years. And then he comes as close as possible to speaking of the potential of these men as being something "accursed." He makes it clear that although they seemed to be pillars, and highly regarded, that Paul himself needed to steer clear of them for as long as he could until the ministry based on the revelation by Christ had taken enough of a foothold.

Does this mean he had no respect for them? Not at all. He just needed to avoid treating them as if they were some kind of governing body. He wanted to make sure that congregations outside of Jerusalem knew that they had no reason to treat them with any kind of partiality or doctrinal deference. He doesn't speak against the office of "apostleship" itself, but this was clearly a necessary transition toward the idea of basing our doctrine on the inspired writings themselves, especially at a time when the living apostles would soon disappear from the scene. 

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

What I am saying is that, regardless of human opinion (and there is no shortage of that), Jehovah (through Jesus of course as the Head of the Congregation) has seen fit to provide a shepherding arrangement for those who wish to serve Him in these last days.

I get it. But it was very possible to read what you had written about Korah and tie it, in principle, to the actions of the Governing Body in presenting themselves as "the sole channel." Reading your words very literally could give the impression that the Governing Body was like Korah in the sense that they were not satisfied with the idea that Jesus alone is the "sole channel." It was not clear where the "sadness" came from when you said: "Sadly, the real rub here is around the fact that the Governing Body has presented themselves as "the faithful and discreet slave", the sole channel for the dispensing of spiritual food in these last days."

I understand that you have not changed your previously expressed opinions about this, and that you are here clarifying that you believe the Governing Body is the "sole channel." Still, I think that we should admit that there are a lot of weaknesses in this position from a Biblical standpoint. One obvious weakness was that, for well nigh 100 years, this idea was never known to the persons who now claim that they were that "sole channel." All those years, this supposed "sole channel" didn't know who they were until just a few months ago, and had therefore been teaching incorrect doctrine about who the "faithful slave" was for these last "100 years."

As you said, it was a "principal aspect" of this shepherding arrangement, and yet the "sole channel" couldn't teach the correct doctrine about a supposed "principal aspect."

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This appointment of the "faithful and discreet slave" is a principal aspect of this shepherding arrangement.

For me, Jesus is the sole channel, and the Governing Body is simply a body of elders making the types of decisions that elders should make over a congregation. In this case it's not a specific local congregation, but the collection of all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, i.e., the overall congregation. Paul could have stayed in a specific, local congregation and remained a part of its body of elders, but his ministry called for a different kind of "shepherding" over many congregations, and this often presented the need to make logistical arrangements for his own travels and the appointment of others to travel to these congregations. He often had to make corrections either in writing or in person that were sometimes doctrinal in nature, sometimes financial, and sometimes dealing with "personnel" and personality conflicts. Overall, his purpose toward the overall congregation was the same as elders who presided over local congregations: encouragement, practical application of Jehovah's principles, preaching the good news about Jesus and his heavenly kingdom, and taking the lead by setting a good example for others.

So, as I've said before, I see a lot of value in a body of elders who take on this type of leadership responsibility toward the congregation overall. Elders are appointed for both their personal qualifications and, of course, their spiritual qualifications. By their examples they are leading us, and we should be obedient to that example -- just the same as we look to elders as examples in the local congregation. But there is nothing in the Bible about the body of elders who serve the overall congregation determining doctrines and teachings for the other congregations. I know that people will quickly point to the council at Jerusalem found in Acts 15, but this could very nearly prove the opposite point, as Paul seems to point out in Galatians, and as Fred Franz pointed out in a talk he gave back in 1975. (Ironically, Franz was the most respected member of this "sole channel" at the time when he argued against our current view of the "Governing Body.")

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

He allows humans to "work out their own salvation" on the basis of his word AND the application provided by the slave for the most part, only intervening or "directing" by means of His spirit when absolutely necessary.

I believe that the Bible clearly proves that this slave is made up of the entire body of Christians. Therefore in the Biblical sense of the "slave" I would agree with what you just said, although I prefer an adjustment to the last portion of what you said here, though. During the days of Paul and the Jerusalem council, the holy spirit had not yet produced what we now know as the completed Christian Greek Scriptures, or New Testament. I think that the very purpose of building on a foundation of apostles and prophets from the first century was to produce inspired writings that reveal to us the "spirit of Christ." The Bible (Jehovah's Word, and through it, "the spirit of Christ") is intervening and directing the congregation at all times, not merely when absolutely necessary. 

The many proofs that, in the last days, all Christians are supposed to be "the faithful slave" or "faithful steward" are found throughout the scriptures. Here's one that gets right to the point.

(1 Peter 4:7-11) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Be sound in mind, therefore, and be vigilant with a view to prayers. 8 Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 In proportion as each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies. . .

A separate point in the above quote from 1 Peter is that all of us are responsible to serve "spiritual food" in the sense that all of us are to speak as if we are responsible for the sacred pronouncements of God. Never is there a hint that we are dependent on any group of men for these pronouncements.

(Galatians 6:2-6) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.

Therefore, anyone who gives teaching is merely sharing with all the others who give teaching. No one should believe that our (or their) particular teaching is something that another person should "bear." That would be the same as thinking that our teaching carries with it some "authority" when all authority was given to Christ. If any of us thinks that our authority, or the authority of our particular teaching should in any way "govern" another person, then we have done exactly what Jesus warned against when he gave a parable about a faithful slave who 'lords it over' his fellow slaves.

Therefore, I think that the parable of the faithful slave itself is another good place where we find evidence that there should never be any kind of "Governing Body" trying to identify itself as "the faithful and discreet slave." Any attempt to make such an identification is unfaithful and indiscreet. It's exactly that kind of presumptuousness that Jesus spoke of when he said:

(Matthew 23:6-12) . . . . 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

The specific example that Jesus was using here were the Scribes and Pharisees, about whom Jesus said had done the following:

(Matthew 23:2) “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses."

The Jewish legal system was understood in Jesus' day to have a need for such persons in the "seat of Moses." But the Christian system was to be different. There would be no "seat of Moses" because all of us would be servants to one another. There would be no governing leader except one, the Christ. It was this Biblical rationale, of course, that led me to think that perhaps you really had realized where the "sadness" came from in your reference to Numbers 16, where Korah and others had wanted to put themselves in the seat of Moses, so that they could count themselves in that "sole channel."

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Sadly, the real rub here is around the fact that the Governing Body has presented themselves as "the faithful and discreet slave", the sole channel for the dispensing of spiritual food in these last days. We all know the account about Korah, Dathan, Abiram and On and the 250 at Numbers 16. So, unfortunately, it is rather a case of "if the cap fits...........".

(Numbers 16:1-3) 16 Then Korʹah the son of Izʹhar, the son of Koʹhath, the son of Leʹvi, got up together with Daʹthan and A·biʹram the sons of E·liʹab, and On the son of Peʹleth, of the sons of Reuʹben. 2 They rose up against Moses along with 250 Israelite men, chieftains of the assembly, chosen ones of the congregation, prominent men. 3 So they gathered together against Moses and Aaron and said to them: “We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, all of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?”

Eoin, You are evidently presenting one of two ideas:

1. Are you saying that Moses pictures the Governing Body and those who speak against the Governing Body as being the sole channel for dispensing spiritual food in these last days are like Korah?

2. Are you saying that Moses pictures Jesus as the sole channel for dispensing truth in these last days, and that the Governing Body is like Korah for wanting to set themselves up as an additional sole channel for dispensing spiritual food?

12 hours ago, Arauna said:

What is NOT strange about this ban is the role once again that money and big business is playing in the list of countries chosen for the ban.  Saudi Arabia is the biggest exporter of Salafist ideas (extreme political islam to rule the world) and has funded most of the mosques in America and Europe through front organizations. They have also sent their trained imams to mosques throughout the world in the last 30 years with their billions of dollars gained from oil.

Most of the terrorists involved in the twin towers collapse came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.   They are NOT on the list -  so this extreme, fear inspiring safety and security measures is not going to fulfill the purpose of the ban. The originators of Salafist islam is not on the list.....because big business with them is flourishing!

So true. Of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. 15 were from Saudi Arabia, and 2 from United Arab Emirates. Plus one from Lebanon and one from Egypt. Each of these countries were omitted from Trump's list.

Trump's list is basically just a copy of the list that Obama already had in place for travel restrictions. Of course, Trump included Iran just to please some of the Neo-cons in his party, and hoping for a reaction that will please his base. Turkey, Pakistan, and at least 3 of the 4 countries behind 9/11, are probably all slightly more practical choices than the ones he chose, but not politically or financially expedient.  

Of course, an even better solution has been there all along and would have been a much more humanitarian solution than the way the Administration messed up on the implementation of this one. (I think that messing up the implementation was partially done on purpose so that the "noise" surrounding the mess-up would provide a louder signal to Trump supporters that he followed through on a campaign promise.)

The better solution is to put the same amount of energy into getting disparate intelligence agencies to cooperate and share. This was discovered to be the primary problem of 9/11 itself, and the former prime minister of Belgium (through 2008) is now saying that it has been the same problem for Belgium, France, Germany, Turkey, UK, etc., regarding recent attacks there.

In fact this was the reason that the FBI was created in the first place in the USA in 1901, because of the "terrorist" attack on President McKinley by Czolgozc. It was immediately realized that sharing intelligence was paramount. Of course, this works well until intelligence agencies themselves begin feeling like self-important, all-important silos. Live and learn; learn and live.

On 1/28/2017 at 1:37 AM, Anna said:

I don't doubt this at all, what I am doubting is that anyone who read the CNN story would start thinking of studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, or even studying the Bible, period. People are happy to be reading those verses, believe God is their refuge, and that's that. But will it necessarily motivate anyone to do anything? Also, it shows that you can pick and choose a passage to suit yourself, because the other passages are not nearly as encouraging, if anything, they could be viewed negatively under those circumstances. This is not the same as finding a Bible study aid in the rubbish, because the Bible study aid actually motivates people to want to study the Bible.

I can tell already that the point I was making is going to be mostly lost. But it doesn't matter that much because my point really was unnecessarily negative, and now wasn't the right time to bring it up.

But thanks for catching on to the basic point. I'll use your comments as an excuse to go ahead and explain my reaction to the CNN article. There were about half-a-dozen points that crossed my mind.

1. This news story was not included to create a topic for a specific set of religious beliefs. It's in a general news section. In my response, therefore, I didn't mention the other verses specifically because I thought they could be viewed negatively, but because they might have just as well been seen as more appropriate, and sometimes even more important to the circumstances. There was obviously nothing wrong with the other verses I pointed out, and a good, appropriate sermon could have been made on those verses, too. Every part of the open Bible could have been used to bring comfort in the storm, or a reminder of Jehovah's might. The verse chosen was perhaps the easiest one to work with. 
2. The story also reminded me of the joke that goes something like: "A man went and said 'I'll open the bible to a random verse and use it to guide my life. He opened it and it said "and Judas went and hung himself" he opened it again and it said "go ye and do likewise." ' "
3. It reminds me that the exact same type of story gains traction when steel beams fall, and create the shape of a cross as they did in famous photos taken from the World Trade Center disaster.
4. It also reminded me of the fact that sometimes there are deadly storms or airplane crashes, and many other man-made or natural disasters where many people die, and often one person, perhaps an infant, or photogenic child, will survive. The news often picks up on these stories and highlights the angle (through comments and interviews) that there must have been something special about that particular survivor, and God must have something in mind for them. Perhaps these stories work very positively for 99% of listeners, but another 1% are made to wonder if there is a certain hypocrisy in focusing on the "value" of the life of the survivor that, in effect, dismisses the "value" of those whose lives were horribly and violently ripped away. For some sincere believers, it even creates a false dichotomy about Satan being allowed to do a lot of bad, while God was able to intervene to do some good. It's a faith-strengthener for some, but a problem for others, because it's built on a false premise:
   • Jesus apparently dealt with the problem that disasters were often surrounded by superstitious beliefs even when the disaster was actually random:

     (Luke 13:4) . . .Or those 18 on whom the tower in Si·loʹam fell, killing them—do you think that they had greater guilt than all other men who live in Jerusalem?

   • Superstitious beliefs affected the view of every form of human suffering:

     (John 9:1-3) . . .As he was passing along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered: “Neither this man sinned nor his parents, . . .

   • Superstition is commonly utilized to explain coincidence, and if the subject is positive and upbuilding, we accept it as true and spiritual instead of superstition. The problem is that if the same superstition were used to explain negative coincidences, then the same type of thinking would be seen as "magical" or even "demonic." The existence of a very positive coincidence without superstition is actually difficult for us because we want to make sense of the world and believe that Jehovah is directly involved in all the good things of our material life, and this might require that we blame Satan for all the bad things of our material life. There is a depth of wisdom in Ecclesiastes that surpasses superstition, even though it does not discount the idea that Jehovah is still in full control of the universe:

     (Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12) . . .I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all. 12 For man also does not know his time. Just like fishes that are being taken in an evil net, and like birds that are being taken in a trap, so the sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time, when it falls upon them suddenly.

5. Many religions with holy or sacred writings often have members who treat the writings with a kind of superstitious "bibliolatry" where the sacred books like the Quran or Bible, for example, are treated like a kind of Ouija board. The person closes their eyes and opens the book to some random point, lets their finger drop to a verse, then they open their eyes and try to make sense of the verse, usually out of context. It's the basis for the joke in point #2, above. This doesn't mean that it will lead to anything bad (as in the joke above), but it might also mean that we are depending on a kind of magical rather than rational thought process, which is related to idolatry.

   • (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

P.S.

*** w81 1/1 p. 22 par. 19 “Engaging in the Holy Work of the Good News” ***
“I asked the householder what motivated her to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. She said that often she would open the Bible at random, point her finger at a verse and read it. But she seldom could understand what she read.
“One day she was very depressed over serious family problems. Again she opened her Bible and picked out a verse. She could not understand it, and in her depression and disappointment began to cry. She prayed to God to send her someone to help her understand his Word. Just as she said that, the doorbell rang. Answering it she found a Witness, who began, ‘Would you like to understand the Bible?’ The householder pulled her inside and quickly a regular study was begun.”

16 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

Holy Spirit working? Nice! Thank you!

It was also opened to the chapter that contains:

• (Psalm 50:3, 4) . . .Our God will come and cannot remain silent. Before him is a consuming fire, And a great storm rages all around him.  4 He summons the heavens above and the earth, So as to judge his people:

These other verses were also on the page:

• (Psalm 45:5) 5 Your arrows are sharp, making peoples fall before you. . .
• (Psalm 48:7) . . .With an east wind you wreck the ships of Tarʹshish.
• (Psalm 49:10-14) . . .He sees that even wise people die; The stupid and the unreasoning perish together, And they must leave their wealth to others. 11 Their inner wish is that their houses will last forever, Their tents to generation after generation. They have named their estates after themselves. 12 But man, although honored, will not remain; He is no better than the beasts that perish. 13 This is the way of the stupid ones And of those who follow them, who take pleasure in their empty words. (Selah) 14 They are assigned like sheep to the Grave. Death will shepherd them; The upright will rule over them in the morning. Every trace of them will fade away; The Grave rather than a palace will be their home.

Just sayin'

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

I sang at a family wedding in Sicily four years ago at age of 60.

Wow. Beautiful. Loved it.

Obama has sent at least 20 billion to Israel, and agreed that the US would continue to send 38 billion over the next ten years. That's 3.8 billion a year. That's in spite of Israel's continued theft of property from the Palestinians to build houses. Actually, Israel's continued bulldozing of Palestinian housing and their theft of Palestinian land is calculated to make sure that the money keeps flowing. That's because if a peace process progresses, or a two-state solution is ever implemented, then the US would not be as likely to send so many billions every year.

And why only 4 million for climate change solutions? 3.8 billion a year seems more appropriate.