JW Insider

The understanding of the Elder arrangement and the recognition that there was a lack of evidence for 607 was long before COJ. Remember that the first Aid Book was released in 1969. More of it was done, but it ended at A-E. The entire book A-Z was released in 1971. The research that Franz had to do on Chronology and the Elder arrangement had already been done by 1969. "Mindset" hmmm. Who knows? I don't think anyone ever got the sense that he thought negative about the GB. He took a leave of absense in early 1980 for health reasons. I'm sure it was mostly due to harrassment by a specific member of the GB, but I doubt that he considered that brother to reflect the entire GB, or the "GB arrangement." He was asked to resign from the GB in May 1980. From his book, it appears he was doing the best he could, and still supportive of the Society's arrangements right up until he was disfellowshipped near the end of 1981. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed he said anything about the GB until his own book was published in 1983. I don't think Ray Franz would have wanted to appeal the DF if he was really negative. Why try to stay in something you don't like? And personally I don't see it as inevitable that Furuli will be disfellowshiped. If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should then I think that the decision will reach to NY HQ, and they will try to avoid making any news over it. I think that the GB will understand this as a kind of a trap for them. There is the small world of academia, which the GB still rely on now and then for a certain level of credibility. but they will fear what they don't understand very well, and not with to disturb anything there. And, more importantly we are already in a world where a large percent of young JWs do online Google searches, so that his disfellowshiping would also bring unnecessary attention on the very thing they don't want. I'm sure it's preferable to try to let it blow over if it will.

I think you have tried to group me with those who think R.Franz was all bad. I think that R.Franz was also "right" and "useful" in several ways, but I also think he was too weak or passive to stand up for what he was learning to be right. I had thought he might have come to realize some of these things after leaving, but he admits to not having the confidence to stand up to F.Franz, the conservative "guardian of doctrine" in those days. He should have seen the ongoing problems of the "two witness rule" and that scripture did not treat is as so all-encompassing. I don't mean to go off on a CSA tangent but some of that is on R.Franz, for promoting the two-witness rule. He knew things were wrong and didn't kick up much of a fuss. He admits to having learned that the WT was wrong on 607, and therefore wrong on 1914, and therefore wrong about the "parousia" and "generation" theory. I think he bears some responsibility for just allowing the status quo to go on and create the mess it did on that "generation" topic for several more decades. But the point is that even the WTS saw some usefulness and things that were right in the book that R.Franz wrote. They changed some things that he had exposed. A person can be partly right and partly wrong, but it doesn't mean their concerns are not useful. With Furuli, I agree that it's not fair to try to group him with others. But the comparison is very interesting to me because I think I know Furuli's thinking pretty well from reading a lot of his books and even having some back-and-forth with him on academic sites many years ago. And I heard the equivalent of about 70 15-minute talks by Ray Franz at the Bethel morning text over a 3.5 year period. (Don't tell Kosonen, but that's 1,260 days.) To me, Furuli, like Franz, have some good points and some bad points. (I mean, who really needs to go back to the old 49,000 years of creative days?) But I'm not playing fair if I say that Furuli must have been very thoughtful and useful with his critique of "GB=FDS" just because I agree with him on that, but that he must still be stuck on the weak and beggarly things if he can't get over 607 BCE and the 49,000 years. So anything I can grasp at to understand his current mindset is of interest to me.

There are many more points of overlap between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli on those topics where they agree. One might expect this to be natural since they studied the same topic and came to the same conclusion on a few of them. Perhaps it's just coincidence, except for the idea that some of the points were barely known outside of their exposure in Franz books. Perhaps even the similarities of expression and style are coincidental. Or Furuli could have read Ray Franz' books and decided to try to debunk them as he had tried to debunk Ray Franz and C.O.Jonsson on chronology subjects. It probably doesn't matter how similar they are. But anyone else who read both authors might have more points to weigh in on if they wish.

A friend also pointed out to me that Furuli's citation of the November 1, 1946 Watchtower was the same set of points that Ray Franz discussed at length in the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." This is from p.101 of Furuli: Excursus on the view of the organization in 1946 The view of the organization in the middle of the 20th century was the diametrical opposite of the present view that is described above. The article "Let God Prove to Be True" in The Watchtower of 1 November 1946, pages 330-332, shows the contrast between the hierarchical Catholic Church and the Christian organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. Below is a long quotation [from that Watchtower]. The written Word of God, therefore, does not need the addition of traditions which are the private interpretations of men and of religious organizations. It is not on our own authority that we say that the Bible is sufficient without such .... (2 Tim. 3:15-17, Douay) Had the oral traditions of religious men been necessary to complement the canon of the Bible, Paul would not have said that the inspired Holy Scriptures were profitable to the point of making the men perfect in faith and devotion to God.... Now a final argument is shot at us by those who uphold an ecclesiastical or hierarchical organization. They say: 'Even doing away with religious traditions, the Bible cannot be left for each reader to interpret for himself; we still need the visible organization of the faithful to act as a "living magisterium" or teaching power in order to interpret the Bible and make plain the will of God from it. Look at how the Bible, left to each one's individual interpretation, has resulted in the religiously divided condition of Protestantism.' To this we say, Protestantism's multitude of sects and cults is no proof that the Bible is a divisive force to those who take it, and it alone, as adequate. The Bible is not is a divisive Book, for it is harmonious from cover to cover and agrees with itself, in all its canonical books. The divisive force among the Catholic and Protestant religionists of Christendom is the religious traditions which they follow. The truth of the Bible is a unifying power. After Christ Jesus prayed: "Sanctify them through thy word: thy word is truth," he immediately prayed that all his believers, those then following him and those yet due to believe, should be united in one, just as he and his heavenly Father are one. (John 17:17-23) It is now that this Christian oneness must be attained; now, at this end of the world. It has been attained by Jehovah's Witnesses, who have come forth from inside and outside of the multitude of religious organizations and who now unite in God's service despite their former religious disagreements. How is this? How is disunity over each one's individual interpretation of the Holy Scriptures now overcome and avoided? Is it because they an united around a visible human organization or around a visible human leader? The answer is No. It is because they recognize Jehovah God and Christ Jesus as The Higher Powers to whom every Christian soul must be subject for conscience' sake. (Rom 13:1) It is because they recognize Jehovah God as the one true and living God, the Most High or Supreme One, and Christ Jesus as His anointed King and Elect Servant, whom Jehovah has appointed as the Leader and Commander to the peoples. (Isa. 42:1; 55:3,4: Matt. 12:18; Acts 13:34) It is, too, because they recognize Jehovah God as the living, ever-present Teacher of His church on earth, and that he teaches the "church of God" through her Head, Christ Jesus.-Isa. 54:13; John 6:45.

Also on the previous thread, I remember that R Franz spoke of the hierarchical similarities between the GB and the Catholic hierarchy. And where else but from trusting the narrative in Ray Franz' first book would Furuli have accepted that Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz were presented with the meaning of the Biblical elder arrangement during the time that the Aid Book was being completed, and how they accepted the change as Scriptural (1970/71).

To that same point about the comparison to Ray Franz, The Librarian, that ol. . . . . , (Wait, now you've got me saying it, TTH). Anyway the Library wondered if he just copied Fred Franz viewpoint, which was barely known by anyone outside of Gilead Students and Bethelites in 1975, until Ray Franz pointed out this talk in his book:

OK, "a while" is up. I indicated to someone in the other Furuli thread that I would follow up on the comparison between Furuli and Franz. I'll start with just a repetition of what I put in the other thread, with only slight edits because it would otherwise be too far out of context here: ============= So far, I can't help but see a strong parallel between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli's choice of words, style and even some of his entire talking points. I already had five R.F. marks in the margins (pdf) before even got out of the Introduction. And it started not to matter whether the R.F. stood for Rolf Furuli or Ray Franz, so I stopped highlighting those kinds of parallels. Two of the parallels are so "eerie" that I wonder how aware Furuli is about how they sound. Here's one: Ray Franz became associated with the term "captives of a concept" as a way to explain how and why the GB see themselves in a position that is so difficult to explain Biblically. Furuli hits several of Ray Franz' points in the same order that Franz presents them: I do not question the sincerity of the members of the GB. But it seems to me that they are held captive by their belief that they are chosen by God as "the faithful and discreet slave," and that they have been appointed over Jehovah's Witnesses as their government with unlimited power. Here's another one, that echos the theme of R.Franz' second book: This letter shows that the members of the GB believe that they have the right to . . . overrule the consciences of individual Witnesses. But this is an attack on the Christian freedom that Paul mentioned in Galatians 5.1. Of course, that doesn't necessarily go to [a] point about Furuli's goals, because Ray Franz' style appeared to be much more reluctant about saying anything, but explained how he had been forced into a corner to explain himself due to rampant misinformation. This rang true with Ray Franz that he had never wanted to leave the organization, or try to do anything that would get him in any kind of trouble that would force anyone to try to make him leave, or try to undermine anything to do with current doctrines or teachings, after settling into his congregation. The problem [based on a rumor] may have started only when the congregation wanted to use Ray Franz as an elder, and the local elders wrote the Society to find out if that would be appropriate. Until then there was apparently no reason to go after Ray Franz to try to get him disfellowshipped. So, "Chairman Ray" may [not have been very] revolutionary. And Furuli is setting himself up similarly as a non-revolutionary. One major difference is that Furuli has evidently taken a more proactive role, and pretty much admits to assuming that he won't be answered, just because they haven't dealt with him or his issues yet. TTH might have nailed it when he wondered just how Furuli knows they are refusing to consider his "corrections." But I'm pretty sure that he knows. He knows what is inevitable, or at least what would have been inevitable if he hadn't got this book out there first.

Such an amazingly great scripture. It can take years to fully get our hearts and our head around it.

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many. Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too. I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

To discourage worldly interpretation such as acceptance of homosexuality, then yes! At least you are consistent in saying that you think the GB should be counseled about this, too. If counseling the GB is really the right thing to do, don't you think that you should counsel the GB not to quote from Zondervan publications, now that Furuli has failed to do so? You would be the right person to do this since I doubt that any other Witness around here would have even thought about this. I'd bet that no others here even agree with you on this point. So, it looks like it's up to you if you really think it's the right thing to do. 😉 I don't want to continue it, but since we've both had ample opportunity to consider the evidence for or against your original claims, I don't see any point in belaboring it either. You've already moved on to "adjusted" claims, so I think that each of us have made the point we hoped to make. Someone else who hadn't even seen the discussion here, just recently asked me if I had noticed the same thing. He mentioned items that match what was already brought out here in the discussion and even more. So, yes, this is a good topic. Perhaps we should start another topic since this topic is already quite lengthy. Classic! Your false claim was based upon false evidence. That was obvious, and is even more obvious now. But I do admit that it would be interesting to understand your mind. I like people and enjoy learning about them and learning from them. And watching how people think has always been of great interest to me. Perhaps it is a weakness, but I have learned much from the discussion.

Far be it from me to discuss something here that belongs in a different topic, 😉 but I was thinking the same thing. Outta Here pointed this out with a reference to something I had never seen before, and which appears to be a true sentiment of translators who let tradition invalidate parts of God's word. In this case, it refers to Zondervan's NIV:

That's not what the evidence shows, though, is it? Somehow I got a reputation around here for being too patient with people like you, and it turns out that getting into verbal fisticuffs with someone is a prerequisite for TTH's "Bible 101" class. 😉 You were handy. I'm not defending Zondervan. They are just another Bible publishing house with books and Bibles that the Watchtower has seen fit to quote from dozens of times. In fact, the very publication that you pointed out, one that Furuli also quotes from (Zondervan's Expositor's Bible Commentary) has been quoted by the Watchtower publications at least 15 times. Other Zondervan publications have been quoted in the Watchtower about 75 times. You have evidently looked for things that sound salacious in Wesley Hill's book, as an illustration of "Zondervan works." That sounds like a disgusting thing to do just to try to prove that you might still be partly right in a claim that is still false. But it's still not a book about "gay sex" as you claimed. In fact, I've just looked up 5 places where the book is discussed or reviewed and all of them say it's a book about gay celibacy, and all of them quote the author himself to show the evidence. I'll offer just one of them here, although I suspect you already passed up several similar quotes when you were looking for salacious bits: https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/washed-waiting-gospel-story-celibacy In Chapter 1, Wesley explains why he believes scriptural witness and church tradition require him not to act on his homosexual desires and how the gospel enables him to fulfill this demand. He begins by briefly addressing some of the same biblical passages we addressed in our discussion of Torn—Leviticus 18:22; Genesis 19:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Timothy 1:8-11; Romans 1:18-32—as well as Genesis 1-3 and Jesus’ teachings on divorce in Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:6-8, which Wesley says “presents marriage between one man and one woman as the God-given context for human sexual expression and thus, in principle, rules out homosexual practice.” “On the basis of texts such as these,” Wesley concludes, “the Christian church has consistently and repeatedly said no to homosexual practice.” (p. 53) Wesley doesn’t gloss over the challenge of this conviction . “To say no over and over again to some of my deepest, strongest, most recurrent longings often seems, by turns, impossible and completely undesirable. If a gay Christian’s sexual orientation is so fixed and ingrained that there seems to be little hope of changing it, should he or she really be expected to resist it for a lifetime?” And it goes on to show why the author believes the answer is that a gay person must resist for a lifetime, and that this outlook is supported in scripture. So, while it's true that he admits some details about what he struggles against, you should not to use selective quotes to misrepresent an author. It seems clear that this was what you did, and what you intended to do. I find this to be evidence of more dishonesty from you. Also, please don't project your obvious desperation on me. The facts are very clear-cut so there is really no argument at all. There has not been anything to deny. That sounds like more projection, too, but I have no desire to read his entire book. His own review of it, and intro and conclusion should be enough. And his own statements are borne out by 100 percent of the 5 reviews I read. In fact, from you yourself I can tell that you have mischaracterized the book, based on reading your own references. And, it's still not relevant to the point: that you used false claims as false evidence about Zondervan to discredit Furuli's due diligence, when it was unrelated to his point. Are you saying he should have counseled the GB not to keep using references from Zondervan?

As with a lot of things, the actual point is not that important. But honesty is. (Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. But by this I don't mean that all dishonesty needs to be challenged. Love can also cover over a multitude of sins. But this topic started out as a serious discussion of Furuli's work on the "FDS=GB" doctrine. If I had said that I think Furuli didn't do his homework because he used some silly fonts in his e-book, you would have a right to correct me. If I said that he shouldn't have used a certain font because that font was used in a certain book on spiritism, and another on porneia, you would have a right to correct me. But if I started evading and diverting and saying I didn't really say what I said, but had really said something else, then someone should probably point out that this type of conduct appears to be dishonest. I'm not sure why you thought it was necessary to make this false claim about Zondervan, in the first place, and then double down with a second false claim about them, when the first didn't pan out. But is was shown to be a false claim, nonetheless. Even if it were true, it would still not prove that Furuli did anything wrong, any more than you would be proving that the Watchtower Society is doing something wrong by also quoting from Zondervan. From what I can tell, Furuli's Zondervan sources were perfectly correct on the points that Furuli is making, as they are about the meanings of Biblical Greek words and passages. Remember, that Furuli is an accomplished linguist, and his sources from Zondervan are the NIV Bible and other Bible commentaries about Biblical Greek. Not at all. They could be a great spiritual publishing house, or they could be a terrible spiritual publishing house. It was never about that at all. It was about using false claims as false evidence to indicate that they were not a good spiritual publishing house. Patently false, and dishonest, too, I'd have to assume. Here are your own words as a reminder. As evidence you even provided a website link that only mentioned the Satanic Bible and [Joy of] Gay Sex, with no other books mentioned. The idea that you could avoid admitting the mistake by claiming you referring to a different "gay sex" book was predictable. And then that fell through because "All But Invisible" was a book about celibacy, not sex. Your second attempt to avoid admitting a mistake again, imo, is now similar: Again, your second try, "Washed and Waiting," is also about gay celibacy, not "gay sex." But, even if you had been right, what would it mean? Are you saying that a writer who wants to publish a book can't quote from a book from a publisher that has ever published or promoted or distributed OTHER books by OTHER authors who wrote about spiritism or wrote material directed at a homosexual audience. I'm sure you are aware that the Watchtower has written material directed at a homosexual audience (nothing wrong with that, as it is counsel and advice), and the Watchtower publications have also promoted or distributed books about spiritism (in the distant past). The Watchtower Society has also quoted from several different commentary publications from Zondervan, not just several Zondervan-published Bibles. What you should do is point out what you think is wrong with the actual argument that Furuli made, without "poisoning the well," as it were, by making false claims about his sources.

I think the interlinear translations are great. Of course, you can do this online now. But I have J.P.Green's Hebrew Interlinear and think it's good. I think I bought mine for 20 while at Bethel, and I see it's now several times higher in price on Amzn. The KIT was always the best priced Greek Interlinear, and the word-for-word is just fine, even if you don't like the NWT in the margin. For the NWT, I was referring to any of them prior to 2013. The black one you refer to is nice for old eyes, and more room for writing in the margins. I also really like the Bibles that have 4 translations to a page, and I also have one with 8 translations on a page. This way you only have to glance over at another translation if you want to see how someone else translates the same verses/passage. [edited to add: by 4 an 8 translations per page, it's really only 2 and 4 per page, but when you open to any page it uses both open pages, side by side, left and right, to display the same set of verses. So the "8" really only has 4 translations on each side. You typically won't read all of them, but it's a good way to find both a more literal and a more readable on the same page with easy access to both.]

I saw that. It takes a lot of self-control for me NOT to respond, as I find myself opening another window and dashing off a response before I even finish reading the entire post. Many don't get sent. Responding to Australia Trek was primarily an exercise in discovering where he is coming from and trying to figure out his level of sincerity and flexibility on some of these ideas. Now that I have kind of figured it out, there won't be much more to see. I think I already understand Witness (and Pearl, too) pretty well, so I read her writing quickly and don't really engage. I don't see a lot of flexibility there, so I think I already have a good idea what to expect if I did engage with Witness. But I also appreciate that she has a few things absolutely right. I better stop talking or I'll end up giving my view on everybody.

If one is already very familiar with a very literal translation, that stays close and consistent to the original Hebrew and Greek tenses and expressions, then almost any translation in more modern or flowing language will work. I like the original NWT for a very literal translation because I'm familiar with it. The Hebrew Scriptures are a bit "stilted" and not very flexible, but that can be good for a literal translation. The Greek is very good and more readable even for a literal translation. You should already be familiar with all the controversial portions of the translation to make up your own mind on stauros, parousia, synteleia, etc. Other good literal translations include the New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) which also has excellent footnotes. I have not found it available online. The ASV and RSV and YLT are good for this too. After the literal, then you are ready for almost anything. The NWT 2013 is a good compromise between literal and simple ease of reading. But just about anything will work as the second translation you read, even another literal.

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20) I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of: (Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict. So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words. When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years. Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly. Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity." I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below. ---------------- I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned. First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book. The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher. Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site: But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex." As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm as shown above, which also says the following: Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex." But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich. Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected: The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times. But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully: To which CC responded: So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear: But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic. The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience. As this author repeats in several ways: ------------------ So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest.

Just for "fun" I did a comparison by flipping through three major cable networks last night while also doing a deep dive into twitter videos from several different perspectives on the issue. CNN for several hours focused on Trump's photo op that was evidently driven by his anger over it being made known that he had been taken to a bunker, so that he needed an outside appearance to make up for it. To set this up he and his entourage ran over to the partly burnt church across from the White House. To make his paths straight and smooth, he ordered the clearing of the streets where protests had been perfectly peaceful for 8 hours. With a few minutes to go before they had to all clear, the police formed a riot wall to begin pushing them violently, and exploding tear gas in their faces. As two were knocked over by one of the policemen, one got up to help the person who fell with him, and the police knocked him down again so he couldn't reach the other person. They were pushed quickly so that a lot of teargas and slamming by the police knocked some others down, or made them trip. Most of the protesters were white. Trump made it to the church, among a very disorganized entourage of old white men (and Ivanka, who smartly held back from the photo op, almost hiding behind everyone). Someone handed Trump a Bible as he stood in front of the church, and he hardly knew how to hold it. He mostly held it up as if showing it off or waving it menacingly. With hardly any speech or response to reporters, Trump then leaves with no church-related message, just the picture, and walks back. CNN pointed out that Trump was hypocritically declaring his support for peaceful protest at the exact same time he had ordered them the one in his way to be violently broken up so he could make this photo op quick. MSNBC spent a little more time interviewing local mayors and governors of the states where rioting issues were occurring. This tended to make for a more newsworthy discussion that touched on many of the subjects that had come up or were important through the day. Of course, MSNBC tends to look for supportive persons to interview, otherwise they can't control the narrative. FOXNEWS was spending a lot of time just making fun of statements or condemning the most outrageous of the statements made by certain governors or mayors that appeared to be supportive of protestors instead of being supportive of ALL persons. TWITTER/INSTAGRAM was overloaded with videos: videos of white persons looting, videos of white persons looting with black persons trying to stop them -even making human chains in front of businesses to protect them from both white and black looters, videos of white persons bringing trucks or cars full of expensive new bricks and dropping them off in the middle of downtown areas videos of the same where black persons were pleading with one white driver not to bring the bricks into her neighborhood a video of two white women coming out from looting a fairly ritzy store as if they had treated it like shopping, but who dropped their bags and ran when they saw police. The DW (Deutsche Welle) news team where the spokesperson was shot with a rubber bullet while live on TV. (This gave credence to the CNN story of one of their journalists being arrested. Not that it didn't happen but that it could have been staged for attention from higher ups so that the persons it was happening to wouldn't have known it was staged.) Other videos were confusing enough to make one think this is all about someone paying for riots to help Trump win on a law and order ballot, or to try to do the same but in the hopes it would backfire on Trump, or to purposely destroy neighborhoods of color, or to take advantage of Covid-19 pent up energy for any of a dozen nefarious purposes.

Yes. The scripture in Hebrews 13 said very clearly we can do this by watching how their conduct (acts, activities) turns out, and then imitating their faith. If you want to argue that some scriptures have no meaning outside of the first century, then go ahead and throw those parts of your Bible away. Personally I find nearly ALL scripture useful and beneficial for teaching, etc.

Who said they wouldn't be spiritual? See the qualifications for elders and overseers in Timothy and Titus. What type of teaching did you think the Bible was referring to where I highlighted "teachers" in 1 Cor 12? If you require a book attached to each post, to cover all the bases for you, and fill in all the imaginary gaps, then you might just assume that I am using Bible definitions unless otherwise noted.

I meant it exactly in the ways that the Bible uses the word "episkopos" which literally means overseer. It can be used of elders who oversee a congregation. Perhaps the needs of all the congregations in Achaia or Galatia, for example, would have needed an overseer of several congregations, much like a "circuit overseer." Titus, for example, had to qualify as an overseer of elders and overseers in city after city: (Titus 1:5-9) 5 I left you in Crete so that you would correct the things that were defective and make appointments of elders in city after city, as I instructed you: 6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children who are not accused of debauchery or rebelliousness. 7 For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy of dishonest gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict. An overseer is like a shepherd who looks after a flock, a congregation. Jesus looks after the whole world of congregations in a way that these local overseers and bodies of overseers cannot possibly do on their own. He is the great shepherd, and thus the great overseer. (1 Peter 2:25) . . .For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls. Yet, humans can be called overseers and shepherds, too: (1 Timothy 3:1) . . .This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. BTW, Titus 1:7 shows that all overseers should also be faithful and discreet slaves, "as God's steward, an overseer must be free from accusation," etc.

Notice that Jesus also gave a parable about the question . . . WHO is the real neighbor . . . .YOU as an individual need to recognize it to be able to give the answer. 🙂 In fact MOST of Jesus' illustrations and parables are effectively answers to such questions about WHO proves themselves to be the right kind of plowman, shepherd, builder, seeker, father, listener, sower, harvester, vine worker, neighbor, householder, servant, domestic, steward, investor, bridesmaid, friend, master, watchman, etc. Of course, we all agree that we should be able to recognize who is the right kind of slave. To me, this is because we all need to be that right kind of slave who does not take advantage of the master being delayed, but stays always faithful and wise. The fact that some will have the ability to preside, and lead, and organizer better than others is a separate issue. I can't see why anyone would complain that a group of elders could be seen to be qualified for such a position of overseeing multiple congregations in the same way that some committees of elders qualify for a position to oversee a single congregation. The ones who excel at teaching, and speaking, and decision-making will naturally take the lead for such a useful position. And you are right, that taking the lead in spearheading a more efficient world-wide preaching, teaching, and disciple-making work can make use of skills that only a few would qualify for. (1 Corinthians 12:28, 29) 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they?. . . So, the idea that a committee of elders can qualify for such work as the GB have taken on, shows that they are desirous of a fine work. But Jesus illustration about the unfaithful and indiscreet slaves in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are probably not a source predicting a special set of men who would be appointed to a position mindful of those superfine apostles from 1919 on. To impute this meaning into it requires a very inconsistent method of dealing with Jesus' illustrations and parables. That doesn't at all take away from the need for having some take the lead in a different way from others. We can find this in other scriptures. (Hebrews 13:7) 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. There in Hebrews, too, we find that we should be able, as you said, to identify WHO really is a faithful person taking the lead, so that we can contemplate their conduct and imitate their faith.

The idea that it is found in Matt 24 which also involves the situation at the time of the END is clearly a much better reason to highlight a special meaning to these verses. (The verses about the differences between the persons who would prove themselves to be an unfaithful and indiscreet slave as opposed to the persons who would prove themselves to be a faithful and discreet slave.) But, of course, it's not in Luke 21. It's in Luke 12. Luke tends to spread out a lot of the things that Matthew has Jesus saying in Matthew 24, and puts those words in slightly different contexts as found in Luke 12, Luke 13, Luke 17, Luke 19, Luke 21. The differences between Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are also of interest: (Luke 12:35-48) 35 “Be dressed and ready and have your lamps burning, 36 and you should be like men waiting for their master to return from the marriage, so when he comes and knocks, they may at once open to him. 37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on coming finds watching! Truly I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. 38 And if he comes in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them ready, happy are they! 39But know this, if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also, keep ready, because at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.” 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him. (Matthew 24:41-25:1) . . .. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. 45“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be. 25 “Then the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. [etc, virgins, bridegroom, midnight call, lamp oil, marriage feast.] Both versions of the illustration spend more time discussing what would constitute an UNFAITHFUL and INDISCREET slave. Luke takes it even further and presents Jesus' discussing varying levels of unfaithfulness and indiscretion. Perhaps this is one reason that Luke's version is rarely ever discussed in the publications compared to Matthew's?

Is this how we know that it should not be each Christian who should act as a true Christian neighbor to fellow humans? Because it is in the form of a question? (Luke 10:29-37) . . .: “Who really is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jerʹi·cho and fell victim to robbers, . . .But a certain Samaritan . . . took out two de·narʹi·i, gave them to the innkeeper, and said: ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend besides this, I will repay you when I return.’ 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself.” By our current logic, the good Samaritan would be the faithful and discreet slave, and those fellow Jewish persons who ignored the victim might just be hypothetical.

That's good. And that's why I bring it up. These other issues don't bother me. Still, I think we should be honest about them and only discuss these issues when it seems that some Witnesses believe we need to hide our past, or tell new people that something was really nothing. However, if you want me to be bothered about the religion in general, then show me where I should support war and nationalism and Trinity and hell-fire. I know that there are some arguments a person could make on a few of our major doctrines, but the overall sense I get from the Bible on those issues matches up to the Witness view. Also, I don't consider chronology to be a major issue, nor do I think that the GB is the FDS. But I have nothing against the usefulness of a GB, and I think they should be a part of the FDS. As usual, you bring up CSA, and I agree that our moral standards should prove to be higher than elsewhere. But perhaps Jesus should have had less prostitutes following him, too. I'm more concerned about the level of emphasis, focus and correct counsel on CSA and other moral issues. I don't claim we are better than everyone else on every issue. But I like the most recent policies, even though I spoke out against the weakness of previous polices.