JW Insider

Not funny, but that was nearly the exact image I already had in mind when watching an expose of the Catholic Church in Poland over the last hour or so. Using only a few specific cases, they were able to get elderly priests to confess the details in front of their accusers. It's not only an indictment of the prevalence of CSA in the Catholic Church, but an indictment of the lengths the Catholic Church has gone to in covering it up. Watching the collusion of bishops so worried about the reputation of their church, rather than justice for the victims, especially reminded me of your image of hooded robes and scythes. It's long, and in Polish, so if anyone is interested, it's probably best to learn how to speed up a video and add English subtitles for those, like me, who don't know a word of Polish.
It has 22,000,000 views already:
TELL NO ONE (2019) | Full Documentary Movie by Tomasz Sekielski | English Subtitles 
 

10000000_184440349233108_838275694446094741_n.mp4

I probably wasn't clear. The Watchtower considered the 'faithful and discreet slave' to be the complete number of anointed here on the earth (from about 1879 to 1897, and then again from about 1927 to 2011). But recently it has become a small, identifiable group of persons we can know individually by name: the members of the Governing Body. (Between 1897 and 1927 it was taught to be one person we could know individually by name: Charles T. Russell.)

The GB use the argument that many are fed by the hands of a few --and only 8 "NT" Bible writers fed the entire 1st century congregations. And since you can't practically follow many different anointed persons, at least there is a practical way to follow a few. One of the points is that you can't necessarily trust that just any person who claims to be anointed is truly anointed. There really are many claimants that most Witnesses would consider to be just people with mental or emotional problems. Most of us have known such persons in our local congregations. I think this is already a 'given' that other Witnesses realize and the GB are acknowledging it. Of course, it's clear that the GB use this fact with the purpose of adding evidence that only a few persons can really be trusted to represent the anointed. This should lead us to agree with them that Jesus trusts the faithful slave [Governing Body] and therefore we should, too.
This is a product, unfortunately, of being so absolutely sure one has the truth. Anyone who would deviate from obvious, rational truth must have a deviant mind. They'd have to be crazy to give up on all the truth based on a few mistakes here and there. Anyone who does so is some kind of apostate, like a dog returning to his vomit, and must be "mentally diseased."
I agree that this is a dangerous result of the reminder (acknowledgment) that SOME really do have mental or emotional problems, and we should be wary of giving anything they say too much importance. You will notice that whenever I say something that differs from the GB's current teachings in the WT, that someone like BTK will surely be around to try to discredit it so that no one gives it too much importance.
(I think this is actually a safeguard so that no one takes only my own opinions and experiences as something to follow without questioning them first. I welcome the push back, especially when it can help me to further endeavor to make sure of all things.)
You say that this is an admission by the GB that they don't really have holy spirit to understand the Bible. It's probably more of a caution not to give just anyone a 'pass.' We shouldn't quote someone who says they are anointed on some doctrinal point, just because we heard it from an 'anointed' person. But the word "necessarily" probably also reminds us that some anointed might get more holy spirit than others, a possible way of saying that we could expect the GB to get more holy spirit to understand Bible truths whenever Jehovah deems it necessary.
I don't think they are saying they don't have a clue. I think they are actually (overall) saying to trust them for now, even though things can still become better and clearer, but definitely don't just automatically trust any person claiming to be anointed who disagrees with us. This is practical advice for unity. It might not ALWAYS be the correct advice in all circumstances, but elsewhere they have already admitted that not all their advice will turn out to be correct or Biblical. But then again, what religion can you think of where people are told to just follow anyone who claims authority of some kind?

There was evidently no voice booming from heaven in the original context. I get the sense that it was by reputation. Not even that the nation of Israel was out there trying to make proselytes (converts) but that it was by reputation people were hearing good things about Israel.
It was based on a common promise that is found many times in the prophetic books: if the Israelites continue to forsake their spiritual heritage (temple, law, etc) then they will be punished, but if they continue in the ways of Jehovah's law, they will be blessed. In this case, blessed so much that surrounding nations will hear that God is with them, and people from those nations will want to become Israelites, too.
We know that the original context is that Jehovah is "jealous" or "zealous" to have his name and reputation known through his people from Zion (Jerusalem) again. And even though he has punished Judah and Israel for sins, he does not regret it. But now is time for a fresh start, and if they handle it right this time, their blessings will be so great as to attract other nations, too.
In fact, in the next chapter (Zech 9) the examples were to start with "the eyes of man" in Syrian cities to the north, even reaching to Damascus, then 120 miles north of Damascus (Hamath) and even on to Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon. 
In some limited sense this probably happened as Jews scattered by Babylon 70 years earlier, and Israelites scattered by Assyria nearly 200 years earlier, had settled into these nations all around, but would now want to firmly take hold of those blessings upon true Jews in Jerusalem. Persons they had married, and even proselytes and foreigners would want to join them too. Over the next few hundred years, by the time of Herod and Jesus, in fact, we know of many Jewish proselytes, and strong support of Judaism throughout all parts of the Roman Empire. The LXX from Egypt became a well-read "OT" Bible that was known across the empire. Even a couple of Caesars were friends of Herod, and some wives of prominent Roman leaders took a strong interest in the religion Judaism. Ancient synagogues have been found with inscribed names of Roman patrons who would have provided much of the funding for these synagogues.

I am adding more here to give the simplest view of what the "Governing Body" believes about those who claim to be anointed.
The most recent article that explains the scripture makes this point by asking a seemingly silly question.
*** ws16 January p. 21 “We Want to Go With You” ***
DO WE NEED TO KNOW THE NAMES OF ALL TODAY WHO ARE ANOINTED?
. . . . This means that the Jew is not just one person but represents the whole group of anointed ones. The other sheep know this, and they serve Jehovah along with that group. They do not need to know the names of every member of that group and follow each one of them.
No one thinks that the truly anointed are ONLY in the Governing Body. However, the only anointed that we are asked to follow cannot practically be ALL the anointed all around the world. In fact we are warned against giving too much attention to "just any" member of the anointed. And, by the same token, any member of the anointed would be out of place to ask for special attention. This might seem wrong, but that is clearly going to help avoid schisms, power struggles, and help drive peace and unity in the congregation.
The article goes on to point this out:
*** ws16 January p. 22 par. 6 “We Want to Go With You” ***
Jehovah’s holy spirit helps his servants to be humble, not proud. (Colossians 3:12) So anointed ones do not think that they are better than others. They know that Jehovah does not necessarily give anointed ones more holy spirit than he gives his other servants. And they do not feel that they can understand Bible truths more deeply than anyone else.
*** ws16 January p. 22 par. 7 “We Want to Go With You” ***
Although anointed ones feel that it is an honor to be invited to go to heaven, they do not expect others to treat them in a special way. .... So an anointed person is not surprised if some do not believe right away that he has been anointed. He realizes that the Bible tells us not to be quick to believe someone who says that God has given him a special responsibility.
*** ws16 January p. 22 par. 8 “We Want to Go With You” ***
Anointed Christians do not feel that they should spend time only with other anointed ones, as if they were members of a club. They do not try to find other anointed ones so that they can talk about being anointed or meet in groups to study the Bible. (Galatians 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did this. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Read Romans 16:17, 18.
The article actually offers some reasons why we would not immediately trust that someone who claims to be anointed truly is anointed. Ultimately, this all points to reasons to focus our attention on the Governing Body (faithful and discreet slave) as the identified representatives of the anointed.
*** ws16 January pp. 23-25 “We Want to Go With You” ***
DO WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE NUMBER?
12 For many years, the number of those who ate the bread and drank the wine at the Memorial kept going down. But recently, that number has been going up every year. Do we need to worry about this? No. Let us see why not.
13 “Jehovah knows those who belong to him.” (2 Timothy 2:19) Unlike Jehovah, the brothers who count the number of people eating the bread and drinking the wine at the Memorial do not know who truly is anointed. So the number includes those who think that they are anointed but are not. For example, some who used to eat the bread and drink the wine later stopped. Others may have mental or emotional problems and believe that they will rule with Christ in heaven. Clearly, we do not know exactly how many anointed ones are left on earth.
. . .  During the last days, Jehovah has continued to choose people who will be part of the 144,000. (See endnote.) So if God decides to choose some of these just before the end, surely we would not doubt that he is doing the right thing. (Isaiah 45:9; Daniel 4:35; read Romans 9:11, 16.) (See endnote.) We must be careful not to react like the workers who complained about the way their master treated those who started working in the last hour.—Read Matthew 20:8-15.
16 Not all who have the hope of living in heaven are part of “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matthew 24:45-47) Just as in the first century, Jehovah and Jesus today are using a few people to feed, or teach, many. Only a few anointed Christians in the first century were used to write the Christian Greek Scriptures. And today, only a few anointed Christians have the responsibility to give God’s people “food at the proper time.”
Clearly "some of these" claimants are considered truly anointed. But we have no way of knowing who is and who isn't. And even if we did, we would not give them special attention, nor would they give each other special attention, even if they have been known to serve faithfully for long periods of time.
One of the reasons for the emphasis on the Governing Body is so that we can say we have identified the truly anointed persons who can properly represent the other anointed persons, and therefore by following and hanging onto their "robe" we (the other sheep) are properly hanging onto the skirt of the Jew.
I know you, John, don't believe that the GB represent the "Jew" in the Zechariah prophecy, or that they represent "Christ's brothers" in Matthew. But I think you can see why it makes perfect sense to most Witnesses. It makes sense historically in a way that no other religion can point to in their recent past. And it makes sense practically if one accepts the belief that a Governing Body should represent all the rest of the anointed.
I am not claiming that this is the only way to look at it. (For reasons I can explain later.) But I do think we should acknowledge the reasons it makes so much sense to most Witnesses.
Your own arguments against it, I think, boil down to the fact you say that the GB have "allowed" child sexual abuse by not doing enough about it, and that the shunning doctrine is unchristian, and that some (much?) of the provided spiritual food has been not good spiritually. But since you have not been able to discover another anointed person or group that non-anointed should "take hold of," then Witnesses would simply respond with 'where else should they go?' Do you really know a group that represents something better? If it were just a matter of a few who feel this way leaving the JWs, what would that accomplish exactly? 

I was referring to John Butler as the person who has repeatedly referenced the "10 men who take hold of the skirt of a Jew." I hadn't realized it if "Witness" had also repeatedly referenced this. 

No. It's just me. Just so we're 'on the same page' about what the WT says on the subject. (Because we are on a JW forum.) Whether it's right or wrong or somewhere in between can be discussed later. Also, to provide a bit of 'methodology' about how the WT handles prophetic interpretation.

Regarding the Watchtower's interpretation, a simple and recent explanation is found in the introduction to a 'life experience' article from 2012. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20120415/Seventy-Years-of-Holding-On-to-the-Skirt-of-a-Jew
When I was in my early teens, two Bible passages struck me. Today, over 70 years later, I can still remember the time when I grasped the meaning of Zechariah 8:23, which speaks of “ten men” taking hold of “the skirt of a man who is a Jew.” They tell the Jew: “We will go with you people, for we have heard that God is with you people.”
THE Jewish man symbolizes anointed Christians, and the “ten men” represent the “other sheep,” or “Jonadabs,” as they were known back then. * (John 10:16) When I understood that truth, I realized how much the fulfillment of my hope to live forever on earth depends upon my loyal support of the anointed class.
Jesus’ illustration of “the sheep” and “the goats,” found at Matthew 25:31-46, also deeply impressed me. “The sheep” picture those who receive a favorable judgment during the time of the end because they do good to Christ’s anointed brothers still on earth. As a young Jonadab, I said to myself, ‘Len, if you want to be viewed by Christ as a sheep, you’ve got to support his anointed brothers, accepting their leadership because God is with them.’ That understanding has guided me during more than seven decades.
I should note that a few people have come to think that the March 15, 2015 Watchtower indicated that there are no longer any specific classes of people that are identified by prophecies. So they might wonder why the Jew represents anointed Christians and the 'ten men' specifically represent the 'other sheep.' That 2015 article, and this new understanding, was really intended to help us avoid the problem of arbitrarily making up specific applications of interpretation for every Bible parable and historical occurrence, and saying it was the ONLY correct application. Prophecies (like Zechariah) are still considered fair game for interpreting specific applications to classes of people today.
(The Watchtower makes exceptions, and still uses the parable-as-prophecy motif for the "sheep and goats" parable, and, of course, the "faithful and discreet slave" parable. There is one other possible parable-as-prophecy exception, but this one is in a prophetic book, Daniel 4's tree dream parable/prophecy.)
The idea of only using a historical occurrence in the Bible to only say it "reminds" us of a certain thing, rather than "it must represent this particular thing" was used in the same life experience article mentioned above. For example:
. . . she gave me the parcel and left. It contained a warm overcoat. Her loving gesture reminded me of Hannah bringing her young son Samuel a coat while he was serving at the tabernacle.—1 Sam. 2:18, 19.
And again at the end of the article:
Just before his death, Jesus told his disciples: “You will not always have me” with you. (Matt. 26:11) We other sheep are also aware that we will not always have Christ’s anointed brothers among us on earth. I count it, therefore, an inestimable privilege to have been closely associated for over 70 years with many of the anointed—gratefully holding on to the skirt of a Jew.

@Srecko Sostar, Yes I avoided the word "inspired" for now, because I think it gets us into another topic with its own complexities. But it is a topic I think we can get to (assuming the topic is of interest to others).
@JOHN BUTLER, I'd like to consider your view of the scripture in detail. Although I wanted to get a baseline for others, so that we are all clear on the Watchtower's interpretation first. On the issue of organizational or congregational goals, I was merely trying to tie it back to the original context of rebuilding the temple, and then use words that remind many of us of the same type of activities in modern times. You could replace it with your own preferred religious terms: ecclesia, church, synagogue, temple, etc. I meant the same idea with mistakes: meaning mistakes by the Jewish people at the time which can remind us of mistakes made in modern times.

The NWT says at Zechariah 8:23:
23  “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nationsj will take hold, yes, they will take firm hold of the robe* of a Jew,* saying: “We want to go with you,k for we have heard that God is with you people.”’”l
I have noticed that one poster in particular has referenced this scripture several times and put it in the context of being able to identify the true religion at the time of the final judgment. The poster admits that in the meantime, he can't really tell who that "Jew" represents. But it is evidently associated in his mind with a group of "truly anointed" persons. By this he evidently means those who are truly led by the holy spirit, who are truly motivated by the holy spirit, and who therefore give proper guidance and to others. They should be giving always healthful, if not "perfect" spiritual food, and always at the proper time.
For that particular poster, this disqualifies the eight or so men who currently claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave" since they admit that their food is not always perfect (and therefore could not qualify as "at the proper time," either.)
When a verse from the "OT" is not specifically repeated in the "NT" with an explanation, we are pretty much on our own to decide whether it has a specific prophetic application to our own day, or to the near future. In many cases the verse will look quite specific, but we can only give it a general application to our own day. In other cases there are specifics, and we can try to make specific applications to those specific references.  Of course, in every case we could look to the overall situation, the historical context, and find either warning examples, teaching examples, or encouragement in the words (2 Tim 3:16,17).
In this case, the historical context is an audience of Jews having trouble getting up the willingness or courage to overcome obstacles related to rebuilding their temple. Some of those obstacles were economic (including bad harvests) and some of it was the fear of encroaching enemies, and more populous nations around them. And some of it was no doubt an overall despondency that it would take too long and never get finished, and thus be a wasted effort. Those kinds of issues are easily generalized into our own personal issues with respect to overcoming obstacles related to our own spiritual goals. They can also be looked at in terms of our willingness to be involved with organizational goals or congregational goals when economics, delays, mistakes, and the despondency of others can take a toll on our own courage.
But what about the Watchtower's usual interpretation of this verse? Is it definitive? Can it mean anything else? These are the kinds of questions that Christians should always ask of everything we believe, if we want to be like the Beroeans, or "make sure of all things."
 

I know, but it's still related. Do you expect it to be a group LIKE the GB in the sense of a group of leaders of a certain religion, or leaders who promote a certain set of specific doctrines, but whom you accept because they also give evidence you can accept of being "anointed." I think you imply that the GB claim to be inspired (although they would never use those exact words). Would you expect the person(s) who fit the actual "Jew" of Zechariah to claim to be inspired?

Officially, the Watchtower's answer to @Bubba Johnson Jr is NO! Newly anointed persons would NOT necessarily be included in "this generation." If there was a person who was anointed prior to 1914, and who is still alive today, then it's possible that newly anointed persons today are still therefore overlapping with that first group of anointed.
(Technically there are not overlapping "generations" in the same sense as "this generation that will not pass away," there are only overlapping "groups" within that generation. In the natural sense of the word "generation" there are, of course, as many as 6 or 7 overlapping generations already since the generations alive in 1914, but those are NOT the type of generation the Watchtower is attempting to define here.)
It seems rather unlikely that there are still anointed persons alive now who were around to "discern" the events of 1914, and who were anointed at the time. Even if one could be said to be anointed at say, 8 years old, that would mean the person was born in 1906, and is already 113 years old. The most likely "known" example of a "group one" person was F W Franz who died a few days shy of 1993. Brother Splane made clear (in his chart) that Franz was only an example of "group one," and that there may be more examples. If we assume a person could be anointed only as young as 18 instead of 8, then the oldest possible person in "group one" would be 123 years old, and this seems like too much of a stretch.
The definition as explained by Brother Splane, makes clear therefore that newly anointed persons are NOT necessarily a part of "this generation" because their anointed life does not necessarily overlap with persons from group one. (Assuming all the "candidates" in group one have already died, and that these conjectured 113 to 123 year old candidates are not around today.)

Not at all. Everything I said was a FULL truth about what the WT taught, or a FULL truth about what others think, or a FULL truth about my own opinion. No half-truths.
Yes. The Body of Christ is the "Church" and there is a sense in which everyone in the "Church" is part of Jesus' body, so I would never disagree with this or claim that they could not.
The "great crowd" mentioned in Revelation chapters 7 and 19, and who are also referenced again in chapters 21 and 22. Scripturally, they appear to be part of the heavenly kingdom, the New Jerusalem, because they are spiritual Israelites, too.
True. But you don't give any context to why you mentioned this. The closest we came to discussing servants is the mention that the 'great crowd' render sacred service in the inner sanctuary of the temple. (Elsewhere the Watchtower associates the inner sanctuary, naos, with heaven itself.) But in the context of this particular great crowd we actually do not have the mention of 'bond servant.' We do know that elsewhere, the anointed Christians are referred to in some contexts as "bond servants." Even the person we identify as an angel in Revelation 19:10 is also a "doulos" or "bond servant" (and he tells John not to worship him). All Christians should humbly be able to see themselves as "good for nothing slaves" in comparison to the glory of God's kingdom. Christians should recognize themselves as "bond servants" and yet the promise is that Jesus would make the first last and the last first, and therefore can crown these servants as kings in glory, as he sees fit.
I agree that this makes sense, and it is a part of what I presented earlier.
It looks like you are giving an example of how I might have added some confusion here, but the problem is that you left off the introductory part of the same paragraph. If it can make it simpler, I'll just highlight some main points here:
[In my opinion, for what it's worth]
During his earthly ministry, Jesus and his disciples were sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In John 10:16 Jesus refers to "other sheep" outside of that fold (Israel) which he would later bring into the same flock. These would therefore be persons of the nations, the gentiles, who would also share in the same promises of anointing and son. (It shouldn't be surprising that Jesus would make such a momentous announcement to his disciples as this becomes a major theme of the scriptures after Jesus is resurrected.) Paul makes a similar point about how the two folds become one in Ephesians 2:14 ("For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off.") And Paul explains that until recently the nations had been fenced off from the nation of Israel, but now the two groups are one. Since this was such an important event in the history of Christianity, it appears in Revelation 7 symbolically as a "great crowd" of persons who serve in heaven with the same white robes associated with the Bride of Christ. In comparison with the limited number of Israelites who had come in, the great crowd of persons who come out of every nation are innumerable. So, as I said, the other sheep and the great crowd appear to refer to the same group of anointed persons from all nations who join their Israelite brothers in New Jerusalem, a spiritual Mt Zion, made up of both Jews and Greeks (gentiles):
(Galatians 3:26-29) . . .You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. 29 Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise.
Interestingly, according to the NWT, the New Jerusalem in Revelation is said to be nearly TWO MILLION square miles, and the entire structure is TWO AND A  HALF BILLION cubic miles. That's a city about the size of entire area from New York to North Dakota to Texas to Florida, the whole portion of the United States east of the Rockies. Larger than the entire Roman Empire at its maximum.
But that doesn't matter of course. What might matter is that there is nowhere in the Bible where it limits the number of those who would be anointed or who would serve as heavenly kings and priests to only 144,000. Apparently, although it could be a literal number referring to the full number of Jewish Christians who came in as "first-fruits" it could also be a number that symbolizes these Israelites in the way that the 12,000 from each tribe is clearly just a symbolic number in Revelation 7. Note how Paul refers to the number of Israelites compared to the number from the nations who come into spiritual Israel:
(Romans 11:11-26) . . .Certainly not! But by [Israel's] false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their [Israel's] full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry 14 to see if I may in some way incite my own people to jealousy and save some from among them. . . . 16 Further, if the part of the dough taken as firstfruits is holy, the entire batch is also holy; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. . . . remember that it is not you who bears the root, but the root bears you. 19 You will say, then: “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true! For their lack of faith, they were broken off, but you are standing by faith. Do not be haughty, but be in fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. . . .  23 And they also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them back in. .24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret, brothers, so that you do not become wise in your own eyes: A partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved.. . . It is not possible to make this refer to spiritual Israel, because it speaks of Israel's lack of faith being a factor. It speaks of the "natural branches" of Israel. Surely we can't claim that the nations were added in only because "spiritual Israel" lost faith!
Basically, there was a "witness" to Israel, and a "witness" to the nations (gentiles). And this is represented by the natural olive tree and the wild olive tree, all grafted into one tree representing "spiritual" Israel. We have another mention of the two olive trees and two witnesses in Revelation 11:
(Revelation 11:3, 4) . . .I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth. (Galatians 2:7-8) . . .they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . .
Even the two lampstands can be tied back to Paul's and Jesus' illustrations about the Jews and the Gentiles.
(Luke 2:30-32) . . .because my eyes have seen your means of salvation that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.” (Mt 5:14-16) “You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when situated upon a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under the measuring basket, but upon the lampstand, and it shines upon all those in the house. Likewise let your light shine before men, that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens.” (Acts 13:46, 47) . . .Then Paul and Barʹna·bas boldly said to them: “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you [Israel]. Since you are rejecting it and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. 47 For Jehovah has commanded us in these words: ‘I have appointed you as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
And, of course, in the temple sanctuary, only pure olive oil could be used to light the physical lamps.

One size fits all is not necessarily a good approach either, as everyone is at a different stage of knowledge, readiness, etc.
Back when I was so sure we were right about everything in every detail I felt comfortable working college/university housing territory with an improvised presentation that went something like this, depending on the student's style of speaking:
. . . A lot of people of religious faiths might come up to you claim that they aren't here to convert you. But listen, I'll admit that we are; and it's because we are sure we are right, and we're sure it's important. I know that's easy to say, but it's why we'd like to prove it. So we offer free home Bible studies at your convenience to fit your own schedule. This way, in case you don't believe us, you can ask us anything you want and we'll get an answer to all your Bible questions.
It was a bit heady and haughty, but I could literally start more "Bible Studies" than I knew what to do with. I was giving away "Bible Studies" to other pioneers, and a day of 4 or 5 Bible Studies was easier than cart witnessing is today. One month I had 20 Bible Studies (and even got counseled over it by our Circuit Overseer because my magazine placements were down). A few of these students became Witnesses, and two of them even came to NYC to visit me at Bethel and in my NYC congregation.

I simply quoted the Watchtower where it stated the following:
*** ws16 January p. 21 par. 4 “We Want to Go With You” ***
This means that the Jew is not just one person but represents the whole group of anointed ones.
I never used the term "remnant" although I did reference the "anointed." I believe you already understand the reason for the somewhat different uses of these terms in our publications.
Thanks for saying you want to get it right. This is not just about my opinion, though. I am happy to express my own opinion,  even if my own opinion differs somewhat from the Watchtower's explanation. But this was also a case of wondering why John seems so sure that this verse cannot refer to any group like the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's almost as if he is sure that somewhere there is a truly anointed person, or group of such persons, who it should be obvious that we should be following. Perhaps they don't exist yet, in John's opinion, or they do and they are just difficult to find among all the "noise." 
We can get to all of this, but I had a few other follow up questions for John, for which I had hoped to get his range of opinion first on what the verse could mean. I wondered just how different John's expectation (for others) would be from the Watchtower's explanation. For example, isn't it possible that John might see it possible that there are several different religious groups each focusing on a different kind of ministry. Some might be doing great work in helping people understand certain important doctrines, but make mistakes in other areas. Perhaps there is a very good religious-based ministry that does an excellent job pushing for legislative reform, religious institutional procedural changes, and general social reform in CSA matters. Would he expect that group to also teach the correct view of Trinity, Hell, Neutrality, etc.? I'm wondering just how "perfect" he would expect any human religious organization to be if it were to specialize, say, in pushing sound Bible doctrinal reform. John has actually said enough already so that I realize I don't need to ask him all the questions I had wanted.
My own opinions here are somewhat separate. Although on the matter of Zechariah 8, I think that chapter really does provide an excellent and important image for us to remember about our own attempts to make converts to true Christianity. Jesus gave the illustration that just like a tree is known for its fruits, we would also attract persons who want to join our particular Christian brotherhood. Also, we know that 'by this people will recognize if we are truly Christ's disciples, if we have love among ourselves.' It reminds us that converts aren't just made from a door to door ministry. Just as an example, the Seventh Day Adventists started out similarly in time to when the Watchtower organization started out, yet they have no specific door*to*door focus, and have grown to nearly 20 million adherents. JTR has mentioned something similar when he says that if we are really doing something right, and are blessed by Jehovah for it, we might expect people to knocking on our door instead of the other way around. (This is not an argument that the SDA's are doing it right and we are doing it wrong.)
On these additional issues about my personal views and opinions about other sheep, great crowd, remnant, body of Christ, anointed, etc., I have already begun answering, and I'm sure you will find plenty to oppose.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a big deal to repeatedly say there is no academic understanding here. You began repeating that idea (under other names, I think) when someone implied that it would be OK to make longer quotes from other sources for education purposes, based on common practice for commentaries on other person's writings  under 'fair use' law.
But that's not what this is about. It's been a common practice of yours to sometimes just dump a bunch of commentary from various places, but without any comment of your own as to whether you think it even applies to your own view or someone else's view. Often it is contradictory to the Watchtower's view (as it was this time), which is why I think you either hadn't even read it, or at least why you didn't comment on any of it yourself. It seemed pretty academic, but you didn't give a source for any other readers here, who might not have been able to tell whether it came from a Watchtower source or a Christendom source or some other academic source. And for someone who is bent on repeating there is no academic understanding here, it makes no sense that you had just done this earlier in this same thread with the words:
Of course, you didn't give any reference or attribution to that either, and you were addressing someone else, not me. And by the way, I didn't just automatically know where the references came from; I had to look it up.
I didn't sidestep the questions, I only indicated to you why the questions, as stated, didn't mean much of anything. As a reminder, here were the questions I "sidestepped":
In between those two questions, you merely copied information from "Christendom's" commentaries without any context. Those don't even sound like legitimate questions to me. They sound like questions from someone trying to imitate post-modern pretentiousness and who thinks vagueness sounds impressive.
Wow! And did anyone mention your propensity for projection?
Your resources did not agree with the Watchtower's view. You yourself have seemed to question the Watchtower's stated view on who makes up the Body of Christ, or else you just wanted to be disagreeable. Your own questions and statements often sound something like this:
BTK: Why do you say that only the anointed are in the Body of Christ? That's untenable and seals your fate as an apostate! Response: But the Watchtower says that only the anointed are in the Body of Christ and I believe this is correct. BTK Then why do you say the anointed are not in the Body of Christ? That's untenable and seals your fate as an apostate! I don't see how I have failed to see that I copy/paste from Watchtower literature. I actually show the reference each time to show exactly where I copy/pasted from, and to make it clear that I am posting from Watchtower literature. See the difference?

Thanks for explaining. This was the impression I got from you, and it was reinforced with this other idea that you conveyed: that since the scriptures were only written to and for the anointed, we must take a kind of 'sit-and-wait' attitude until it becomes obvious who they are. You also have said that you think the end will not take place before the end of your own lifetime, an idea probably also partly based on the fact that no group of anointed has yet become so obvious in our day that '10 men are taking hold of them' because they can see that God is with them.
One reason I responded with an entire thread on this was because this overall idea seemed too passive. It really would lead to the idea that unless some group of truly anointed were making it extremely obvious that they were right in some inspired kind of way, then all of us can just sort of wait until that changes. But Jesus seemed to say that preaching and converting others through making disciples of him was going to be the way in which this message about God and his Kingdom through Christ would reach to the ends of the earth. To me that seems quite different.
Also, just my opinion, but I don't think we need anything except to keep our eyes open and see the works of various Christian brotherhoods to know whether or not Jehovah's spirit is acting upon them. By their works you will recognize them. It's not that works result in our salvation, but that the "works" of the spirit result in "love, joy, peace, patience, etc., etc." If our hearts desire Christian association with loving, peaceful, patient persons, we would find such ones to associate with. The nuances of doctrine (like "who is the Jew with the 10 men at his robes?") is completely unimportant. But a doctrine of peace that results in them not going to war with each other would seem quite important. Personally, I would not wait for a group that explains Scripture better than the next group. That has always just been a "sub-religion" much like the philosophies of the Greeks that they thought was real wisdom.
Scripture is already there for us. We don't have to understand it any further than what was already put there. In our hearts we know enough about Jesus parables just by reading the overall message. We have no further need of prophets, and voices, and tongues, and inspiration, because Jehovah has already put the basic message in our hearts from what inspiration has already written. This is one of the reasons that the book of Revelation was almost voted out of the 66 book canon. It was written in such a way that it took away from the idea that we need nothing further to be written to us (by future interpreters). Yet even this book exercises the depth of our Christian faith if we remember that it should not distract from the idea that the end could come at any time, and that we are not waiting for specific events to happen, but that it can happen at any time. 
On that topic, remember that Jesus said the end could happen at any time, and it would be a surprise, as if without warning of any kind. Of course, he also made it clear that it could happen at any time immediately after the Roman armies sacked Jerusalem, which basically happened in 70 CE. Your own view makes it easy to put this off, by waiting for an additional sign. Paul did mention an additional sign prior to 70 when he said that we weren't waiting for a group of semi-inspired anointed to watch for, but that there would be a semi-inspired powerful force that would have to come first. This kept the Thessalonians from getting too excited about the end coming when 70 CE had not even come yet.
He told them that we needed nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons of the parousia because it would come as a surprise, like a thief in the night, even though we are "awake" enough so that it will not overcome us as victims the way a thief overcomes his victim. He reminded the Thessalonians that people could be taking note of peace and security, and therefore it would be a complete surprise. But he also told them to prepare for the possibility that they would sleep in death before Jesus returned. But that semi-inspired or pseudo-inspired powerful force to watch for apparently turned out to be the many anti-Christs that John spoke of in his letters. Paul had put it in "apocalyptic terms" and I think the book of Revelation even more so:
I'll end on this because it's long, but I think it's curious that Paul's only warning sign prior to the parousia was about a man of lawlessness (the apostasy already at work) and a counteracting force of restraint that was almost out of the way. (This was apparently the apostles, but some could argue that it extends to our day as the apostleship continues to be represented by men governing the congregation.)
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence [parousia] 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. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness. John, possibly the original apostle by that name, apparently outlived the year 70 CE, and he still says something similar, but his solution is that all of them were anointed and all of them therefore have no need of someone or some group to continue teaching them, because the anointing itself teaches all of them the truth.
(1 John 2:18-27) 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort. 20 And you have an anointing from the holy one, and all of you have knowledge. 21 I write you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie originates with the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you will also remain in union with the Son and in union with the Father. 25 Furthermore, this is what he himself promised us—the life everlasting. 26 I write you these things about those who are trying to mislead you. 27 And as for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things and is true and is no lie.. . .

I definitely agree with that. No matter how sure I might sound, I am just giving an opinion on what I believe a Scripture might mean. Even if I don't have any doubts about it, it doesn't make it true.
And that too. BTW, it's this tendency to conflate "inspired" and "anointed" that made me think you might have thought that the GB ought to be "inspired" in some way even though they have clearly said that they are not. I know you have never said it that way, but you have made previous comments that make me think that you believed a TRUE "faithful and discreet slave" should "in effect" be inspired in some way. You have said things like the following:
I probably read too much into it.
I personally do not think of the Governing Body as "THE faithful and discreet slave." I don't think anyone, or any particular identifiable group is "THAT slave." It was merely an illustration that showed how some Christians might be like that good slave, and some might be like this other bad slave. In fact, Jesus gave many more examples of how the slave might be bad than might be good. I think that Jesus gave the illustration, not to create a hierarchical group that might try to "lord it over" their fellow Christians, or try to be "governors of their souls" or "guardians of doctrine." I think Jesus knew that most Christians, imperfect as we are, would strive to do good and probably fall short many times. Jesus is already identified as the "One Governor" of our faith, and he told us not to follow those who want to be called Leader, Father or Teacher. We can find many different teachers under many different circumstances in our Christian experience, and we can try to be one of those many teachers to others, when called upon.
I think Paul dealt with people who looked to men (like Paul, Apollos, and Cephas) to be their Governing Body, or other superfine apostles. But Paul spoke out against the idea in several ways, even though Paul himself really was a "guardian of doctrine." Here are some excerpts from the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 4, where we actually find some  comments about supposed "faithful" and "discreet" "stewards" and the idea of "lording it over others" which is exactly what Jesus' illustration warned against:
(1 Corinthians 4:1-21) . . . A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . . the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. 7 For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? 8 Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men. 10 We are fools because of Christ, but you are discreet in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are held in honor, but we in dishonor. . . . 14 I am writing these things, not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. 18 Some are puffed up with pride, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if Jehovah wills, and I will get to know, not the speech of those who are puffed up with pride, but their power. 20 For the Kingdom of God is a matter not of speech but of power. 21 Which do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and mildness of spirit?
To me this sounds like a commentary on the parable itself. It contains the idea that some would want to beat their fellow servants. They would want to take matters into their own hands before the Lord comes in his due time. Some would be puffed up and wish to begin ruling as kings (governors). These human tribunals (governing bodies) are considered unimportant to Paul. They are trying to judge matters before their time. They are drunk with power, puffed up with pride. Not even the apostles look for "honor" or present themselves as "discreet" and yet these persons want to present themselves as discreet (wise). So Paul sends people to them (like Apollos and Timothy) who are NOT at all like that, people such as Timothy who follow the mild and loving methods of Paul, who will treat them like a father admonishes beloved children. And as far as "guardians" Paul says that they may have "10,000 guardians" not just 8 or so. 10,000 was on the order of the actual number of Christians in the Roman Empire at that time, according to Acts.
Now most Witnesses probably think about the GB as exactly the kind of loving admonishers that Paul and Timothy and Apollos must have been. So this should not be taken as an indictment of the idea of a Governing Body. But I understand some of the problems you have with the Governing Body and their claims.

Yikes.
Yikes, again.
This is pretty much correct as I remember it, too. It was JTR who made fun of you (while you were using a different name). It was about "meds" at least once, and he also made fun of you on another occasion in a similar vein. You called him out on it at the time, so I didn't see a need to. You actually called him out on it a second time a few months later and JTR denied that he had ever said what he actually had said. But again, you were already calling him out on it.
I called out John on his "drunk" reference, just as a reminder that these things sometimes escalate and someone ends up getting disciplined and then there are hurt feelings for a long time to come. And what's worse is that sometimes the escalations can get out of hand and people leave or get locked out of the forum. I hate to see such things.
But as I think about it, I was wrong to mention anything to John. It wasn't my place. And perhaps it was even a bit sexist of me to step in for Anna as if she couldn't respond for herself. As you say, it's not like I try to step in for every little thing. Even when you say things I don't like about me personally, I let about 90 percent of them go without mentioning anything. (In fact, when I tried to respond to about 30 percent of your claims in a recent thread, it was John who stepped in to censure both of us for unchristianlike fighting.)
So, @JOHN BUTLER I would like to apologize for involving myself in an argument that was not for me, in the first place. I have my own prejudices like everyone else, perhaps more than you. Some person's comments I hardly ever even read. So I could never be a fair moderator anyway.

And here I thought it was other types of sinning you desired . . .
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/79686-a-circuit-overseer-states-your-faith-is-garbage-and-needs-to-be-torn-down/page/2/#comments

I have seen this type of attitude go overboard even from those who lived most of their lives in the world, and I cringe for new ones who might be wondering where we get this from. As a parent, I admit that I've tended to exaggerate the moral problems of the world myself, and I've learned that this fear-mongering doesn't work at all with high-school kids. In fact, my own kids (3) learned to choose their friends based on morals and maturity, but some of their Witness friends didn't really make the grade. When my daughter got married, she felt bad about having to replace some of her best friends with her "more worldly" Witness friends when it came to choosing bridesmaids.
Of course, some Witnesses had terrible experiences in the world, and the organization has truly provided a safe haven, and a spiritual paradise, relatively speaking.
His abuse of others. In fact it was an over-the-top eulogy of how great he was with kids and how he was always interested in their spiritual welfare that seemed to trigger a muffled outburst during the talk, and just after the talk there was an argument by others in the family about always keeping quiet about shameful things. It finally spilled over to others outside the immediate family. And this brother's own granddaughter had no idea about it until the funeral. It was a mess!

I'm glad you think so but that isn't the important thing, as you already know.
I guess your first point was that when I referenced the parable of the sheep being separated from the goats, I mentioned that I thought Jesus was separating two kinds of sheep from the goats.  You requoted a portion of what I said as follows:
I believe that when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats he is separating the anointed sheep as well as other sheep who don't identify themselves as anointed. (Matt 25:32)
You had asked for my opinion, and I told you this was part of my opinion. Absolutely nothing has changed. When Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, these sheep will include anointed sheep and other sheep who do not identify themselves as anointed. Let's assume for example, that you believe you are one of the anointed sheep, and I believe I am one of another class of sheep, as I do not identify myself as anointed. When Jesus comes to separate the sheep from the goats, I am hoping that he favors both of us with a place on his right hand, and that we are not going to be with the goats on his left.
You tried to explain that I meant something like this:
There is actually so much ambiguity in that first sentence that it is difficult to parse your meaning. Perhaps I worded it in a way that confused you, but I can't find the logic in the idea you apparently got out of it. I never said anything about who any of the goats were and where they might come from. I'm including sheep who claim to be anointed and sheep who claim not to be anointed in the sheep category who Jesus will place on his right. I didn't say anything about who the goats are.
I don't see a problem, and I don't see any reason to change, revise or edit anything.
Strange. I take this to be more of the kind of blame-shifting and projection that you have become infamous for. In the past, you have often copied pages from Christendom's commentaries, and pictures of scholarly looking book covers that have titles that appear to support your claims. Then someone points out that the contents of the book show just the opposite of your claim. Then you go twisting and scrambling to make it look like you never made a mistake after all.
I've even seen this type of twisting and scrambling for something as simple as a typo or mistaken definition, or misused vocabulary. When someone pointed it out to you, you doubled-down with some absolutely incredible pseudo-explanation to avoid admitting even a minor mistake. Sometimes, you apparently resort to meaningless word-salads or other types of word-play, and I can't tell if you think it worked to impress others, or to obfuscate. But whenever you get a piece of criticism like this you can be counted on to counter-claim that it is others who use word-play and word-salads, or you go on a temper-rant claiming that people are making fun of you.
I'd recommend that before you start claiming that I say things "in order to confuse" just ask others if they were also confused. Maybe they were, and this means I should rewrite it, but if it's mostly just you who's confused, just ask more questions, and I'll be happy to explain further the things that you might not have understood correctly -- just as I am happy to do now.
You also apparently had a problem with my statement that Zechariah 8 (in context) gives us some good ideas about helping others to become Christians, which should be a goal of our ministry. You requoted a portion here: “My own opinions here are somewhat separate. Although on the matter of Zechariah 8, I think that chapter really does provide an excellent and important image for us to remember about our own attempts to make converts to true Christianity”
Again, I don't see what kind of a problem you would have with this. We want people we meet in our ministry and persons whom we hope to have study the Bible with us become converted to true Christianity. Right? The context of Zechariah 8 had shown how this would be fulfilled in the midst of economic hardships and disappointments and even the incursion of enemies/opposers. I had already pointed this out and also wanted to show how the image of having people come to us can sometimes be more important that us coming to them. If we are true Christians, we will be known by reputation. As Jesus said (and as my very next sentence began after the portion you quoted):
I partially understand why you wish to disagree with me whenever you have a chance, but you very often seem to forget that when you are so anxious to be an opposer, when not careful, you can end up opposing Jesus' own words, too.

Just in case anyone wondered why I had thought to make the point that it was my own opinion that the sheep separated to Jesus' right would include the "anointed" -- here's the reason:
Our current Watchtower publications very often imply that the sheep that Jesus separates to his right do NOT include the anointed. Because of the distinction made between Christ's brothers and these sheep, I think most Witnesses already understand it this way, but it's rarely stated explicity and succinctly except in some convention talks. The most succinct statement I remember in writing is here in the Insight book:
*** it-1 p. 1184 Illustrations ***
Notice that the “sheep,” who are put on the right hand of the enthroned Son of man, are shown to be different from Jesus Christ’s “brothers,” to whom they did acts of kindness.—Mt 25:34-40; Heb 2:11, 12.
There have been several significant historical changes to our interpretations of this doctrine, which might make for an enlightening discussion to some. But I won't intentionally drag out this particular thread to explain. The 93 and 95 Watchtower references from the WT Publications Index will give some significant quotes about former doctrinal beliefs on the topic:

[Matthew] 25:32   it-1 1183-1184; w15 1/1 13; re 123; w98 8/15 20; w95 2/1 12-13; w95 10/15 22-24; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164; w89 5/1 19; w87 3/1 29; w87 5/15 12-13
[Matthew] 25:33   it-1 1029, 1184; w95 2/1 12-13; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164
[Matthew] 25:34   it-2 1207; w95 10/15 26-27; jv 164; gt 111; w90 5/15 8; w90 6/1 6; w89 9/1 19-20
 

So you were the one holdout that kept Wikipedia from being able to say " . . . used by all Witnesses"