Anna

3 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Fantasys can be disregarded ... if you know them to actually be fantasys ... and nobody is threatening to destroy your family if you do not believe them.

I have not had that experience, I mean someone threatening to destroy my family if I do not believe their "fantasies". And yes, I understand what you are talking about. No need to explain

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but what is REALLY being discussed now is CREDIBILITY. 

Yes, but also whether the subject is a burning concern (to borrow True Tom's expression) or not. In your story, if your idea of rescuing the Mexican family entailed them eating your grass, then that would be a burning concern.

7 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

At no point do we act on our own understanding.

I suppose there is no need to, unless this understanding of ours became so important to us that we couldn't keep ourselves from acting.

Which brings me to this quote of yours:

7 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

 I am sure they would say it's direction has never truly conflicted with God. But there aren't variations of the truth -- there is only right and wrong. If a change is made, then that means there was something false with the previous direction.

I would think that it's an important thing, that direction never truly conflicts with God.  I agree with you about absolute truth, something is either black or white, however, what about this: (one of JTR's favorite images)

Perspective has a profound effect in how we see things. When there is a change, I prefer to see it as an "update" brought on by new perspective. I am sure you will agree there is nothing wrong with updates? After all, without "updates" we would still be using a cell phone the size of a brick.

So in summary, I think the most important thing is not the "change" but making sure the "change" is not in conflict with any core principles and "truths" (the cylinder) about God.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

  First of all, there is nothing to disagree with on any of those questions because the answer is given only with Scripture, not interpretation of those Scriptures.

Sorry but I will have to disagree with you there since the question itself points to the interpretation doesn’t it?

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not one of the questions mentions "the generation," nor 1914, nor 1919, nor 1922, nor the United Nations, nor the "great crowd," nor the "other sheep," nor the "anointed," nor the meaning of at least a thousand different prophetic interpretations.

You are right. Perhaps this might be a clue that these subjects are not as important as some might suggest. They definitely are not included in the section "elementary Bible teachings" which form the first part of the questions, but some are mentioned elsewhere in the book, such as the anointed and other sheep.  I  know for sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. only agrees with about 15% of the interpretations made by the GB and yet he remains a part of the congregation as far as I am aware.

I realize it seems like I am contradicting myself since I said that one " should have all those "own opinions on scripture" cleared up, otherwise one wouldn't get baptized as one of JW since one of the requirements is to agree with all 100 questions asked in the "organized book", but I did not necessarily mean these questions are about specific doctrine which one has to agree with, but rather that one agrees with the fundamental teachings and recognizes Jehovah's Witnesses as the true religion, which would take care of "own opinion on certain scriptures". All this of course could be covered under the umbrella that we recognize the GB/FDS as dispensing spiritual food therefor whatever it dispenses we agree with as the truth....well..... truth at the time . This is basically goes back to the header topic I raised.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** od pp. 201-202 Part 3 Jehovah’s Arrangement of Things ***
12. What is the Governing Body of the Christian congregation, and what role does it fill today?
“Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: ‘Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue.”—Acts 15:1, 2.
“As they traveled on through the cities, they would deliver to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem. Then, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number day by day.”—Acts 16:4, 5.
“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.”—Matt. 24:45-47.

Of course when I was going through the questions in the 80’s there was no mention of the  FDS applying exclusively to the GB. We know this has been a recent change as is evident in the 2015 version of the book.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If anyone had studied the verses in Matt 24:45-47 carefully, along with the Watchtower's explanation, I would think it should have been obvious to them that the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be that faithful slave of Matt 24:45. So the question itself, when applied to the Scripture, would only go so far as to indicate that the Governing Body, like all good Christians, would only HOPE they are faithfully participating in fulfilling a role of a faithful and discreet slave. 

Perhaps this will be something that will be re-worded one day.  However, it applying to all Christians has it's draw back, since how can all Christians be made masters of Christ's belongings? I suppose this is another subject.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The reason, of course, has already been explained, but I'm always willing to explain again.

If you can explain it concisely I would be happy 😃

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I know of a couple of Witnesses who were both disfellowshipped based on the ZERO-witness policy. Both were very good friends of mine, and were about my age. One never tried to be reinstated, and neither are JWs today.

This was 1976. He was about 19, and was considered a spiritually weak, immature brother who had delayed getting baptized until just that year, and his father wasn't a Witness. He began dating a sister, 18, who had just begun regular pioneering. The gossip was tough on her from the beginning because neither her own family or many others in the congregation thought she should date a young, newly baptized, irregular publisher if she wanted to continue pioneering. He was accused of finally getting baptized just so he could date her.

She worked in a hospital in the city on some kind of "candy striper" program that had turning into an internship, and she had to work til about midnight, and didn't drive, and wanted to stay in the city near the hospital. My parents had sold our country house in 1975 and had just moved into the city to rent, so that my mother could also pioneer. I had already moved to another congregation about 100 miles away where my brother had started a business. So my parents would often give this sister my old room in the rented city house.

One night she stayed overnight with the brother she was dating at his home (when his parents were away). She claimed that they hadn't even gone on a date that night, that nothing happened, and it was just for temporary convenience that she remained there after falling asleep. She normally would have come to our house that night and slept in my old room. He also claimed that nothing had happened. They claimed it was one of those "Wake up little Susie, wake up!" situations after both of them fell asleep.

Well, my parents had already informed her parents that she hadn't come to our house that night.  (This was pre-cell phone days.) Her parents ended up finding out she was at the brother's house at around 5 am. She normally got up early from our house and got a ride home in the daytime.

They were disfellowshipped for fornication, even though both of them denied it. They were obviously not repentant because both of them denied it. She had admitted staying at his house. He was the one who tried to get reinstated. He called me at Bethel the next year to ask about what might be done since he had not realized that he could have appealed it. I visited him on a summer off from Bethel in 1977 and he got reinstated within a few weeks after that. His own father WANTED him to stay disfellowshipped because he thought it would discourage him from going back to the Witnesses. He got reinstated, but was bitter about it. I have no idea if anything actually happened that night, but he still denies that anything at all happened.

Thank you for drawing attention to the aspect of circumstantial evidence. In this case, this was counted as a witness. Not hard to do since it was known that the couple in question was already romantically involved.

38 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quite funny really. You can own a Bible, read a Bible, pray to God, BUT don't you dare have your own opinion of scripture, and even worse it would be suicidal to mention your opinion of scripture to others.

The good thing is, by the time one gets baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses one should have all those "own opinions on scripture" cleared up, otherwise one wouldn't get baptized as one of JW since one of the requirements is to agree with all 100 questions asked in the "organized book". 

8 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

If the Society / GB had been meek and humble then the Org would not be in such a mess, and it wouldn't need to be making massive payouts either.  I'll just repeat that line from above comment :-

One who is meek humbly accepts God’s standards in all aspects of his personal life...

Yes, and one of those standards is the two witness rule.

Just last night, my hubby and I were watching a series on "Evil Murderers". This particular episode was about a man who tortured and murdered 8 women. He was caught and admitted to the murders, not only that, but as proof he gave the police the names and details of what each victim had been wearing. He also told them the name of one victim who got away 15 years earlier, describing in detail how and where she got away. The police checked their records and found the surviving victim, and exactly matching details of what she had reported. The woman, who had been 21 at the time, had not been believed all these years, even though she had marks on her body. Her own mother said she made the story up. The woman ended up in counseling for years, and said she even started doubting herself. Imagine how she felt when 15 years later she was finally  vindicated. The murderer was convicted, and put on death row, but even when the criminal admits to the crimes, and even where there is undisputed proof of guilt, the criminal can appeal many times. As a consequence the appeals process takes decades to complete, and costs the taxpayer millions of dollars.

Why am I telling you this story? You will only say "we'll that is the world, you guys should be better anyway"  Well yes, I should hope we are better, and when the death penalty was in existence during Israelite times, this guy would have been executed immediately. Today, we (JWs) don't execute people obviously, however, the consequences for a crime can be severe. You all harp on about how devastating disfelliwshipping is. Do you not think that before this action can be taken it has to be established that the "sinner" really is guilty? How would you feel if you lived in Israelite times and one person falsely accused you of something deserving the death penalty, and no second witness was required? What about today. How would you feel if one person falsely accused you of something deserving disfellowshipping, and you were disfellowshipped on the basis of that one person's testimony? If you are honest, you will admit that the requirement of at least 2 witnesses would be quite desirable in that case.

As regards CSA, the org. is not in trouble because of some maliciously and wrongfully applied scripture involving the two witness rule. The org. is in trouble because it handled cases of CSA at a congregational level only, without involving outside authorities, (who by the way without adequate witnesses would not have done anything prior to the 00's either, and you know all about that, as you didn't get any justice).

On 6/24/2019 at 1:06 AM, Noble Berean said:

JWs are literally told that their personal views are valueless next to the direction of the organization: "He [a mature Christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding."

There is something else I wanted to add to this. It's not that JW's personal views are valueless, but if you look up the definition of "to harbor" you will see that it means something like "keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly....with the synonyms  "nurturing" "nursing" "cherishing". It's all about attitude. There may be something that a JW understands differently to the GB/FDS, they just don't see it the same way. If someone understands something differently to the GB/FDS, do you think it would be reasonable to expect that someone to stop seeing it that way just for the sake of it? Or has it more to do with the attitude of that person? For example, someone may not really accept the explanation of the "Generation" although they tried, but just can't. The immature person might want to make a big deal out of it. They may "nurse" their idea until it becomes unbearable and consumes everything else, including all the "truths" they previously cherished. Now the only idea they "cherish" is their own opinion. The mature Christian accepts they may understand things differently and moves on, and waits till things become clearer one way or another. Let's say at some point in the past someone had a personal opinion on a subject which was not the official understanding at the time. Some years later though, the very opinion they had, now becomes the official teaching. Does that mean they were guilty of having the trait of an immature Christian just for having that different opinion? Obviously not. But they would have been an immature Christian had they "harbored" those thoughts to the point of advocating their opinion and becoming consumed by it.

On 6/24/2019 at 1:06 AM, Noble Berean said:

So, under what circumstances would JWs suddenly become aware that their personal ideas on the Bible have weight?

When it's not merely a personal opinion or idea but a clear unambiguous Bible teaching. This is why it's important to know your Bible well. Those who didn't get carried away with 1975 were cognizant of the scripture which clearly says "no one knows the day or hour" no matter what anyone else was saying. Some who did get carried away blamed the org. for their losses. It's up to each person how they react, in the end we stand alone in front of the judgement seat of God and render an account for ourselves, not for anyone else.

On 6/25/2019 at 11:51 PM, Noble Berean said:

On 6/24/2019 at 2:22 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

 In my opinion, based on fact that no where in WTJWORG print or digital way, GJ appearance  before ARC was NOT possible to see (to read about) on JWTV Broadcasting, to empowered your reasoning, claim  before JW people on that other website. 

That is a good point Srecko. The audience at the ARC wasn't JWs (and any indoctrinated JW would've probably avoided viewing the ARC recording). That is why Geoffrey Jackson is able to make disingenuous comments like the one Anna brought up. They weren't meant for JW ears. Another that comes to mind is his remark that the GB claiming sole spokesperson status would be "presumptuous." He wouldn't dare say something like that to active members, because it would confuse and disturb them. No, the comments were meant for outsiders that are less familiar with the organization and less likely to question him.

To a certain extend I agree with your statement regarding the change in "language" when speaking to outsiders. JW's, do, and should do the same. Some don't, and as a result lose their "worldly" audience. As for GJ though to have intentionally used these comments to mislead, I do not think so, as this would be very short sighted. He must know that there will be other JWs who would hear his comment. 

The other thing is you do not know "he wouldn't dare to say anything like this to active members". That's just your opinion. Would you have ever thought you would see Tony Morris "dare" to go shopping for boxes of hard liquor? If TM was worried about being spotted he would have worn a disguise, or sent someone else.  Again, it seems to me that what the GB dares or not dares to do or say lives in the minds of others.

On 6/9/2019 at 2:27 PM, Outta Here said:

On 6/9/2019 at 2:23 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Somehow You start to involve wording, Nature of JHVH happiness, in question i put. I don't now why. Because you started talking about God's Nature (Happiness).

Don't understand this. I think @Anna raised the topic?

I thought you were talking about me raising the topic of the nature of God's happiness. Not the actual topic "How are we to understand the GB/Slave interpreting scripture, as the sole channel, and at the same time accept that they can err?

On 6/26/2019 at 9:07 AM, Matthew9969 said:

These statements does strongly imply that the governing body are idols to the rank and file.

To some.

On 6/24/2019 at 1:06 AM, Noble Berean said:

Hi Anna! Sorry for the delay in response. I am a little bit confused what you mean about complete obedience being in the minds of only some Witnesses. The Governing Body spells it out in their literature. Here are some notable examples:

• Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithful and discreet slave, should we not do the same? (w09 2/15 pp. 24-28)
• "We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval." (w11 7/15 p.24 Simplified English Edition)
• "[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (w01 8/1 p.14)

I am not sure how much clearer they can be about their attitude. They expect complete trust and obedience in their direction. For Br. Jackson to suggest that JWs would see wrong direction and not follow it is disingenuous. The truth is that adherents have continued to obey the GB throughout its self-admitted history of erring direction.

JWs are literally told that their personal views are valueless next to the direction of the organization: "He [a mature Christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding." (Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14) So, under what circumstances would JWs suddenly become aware that their personal ideas on the Bible have weight? Members are primed to put loyalty to leadership and the group ahead of their personal faith.

I also apologize for the (really) late response.

On 6/24/2019 at 1:06 AM, Noble Berean said:

I am a little bit confused what you mean about complete obedience being in the minds of only some Witnesses. Anna's quote: "Somehow though I think that the idea of unquestioned obedience to a group of uninspired men exists in the minds of some Witnesses, but not all".

Notice I said unquestioned obedience. There is a big difference, and I think this is what our issue should be, not the obedience which results from cooperation,  but obedience which goes above obedience to Jehovah.  The scriptures are clear, we must obey God as ruler rather than men. So if our obedience to anyone, including the GB, conflicts with God, then we do not obey. This rule governs any of those quotes from the WT you posted. Of course, when one discusses the general aspects of obedience, including those quotes, one assumes that in reality the FDS is not going to instruct anyone to go against God and do something unscriptural. So that means that one can take those quotes at face value and happily obey, without any qualms. However, it is possible that some would allow their obedience to cross the threshold of what is scriptural, because they intend to obey the FDS no matter what, and that is the point I was trying to make.

On 6/24/2019 at 1:06 AM, Noble Berean said:

JWs are literally told that their personal views are valueless next to the direction of the organization: "He [a mature Christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding." (Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14) So, under what circumstances would JWs suddenly become aware that their personal ideas on the Bible have weight? Members are primed to put loyalty to leadership and the group ahead of their personal faith.

I understand why you say this, but the context of that particular paragraph is Christian maturity as exemplified by  "oneness of the faith" as spoken of by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:11-14 : " And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers,  some as shepherds and teachers,  with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes". So if "oneness of the faith" here is the concern, then it is natural to regard "differing private ideas" about Bible interpretation as undesirable. Sometimes though we may not be able to stop "private ideas", and whether this is because of Christian immaturity or not, it is ultimately between us and Jehovah and not the GB/FDS. 

No doubt it must cross people's minds though that how come 8 men can wield such authority, supposedly over the faith of 8 million people, with only a claim that they are the fds of Matthew 24. But really, although they make that claim, it does not obviously mean that they are inspired or infallible, nor that they actually do wield authority over our lives, or our spirituality/faith. All these aspects are our own responsibility, our personal faith.Their responsibility is to provide food at the proper time, and also, to shepherd the congregations in order to keep them clean with respect to morality and spiritual cleanses (not mixing pagan ideas with Christianity). If the congregation was allowed to get contaminated with worldly attitudes (e.g. immorality) and false teachings, then the congregation would lose God's favor as it would no longer be clean. Some Jws and many ex-jws misinterpret this to mean that the GB controls people's lives.

22 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

In a way some sparks have already flicker. I do not know if you are aware of this but some weeks ago, there was a child performing and dancing at a gay bar, with people throwing money at him, as pointed out by others, even by me in the past, this only entices pedophiles more to target such ones, as for the child in question, it puts him in a vulnerable state. Aside from this children are being sexualized. The irony of this, the same people who support this shoot down those who speak against it, but when we defend a 14 year old girl who also speaks truth about what is going out, we are spoken of as the enemies. They are starting them young too in the schools.

That being said, the strongest ones who say child abuse this or that in either of the left or the right are usually the ones supporting this nonsense.

I have heard it said that soon pedophilia will be classed as just another sexual orientation and that pedophiles will feel discriminated against and will insist on their "rights".

Just to lighten things up a bit, are you the "man on the rocks" ?  😄: Cool song actually

4 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Give it a few years and you will see the line between child and adult will become smaller and open doors that should not be opened

You are probably right there

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It should never be used to avoid or discourage reporting the accusation to authorities.)

No, and I have been witness to two elders, unprovoked, tell me irrespective of each other that if there is ever a case of reported child abuse, the victim and/or parents are specifically told that regardless whether there is proof or not,  if they want to contact the police it is their absolute right to do so and there will be no repercussions from the elders (which actually is a sad thing to have to say..... as if  contacting the police would ever warrant repercussions....but, as we know, historically this was sometimes the case. However, this was never the organizations policy as far as I know, but it was more a personal decision by some elders).

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and there is some evidence that he is a Watchtower Lawyer

You are just kidding about this one right?

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Me missus wants to open up the castle in Capri. 🏰 Mmmmmmmmmm. 🙄

 YAWN

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I told her she should be embarrassed for even knowing that fact, because it meant she had looked it up earlier. (She had passed it up yesterday because she drove here last night for a rehearsal dinner, and it caught her eye, so she looked it up later just for fun.) 

One of my hobbies is "looking" at houses on real estate websites. Of course the ones I like to browse the most are the ones in Beverly Hills. My favorite ones are the mid century modern, inside and out. Not too keen on the pretend Tuscan villas. Some houses are so terrible inside, it's as if these people have the need to buy everything and anything just because they can. But evidently they can't buy good taste....

On 6/18/2019 at 7:45 PM, JW Insider said:

But a fully Christian system should be different. It transitions us away from the fleshly needs of Israel, and commends itself to our heart and spirit.

Just piping up here; I agree of course, but I'm sure you will admit that some sort of organizational structure is also necessary, especially with a view to the preaching activity...

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Evidently, in my opinion, this sect of the Pharisees, or similar Judeans pushing circumcision, were seen (by the Galatians at least) as getting their authority from men like Peter, James and John. Therefore Paul warns them, in my opinion, that even if it were Peter, James and John, or even an angel, that they should not submit. But Paul never says it wasn't them giving authority to the Judaizers. He never exonerates Peter, James and John. He even goes so far as never to actually call them "pillars" but couches their authority in language like "seemed to be pillars" and that it wouldn't matter who they were anyway, because they are just men, and Paul isn't trying to please men.

I understand your reasoning and I agree that Paul is warning the Galatians about listening to anyone but Jesus and Jehovah perhaps using Peter and co. as an example. As for Paul not exonerating Peter etc. I think it's evident that everything was ok between them in the long run. With the wording "seemed to be pillars" I took that to mean that to Paul it was "apparent" that they were pillars. 

I've run out of time so I will comment some more on the rest of your post later...

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 

 

 

Might sound archaic in America, but not long ago I heard someone (non JW) in England describe a frivolous woman as a "brazen hussy". Usually this term is used in jest.

22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

 

What's wrong with my hair?

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

while you are the one presenting the best possible defense for the usual reading of these incidents through the support in Acts 15.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the J-GB here at all costs (I will also call them that for simplicity sake). In fact, the example in Galatians and Acts clearly show that anyone can err and succumb to wrong reasoning and hypocrisy, even those who are "highly regarded" which must include present day prominent ones which includes the present day GB. The experience Paul describes is a good reminder that we must always obey God as ruler rather than men, or in fact even angels if they declare a different message, as Paul points out. But, his experience also shows that even though the situation was very difficult (a change from circumcision, to no circumcision required!) it was able to be handled correctly, and resolved by the J-GB, thanks to Paul bringing attention to it. It also shows that these brothers were able to work things out amicably and that even though Paul stayed away from them for 14 years prior to that, it most likely wasn't due to some kind of animosity or disrespect on his part but probably because he was too busy and did not need to consult with them as there was nothing new going on and he was already working in the ministry that he had received directly from Jesus, which the J-GB was in full agreement with.

I realize that my view is similar to what WT teaches, but I reached that conclusion myself the other week. My mum and I were preparing for the midweek meeting, and of course as you probably know it was reading of Galatians 1-3. Previously, I had had a similar understanding as you, and I told my mum that Paul called the J-GB false brothers, but then I started reading the account again, and the cross references to Acts and I had to revise my opinion. It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.

The situation with Peter highlighted that even prominent ones can be guilty of undesirable traits, (and we see this with Peter on more than one occasion)..... and then also Barnabas who had traveled with Paul, was led along with them in their hypocrisy.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Or was Paul much more sensitive to the lack of action against these subverters, realizing that the passive act of sending out spies, with active Judaizers included in their group of spies, made them guilty of Judaizing?

I am not sure what you mean by "passively" sending out spies. Surely they were either sent out, or they took the initiative themselves to go spying.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Chapter 2 (1-5) says that Paul (after FOURTEEN YEARS away from Jerusalem), went up, not because they called him, but because he had a revelation from Jesus Christ, to pay "them" a visit. Who do we think that "them" refers to? So far, the only persons he has named from a previous visit to Jerusalem are Peter and James(1:18). And he had said back then that he hadn't yet gone to Jerusalem to meet with those who were apostles before he was. So, I think you already agree that "them" refers to apostles and older men in Jerusalem. 

No objection there.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

He was looking to see if this visit was an opportunity to clear up a problem that brothers from Jerusalem had started to spread to other congregations.

Does this necessarily include the  "highly regarded" men in Jerusalem namely Peter, James and John, among others? Didn't those same brothers say:  "Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,  we have come to a unanimous decision to choose men to send to you together with our beloved Barʹna·bas and Paul,  men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". That doesn't sound like those brothers were the trouble makers, on the contrary. So weren't those men who went out from among them "from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) the ones that caused the problem, and wasn't that the issue Paul and Barnabas went up to the elders in Jerusalem about? (vs.2).

"On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses" ( Acts 15:4,5). Again, to me it seems clear that those who had the problem, and caused problems, were "those who had been from the sect of the pharisees, and were the same same ones (not literally) that "went from among the elders in Jerusalem" and "came down from Judea". 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If Paul is referring to false brothers brought in back in Antioch, then we already know that these men were sent from James.

Possibly, since those who had been from the sect of the Pharisees were also present at the meeting in Jerusalem, but we also know that they did not receive any instructions from James, especially not with regard to "what they said" (unless you get circumcised you cannot get saved).

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. Certainly not! They were Judaizers. So he said they "seemed to be pillars."

(Galatians 2:6-9) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they 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— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . .

Ok. My understanding from reading this portion of Galatians ( 2:6-9) is that it is not referring to the same people as the portion in Galatians 2:1-5:

"Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.  Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you".

What I am understanding here is that Paul went up to Jerusalem to speak with the "the highly regarded men/pillars" to talk to them about a matter involving false brothers (Superfine apostles/Judaizers).

Then the following verses (6-9) I understand Paul to be talking about the  important/highly regarded men/pillars saying that it does not matter that they were circumcised because: "God does not go by outward appearance"  and so they did not impart anything new to him in that regard, on the contrary they saw Paul had been entrusted with seeing to the uncircumcised in the same way Peter had been entrusted with the circumcised. And when they (those who seemed to be pillars) recognized that, they gave him (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. I don't see any animosity between them and Paul, even though Paul had to chastise one of the highly regarded men/pillars - Peter (who had obviously not remained in an unfavorable position as he was given the keys to the Kingdom later).

However, those who Paul called false brothers seem to be the same ones he is talking about in Acts 15: 1-2 and the same ones he goes to Jerusalem to talk to the "highly regarded men/pillars" about. "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue".

So it seems that these men from Judea were the Judaizers who insisted that without circumcision there is no salvation, not those who were in Jerusalem (the highly regarded men/pillars) even though some, like Peter had succumbed to a pretense for a short time because of fear of man (and even Barnabas succumbed) but then must have responded to Paul's correction (Galatians 2:11) However,  aren't the "false brothers/Judaizers" (those of whom the apostles in Jerusalem , he highly regarded men/ pillars wrote in Acts 15:23-14) the ones who caused trouble?: “The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions "........