Anna

What's wrong with my hair?

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. 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.

No objection there. 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". 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).

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 "........

I am under the impression that these brothers were not who Paul had in mind, but he was talking about the "Judeizers" Didn't he call James, Peter and John pillars? I'm not on my pc so I can't check. I will probably have to come back to this later with some scriptures...

Did you tell him that?

Some do!

It has been, and is my understanding that God doesn't "need" anything. However, in his love he had the desire to give other creatures the gift of existence, (or life), so that other beings could experience to some degree what he had (life), which included the joy of being alive. I think that the love you say God needs from intelligent creatures is actually for their benefit, not for his. He created them with a spiritual side, which only gets fulfilled with knowing and loving Him. Like a child who knows and loves his father, is in a better/happier position than a child who does not know who their father is. (Children with adoptive parents always want to know, or want to search, for their real parents once they come of age).

Not me 😞

Yes. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with your wife approaching your daughter with concerns about this 'brother', as suggested by TTH:

Agree!

100% true. 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. I had a conversation along similar lines with Witnesses on another website, and when I pointed out that Br. Jackson of the GB himself indicated that we should not have unquestioning obedience to them, and I even quoted Br. Jackson to support what I said, I got thrown out of the forum. I paraphrase Br. Jackson here as I am on another computer and do not have access to the transcript where he made that quote. Basically, the gist of what he said was that "if the GB said something that was out of line with the scriptures, then all other JWs who have the Bible, would see that it was wrong direction". In other words, if others recognized from the Bible that certain direction was wrong, they would not follow it, no matter who it came from. So really, that kind of solves the problem. Someone has to take the lead, and if we use the Bible as a measuring stick, and see that that person, or body of persons are going against the scriptures, then it would be wrong of us to obey them in that particular instance as we must obey God as ruler, rather than men.

I agree with some of your points. But your comment has also helped me to see things I would have otherwise not realised. Right now I do not have time to respond properly as we have visitors out of town staying with us. But I promise I will get around to it soon!

Maybe they're just worried if they didn't call on you you might get upset and reach for your holster

Just a side observation, a little off topic, but I am sorry to say, I felt the same way. Like you though, I don't think Br. Jackson is haughty, and probably neither are the others, but it seems that Br. Jackson was looking down on counsel assisting as someone who was completely incompetent and ignorant of the scriptures and had no idea where to find any of the Bible books. I understand why most of us believe "worldly" people lack knowledge in that department, because most probably do, but I could see it really started to get on Stewart's nerves when Br. Jackson kept repeatedly "guiding" him to find the books. In a few instances I felt like those two were like two roosters in a ring.

Your opinion. But regardless, you can still take it or leave it 🙂

I thought you were being serious when you said the Witnesses need a new message, and I thought you knew what that message should be

Interesting. So you must have some ideas on what this message should be. Care to share?

Of course this would never happen. The org. is not some kind of talk show or democratically run establishment. You either take it or leave it.

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

I don't think we do that anymore do we?

I don't know of any cases like that, but I do know (personally) of one prominent, influential elder (no longer living) who was removed as elder because of notoriety, but remained a pioneer. I don't think today he would be pioneering.

I've had different experience. I know it was definitely like that in the past, I agree, but in recent years I've noticed that elders are very reluctant to step in, even when asked, and if they do, then as you say, they ask the parent to sit in.

No one gives private bible studies to children anymore unless they are the parents. Same with the ministry. Most churches separate kids from the parents. It is JW kids who stay with their parents all the time.

Being protected from scandal surely does not include remaining an Elder despite clear evidence that they have been guilty of child abuse, since that is what John was mainly talking about. I cannot see that happening in view of 1Timothy 3:2. A person like that would clearly not qualify, even if the accusation was not true, but there was notoriety.