Anna

By "however" I mean that whilst Hurtado draws strongly held conclusions from the arguments he presents, we need tp keep in mind that  he recognises that:
by "the earliest use"  he means "the earliest use" by Bible copyists he points out that "the device (adapted from pre-Christian usage)" also proposes that "this scribal device employed by ca. 200 CE" Anything that implies a tampering with the Scriptural text (other than chapters and verses and obvious technical devices for ease of use), I treat with suspicion.
Christians are fully aware of the subtle strategy employed by Satan and his agents to undermine and pollute pure teachings of true Christianity through apostasy, (likened to "gangrene" 2Tim.2:17). Paul at Gal.2:4 speaks of apostates as having been  "smuggled in" (pareisaktous), having "crept in" (pareiselthon).  2Pet. 2:1 speaks of them "smuggling in" (pareisaxousin) their "sects" (haireseis). The fact that this infiltration was well under way long before the employment of "staurogram" in the Scripture text, undermines the integrity of drawing conclusions on doctorine based on what indisputedly are later additions. 
Attractive though "schadenfreude" may be to those prone to such indulgences, it is really against the sprit of true worship and has long been identified as an undesirable trait, (compare "You should not gloat over your brother’s day on the day of his misfortune" Ob.12). I am quite sure we can say in confidence that we "did not learn the Christ to be like this" Eph.4:20. 
Nevertheless, this does not detract from the fascinating nature of the detail on this topic, bearing in mind the one who is often likely to be found in there! Thanks for the research tips. ?

I think you mean that Satan is too clever for humans for them to detect his subtle "machinations?
Yes, if that is what you meant. Certainly Adam amd Eve were overcome although Adam was not deceived. Jesus was not deceived either, and his defence of "It is written" stood him in good stead. Those who acted as a restraint in the 1st Century were not deceived, thanks to Jehovah's existing word and the gift of discernment. But some others of their contemporaries and eventually the vast majority of their successors were deceived..
Your focus of 1940, 70, 90, etc is too narrow for me, although i presume you are just using those decades as an example to illustrate your point that yesterday's "truth" becomes tomorrow's "lies"?. I suppose the most prominent example would be how adherents to the Mosaic Law, once God's "chosen people", became his enemies by clinging on once that arrangement became redundant. The new system scrolls and their impact will be interesting, (Rev 20:12), and of course the implications of Christ's subjecting himself even more so. (1Cor.15:28).
I would like to see a chart indicating the relevant proportionate value of teachings whilst at the same time indicating what has changed, what has remained constant from the first Century. I might put it together myself one of these days. ?

I have trouble finding evidence of that. Can you post some links? It interests me because so far I have seen plenty of evidence that cross like symbols (especially the Ankh and Greek) are found in ancient artifacts, of the near east, and far east, but they never seem to be connected to any type of implement for torture or execution, but rather to jewellery, decoration, literature, and ritualistic and religious aspects. If a cross was used in execution I would have expected to see at least one representation of it, since people had no qualms about representing other gruesome scenes, such as people impaled (through the body) on a stake etc. I take it back, I did see one, which is supposed to be Dionysus/Bacchus but I haven't been able to find out exact information about it only that it is supposed to be from 500 BCE.
 
And a Vase, which is supposed to be also depicting Dionysus/Bacchus crucified. But I can't see that. I agree with the explanation given in that thread "It's significance was to antropomoriphize the idol as it would allow Dionysus to return to the world and participate in the ritual sacrifice and marriage to a queen. Before the idol are loaves of bread and jugs of wine, blessed by Dionysus himself". Also: " There's other vases from around the same period in which a choir of dithyrambs gather around a cross-shaped altar, and children carry a cross behind the carriage of the soon to be married queen". It looks like the thread has quite an interesting discussion, but I have not really had the time to read all the posts, just a couple. http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4387

So I am still looking for an artifact depicting torture/execution involving a cross or cross like shape. There seems to be plenty of talk of Romans having adopted the cross for execution from the Assyrians and Babylonians, but I can't find anything resembling a cross used in that way in those cultures.
Assyrian execution -  impalement through body on upright stakes (cir 911-612 BCE)

You beat me to it. I had to be out for most of today, but hoped to come back to @JOHN BUTLER to remind him that this is just my opinion based on the evidence. I lean one way because the evidence I've seen is slightly more convincing to me in that direction. But this does not mean that someone else (GB?) can't see the same evidence, and the majority of them lean the other way, per our own traditional stance on it since Rutherford's time.
To John, I would say that this Staurogram, and graffiti evidence too, cannot take us back much before 200 CE even if the evidence is exactly as old as some scholars still claim. As you point out from the words of Paul, even if evidence showed that this was as early as 50 CE, it still wouldn't be "proof." It could very well have been one of the ways in which "lawlessness" was already at work. After all, there is no doubt that the veneration of a cross symbol crosses the line into idolatry. And through syncretism with older traditions, the cross would have been a much more recognizable symbol with a richer history for veneration than a plain "I" symbol. And warnings about idolatry run from Paul's letters right up through (and througout) Revelation. 
You hit upon most (perhaps all) of the weaknesses of the Staurogram evidence, and these might have already been taken into consideration by those who have researched the current position as outlined in the WT publications.
The actual earliest evidence appears to be the argumentation in the Letter of Barnabas which scholars have not tried to date much later than 120 or 130. And there is no solid evidence to claim it was later than 75 or 80 either. "Barnabas" is big on gematria, of course, and this could even be one of the areas that letters to Titus and Timothy reference when they speak of things like being "obsessed with arguments and debates about words." (1 Tim 6:4). There's even a slim chance that it was this very book (and books like it) that were being challenged here and in Titus 3:9, etc.
Even so, it would not change the fact that a T shaped stauros is built into the argument as an aside, along with this early discussion of how T and then IH would create the number 318  (T=the stauros and the IH symbol which was already in use as a reference to IHSOUS -Jesus.)  Many years later in Christian copy of Genesis, the numer 318 comes up as the number of Abram's slaves:
(Genesis 14:14) 14 Thus Aʹbram heard that his relative had been taken captive. With that he mobilized his trained men, 318 servants born in his household, and went in pursuit up to Dan. The much later Genesis manuscript treats the number 318 here as a "nomina sacra" just as Barnabas had discussed upwards of 300 years earlier. BTW, I also wanted to mention that Hurtado deals with the fact that just because a scholar gave these terms the name "nomina sacra" it doesn't mean that they were all considered to be the equivalent of a Divine Name. Obviously, this is true of Stauros, which is nothing like a "divine name," but we also know that this was a development over many years, and there is no evidence that "Spirit" (pneuma) was added to the list until 400 or so. Also, there were many other names that only reminded them of Jesus or God, such as "Joshua the son of Nun" or even Moses, Abraham and David. So this wasn't intended as a complete discussion of "nomina sacra" by any means.
Although there are some weaknesses and flexibility as to the exact dates scholars try to pin on things, it doesn't (for me) change the balance of the evidence favoring one meaning over the other. And as we've already covered, there is no reason for anyone to claim proof or insist on any particular shape based on any of the evidence so far.

Interesting stuff, especially the difference between Chi Rho and Tau Rho.
Howeve,r he states:
"2)............the earliest uses of the tau-rho are not as such free-standing symbols, but form part of a special way of writing the Greek words for “cross” (stauros) and “crucify” (stauro-o), in NT texts which refer to the crucifixion of Jesus.
3) The tau-rho is not an allusion to the word “christos“.  Indeed, the letters have no relation to any terms in early Christian vocabulary.  Instead, the device (adapted from pre-Christian usage) seems to have served originally as a kind of pictographic representation of the crucified Jesus, the loop of the rho superimposed on the tau serving to depict the head of a figure on a cross.
4) So, contra the common assumption taught in art history courses, the earliest visual reference to the crucified Jesus isn’t 5th century intaglia, but this scribal device employed by ca. 200 CE. 
There's no denying that this scribal device is employed in some early Greek Scripture manuscripts. How early? With occurences, for example,  at Luke 9:23; 14:27,  P75 of the Bodmer Papyrii (imaged earlier) was originally dated as 175-200CE,. This early assignment has been recently challenged, where some favour a later date closer to the 4th Century. Other evidences, such as Chester Beatty's P45 manuscript is dated about 250CE, and contains this device at Matt.26:2 and also Luke 14:27. A further papyrus in the Bodmer colllection, P66, contains the staurogram in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of John's Gospel. Like P75, this papyrus is subject to similar discussion on it's antiquity, being more recently proposed as originating "in the early or middle part of the fourth century."
So, basically, we have a scribal insertion of a contemporary "Christian " symbol some 135-300 years after the establishing of the Christian congregation at Pentecost 33CE .
However, a disturbing comment is made regarding the staurogram on the Bible History Today page cited in the earlier post by @JWInsider at
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/:
"The tau-rho staurogram, like other christograms, was originally a pre-Christian symbol. A Herodian coin featuring the Staurogram predates the crucifixion. Soon after, Christian adoption of staurogram symbols served as the first visual images of Jesus on the cross."
Larry Hurtado confirms this when discussing the Tau-Rho among other "Christian" symbols as he states: "these are all pre-Christian devices and were appropriated by early Christians." He also says "P45, P66 and P75 offer us evidence of a Christian appropriation of the tau-rho device that (whatever and whenever its origin) was already becoming familiar in Christian circles at the time that these copyists worked."  (Quotes from The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?)
Reference is made to Herodian coins issued about 37 BCE where the Tau Rho appears (apparently as some sort of date code?)
,
Jack Finegan, (The Archaeology of the New Testament. 1969) is referenced by Hurtado. In his book section The Cross. Abbreviations and Monograms, among other things, he cited Egyptian influences on the development and use of the Staurogram, likening it to the Egyptian ankh, a symbol of life. He presents an memorial inscription from a 4th Century tomb at Armant near Luxor on the NIle. Here the staurogram symbol is presented on the bottom 3rd right in line with the ankh and the Chi Rho symbol, (another "christogram). 

An additional aspect is the proposed influence of the use of isosephy in formulating the staurogram. This practice,  known also as gematria, seeks to find numeric relationships in words and concepts by assigning numeric values to letters and thus to words, then looking for parrallel meanings. An attempt is made to equate this to the reckoning of the wild beast's number of 666 in Rev.13:18. "Christian" Isosephists equate this number to the value determined for the name "Nero", their interpretation then misinterpreting the scripture. The staurogram is thus said by some to have a mystical significance in this regard. The whole practice has a ring of divination about it. Although Hurtado does not promote this view, it is not rejected as a contributory factor.
Whilst interesting and formidably detailed, these speculations on the early uses of staurogram symbols are not very convincing as to their relevance to genuine Christianity. It just cannot be that difficult to find the truth, if it is actually there. 
It seems that an early date for the use of these symbols as some propose is not clear at all, as the relevant papyrii whilst significantly old, are of disputed antiquity. There appears to be a pagan and superstitious influence at work in the appropriation of these symbols, for obscure reasons. It is clear from scripture that definite attempts to distort and corrupt the true Christian faith were well under way from earliest times, prior to the adoption of the "staurogram". Paul warns that "the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work", Peter warns that "the ignorant and unstable are twisting the...Scriptures", and John warns that "even now, many antichrists have appeared".  (Before we even get to Rev. Ch.2-3). The scriptures have no word for cross as such. Both stauros and xylon are simple words to understand, as is the background for the necessity of the use of this method for Christ's execution. There is no definitive way to conclude the exact nature of the instrument of Christ's death. The existence of the dispute complicates and obscures the very reason for Christ's sacrifice, a paucity of understanding on this matter being a prominent feature of many two-beamed cross promoters. On that basis, I remain satisfied  with the scriptural description as far as it goes, and the conclusion we draw on the likelihood of a single stake being the instrument of Christ's death. I will not be adding an extra beam to the account at this stage. ?

In view of last weeks WT study "Do you have the facts" (August 2018, page 3) and thanks to @Gone Away for highlighting the following reports, I thought I would put this in a separate and concise topic to show an actual and recent example of misinformation.
NEWS REPORT: (I cut it a little short because the article went on about the ban in general. You van read the whole thing here: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/five-jehovah-s-witnesses-detained-in-russia-investigators-10812938)
MOSCOW: Five Jehovah's Witnesses have been detained in Russia and charged with possessing weapons and running an extremist group, investigators said Wednesday (Oct 10, 2018), in the latest case targeting the banned religious movement.
They were arrested in the Kirov region northeast of Moscow, where authorities said they found two grenades and a landmine in searches of their homes.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination that originated in the United States in the late 19th century.
The Russian authorities consider the movement a totalitarian sect and last year the country's supreme court banned the Jehovah's Witnesses from operating in Russia.
"They had been conducting meetings and called on others to join their organisation," Yevgenia Vorozhtsova, a spokeswoman for regional investigators, said.
She said officials were investigating how the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses had obtained the ammunition, but declined to provide further details.
Yaroslav Sivulskiy, a member of the European Association of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses, said it was the first time the Russian authorities had accused members of the movement of possessing ammunition.
"We were shocked," he said from the Latvian capital Riga. "It is both funny and strange. Why mines?"
One of those detained was a Polish national residing in Russia, he said.
 
THE FACTS: (here I took the liberty of slightly adjusting the translation by Google, so it made more sense)
On October 9, 2018, in the city of Kirov, during a search of the house of retired Vladimir Bogomolov, a collector of artifacts from the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), investigators seized fragments of obviously unusable rusty shells. The man was searched because his 69-year-old spouse (the only one of her entire family) professes the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. The woman does not share her husband's fascination with antiques. Thus, the report that the ammunition was seized allegedly from Jehovah's Witnesses is not true.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not take weapons for conscience reasons. For this position they appeared before tribunals of different countries and went to concentration camps. They will be grateful to the media for clarifying the misunderstanding .
Vladimir Bogomolov, from whom the relics were confiscated, was in the past an active participant in a search movement (aimed at burying the remains of the soldiers who died in World War II), he was the brigadier of the search party. The activities of his squad were written about in newspapers. On October 9, 2018, upon the discovery of the artifacts, a criminal case on the illegal possession of weapons was instituted, it was allocated in a separate proceeding. The items were sent for examination.
 Source: https://jw-russia.org/news
 
 

Yes. This is what I was trying to explain to @JOHN BUTLER

This was very interesting. The reference to Matt.22:13 particularly because it says "bind him hand and foot". Now when hands are bound as a restraint, we assume it is the wrists that are tied becuse it would be easy to slip out of literal hand ties. (Similarly with feet and ankles) So this seems confirm that,  in the lack of a specific word for "wrist", the Greek word for hand has a broader application.
I like the comment that said :
"And it’s true that Luke and John imply that Jesus was nailed in His “hands,” but then again the Bible also says that Rebeka wore bracelets on her “hands” (Genesis 24:22,30, 47), that the chains fell off of Peter’s “hands”(Acts 12:7), that when Nebuzaradan declared Jeremiah freed: “I release you today from the chains on your hands” (Jeremiah 40:4), that “the ropes that were on [Samson’s] arms became like flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds broke loose from his hands” (Judges 15:14) If you’re reading a more literal translation, that is.
In Hebrew and biblical Greek, bracelets and fetters are something put on someone’s yad/cheir ‘hands’, though we might be more precise and say ‘wrist’ or ‘forearm’. (Also see Ezekiel 16:11 “And I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck”; 23:42 “And they put bracelets on the hands of the women and beautiful crowns on their heads”)
I mean, even today, handcuffs are put on the wrists, right?"
Seems that some advocates point to the "Shroud of Turin" as evidence in this matter.  ?

In the first century, the Christian congregation was largely Jewish, and all the Christian Bible writers were identified as Jewish. So the longstanding tradition was to follow the practice of no images of any kind. So we might not have even expected a symbol of a fish to spread around in the first century. Some of the Christian-associated writers and books that appear to have come from the second century were also identified as Jewish. (Letter of Barnabas, Didache, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Egerton Gospel, the Christian redaction of Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc.) This could include as many as half of the 100 or so writings that many scholars think originated in the second century. See especially column 2 of the list here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
The Jewishness of the early Christians is indicated by the extended time period of Jewish-centered writings. And, rather than attacking Judaizers, there is a pro-Jewish perspective seen in the last book of the Bible, which is quite possibly from the year 100 CE, and which would place it in the second century, too:
(Revelation 2:9) . . .and the blasphemy by those who call themselves Jews and really are not, but they are a synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 3:9)  Look! I will make those from the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews yet are not, but are lying—look! I will make them come and bow before your feet and make them know that I have loved you. This is meant mostly as an explanation of why we have so few images of anything from the first two centuries of Christianity. And, any solution that might overcome the lack of images, we might therefore expect to come from writing, descriptions, word pictures, or even pictographs made from written characters. If the writers had consistently gone out of their way to give special attention to the letter T, for example, this might have been evidence of a T shaped Stauros.
First of all, the Letter of Barnabas, dated 80 CE to 120 CE actually does give special attention to the letter T. And, yes, the "Letter of Barnabas" ties the letter T directly to the Stauros.
You might remember that I went so far as to contact someone at the British Museum to suggest resources on this same topic. I was told that I must read the books they had from a scholar named Larry W Hurtado, Professor Emeritus at University of Edinburgh, who studied at the the Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, at Macquarie University. I have 4 of his books including, "The Earliest Christian Artifacts -- Manuscripts and Christian Origins" (2006).
This book shows that the first symbol for the Stauros actually was drawn from characters for writing, a pictogram made up of alphabetic characters. This is what we would expect from a culture that allowed no images, per se.
The topic is fascinating. First of all, there were certain words that were given special treatment in the earliest known texts of Christianity, especially the "New Testament" Bible texts themselves. The "Divine Names" (nomina sacra) were treated with a special type of abbreviation and a kind of halo over them that connected the first and last letters of the word. The primary words that got this treatment were: God, Jesus, Lord, and Christ. In the Egerton Gospel (70 - 120 CE) we see these already in use, plus a a few more. By the 300's words like Son, Savior, Spirit, and Stauros were already treated as "Divine Names" (nomina sacra).
The oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, Acts of John, contain them, as do all of our major Bible texts, including fragments from the second century. Even "Old Testament" texts that were copied through Christian hands were copied with consistent examples of the "nomina sacra."  The nomina sacra for "Jesus" was already discussed in both the Letter of Barnabas and by Clement of Alexandria, both from the second century, with a chance that Barnabas was written in the first century. [Epistle of Barnabas (9.7-8) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 6.278-80)]. So we know that the practice goes back possibly as early as the earliest Christian writings. As mentioned earlier, Barnabas discusses it with reference to T (tau) being the symbol for the "cross" or stauros, for no other reason than its shape.
But there is much more on this. Stauros got the most special kind of treatment beyond that of any other "nomina sacra."  (To be continued in another post).

Yes. This is what I was trying to explain to @JOHN BUTLER

"The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir"
https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
Of course this assumption is not 100% fool proof either....
Also there is an interesting debate here including an interesting comment "If one wants to get anatomically picky, the eight bones of the human wrist are counted among the 27 hand bones".
I can verify that in some languages there is no distinction between the whole arm or just the hand. In order to specify what one means you have to say either arm*, or forearm. Usually the context clarifies what one means; for example "wash your hands" wouldn't mean wash your whole arm, but it can get confusing  if you say you broke your arm, because that could mean your hand. Of course there are exact terms for the parts of the upper limb just as there are in English: shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist and hand. But as you can see the word arm* in English could include all those parts, excluding the hand . When I fractured my knee, people would say I broke my leg. Languages are interesting!
@JOHN BUTLER Bones of the hand include the wrist

 

Well then we have nothing to worry about!
For instance, before these days Theuʹdas rose up, saying he himself was somebody, and a number of men, about 400, joined his party. But he was done away with, and all those who were following him were dispersed and came to nothing.  After him, Judas the Gal·i·leʹan rose up in the days of the registration, and he drew followers after himself. That man also perished, and all those who were following him were scattered. So under the present circumstances, I say to you, do not meddle with these men, but let them alone. For if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown;  but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. Otherwise, you may even be found fighters against God himself. (Acts 5: 36 -39)

"The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir"
https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
Of course this assumption is not 100% fool proof either....
Also there is an interesting debate here including an interesting comment "If one wants to get anatomically picky, the eight bones of the human wrist are counted among the 27 hand bones".
I can verify that in some languages there is no distinction between the whole arm or just the hand. In order to specify what one means you have to say either arm*, or forearm. Usually the context clarifies what one means; for example "wash your hands" wouldn't mean wash your whole arm, but it can get confusing  if you say you broke your arm, because that could mean your hand. Of course there are exact terms for the parts of the upper limb just as there are in English: shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist and hand. But as you can see the word arm* in English could include all those parts, excluding the hand . When I fractured my knee, people would say I broke my leg. Languages are interesting!
@JOHN BUTLER Bones of the hand include the wrist

 

It is interesting to note that the (presumably) earliest forms of Christian art (Catacombs in Rome) date from late 2nd century and there is no depiction of a cross. But there is no depiction of a upright stake either (!) It has been argued that this omission could be because the early Christians didn't want to depict anything to do with Jesus' instrument of death for fear of idolatry. Which says a lot about the "Christians" that came after. They did a 180 degree turn and put crosses everywhere.
 

Perhaps he meant; " unless I see the nail marks in his hands * (one nail would put marks in both) and put my finger where the nails have been in his hands and feet and put my hand into his side"...?
*apparently the Greek word for hand also includes the wrist.
 

Unless someone shows me a photograph from the actual event from the 1st Century, and I argue about it, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be worried about treading a red line or being dfd . In any case, I am not even arguing now, I am just saying we can't be sure 100%. If the GB feel like they are sure 100% then that is their prerogative, but changes nothing about how I feel. I would need a lot more proof first.

Nor does Jehovah it would seem.

This is one topic that I would not be dogmatic about when @JOHN BUTLER asked about "when I go into the ministry do I tell people that I might have the truth but I might not"  because as @Outta Here rightly remarked, we cannot know it's shape with absolute certainty. So when covering the cross/stake issue in the Bible teach book with a student, I just simply say that we cannot know what it was 100% either way.
My personal view is there is no reason it couldn't have been a cross, since this is what the Romans traditionally used, but they may not have used it every time, so it easily could have been a stake as well. The early Bible students used the crown and cross emblem, until they decided the cross was not a suitable symbol. One reason why I think that was because as time went on they realized that they must distance themselves from counterfeit Christianity, and since Christendom used the cross and they did not want to be identified with anything that Christendom used,  they dug deeper and discovered its pagan origins etc. But just because it was pagan didn't mean it couldn't have been used in Jesus' execution, after all the Romans WERE pagan! In my opinion the  whole bad thing about the cross is that not only is it pagan and used by supposed Christians as a symbol of Christianity (!) but that it is used in a way which God clearly condemns. If it was a stake (or anything else for that matter) and used in the same way as a cross, it would be the same thing.
To be truthful, personally I really don't think its important to know exactly what shape the instrument of Jesus' death was.

When the Bible talks clearly about certain fundamental things like the future for mankind then I would hope that was correct enough for me to try and impart that same hope to others, in this wicked hopeless world. 

But they cannot know for sure, can they? No one is infalible. 

When the Bible talks clearly about certain fundamental things like the future for mankind then I would hope that was correct enough for me to try and impart that same hope to others, in this wicked hopeless world. 

I would think Jehovah can use any channel he pleases. For example even stones (Luke 19:14). So it would indeed be presumptuous on anyone’s part to assume THEY were the ONLY channel. The GB recognize themselves as the fds who is to provide spiritual food at the proper time on a global scale. Who is to say Jehovah isn’t using some individual in a remote part of the world to explain Bible truths, even if they are not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses per se.  The Bible is available for everyone to read, and if they are not influenced by false religious teachings, then individuals can find the truth, and can share it with others. So I think the criterion for being a channel God uses is that this channel has to impart basic truths from the Bible. So I would say any organization or person who for example teaches the trinity cannot be a channel used by God. But they do not have to know everything, as was evident in the case of Apollos (Acts 18: 24-26) where Priscilla and Aquila had to fill in the gaps for him. However, the Christian congregation was set up by Jesus to accomplish the ministry and for encouraging one another. So from then on followers of Christ  were gathered together for that activity and purpose and came to be known as the Christian congregation (Acts 11:26). To keep such an ever growing congregation of people sticking to the original beliefs would be quite a challenge and Jesus knew that eventually the Christian congregation would become corrupted until in the last days the when the true christian congregation would be revived again. The fundamental truths that every JW is familiar with was made known by the early Bible students from Russell onward.
I posted the following article several times before because it epitomizes the abdication of responsibility by Christendom to keep their Churches morally and spiritually clean. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses have not abdicated that responsibility and through the fda, as "guardians of the doctrine", are persevering in keeping the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses as close to the first Christian congregation as possible.
QUESTION: How does the first century church compare to the church today?
ANSWER: In his letters to the first century church, the Apostle Paul commended each for excelling in the graces of God. Specifically, these first century churches were known for their faith, love, zeal, giving, knowledge, and intolerance for sin, as well as false doctrines. The first century church was united in spirit. Consequently, they were a conduit for the power of God as manifested in the miraculous signs and wonders performed through the apostles and for the apostles, in response to the prayers of the saints. The gospel of grace spread like wildfire, at tremendous cost to the early followers of Christ. The first century church was beset with persecution, torture, and martyrdom. In spite of this, Christian churches were being established throughout the Mediterranean region, Asia Minor, and into Europe.

Today's world is characterized by the last days events foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Matthew's Gospel. Specifically, we are hearing of the "wars and rumors of wars," earthquakes, famines, and pestilences of which our Lord warned. It was foretold of the church in these last days, that (among many other things):
The "love of many" would "grow cold."
Many in the church would be "lovers of self" rather than lovers of God.
Many in the faith would be "offended."
The church would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof."
Last day Christians would have "itching" ears, would not "endure sound doctrine" and would have "many teachers."
In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares."
Certainly, the early church had its problems, just as the church today. However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today."
From: allaboutreligion.org
 

I only claim to be a Barbarian interested in Justice and Mercy ..... but the best way to get it is serving Jehovah God.
It's like when R2-D2, C3PO, Luke, and Obi-Wan Kanobe, stopped their speeder on a cliff overlooking Mos Isley Spaceport, and Obi-Wan said (paraphrased) "Never has there been a more wretched hive of scum, and villany"
Jehovah's Witnesses, warts and all, in reality ... are the ONLY game in town.
Drivel and incompetence and greed, no matter how you dress it up, is still drivel, and incompetence, and greed ... HOWEVER ... the Truth, no matter how you dishonor it by being a standard big ugly bag of mostly water, as we all are ... including EVERYBODY in the Governing Body, as well as you and me .. is still the TRUTH.
I was baptized before 1985,  before the oath of allegiance was changed to include the Corporation structure.
Whether or not I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a matter of debate.
I think I am.
I hope God agrees.
It depends on who you ask.
 
 

John here is the rest of my reply. I will try and be as concise as possible
The instance I gave you was from the 80’s when there was much more leeway in how some congregational matters were handled. The DOCUMENT we have now on the website  enables anyone to check if things are being handled the right way or not. I printed mine out.
 
For practicalities sake it makes sense that only a handful of people make up the FDS. Anointed ones are scattered all over the world and it would be hard for them to contribute in any meaningful way unless they were all present together, which is impossible. None of the anointed are above another anointed and nor is anyone anointed above someone who isn’t. Anyone who asks, can receive holy spirit as helper. The difference between one who is anointed and one who isn’t is only in their final destination. Faithful and discreet slave is not a title, merely a function that someone has to perform. The qualifications are no different to the qualifications of an Elder, except perhaps these men have a longer period of service before they are elected to be on the governing body.
I am not quite sure what you mean by that. I wouldn’t know what the GB thought and whether they pretended something.  I cannot read their thoughts....
Every human that has ever lived has been fallible. Every human that has been God’s true servant has been fallible. Countless Bible accounts testify to this fact. The only time a human has been able to say something that has been infallible was when under the influence of holy spirit, but ONLY in Bible times. This kind of privilege served its purpose for writing the Bible and for establishing the Christian congregation. Since then the holy spirit does not act in the same way. There is no miraculous interception, nor any inspiration. One simple reason is that everything we need is already in the pages of the Bible. The right food at the right time really is the presentation of the right scriptures at the right time. Not someone’s ideas. Yes, the information comes from God because the Bible is from God. But interpretation or the understanding of it is subject to the fallibility of man. Especially when it comes to prophecies.  Br. Jackson was asked about the operation of the holy spirit during the ARC hearing. Here is a short excerpt from the transcript:     
Q.   By what mechanism would you understand God's spirit to direct your decisions?
Br. Jackson:   Well, what I mean by that is, by prayer and using our constitution, God's word, we would go through the scriptures and see if there was any biblical principle at all that would influence our decision - and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light.  So we would view that as God's spirit   motivating us because we believe the Bible is God's word and came by means of holy spirit.
However, there are fundamental doctrines or truths which are clear and simple. It is these fundamental truths that have been the backbone of our faith and these have never changed. As long as we are clear on those fundamental truths, the other stuff is just frills that we may or may not change, or that we may or may not understand, or even personally consider important for the time being.
This is the paragraph you must be quoting from: Gods Kingdom Rules page 101: “The Bible Students long acknowledged that Christmas has pagan roots and that Jesus was not born on December 25. Zion’s Watch Tower of December 1881 stated: “Millions were brought into the church from Paganism. But the change was mostly in name, for the pagan priests became christian priests and the pagan holidays came to be called by christian names—Christmas being one of these holidays.” In 1883, under the title “When Was Jesus Born?” the Watch Tower reasoned that Jesus was born about the beginning of October.* Yet, the Bible Students did not at the time clearly see the need to stop celebrating Christmas. It continued to be celebrated even by members of the Brooklyn Bethel family. After 1926, however, things began to change. Why?
 As a result of careful, closer scrutiny of the subject, the Bible Students came to realize that the origin of Christmas and the practices associated with it actually dishonor God. 
It seems that they did make the necessary changes as soon as they realized. Prior to that they couldn’t have been convinced enough to take the decisive action necessary. I would hope I was given some leeway and patience if I took a little longer to making adjustments in my lifestyle. Life is progressive, experiences are progressive, knowledge is progressive. Rarely do things happen right from the get go.
What is one person’s positive action is another person’s holding back. There is no one size that fits all cases. Yes, I agree, some cases were woefully mishandled, and these are the cases that are reported on in the media. Other cases were handled well. I am sure you are aware that “successful” cases do not get reported in the media. Yes, most active JWs were unaware of a problem unless they were directly involved and/or unless they had children. Many JWs were under the impression that this cannot happen in our org. despite publications which said that indeed these things CAN happen in the org.  I explained the gist of the reasoning “we are better than anyone else” in my previous post.
 
The intentions are in Acts 3:19
If I understand correctly, your main concern is that people are aware that you left of your own volition because you no longer agree with some of the ways things are done in the organization. You are right, reasons for disfellowshipping are not given, out of regard for the dissfelliwshipped person and their family. But if you have disassociated yourself, and the announcement is made that "John Buttler has disassociated himself and therefore is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" then people will know it was because of something you did not agree with, and not because you necessarily committed some moral wrong. If people ignore you, then it is because you are no longer of "their sort" (1John 2:19) and will view you as a man of the nations, because you are no longer a part of the Christian congregation.
I am sure this magazine is intended for those who have “drifted” and become inactive as Jehovah's Witnesses. They are still considered JW to a certain extend.
Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean organized?

You found a different Harvinder Singh.
Harvinder Singh  University of Birmingham, Philosophy, Theology and Religion, Postgraduate Student    Theology and Religion Studied English Literature and Language at The University of Leicester. I am currently studying the MA in Religion, Politics and Society at The University of Birmingham. I am particularly Interested in researching New World Religions (NRMs), particularly Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity, and Scientology. Supervisors: Prof. Nicholas Adams It's one of many papers he has written. This latest supports what you said earlier:
Here is the full list of his current contributions to academia.com
How have the Jehovah's Witnesses adapted child safeguarding practices and guidance to local circumstances in the United States of America, England and Australia The WatchTower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, or as they are more commonly known as Jeh... more     Bookmark
Download 178 ViewsTop 3% How should a responsible journalist approach reporting on the subject of religion? This is an assignment that I had produced for the postgraduate taught module Religion in Contempo... more     Bookmark
Download 49 Views Are governments obliged to intervene if Human Rights are violated in other countries? When and on what grounds? This is an assignment that I had written for the postgraduate taught module, Human Rights (14515)... more     Bookmark
Download 40 Views1.3 PaperRank What is the most convincing explanation for the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria? This is an assignment that I have completed for the 'Understanding and Countering Radical Islamic... more     Bookmark
Download 115 Views How has the United States of America countered ISIS? (Poster) This is a poster that I had produced for the module: Understanding and Countering Radical Islamic... more     Bookmark
Download 26 Views Critical review of two empirical studies This is a critical review of two empirical studies which are relevant towards my dissertation inv... more     Bookmark
Download 20 Views Identify and evaluate the main challenges ISIS (the so-called Islamic State) poses to the secular international system? This is an assignment that I have written for the post graduate taught module: Religion in Contem... more     Bookmark
Download 29 Views Discuss the role the Indian government played if any in the 1984 November Sikh riots? This is an un-published assignment that I researched regarding whether the Indian government had ... more     Bookmark
Download 50 Views