Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Juan Rivera]

 

@Many Miles Sorry for the delay. As you can verify, this comment runs to nearly 1,300 words; I had been working on it since this morning when I saw all your comments again this morning, but somehow life kept getting in the way. You know how that is, and sometimes ought to be. I'll only reply to two comments here and tie the rest of your points in a separate post.

On 10/31/2023 at 8:00 AM, Many Miles said:

Someone asked me recently what it means to worship. My answer was to say our worship is how we choose to live. Our life is our worship. Plain and simple. If this is true, then the only way our worship can be our own is to use our minds to decide how to live, and in my case that together with the Bible and from whatever I can learn from others. If, on the other hand, we decide to let others decide what we are going to believe then, in effect, our worship is not our own. We are just a proxy for someone else's worship.

I can see why it appears that way from your point of view. It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation.

So there were two kinds of Christians. Those who I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian was primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. Those whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ and the act of faith in the Congregation was one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ was the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Congregation was secondary or somewhere down the line. If you put yourself in the time period of the first generation of Christians it is easier to understand what it meant to be an ecclesiological Christian. In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time.

I’m not suggesting in the least that anyone was violating their own conscience. As I said, I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead were saying regarding the faith.  According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. 

So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized.  Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. 

On 10/30/2023 at 5:57 PM, Many Miles said:

In his letter to Galatia Paul said "...even if we..."

With that language Paul included the very ones with authority to teach Christians as being subject to his declaration that if anyone declared something beyond what they had learned, something that was actually a different teaching to hold them as accursed.

This doesn't mean we should attempt to dislodge authority. It only means that our obedience to authority among men (no matter who those men are) is not and should never be absolute. This does not mean we apply personal interpretation. It means we examine what's taught to make sure of all things and then hold fast to that which is fine. To avoid personal bias and/or interpretation we use accepted conventions of logical construction. We have the Bible. We have our Brain. Both are God given. We use them both, and we do so as objectively as we can and make ourselves overcome personal bias by keeping to conventions of logic.

Remember that Moses was given such tremendous authority over Aaron that Moses was told he was "God" to Aaron! But, in the incident at Meribah, Aaron made the mistake of putting loyalty to Moses ahead of loyalty to the One who appointed Moses in the first place. Aaron passively supported Moses ("God") during that incident when he could have acted to check Moses' actions. It was an inappropriate act of passive obedience. He went along when he shouldn't have. There's a strong lesson in that for us today. It's the same thing Paul was trying to convey to Galatia. Obedience to authority has a limit.

Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites.  The task of teaching the people from the law belonged especially to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons through every generation. After Moses wrote the law, he "gave it to the priests, the Levites, who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9) The Levitical priests had stewardship or “charge” over the law (Deut. 17:18). And when Moses gave his final blessing over each of the tribes of Israel, when he came to the tribe of Levi he prophesied: “Let them instruct Jacob in your judicial decisions, And Israel in your Law.” (Deut. 33:10) The Levitical priests were not only stewards of the scrolls, they were stewards of the proper understanding and explanation of what was written upon them. Jehovah told Aaron that throughout the generations of his sons, they were to “teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:11) When there were questions about the interpretation of the law, the people were to go up to the place that Jehovah would choose, where the Levitical priests were “ministering before Jehovah,” and they were to inquire the Levitical priests (Deut. 17:9), and the priests would hand down their decision. And in these cases the people were to do according to all the direction of the priests. “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die.” (Deut. 17:12) Moses exhorted the people to “be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests will instruct you” (Deut. 24:8) The Levites were to “answer every man of Israel with a loud voice” the curses of the law (Deut. 27:14).

The author of 2 Chronicles connects having the law, with having a “priest to teach,” precisely because the exposition of the law belonged to the Levitical priests. The author writes, “For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law.” (2 Chronicles 15:3) It wasn’t as though the scrolls were missing. But, without a teaching priest, it was as if there were no law. And when Jehoshaphat set out to restore the people to true worship, he did not simply make copies of the scrolls and have them each read them. Instead, he sent authorized teachers (including a group of Levitical priests) to the cities of Judah, to teach the people from the “the book of Jehovah’s Law.” (2 Chronicles 17:9) Likewise, it was no accident that Ezra the priest and the “ the Levites, were explaining the Law to the people... And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

The  priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

[Many Miles]

17 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation.

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. It completely overlooks so much of what I've presented, going contrary to much of it.

1) I do not believe it required more faith to be a Christian in the first century. Why? I've said this before. The early Christians had men among them who were working miraculous feats. Curing sick people. Feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves. Raising the dead. It's not hard to put faith in teaching coming from such men. In large part this is what led to Jesus having followers in the first place. Though a very loving man and excellent speaker and teacher, he turned water wine, he healed the sick, he raised the dead. This was enough to draw anyone's attention. After the Christ's resurrection and ascension Christ's apostles had similar supernatural power. You can't really refute that if it's real and you're there to witness it, which means you're doing well to listen and accept what they teach.

2) Though the early Christians could easily accept teaching from men working supernatural miracles, Paul warned not to accept even what they ("we") say if it departed from what they had already taught them and began teaching something different than they had accepted from prior teaching. I don't see how you can dispute this latter point. Paul said it point blank. To deny this is to deny the legitimacy of what Paul said, or to read a preferential interpretation into the text. Notwithstanding all that, what was to happen when the men with supernatural power to work miracles disappeared in death? Their very presence presented a restraint of false teachings and teachers. The answer is that they left behind their own inspired written works (miracle workers with supernatural power can be assumed to be inspired to also write a legitimate record of events and teachings). The earliest Christians had the inspired words available up to that time, which Paul spoke of to Timothy. But the new witness of words that we call the Christian scriptures today was left by inspired men for sake of Christians to come.

3) I've studiously avoided suggesting that any Christian should, as you say, 'trust in their own interpretation of scripture'. To say this is to totally misunderstand what it means to form a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. It's to the contrary. Logical conclusions drive bias to the side and puts what can be proven sound to the front.

17 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time.

4) Yes, I agree with that for the early Christians with exposure to teachers with miraculous supernatural powers. These men were walking and talking tangible evidence that they were teachers of truth. But when these men were gone Christians needed to take great care that they were not mislead by new teachers, and they needed to remember which loyalty is priority, which is to God and not men (no matter what position they may hold as teachers/leaders). They also needed to guard against following they own interpretations. The answer was learning to reason from the scriptures. I have to believe that the biblical notion of reasoning from the scriptures was sound reasoning (logical) and not unsound reasoning (fallacious).

 

17 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. 

5) I agree with everything you say here with one exception, which I've underlined. It's a false bifurcation here to say if a) they found their own conscience was uninformed then b) they were to conform to the mind of the congregation. This argument wrongly presumes two things, 1) that there is no alternative other than a or b (which is why it it's a false bifurcation) and 2) that "the mind of the Congregation" is "informed". Here's my question to you on this point: What if your mind is uninformed and the Congregation's mind is also uninformed? What then? Think about that. There is an good solid answer to that question.

 

17 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized.  Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. 

6) In the presence of inspired biblical text and the testimony of God creation all around us, no one should form belief based on "their own interpretation", meaning how they prefer to see things. That would be no more than believing what you want to believe solely because that's what you want to believe, something I categorically reject.

7) You ask "was their an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation". For early Christians who had the testimony of miracle workers with supernatural power, my answer would be yes, unless (or when) they changed their testimony. This latter point is what Paul warned against. This is why obedience to teachers and teaching has a limit. For Christians that came after the men with supernatural power, they had the testimony left behind in the new witness which we call the Christian scriptures. Any teaching asserted based on the bible since the men with supernatural powers would have to conform to sound (logical) conclusions based on the testimony already given and codified as the Bible.

17 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites.

If the question is whether God expects us to obey Him ahead of whomever He may have placed in an appointed position, then we have to look to examples that test that question. This is why the incident of Aaron standing in passive support of God's appointed spokesman (Moses) is important. It succinct fashion it provides a very important object lesson. If we want to worship God then we have to obey Him no matter what anyone else tells us, even if that other person has, or is thought to have, divinely appointed authority. 

 

17 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The  priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

The priest at the ancient tabernacle in the wilderness had something standing above them that was unmistakable. It was a supernatural phenomena of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This made it pretty clear that what was coming from the priests should be followed because that supernatural phenomena demonstrated God's approval of what they were doing there. If you want to look to the priesthood to examine the question of whether a worshiper should passively support a wrong teaching or sin (like in the instance at Meribah) then you need to find and share an incident that tests that question, which you haven't done. We know Jews were told to obey the priests. But what about when those priests told somebody to do something wrong, or wanted someone to support them in wrongdoing? Were they supposed to obey them then?  Ultimately, though, Israel insisted on having a king like the nations around them, and God appointed a King over Israel. The first one was Saul. Saul went bad. Though he was the anointed of God, he went bad. David would not act to remove Saul from his position because God had installed him as king. But David did not obey Saul because he knew Saul could not be trusted. This, too, was another incident demonstrating that our loyalty/obedience to God appointed authority has limitations. If it was true of Moses, whose was "God" to Aaron, then it was also true of the priesthood of Israel.

There is too much here so that time does not allow me to proof read. If something is misspelled or you have a question of anything please just ask. I have yet to see anyone post a thing suggesting that there is not an appropriate limitation to our obedience toward leaders we look toward as teachers. You recognize that somewhat, and I respect that. But I'd recommend you spend some time honing your skills of logical construction. Learning how to reason soundly helps a person avoid the trap of falling for their own bad ideas, preference and/or biases, and it also helps us recognize unsound teaching coming from others.

[Many Miles]

32 minutes ago, George88 said:

Who determines the logical conclusion, and how? Not everyone is a scholar, and without in-depth study like dedicated linguists, we might lack the capacity required. So, why should we unquestionably accept the interpretation of those who claim their logical understanding of scripture is superior? After all, the Pharisees had their own logical interpretation of the ancient scrolls, but were they truly correct?

Logical conclusions are ideas/teachings/notions that are, among other things, falsifiable. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. To the contrary, logical conclusions drive bias to the side and put what can be proven as sound to the front.

The biblical account shows it proper to reason from the scriptures. I confess to an assumption that this means sound reasoning (which is logic) and not unsound reasoning (which is fallacy). Logic is employed to help people learn valid information. Fallacy is employed to persuade toward a preferential view (a bias). Fallacy is a distraction from valid information.

There are well known and accepted conventions of logical construction. It works a lot like math and is very objective, which is why it's dependable to examine any idea, including one's own idea(s).

If you're unfamiliar with this discipline then I'd recommend you undertake a study of it. It's not really hard. But if you want to reason soundly then you have to learn how to form logical conclusions.

As for "who determines the logical conclusion, and how" anyone who understands conventions of logical construction can examine a conclusion to see if it's logical. The person would look at the argument's form to see that it is logically valid. If the form is logically valid the person would then examine each premise in the argument for veracity. If the form is valid and the premises are supported by evidence then the conclusion of the argument is as strong as the evidence in support of the premises.

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Relying solely on one's own understanding can be a significant mistake and should not be promoted by any religious authority.

I agree with that statement 100%.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

True wisdom, according to religious beliefs, emanates from a higher power rather than from human beings.

Biblically, I'd agree.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

True wisdom, according to religious beliefs, emanates from a higher power rather than from human beings. Therefore, our understanding of logic and fallacy is limited by our individual interpretations.

What you write in this case is just false insofar as the latter statement is concerned. Logical conclusions are not at the mercy of individual interpretation. This is because logical conclusions are falsifiable, just like math is falsifiable. So, for instance, is someone said "2 + 2 equals 5" my response would be that can't be true because "5 - 2 does not equal 2. Logical conclusions are falsifiable just as mathematical solutions are subject to falsification.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Religious texts often urge us to be discerning of those who possess a mindset similar to that of the Pharisees rather than questioning those chosen by God to guide and oversee his followers.

Yes, over and over again the conduct of the biblical Pharisees demonstrates the need to be weary of teaching from supposed religious authority. This is a good reason to learn the discipline of logical construction.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The fallacy, therefore, rests on our limited comprehension of scripture and our reluctance to pay attention to God's message as conveyed through the deeds of others.

Though a person's behavior might signal whether they're trustworthy, whether someone is trustworthy has nothing to do with whether something they say is or is not true, so long as what they say is falsifiable. A known liar could tell me it's raining outside and because I can't trust him does not change whether it's raining or not outside. I don't need to trust them about the rain, because whether it's raining is falsifiable; I just need to look out the window.

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

What motived Christ, the apostles, and his followers? Christ was the only human being who was perfect in every way. Did that undermine the actions and abilities of the others? If you're not familiar with the concept, I strongly suggest you pursue its study.

I'd say a big motivating factor was Jesus' miraculous feats of supernatural power. Any person who can resurrect a man that's been stone cold dead for several days has my unfettered attention. Were the same man to have shown himself to me after being dead himself for several days, the things he tells me would be burned into my head as absolute truth.

But we don't have this firsthand experience. We have the record of those who did. So, to avoid our own interpretations we should learn and apply the well known and accepted conventions of logical construction to that written record in order to form conclusions that are falsifiable in order to grow our knowledge of what God wills. 

[Pudgy]

The reality check is this:

Got Milk?

If you do not instantly understand what I just said in TWO WORDS, you may be highly educated, but you are also clueless.

You need to re-read Many Miles last three posts out loud at least three times.

 

[Pudgy]

… but you won’t.

BECAUSE YOU’RE …

CLUELESS!

[Many Miles]

Logical conclusion, a bit about:

 

Here is an example of a logical argument valid in form:

Premise: Abel lived pre-flood and ate fat

Premise: Abel was human

Conclusion: A pre-flood human ate fat

In the above argument, if each premise is true then the conclusion is sound (valid). This is because the argument is, in form, valid.

 

 

 

Here is an example of a similar argument but with a false premise:

Premise: Abel lived pre-flood and offered fat to God so we know Abel ate fat

Premise: Abel was human

Conclusion: A pre-flood human ate fat

In this instance, though in form the argument is valid, its first premise contains an unsubstantiated claim, which makes it false. It is presumptive. Because one of the premises is false then the conclusion is unsound (invalid).

 

Comment

 

The reason I’m showing this is because sometimes a conclusion can be true (valid) though an underlying premise is found false (presumptive in this case). This means a conclusion is false (invalid) insofar as it stems from an argument with a false premise. But the conclusion could still be true in the same argument form were it to have valid premises.

In the case above of the initial example of a logical argument, both premises are demonstrably true hence the conclusion is true because in form the argument is valid.

[Srecko Sostar]

What is not clear in the commandment. ""We must obey God rather than human beings!"?

The apostles were not to obey the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the highest Church body. Who is the highest Church body above JW members today? Somehow the same level of authority, regardless of how they got to their position.

Is there any "if" in command, if someone is an elder, a Bethel elder, CO, GB member, then such a person must be obeyed? If it's a policeman or the Court, then obedience is "relative"? JWs please, think about.

------------------------------------

The next question is, does FDS aka GB have legitimate authority?
Also ,what is it authorized for?

If we want to believe the claims about how Jesus chose them in 1919, we can develop that assumption as a possibility and continue the discussion.

But then we will face the following. In the previous interpretation, the same FDS claimed that Jesus placed them "over all Jesus' belongings" in 1919. We all know what WTJWorg explained to include "Jesus' property".
But now let's stop and remember that the illustration, from Matthew 24, to which FDS refers is exclusive in the task for FDS. And that is to share food, nothing else.

The task of FDS is to distribute food, not to manage property, not to govern people, not to interpret Word. This "prophecy" as WTJWorg called it, says absolutely nothing about the "position of authority", nor about the "position of interpreters" as the role the Lord has given them. Finally, in the illustration, Jesus uses the word "servant" and not "manager or director, steward".

Jesus did not say a word about alleged task for FDS - the ability or authority to interpret God's Word. There is no such thing in a single letter, not even in a comma.

--------------------------------

A further problem that the FDS has caused itself is the reinterpretation of the first interpretation about 1919. They claim today that Jesus will put them only in a position in the future from where they will "manage all Jesus' property".

That means only one thing today. That they are illegally in a place that Jesus did not assign to them. Or perhaps even worse. They gave, handed over Jesus' property (over which they ruled illegally for over 100 years),  to the people whom Jesus did not authorize for that task (because that is some future event according to interpretation). This happened when they  decided to separate the FDS aka GB from the formal Management, Administration (the various power structures in the WTJWorg )and distributed all that management and financial powers to people who were not included/provided by the promise of Jesus to deal with it at all. Because, the assumption is that FDS is not 144000 or 144000 is not FDS (or people who are even not part of that class, but are now in role to manage property) but only GB.

Jesus did not give FDS aka GB authority to interpret the Bible.

He did not give them authority to rule over property and over people.

If we want to believe something.., then He gave them the task of printing and distributing Bibles around the world and through that spread the gospel. 

Sharing food does not mean that FDS should cook and bake it. Because we see quite clearly how it turns out when GB cooks and bakes it.

[Many Miles]

15 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What is not clear in the commandment. ""We must obey God rather than human beings!"?

Indeed!

Before the Jewish high court the apostles exclaimed “We must obey God as ruler rather than men." These same men (apostles) also warned their fellow believers that if they (the apostles or any one of them) ever changed their testimony of Christ that they taught and believers accepted about the Christ, that those believers should hold them (the apostles or any one of them) as accursed.

In ancient Aaron's case, Moses was told by God that he (Moses) was to serve as "God" to Aaron. At Meribah Aaron was still condemned for the sin of disloyalty for standing in passive support of the one who served as "God" to him. Why? Because Aaron knew Moses was just a spokesman for God and that Aaron's ultimate loyalty belonged to that One and not His spokesman. 

As it was true for the apostles is was in Aaron's case, and always. We must obey God as ruler rather than men.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

Regarding information testing. It is true that WTJWorg is writing something about it.

However, what JWs fail to do is that they do not apply these methods to their own "source of spiritual food", which is their Organization.

Fear of the "outside world" is spreading among the members. Danger for JWs is that they are already so well "trained" by the WTJWorg, that any information that comes from "worldly people", from the media or from the authorities, is highly suspect, because the whole world is under the power of Satan, so almost all this information from that world is colored by "satanic lies", as David Slane explained on JWTV. 

JWTW and other WTJWorg digital persuasions successfully manipulate and control information. Success is also guaranteed by the method of sowing fear of the so-called "apostates" who lie as soon as they open their mouths. "Don't listen to the apostates, it's all lies. Listen to us (GB) we love you .....". haha

 

[Many Miles]

7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Regarding information testing. 

Testing. As an underlying factor that's what this whole discussion is about; what test does today's governing body lay itself bare to so that its teaching or teachings are falsifiable?

This is what Paul's letter to Galatia offered in its introduction. In essence, the apostles informed Christians who looked to them as leaders/teachers that should they (the apostles or any one of the apostles) ever change the testimony they taught about the Christ and was accepted by his followers of the Christ, that they should be held as accursed. Those words, and others elsewhere akin to them, offered a means of falsification to protect Christians from teaching allegedly of Christ that may not be of Christ. As much as I look for it, I see no place where the contemporary governing body lays themselves bare to a means of falsification as a protection to all those earnestly seeking the Christ, Jesus.

[Srecko Sostar]

27 minutes ago, George88 said:

Can you present any evidence of instances where the Governing Body has acted similarly to the Sanhedrin, without misrepresenting anything to do with the Watchtower?

It is a difficult task. Because the Sanhedrin did not change doctrines every few months, years.

Even Jesus said that the people should do according to the oral instructions of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. That's a little strange to me, but that's what it says that Jesus said. If the Sanhedrin interpreted the Scriptures correctly and the people were supposed to obey them, then I don't know why the apostles refused to obey?

So the problems are hidden or people don't see them, when JWs don't question themselves about their "Sanhedrin" in the USA. The apostles challenged their Sanhedrin.