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

[Srecko Sostar]

On 11/2/2023 at 8:16 PM, George88 said:

Did Luke not question the interpretation of the Pharisees, who believed that their own laws were superior to the words of God written in the scrolls? Did he suggest the Jews should follow the Pharisees' authority rather than what was truly written by God? What was Jesus consideration in Matthew 23?

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?

 

On 11/2/2023 at 9:15 PM, George88 said:

Indeed, the Sanhedrin believed that the laws they inscribed on the scroll were the absolute truth, but this led to their misconception. Consequently, their continuous deceptions were not truths that demanded compliance, whereas their authority as the highest court did.

Adhering to the laws of the land is equally important as obeying secular authority. While one may have reservations about certain laws, one must still abide by them unless they are modified. Acting as a rebel goes against the principles of Christianity and should be avoided at all costs.

Quote:

“If the very things that I once threw down I build up again, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.”—Gal. 2:18.

It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating—‘wishy-washy’—about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons? - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1976361

 

May we conclude that WTJWorg and all its members can think, based on this quote, how the less important doctrines can be changed, and the most important, fundamental ones must not be touched and changed?

Is there even such a thing that the teaching of the Bible, primarily contained in the teaching of Jesus, can be separated into two groups; more important and less important doctrines, lessons, commands, instructions?
This passage from the WT supports that idea. But what it does not support is changing theological/doctrinal teaching, in general. WTJWorg has been doing just that for decades.

Is the changed teaching about "generation" important or unimportant doctrine?. Is the instruction on "recording the number of hours" (field service) an important or an unimportant instruction?

If the answer is YES, it is irrelevant, unimportant, it means that accepting or rejecting obedience to WTJWorg in this things should be based on personal decision, interpretation and free will. But, this would not be tolerated by WTJWorg and individuals would be sanctioned in one way or another.

If the answer is NO, both things are crucial, core teachings of the Organization, then those who changed it are lawbreakers, "transgressors" as Paul says. Thus, WTJWorg, and/or GB, become "apostates".

 

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Is the changed teaching about "generation" important or unimportant doctrine?. Is the instruction on "recording the number of hours" (field service) an important or an unimportant instruction?

If the answer is YES, it is irrelevant, unimportant, it means that accepting or rejecting obedience to WTJWorg in this things should be based on personal decision, interpretation and free will. But, this would not be tolerated by WTJWorg and individuals would be sanctioned in one way or another.

If the answer is NO, both things are crucial, core teachings of the Organization, then those who changed it are lawbreakers, "transgressors" as Paul says. Thus, WTJWorg, and/or GB, become "apostates".

Hence, this observation lacks a coherent conclusion as it veils the fundamental veracity of embracing the word of God through genuine comprehension, rather than allowing oneself to be swayed by a desire to triumph in an argument. A genuine scriptural debater abides by the boundaries set by scripture.

 

I know, these kinds of questions are very uncomfortable. Because whatever answer the interlocutor gives, it will get him into trouble. :))

 

 

[Pudgy]

…

 

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, George88 said:

Contrary to popular belief, a sincere witness would not struggle to respond to well-founded questions, provided that these questions are rooted in scripture rather than mere personal opinion or misinterpretation.

Preconceived and agreed questions and answers are a kind of propaganda and an effort to portray someone in a certain context that may not be accurate or is on the way to manipulate the audience.

Questions must be rooted in order to get the most accurate information from the other side. The purpose of questions and sub-questions should not be to confuse the one from whom the answer is sought, but to find out the "truth", whatever it may be. The questions can be worded as a "trap", but this is done mainly for those who are assumed to be hiding something or to be dishonest and want to lead to the wrong conclusion with their answers.
A large number of JW lawyers and advocates are using "theocratic war strategy"/ techniques. "Theocratic warfare" metode involves: withholding/hiding the truth, telling half-truths, telling the lies and misleading/misdirect people. This is what JW followers are taught at KH meetings. These instructions are part of the "spiritual food served at the right time" provided by GB for all women, men and children in JW congregation. -https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957327

Therefore, asking questions in the form of a trap towards this type of people is completely justified.

 

[Juan Rivera]

On 11/2/2023 at 8:22 AM, Many Miles said:

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.

@Many Miles Hey Miles, I understand that when we are dealing with a person who has such a different position from our own, it is easy to despair, and resort to confrontation. It takes a great deal of commitment and patience and determination to work backward, together, to discover our common ground, so that we can then work forward from that common ground to adjudicate rationally our fundamental points of disagreement. Otherwise, we’re many miles apart, and don’t have the necessary common ground (and common point of view) to address directly the question in a way that allows us to reach the same conclusion through a process of rational dialogue.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying on the first point, perhaps I wasn't clear as I should of been. So let me try again with the help of what a friend wrote:
 

"Imagine that you are transported back to first century Palestine, and are standing before Jesus of Nazareth who has been performing miracles and teaching as if he speaks with the authority of God. He confronts you with a question “who do you say that I am?” What are the dynamics here? You have before you three factors:

1.) An apparently flesh and blood man claiming to speak with the authority of God
2.) Some amazing verifiable historical activities which are said to support this claim
3.) Yourself – a fallible human being who is being asked to answer the question

1.) Notice that without 1, there is no pressing decision that you need to make, because there would be no one claiming to speak with divine authority. If Jesus were to claim only to speak with common, human, fallible authority; you would have no reason to pay more attention to his interpretation of the Law and the Prophets than your own since he sports no claim to formal temple academic training. Even if he had such training, without his explicit (and shocking) claim to divine authority, he would only present another educated opinion, and surely there will be equally educated opinions which disagree with his exposition. The long and short of it is that, without 1, there is simply no DIVINE (as opposed to fallible) access to the content of revelation worth paying much attention to. There is only fallible theological opinion. If you are going – even in theory – to have non fallible access to a divine revelation; at the very minimum, you at least need something or someone making a claim to speak with divine (that is non fallible) authority. Hence, the surprise of the people (and the anger of his religious opponents) who recognize that; “he teaches as one with authority”, and NOT as the Scribes and Pharisees.

2.) If you have 1, but not 2, then you have nothing but a raw, unsubstantiated authority claim. Anyone can make such a claim, Jim Jones to David Koresh. Sure, one could go ahead and embrace such an authority claim (and unfortunately many have throughout history); but it is unreasonable to do so. On the other hand, notice – and this is crucial – that the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth performs, even if you encounter him risen from the dead; do not PROVE that he speaks with divine authority. That a lame man walks, or a blind man sees, or a man known to be dead rises from the grave, are surely extraordinary events; but they do not necessitate the conclusion that the one who effects such events speaks for God. What such events do is lend credence to the antecedent or consequent authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth. So, you have an authority claim from Jesus of Nazareth (“I speak for God) and a set of events which Jesus (or his followers) put forward as evidence that his claim is true. YOU are invited to connect the two in an act of faith – a reasonable act of faith – because it is clearly reasonable (but not necessary) to believe that the events do, in fact, verify the authority claim being made. Still, you must BELIEVE or make an “assent of faith” – you do not get the luxury of a proof. Besides, if you think real hard about it; what would it really take to constitute an absolute “proof” of a supernatural authority claim?.

3.) Now in light of the above, consider 3. You are NOT being asked in this scenario to go figure out theology or the de fide content of revelation. You are being asked to accept the authority claim of Jesus of Nazareth who claims to speak the divine truth. You are being given the two things necessary to put you in a position to make this life altering decision; namely the divine authority claim itself, and a set of evidence given in support of that claim. Still, you are not being given incontrovertible evidence, only probable evidence. If it were otherwise your salvation would not be based on any faith or trust at all. If his claim were supported by undeniable proofs, you would be forced – intellectually – to accept those claims. What does Jesus ask of you? He asks for your faith. He does not ask for an irrational, fideistic faith; since he provides evidences for his claim. Still, all the evidence in front of you might admit of an alternate interpretation. Many of Jesus contemporaries, who have experienced everything as you have, WILL reject the evidence as supportive of the claim. Nothing forces your intellect to make the connection between the events and the claim. Still, he asks if you will be a believer or an unbeliever. If you make an act of faith (in reality you will do so with the assistance of divine grace); then you embrace WHATSOEVER Jesus tells you. He will hand on to you the de fide content of divine revelation – you will not need to construct it whole-cloth. If you refuse to believe, you turn your back on the only possible, non fallible, access to the content of divine revelation on the market since most do not make an divine authority claim (the temple academics) and those that do (such as an occasional Jewish zealot), offer no evidence which might lend any credence to their claim. You must either go away empty handed so far as any hope of “getting at” divine revelation is concerned, or else embrace Jesus because he “has the words of eternal life”.

The entire dynamic tension of the gospel accounts could be summed up as a conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish religious authorities ABOUT the proper interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Introducing novel meanings is exactly what the religious authorities of Jesus’ day accused him of; and it is not hard to see why. Consider the following (paraphrased comments of Jesus): “you know neither the scriptures nor . . .”; “if you knew the scriptures you would know me – for they speak of me”; “you have heard it said – BUT I SAY to you”; “I tell you today that this prophecy is fulfilled in your midst”; “before Abraham was, I am”; “have you been so long the teacher of Israel and yet you do not know these things?”. Then we could talk about the removal, by the apostles, of the requirement of circumcision; the admission of gentiles into the faith, etc. We see all this as natural and “obvious” because we live 2000 years removed from the heat of the events. But imagine yourself as a first century Jew who has studiously poured over the writings of the Law and the Prophets. Who is this carpenter from Nazareth, without any formal theological training; introducing, strange novel meanings against the “clear” teachings of the Law and the Prophets. What an arrogant, authoritarian bluster. As if, the meaning of the text could be twisted to encompass such odd notions. Does he actually think that the truth laid down by Moses and the prophets in out holy books somehow “develops” or admits “alternate” meanings? Does he really expect us to believe the HE has the proper, perfect, infallible interpretation of the text? Really? We are to accept the teaching of this carpenter over against all the exegetical skill and training of the scribes? So he does some miracles. It seems entirely more likely that his power derives from an evil source, rather than from God, ESPECIALLY given the novel and even blasphemous nature of his scriptural twists and malignancies."

 

 

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

1.) An apparently flesh and blood man claiming to speak with the authority of God
2.) Some amazing verifiable historical activities which are said to support this claim
3.) Yourself – a fallible human being who is being asked to answer the question

Of item 1, I'd listen to the man just like I would any other, to see if what he said conformed to sound reason (another phrase to mean conforming to conventions of logical construction). If his teachings (his conclusions) were soundly reasoned than I'd accept what he said as valid. The first thing I'd look for is whether a particular teaching is falsifiable. If it's not then that teaching needs some very extraordinary evidence. If it is falsifiable then I'd look to see what evidence supports each premise of his conclusion (his teaching).

Of item 2, they're only necessary for extraordinary claims. (See Ex 4:1-9)

Of item 3, yes, fallible but with two powerful things. 1) God's testimony in writing (the Bible) and in His creation all around me, and 2) a God-given brain capable of decision based on sound reason.

You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.

If a teaching comes from any man or group of men and it cannot stand up to sound scrutiny then it should not be accepted as a valid teaching.

[Many Miles]

9 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

We should not be swayed by those who reject noble teachings simply because they believe their own interpretation of scripture is superior or because they struggle to reconcile scientific advancements with personal beliefs.

I could not agree more with that statement. It adheres solidly with the biblical statement "Do not put yourtrust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs."

12 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

It is crucial to consider all available options, as long as one's conscience allows for it. 

Another excellent reminder. Reminds me of things Elihu said in the account of Job.

[Srecko Sostar]

WTJWorg refers to the only thing with which/what they prove their legitimacy in "managing God's Word". It is the year 1919, the year when "Jesus chose them" because they were the only ones on planet Earth who "understood the Bible correctly".
But let JWs today not get carried away with the idea of how they were, JWs. No it was the Bible Students movement, established in 1881 as ZWTTS and incorporated few years latter in the WTBTS with CT Russell as its president and his wife Maria as secretary. It was to them that God gave authority, not to the JWs under Rutherford. It is important from the point of view of when the original legality was established, and how legal and how possible it is to inherit this type of legality and establishment. Every new man and every new body that is allowed to manage and lead "Jesus' organization", should be appointed, not by the man before him, but by Jesus again "directly". Theoretically speaking.

You will say that it is unnecessary to conclude that way, because in the first century the practice of "laying hands" was carried out by the apostles on the new elders. Yes, but those apostles could prove their legitimacy because they were miracle workers. Today's "apostles" have nothing to prove their position with, except their own claims about themselves. But this was only mentioned in passing.

What is extremely important to me comes from the following: If the body that Jesus chose in 1919 says what is the "truth" and "correct interpretation" of the Bible, then it is absurd that the new body later refutes the previous doctrine. This means that Jesus is disunited. Done. WTJWorg has nothing more to ask for on the scene, because they have continued to prove to this day how much disunity they generated in the name of Jesus. For each stated interpretation, they use Jesus as their Protector and Source of doctrine.

After some time, they renounce that Jesus and refer to the new Jesus during a new interpretation. This can only happen in the "world of madmen".

[Many Miles]

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg refers to the only thing with which/what they prove their legitimacy in "managing God's Word". It is the year 1919, the year when "Jesus chose them" because they were the only ones on planet Earth who "understood the Bible correctly".

The society has wrapped a great deal of its theology around the year 1914. Even the 1919 teaching you allude to stems from the 1914 date. I won’t go into tremendous detail here, but it’s worthy of note what put legs on the teaching so that it got the traction it was assigned by the society.

In its 1993 brochure “Why Should We Worship God in Love and Truth?” there’s a chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”. This chapter is primarily designed to steer individuals toward JWs as the source of ‘God-inspired truth’. Within that chapter the last section is titled “The Greatest Evidence of All”. There, being introduced as ‘the greatest of evidence’ is this paragraph:

Decades before World War I began in 1914, Jehovah’s worshipers were making known the significance of that year. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”⁸ Ever since the momentous events of that year, so accurately foretold in the Bible alone, the whole world system of things has been in its “last days.” (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993129?q=%E2%80%9Cfulfilled+an+extraordinary+prophecy%E2%80%9C&p=par )

At the time, the article cited here published by The World Magazine really stirred tremendous interest in the teachings of Charles Russell. The article got prominent position on pages 4 and 17 of the magazine, and it feature one of Russell’s intriguing line graphs of the ages.

But do you see those ellipsis dots in the quoted paragraph? That’s the part left undisclosed, and I dare say more than 99 percent of the JW population today does not know what is undisclosed. The “extraordinary prophecy” that, according to The World Magazine, was fulfilled was that Russell and the early Bible Students had foretold that 1914 would see the battle of Armageddon.

The article in question is dated August 30, 1914. Hence at the time the publisher had no idea how 1914 would turn out. But we know today. We know for a fact that Armageddon did not occur in 1914, which is what Russell and the Bible Students had foretold.

What this means is:

1) “The Greatest Evidence of All” is based on a claim of fulfilled prophecy made in secular publisher in The World Magazine. This is what put legs onto the 1914 "prophecy". A secular publisher.

2) And, the “The Greatest Evidence of All” is no evidence at all about truth, because, as it turns out, prior to 1914 what Russell actually predicted for 1914 (Armageddon) did not come true. The would-be prophecy was false. So, something that we know was false is cited as 'the greatest evidence' for truth. That's a lot to take in!

That’s what the ellipsis dots camouflage. And it’s about a flagship teaching of the society.

[Srecko Sostar]

35 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

But do you see those ellipsis dots in the quoted paragraph? That’s the part left undisclosed, and I dare say more than 99 percent of the JW population today does not know what is undisclosed. The “extraordinary prophecy” that, according to The World Magazine, was fulfilled was that Russell and the early Bible Students had foretold that 1914 would see the battle of Armageddon.

The book Proclaimers talks about it. But who reads it today? Quote:

In 1876, when Russell had first read a copy of Herald of the Morning, he had learned that there was another group who then believed that Christ’s return would be invisible and who associated that return with blessings for all families of the earth. From Mr. Barbour, editor of that publication, Russell also came to be persuaded that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874. * Attention was later drawn to this by the  subtitle “Herald of Christ’s Presence,” which appeared on the cover of Zion’s Watch Tower.

So 40 years should have passed between the "invisible presence" and Armageddon, according to their calculation. (40 is a biblical number so they must have liked how it went together). But, I think the years kept moving in anticipation of the second coming of Jesus. I don't remember if it was Russell or someone before him who came up with the "invisible presence" idea. And I don't know if I can completely believe every statement and description of events from the book Proclaimers.
Planting testimony and moving events is a specialty of some at WTJWorg. We read in book also this.

Quote:

 At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule.

Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times.

If the book (Proclaiemrs) is to be believed, then this change in predictions is reminiscent of this year's Annual Meeting with "new knowledge" about events that began, according to the old explanation, but still did not begin, according to the new explanation.
Pure confusion or, in a word, Babylon.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known]

This text in brackets is not part of the original, it was already added to WTJWorg in that 1993 brochure you quoted. So another manipulation. The JWs came about after one of the schisms within the Bible Students. 

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

In its 1993 brochure “Why Should We Worship God in Love and Truth?” there’s a chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”

I didn't notice this until today. The title of the chapter is disastrous for GB. Their (GB) resistance to the term "inspired" is belied by this subtitle, as they unwittingly admit that the "truths" (they state several in that chapter) about 1914 are "inspired". So, they completely denied themselves, claiming that they came to the "truth" through "guided by HS" and through "study" and through "guidance of angels". 

Chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”

[Many Miles]

15 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I didn't notice this until today. The title of the chapter is disastrous for GB. Their (GB) resistance to the term "inspired" is belied by this subtitle, as they unwittingly admit that the "truths" (they state several in that chapter) about 1914 are "inspired". So, they completely denied themselves, claiming that they came to the "truth" through "guided by HS" and through "study" and through "guidance of angels". 

Chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”

Right. Worse, the supposed "God-Inspired Truth" that the society cited from The World Magazine as a fulfilled extraordinary prophecy turned out to be false, because what Russell had actually predicted, Armageddon, did not come in 1914 as foretold.

The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from capitalizing on the fantastic media coverage that article brought to their front door. The society is still riding that pony to this very day.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

Are there any other religions that interpret the Bible correctly? Would God approve of Christian sects that allow their ministers to be gay or to kill in war, for example? Wouldn't they be considered false prophets?

Sorry. If the Organization believes in itself, and if its believers believe in the Organization as the only true one, then any comparison with other organizations that are not true is meaningless.
What good is it for an honest and moral man to compare himself with fraudsters and scoundrels, and then this is his confirmation that he is on the right path.

How can you forget that WTJWorg is constantly changing its doctrines and that previous "truths" have actually become false teachings.

Unfortunately, WTJWorg has not been spared from its sins regarding the treatment of victims of pedophilia, and in this it is completely similar to the Catholic Church, which also covers up these atrocities. It is not entirely fair to highlight the bad deeds of another religion while at the same time failing to reveal the bad deeds of one's own religion. Both sides have no excuses.