Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today

Comment by vascagase on 2013-08-17 01:05:59

Well looking at their 130 year old track record with a 100% rate of failed predictions, I guess its obvious about trusting in these dudes, in fact its dangerous, the worst sin...

• Reply by on 2013-08-26 21:22:21

  Explain what you mean as to track record. The bible itself is accurate and that is what they use or are you on this 1975 date which was not the organizations fault. Speak the facts please with clear evidence.

  • Reply by hezekiah1 on 2013-08-27 10:32:51

    Hello anonymous
    While I don't agree with vascagase 100 percent, I must respond to your claim regarding dates and specifically that of 1975. If you say it was not the organization's fault, I have to disagree. There is ample evidence both in the WT and in talks and the KM showing that 1975 was a marked year. If you wish I can list the articles for you. If the GB claims to be the FADS then they carry a heavy responsibility to be careful in their wording; to be prudent. There is an ample amount of scriptural evidence showing that knowing the day and hour regarding the end is beyond our grasp.
    Please let me know if you want to get that info.

  • Reply by on 2013-08-29 01:00:43

    OK :"1918" millions now living will never die.. Fulfillment....They all died!.."1925" Return of ancient worthies e.g. Abraham, David ect....The didn't show up.. "This generation" Who is writing this insanity and why?....There are so many...Hezekiah 1 if you would please show what you have found in the wt literature...thanks

    • Reply by hezekiah1 on 2013-08-29 11:11:49

      Here are a few references showing what the WT thought of 1975. I have tried to copy directly from WT publications so as to get the meaning accurate.
      *** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
      “Say, What Does This 1975 Mean?”
      The Witnesses had long shared the belief that the Thousand Year Reign of Christ would follow after 6,000 years of human history. But when would 6,000 years of human existence end? The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975.
      At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’
      In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation.
      What I find incredible by the above, is that much excitement was drummed up regarding the date October 1975, yet when it passed and the disappointment set in, the WT blamed the rank and file brothers for reading too much into it. Really? Consider the following:
      From Life everlasting in freedom of the sons of god page 30
      How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants! This would be most timely for mankind. It would also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ. Prophetically Jesus Christ, when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is." (Matthew 12:8) It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the "Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence. (p. 30);
      *** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 pars. 7-8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
      7 The immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events, for this old system is nearing its complete end. Within a few years at most the final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these “last days” will undergo fulfillment, resulting in the liberation of surviving mankind into Christ’s glorious 1,000-year reign. What difficult days, but, at the same time, what grand days are just ahead!
      8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly. How foolish a person would be not to be awake and alert to the limited time remaining, to the earthshaking events soon to take place, and to the need to work out one’s salvation!
      *** w68 5/1 p. 272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
      1975 6000 End of 6th 1,000-year day of man’s existence (in
      early autumn)
      2975 7000 End of 7th 1,000-year day of man’s existence (in
      early autumn)
      *** w69 10/15 pp. 622-623 par. 39 The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years ***
      39 More recently earnest researchers of the Holy Bible have made a recheck of its chronology. According to their calculations the six millenniums of mankind’s life on earth would end in the mid-seventies. Thus the seventh millennium from man’s creation by Jehovah God would begin within less than ten years.
      *** w69 10/15 p. 623 par. 42 The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years ***
      42 In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be “Lord even of the sabbath day,” his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums. (Matt. 12:8, AV) Thus it would be a sabbatic reign.
      “Just think, brothers, there are only about 90 months left before the 6000 years of man’s existence on earth is completed...The majority of people living today will probably be alive when Armageddon breaks out.” (Kingdom Ministry, 3/68, p. 4)
      *** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
      Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.—1 John 2:17.
      There are certainly more references, however I think these will show the overall thought as to how the WT viewed 1975. Yet, as I said, I find it incredible that while making these statements, the WT said this:
      *** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
      35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”!
      So even though the Bible says no one knows the day or hour, we should still pay attention to what the FADS says.
      You say it was not the organization’s fault that people viewed 1975 as a marked year. Yet I think the statements above from the WT differ. This leads to another discussion as to whether they WT bears some responsibility for the choices made by brothers who made life changing decisions in the run up to 1975. Changes that included selling homes or businesses, not getting married or having children, moving to other areas, choice of education, etc. Most brothers no doubt recovered from that disappointment, yet I am sure some did not. Whose fault is that? I cannot say. Yet if one puts oneself before others as Jehovah’s spokesman, doesn’t one have a heavy responsibility not to put human opinion out as the word of God?

Comment by Chris on 2013-08-17 01:37:20

It would not surprise me if they try and manipulate these numbers to describe say, the 8 members of the GB and maybe 7 District Overseers, or something along those lines. The fairytale they are writing is going to get very interesting in the months ahead. I am waiting to see who the 7 Dwarves will be played by. Who really is Snow White? What prophetic significance does the poisonous apple have? And who is the the Big Bad Wolf going to be....hang on, I'm getting confused ;)

Comment by JimmyG on 2013-08-17 21:20:50

Does anyone who comments on this website take this stuff seriously anymore? Chris uses an apt word- 'fairytale'.( I guess actually 2 words!).These 'types and antitypes' or 'prophetic' comparisons beween ancient and modern have been the habit of WT writers over the more than 130 years of its existence. Russell, Rutherford and Fred Franz all did it and whoever is writing the latest stuff is doing it as well.
Here's an example: "Let your name be sanctified", a book written by Fred Franz, published in 1961, on page 315, paragraph 52 it says: "Three and a half years from A.D 29 to 33 (spring passover time) would find its modern parallel three and a half years from the fall of 1914 to the spring passover season of 1918". Does the WT still teach this? How could Franz ever have come up with this unsubstantiated nonsense?
And so it will be with this latest fairytale about shepherds and dukes. In a few years time it will be forgotten and they will have moved on to another set of fairytales. I wonder what is going on at HQ- they are behaving very strangely. Building a new HQ out in the countryside of upstate NY, telling everyone to 'close ranks on Satan and his demons', imploring the faithful to obey them even if what they command sounds 'strange'. At the same time, apart from the ongoing child abuse court case they lost and have appealed, 2 new cases have been filed against the WT, which could potentially cost many more millions of dollars if they lose again.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-18 12:59:47

Still reeling in shock. Don't know why I expected something more intelligent from those leading us but now it all seems so silly I can barely fathom an answer. Everything silly we've ever accused Christendom of has come back to haunt us. How can any intelligent Bible student be invited to take us seriously? How are we to conduct ourselves as Christians with such a clandestine message to bear?

Comment by JimmyG on 2013-08-19 07:33:06

Here is another example of a now abandoned Fred Franz 'fairytale'. Again from the same book I referenced above. On pages 335-6, paragraphs 4 and 5
In late 1941, Rutherford is dying at Beth Sarim. Franz, Knorr and Covington are summoned from HQ by Rutherford to his bedside in San Diego, for his final instructions to them. Rutherford died on January 8, 1942. Now I quote the first part of paragraph 5:
"As viewed from our present time (1961), it appears that there the Elijah work passed, to be succeeded by the Elisha work. It was as when Elijah and Elisha had crossed the Jordan River by means of a dividing of the waters to the east shore and were walking along, awaiting the removal of Elijah.".
Really? Up to not that long ago, this 'prophesy' was included as part of the instruction given to Gilead students. As Chris alludes to above, when are Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and friends going to make their entrance into JW folklore?

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-19 11:13:54

Brothers, I do agree that some of the things we as an organization have published are silly to the point of embarrassment. There is a reason that our "rich, spiritual heritage" in the form of publications predating 1950 is not made available to us. Many things we would like to forget and most we do not want the rank and file to be aware of. The temptation to mock such silliness is strong, but let us not descend to their level. We do not want to alienate sincere but cautious truth seekers with off-putting rhetoric, do we?
I hope I'm not being critical. I acknowledge that humor has its place as a weapon of truth; and there are times when mocking is appropriate.(1 Kings 18:27) Still, we have to be so careful in using it to good effect.

• Reply by hezekiah1 on 2013-08-21 00:58:44

  True Meleti. There is a reason that we cannot access prior to 1950. It truly is incredible and bewildering to see some of the statements made in the magazines then. However the same thing is happening today. What is troubling is to see how the WT takes faith strengthening accounts like this and uses them to advance their agenda to be faithful to them and not to Jehovah. We are to trust in Jehovah's saving power. Not the GB's saving power. They have none.

• Reply by Chris on 2013-08-22 16:36:26

  You are quite right Meleti sorry.
  Though at times the urge to mock them is strong, they really don't need any help to humiliate themselves. They have done an excellent job of that already.
  The sad part of this is the way that Jehovah's name is mocked by their falsehoods.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-22 19:52:46

    Very true, Chris. It is so sad that Jehovah's name and the way of the truth can be spoken of abusively on account of such teachings. (2 Pe 2:2)
    Coincidentally, I came across this in my Bible reading:
    (Matthew 23:21) "and he that swears by the temple is swearing by it and by him that is inhabiting it"
    In this chapter, Jesus engages in a denunciation of the religious leaders of his day. Yet, he makes it clear here that Jehovah was still inhabiting the temple. Of course, a new temple was even then being prepared in which he would soon take up habitation, but in the mean time and despite their wickedness which would soon culminate in the murder of His son, Jehovah was still present with them.
    This puts me in mind of another scripture:
    (2 Peter 3:9) . . .Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
    The "YOU" isn't the world, but the Christian congregation. One might think that the entirety of the congregation, by definition, had already attained to repentance, but apparently, not so. While we do much good in our Organization, we are also promoting error and falsehood in some key doctrines. Yet, I believe, Jehovah continues to dwell in this "temple", as he did with the seven congregations of Revelation despite their precarious position.
    As you have said, we have humiliated ourselves often enough. We have been perpetrating an "operation of error" for some time now, but Jehovah is patient because he does not desire any to be destroyed. But as the next verse of 2 Peter 3:10 shows, there is a limit to that patience and its end point cannot be predicted.

Comment by anderestimme on 2013-08-19 11:15:46

The worrying trend I see is that the world-wide brotherhood is expected to simply believe what's in the publications based on nothing more than the authority of the organization. No caveats are included to the effect these are simply the best-guess interpretations of imperfect humans, subject to revision. My guess is that they are worried that if they do that, it will encourage all manner of speculation on 'better' interpretations with the resulting deluge of letters to HQ. Uppity underlings who write in their irksome ideas when their time would be better spent racking up hours in service are more than sufficient reason to ditch being 'modest in walking with one's God', after all.

Comment by BeenMislead on 2013-08-19 12:57:59

Other Quotes from the November 15, 2013 Watchtower
_____________________________________________________________
“God’s promised new world is near, and our salvation is nearer than we may think.” (w13 11/15 p.7)
“Our way of life will thus reveal that we are staying awake spiritually and that we really believe that the end of this wicked system of things is imminent.” (w13 11/15 p.7)
“If we are busy helping others to gain accurate knowledge about God, the time remaining before the coming of Jehovah’s judgment will pass more quickly. Soon—even suddenly—time will run out. When it does, how glad we will be that we kept busy in the Kingdom preaching work!” (w13 11/15 p.12)
“In the near future, the nations will say ‘Peace and security!’” (w13 11/15 p.12)
“Already we see indications that her [false religion's] demise is near.” (w13 11/15 p.13)
“Soon, Jehovah’s day will come.” (w13 11/15 p.14)
“In the near future, Jehovah’s apparently vulnerable people will come under attack…” (w13 11/15 p.20)
------------------------------------------------------------
The reader is kept in a heightened state of expectation despite the fact that the Society has been making the same promises as those quoted above for over 100 years. The objective is obviously to induce fear.
The following quote comes to mind with all of their ‘very soon’ promises:
‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.’
I won’t be fooled a second time !!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” – Matthew 24:36
“Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.” – Matthew 24:42
“He said to them: “It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.” – (Or, “appointed times.” Footnote) – Acts 1:7

• Reply by JimmyG on 2013-08-19 17:15:46

  I add the following to Beenmislead's list:
  "Is it later than you think?" Cover of the Awake magazine, October 8, 1968
  "Is it later than you think?" Title of the Special talk, 2012.
  My use of humour above is more in frustration really.. As Anderestimme says JWs are just expected to believe what is in the publications no matter how fanciful, no questions asked. But this is not just a worrying trend, its been the expectation, particularly since the days of Rutherford.

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-20 00:59:08

    Oh but I DO remember that magazine! And I still remember the fellow chasing me down the street waving it in the air asking if I could tell him more! Turns out he was a Vietnam draft-dodger looking for a better answer for why the world had gone mad. How little we knew just how mad it would yet get since 1975!

• Reply by on 2013-08-20 12:48:54

  Or, how about this quote, "BeenMisled":
  Paragraph 17, from the Nov. 15th, 2013 Watchtower issue,
  "At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. (4) Now is the time for any who may be putting their trust in secular education, material things, or human institutions to adjust their thinking. The elders must stand ready to help any who may now be wavering in their faith."
  End of quote.
  Did they say, "All of us must be ready to OBEY ANY INSTRUCTIONS WE MAY Receive..." from Watchtower Headquarters?
  Whatever happened to Acts 5:29?
  It doesn't apply anymore?
  MDS

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-08-20 13:13:00

    Unfortunately, no. It doesn't apply. The belief is that as God's appointed channel of communication, when they speak, God is speaking, so Acts 5:29 doesn't apply.

  • Reply by A brother on 2013-09-29 22:16:43

    If you allow me please
    Why does Act 5: 29 cease to apply based on the paragraph you quoted?
    The paragraph as I read it merely says that:
    1. We receive life giving direction - Any and all direction based on the scriptures qualifies as life saving - no matter who utters it - This is true
    2. That at times scriptural direction does not appear practical - Particularly when examined from a purely human stand point. - This is very true
    3. That in view of the time in which we live if anyone is thinking to put his trust in education, human institution or materialism is barking up the wrong tree and needs help to readjust his thinking and should be helped to do so. Especially those whose faith is week - This is both Christian and very very true.
    I see nothing here that is out of context with scripture? nor that is asking you to render any one the obedience that belongs to God?
    Some it appears have such narrow view of the channel that they can't help letting their bias show through every comment they make. In doing so they also dismiss what is right and scriptural attempting to twist it say what it does not. Are they honest evaluators? They may think so. The scriptures say otherwise.

Comment by SpiritualBrother on 2013-08-20 02:59:17

Sounds quite cultish.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-08-20 17:43:10

Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Having now read the entire November 15 Watchtower I can now find words to express an opinion. While initially shocked upon seeing how obvious the ruse, I am not surprised in the direction they’re taking. In September we begin studying the July 15 Watchtower, unhinging the anointed remnant from Governing Body of eight men declaring themselves sole appointees of Christ to ‘Faithful and Discreet Slave’ status. While that might sound insensitive on my part, it’s not without the parallel announcement by Pope Francis of the eight cardinals he has appointed from around the world as his new counsellors. (I suppose even the vicar of Christ needs dissenting advice when such is not forthcoming from Christ). Sorry—tongue got stuck in my cheek.
Then we begin studying this series in January 2014—about 100 years after our urgent proclamation began that Christ arrived invisibly in Kingdom power. Who is there remaining among us who cannot see the screws tightening as we watch our trusted ship enter the open sea to do battle with an enemy yet too announced more specifically? The elder commanding officers will soon be assigned stations from which there is no dissent. Why do I hear that old Sunday school song “Onward Christian Soldiers” swirling in my head?
For years I resisted the urge to reposition myself within the elder framework. Since my cynicism has now surpassed my willingness to obey men over God, I wouldn’t qualify anyway. I resigned when it became political and I don’t know what the present elder appointees will do when they see the militant head rising. What can I say? Do I need a badge to care for the lowly and disillusioned? Anyone thinking they will not be divided in their commitment to Christ’s little lambs had better reassess their present commitment to the newly up-scaled Faithful and Discreet Slave. Trust me—the disillusioned will multiply to a level we have never seen and anyone thinking they can shepherd as Jesus told Peter in John 21 without a gag-order imposed by the organization will be living in that illusion.
While I remain incognito I will attempt to help my brothers to see through the eyes of Christ. As I recall once when questioning a circuit overseer over some recommendations we made as to just how it is that holy spirit appoints men, his only response was, "When we measure them against 1 Timothy 3:1-5 and Titus 1:6-9, and since holy spirit inspired those words, so it appoints those we recommend.” What he neglected to mention was the company-man attitude required to obey without question the governance from the top. I have served with men who did whatever it took to be in power and now that even more power is being given them, I fear for the flock entirely. Ambition is an insidious disease that cannot help but bring shipwreck to the faith of those infected. (1 Timothy 1:19)

• Reply by anderestimme on 2013-08-27 13:25:47

  "...about 100 years after our urgent proclamation began that Christ arrived invisibly in Kingdom power."
  Even there, you're being too generous. 100 years ago they thought Jesus was already invisibly present.

Comment by Cassandra Page on 2013-08-21 00:16:37

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Comment by BeenMislead on 2013-08-27 09:03:35

We have imperfect men (the GB) telling us:
All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.
And we have GOD’S inspired word telling us:
“For the undeserved kindness of God which brings salvation to all sorts of men has been manifested, 12 instructing us to repudiate ungodliness and worldly desires and to live with soundness of mind and righteousness and godly devotion amid this present system of things,” – Titus 2:11-12
There seems to be a direct conflict in the two!!
I wonder who we should obey?

• Reply by A brother on 2013-09-27 05:25:25

  The discussion has degenerated into a lot of negativity - why? - HOW HAVE YOU BEEN PERSONALLY DAMAGED MY BROTHER? I MEAN PERSONALLY DAMAGED - There is no direct conflict my brother (if you really are my brother)
  You need to stop and reason things through spiritually - If you possess the maturity to do so through the use of your perceptive powers trained by our grand instructor to distinguish right from wrong. Heb 5:14 - Isa 30:20
  The GB are imperfect men and so are all other men - I don't know of anyone who is perfect? Do you? If we applied this standard alone - you would have us not listening to anyone but the Bible - why should I listen to you? - why should you listen to me? Yet even the Bible tells us to be obedient to those taking the lead AND BE SBMISSIVE as those who would render an account. The apostle then adds for this would be damaging to you. Heb 13:7, 17' 24 - IT SEEMS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT CONSIDER OUR OBEDIENCE TO IMPERFECT MEN WHO ARE TAKING THE LEAD AS DAMAGING - - But why should we listen to Paul he was an imperfect man right? .There is one mans voice that Christians can't afford to ignore (if they are true Christians that is) and this one was a perfect man. The Bible call him the Word of God. Listen to the direction he gives his followers. YOU and ME I presume, right? Mat 23:2 The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform.
  Jesus knew that the Pharisees where blind guides - yet he tells us to do what they tell us and obey them. Now I know that my brothers in the GB are not Pharisees, but even if they were I AM TOLD by my LORD to do what they tell me and OBSERVE what they say. And again in Mat 5:41 If some one under authority impresses you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. This shows how willing we should be in our obedience to brothers in authority. Now we can go back to Paul and we can listen to him even though he was an imperfect man. Become imitators of me as I am of Christ. Like Paul do the work of an evangeliser. Like Paul be a peace maker. Like Paul show love for your brothers and all men. Does this mean that we do and believe everything we are told blindly. NO! We must make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine and we must obey God as ruler rather than man. So how do we reconcile the two. Everything you are told to do, DO! and DO IT AS TO JEHOVAH GOD. Only when what you are told to do TRANSGRESSES A DIRECT COMMAND OF GOD You must then obey God in preference AS RULER RATHER THAN MAN.
  A spiritual man can examine all things but a physical man can not. Now I hope that what I say is being understood by spiritual men for I know a physical men can not.
  1Cor 2:11-15
  Brothers all this talk about money, dates, teachings etc. etc. How does that alter what we are and what we ought to do as Christians? It makes me ashamed to read some your comments because they are so degrading and sarcastic Be careful that the sin that easily overtakes us is not overtaking you A LACK OF FAITH - You would be wise to listen to the warning given by the teacher Gamaliel to the Sanhedrin. Be careful that you don't turn out to be fighters actually against God. When the GB overstep the mark (A COMMANDMENT) then lets talk about it, but why predict they will. Who as appointed you as judge? Are you perfect? Are you Gods Spokesman? Then be humble and be what you are A SLAVE OF CHRIST don't murmur and don't complain but go about your work with JOY and FAITH. When the end comes and it will,all things will be revealed. Thank you

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-27 09:22:04

    A brother,
    Using this reasoning a Catholic is bound to be loyal to the pope, and there is no wrong in doing so since we can just view him as an imperfect man trying to take the lead. At what point do we distinguish truth from falsehood?
    Meleti's article isn't an attack on any person or persons. It is simply evaluating a teaching in the clear light of scripture.
    If somebody misrepresents the relationship that the scriptures say that we can have with God, then evidently it CAN be personally damaging if we believe it.
    There are indeed specific commands of God that we are discouraged from following. 1 Cor 11:26 and 2 Thes 2:1,2 come to mind. The pharisees that Jesus was talking about had the written law of Moses. By simply repeating the law to the people, even their embellished version of it, the people were on safe ground to follow it. Clearly Jesus' statement was not without limits. If a pharisee told them to blaspheme, then that would fall outside of the scope of do "ALL the things they tell you".
    We still have a duty to examine everything we are taught in the light of scripture rather than blindly accept all that we hear.
    Apollos

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-27 10:05:06

      Sorry, thought your comments were directed to Meleti on his most recent article. Hence my comment about "relationship with God". That might not have made complete sense in this context. But the point I was trying to make still stands. Apollos

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-27 09:45:06

    Your line of reasoning has been used for centuries you bolster support for and loyalty to church leadership. Take out Governing Body and insert Pope or Church Leadership and hand this to a Catholic or a Baptist and your words work just as well.
    Answer me this: What is the criteria you would use to tell a Catholic he doesn't have to obey the Pope? What is his basis for a Baptist or Mormon to refuse to obey the direction from his Church leadership? Once you've defined that criteria, explain how is doesn't apply to us as Jehovah's Witnesses.
    It's not good enough to say that Jehovah has appointed the Governing Body, because the leadership of every church makes the same claim. You have to prove that they are in their position by divine appointment. I find whenever this topic comes up, my brothers just take it as a given. There is no question in their minds that the Governing Body is divinely appointed. But ask them to prove it from scripture or even empirically and they have nothing.
    You have tried to compare the leadership to Paul. Do you not see the is a weak analogy? Paul spoke under inspiration; the Governing Body do not. None of what Paul wrote has had to be retracted, altered, or abandoned outright. This cannot be said for the Governing Body's writings.
    You quote Heb. 13:7,17. You also quote Acts. 5:29. In both places the English word, "obey" is used. However, in Greek two different words appear. Why didn't Paul use the same word to the Hebrews that Peter used to the Sanhedrin? Peter chose a word that requires absolute obedience. Paul's word make the obedience conditional. Why? The Governing Body does not accept conditional obedience from us. If you want the answer, check out this link: http://meletivivlon.com/2013/01/09/to-obey-or-not-to-obey-that-is-the-question/
    You ask how I've been personally damaged. First, I don't have to be personally affected by falsehood to expose it. The Trinity doctrine has never affected me personally, but I still denounce it as false and God-dishonoring. However, I have been personally damaged. My relationship with God has been hampered, damaged, by the false teaching that I am not and can never be in this life, his son. For my entire life, I could have been building a father-son relationship with God and a brother-to-brother relationship with Jesus, but No. I've been told by men that the best I can hope for is to be God's friend and that Jesus is not my mediator. I've been taught my hope is earthly when the Bible says the heavenly hope is open to me. They took that away from me as well.
    You say that "we must obey God as ruler rather than men", and you speak well. However, try using that reasoning when deciding not to follow some direction from the Governing Body and see if the elders accept it. They will tell you that it doesn't apply to the Governing Body because they speak for Jehovah, hence you are obeying God when you obey them.
    "Only when what you are told to do TRANSGRESSES A DIRECT COMMAND OF GOD You must then obey God in preference AS RULER RATHER THAN MAN."
    Your words! Let's apply them, shall we? Jesus tells me to worship God in spirit and truth, so if those taking the lead wish us to teach falsehood, I must obey God as ruler rather than men. (John 4:24) The Governing Body tells me I must trust what direction they will give me in the future as a matter of life and death. They tell me following their direction is a matter of my personal salvation. God tells me: "Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs." (Psalm 146:3) Again, as per your own words, I must obey God as ruler rather than men.
    If you are going to respond to this comment, and I hope you will, please answer the questions I raised in the second paragraph, and if you are going to make assertions about the supposed authority or divine appointment of any individuals, please provide the Scriptural credentials we will need to accept such men as "over us".

    • Reply by A brother on 2013-09-28 03:34:59

      Brothers by your responses it seems to me that you have taken what I said and ignored some, misunderstood other and attributed to me a whole lot of conclusions and motives I did not intend to make. Is this proper?
      When Jesus was on earth many questions where posed to him. Remember the question on the seven resurrected husbands so whose wife is she? Jesus did not go into lengthy discussion in order to prove his point of truth. He only had to state one scripture just one scripture properly and correctly explained to prove the point. The supremacy of scripture was well recognised? Realising that this question was more about resurrection than marriage our lord answered. Our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob, he is a God of the living not of the dead. A perfect scriptural response, what more needed to be said? Jesus did not respond to questions primarily with the use of logic or opinion. He responded to questions with Scripture. Brothers I have no desire to argue or debate, in fact as Christians we are advised not to do so. I do however enjoy engaging in meaningful scriptural discussion on the basis of SCRIPTURE - THE WORD OF GOD. In obedience to the Bibles admonition not to go beyond the things that are written.
      So what do we have here
      Brother Apollos says - Using this reasoning a Catholic is bound to be loyal to the pope, and there is no wrong in doing so since we can just view him as an imperfect man trying to take the lead. At what point do we distinguish truth from falsehood?
      I suppose that initially a Catholic would stay with his church. Where else would he go - I was a Catholic once and the Pope never bothered me, I always considered my self as worshiping God not the Pope. What caused me to change? The WORD OF GOD! It was not what it said about the pope that appealed me but what it said about GOD AND HIS PURPOSE - And I developed a personal relationship with GOD that I did not have before - I obtained this relationship thanks to Jehovah's Witnesses who called at my door and so it seemed reasonable to me that I should associate my self with this more enlightened spiritual group who believed as I do, just as you did.
      If as you claim Jehovah's Witnesses have a governing body like the pope. In your opinion what should I do? Go back to being a Catholic knowing what I now know? Go somewhere else? Where would you suggest I go? Start my own religion and have it end up the same? NO my brother I do what Jesus instructed me to do? The fact that Jesus was speaking to those under the law does not in any way change the value and importance of his instruction. Brother Apollos I need to respectfully point out to you that what I stated was said by Jesus - I've not taken to questioning the validity of what lord says.
      Brother Apollos you say that - If somebody misrepresents the relationship that the scriptures say that we can have with God, then evidently it CAN be personally damaging if we believe it.
      My question based on the lords instruction was WHAT DAMAGE HAVE YOU SUFFERED? wrong dates? how money is spent? teachings that deal with irrelevancies that amount in similarity to the teaching that one day is more important than another or to use a Catholic example a teaching that you should not eat meat on Friday. How do these things damage your relationship to God?These are not the teachings that require a loyal response just a submissive one as our lord clearly instructed. By submitting we are not saying that we approve or disapprove, we are showing our submission to God. Aaron was an imperfect man he constructed an idol under pressure. Was he removed by God for doing so? What he did was wrong, idolatry is very wrong, yet God allowed him to serve and continue serving. Saul was king and as king he disobeyed God. Did God immediately remove him as king? While Saul served as king wasn't he to be obeyed? David was also anointed as king while Saul ruled, did he dare to raise his hand against Saul a corrupt king. These things where written for our instruction to gives us endurance and hope. Do these examples provide us as Christians with a scriptural basis to take our loyalty to God to a higher level than that there shown. So that we on the basis of loyalty to God can set ourselves up as defenders of the faith regardless of the damage we may do to others? One of the fruits of the holy spirit requires us to be reasonable. If you discovered that your father had deliberately lied to you (DELIBERATELY). Would you disown him from being your father? Would you reason to your self that because he had lied, you no longer owe him any obedience or respect or recognition? Would you conclude that out of loyalty to God you should leave him and no longer render him honour as your parent? If on the other hand your father were to ask you to kill or harm some one then out of loyal obedience to God you would rightly disobey such an unscriptural order. As for your scriptures brother.to these I can't respond because they don't seem to apply.
      Brother Meleti feels that my line of reasoning has been used for centuries you bolster support for and loyalty to church leadership. Take out Governing Body and insert Pope or Church Leadership and hand this to a Catholic or a Baptist and your words work just as well. Brother Meleti I have addressed this point in my answer to brother Appolos above. Brother Meleti also asked - Answer me this: What is the criteria you would use to tell a Catholic he doesn’t have to obey the Pope? What is his basis for a Baptist or Mormon to refuse to obey the direction from his Church leadership? Once you’ve defined that criteria, explain how it doesn’t apply to us as Jehovah’s Witnesses. To tell you the truth my brother I have never called on Catholics in my door to door ministry to primarily discuss with them why they should not obey their church leadership or their POPE. My call is more with the intent to share the good news with them about God and his kingdom. Brother Meleti you obviously feel very strongly about this one point, which if pardon me for saying so seems tobe stuck in your throat . The claim of infallibility as the vicar of Christ by the pope is compared to the GB as the channel of God. If you will allow me I would like to take you back to what I originally stated in the first posting. The Pharisees were false teacher they too felt that they were Gods channel for dispensing instruction how did Jesus handle them. He exposed their false understanding and assumptions with the scriptures.He exposed the unreasonableness of their attitude towards others and their hypocrisy in the way they circumvented Gods law. -- OK so, how are we as Christians to act when confronted with religious leaders like the Pharasee? Don't you think that Jesus instruction on how to treat the Pahrasees is also relevant to all Christians today. You concluded from the scriptural proof I presented that by rendering obedience, a Christian condones the wrong teaching of the Pharisees (RELIGIOUS LEADERS), No I don't condone it nor approve it any more than the disciples who heard Jesus instruction to submit to the Pharisees did. I simply do not resit it, if it relates to areas that are not of fundamental importance to ones worship and obedience to God - - - DISOBEDIENCE TO THOSE TEACHINGS WOULD BRING GODS
      DISPLASURE AND WOULD BRING HARM TO MY RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. - - - I'm merely stating that some form of long suffering from Christians is expected and is required. To answer your question; what gives the Pharasaical religious leaders of this world the right to our obedience? They don't need a scriptural right, they are there. When I go into a congregation I don't go up to the elders and ask by what right are you there. They just are! So what Paul states in the scriptures in Hebrew 13: 7,17, 24 apply. LETS NOT DEBATE ABOUT THE WORD OR ABOUT THE LEVEL OF THE OBEDIENCE RENDERED - EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IT CAN'T BE ABSOLUTE- Now the GB was there when you became a JW right? Now you've learned that some of their teachings in the past where wrong,from that you conclude that they can't be whom they claim they are - right? - - - Are they your brothers? Are they taking the lead? Are they accountable? to whom are they to render an account? SINCE THE LORD MADE THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO HIM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LORD HAS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED THINGS TO BE THIS WAY. And if that's the way he wants it who am I to argue that for the sake of loyalty and truth that I should dispense with obedience and plunge headlong like a bull at a gate, down the road of defender of the faith. My brother you tell us what is wrong but you don't tells us what to do scripturally. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO? WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE US GO? that's why when you reach a certain point you need to leave things in Gods hands. Is Jehovah's hand too short? Does he lack the power to adjust? Does he need you and me to hold them to account and accomplish change? IF BY POINTING THESE SO CALLED WRONGS YOU STUMBLE OTHERS - HOW IS THAT CHRISTIAN? Will the lord not also hold you to account? My brother,the wise man was a just administrator when he had Gods approval the wisest man on the planet.He wrote the book of Ecclesiastes. Yet he was not able to stop human imperfection corruption and injustice. He came to therealisation that there is only so much that one can do. The first century congregation was full of human imperfection which progressively got worse as the great apostasy set in. What would you have done if you were there,would you try to correct every brother who spoke a twisted thing,may be you would be right to expose somethings but in the end if the power rested with others what would you do? would you stay connected with the congregation of your brothers,gathering with them were you know Christ would be present in spirit?
      Would you separate yourself in loyalty to God? And what good would that do? Would you form your own religious group only to see it also go the same way? Or Would you keep your faith and stick it out till the lord comes? Wasn't the lord aware of the coming apostasy? Didn't he foretell it? What did he say his Christian followers should do? LET THEM GROW TOGETHER with the weed until the harvest time. They were to stick together side by side one brother next to a false brother till the harvest. Tell me my brother Has the harvest time come? Do you get the point.Who is stopping you from doing Gods will? Who has the power over what you do? Please be patient exercise faith and keep on the watch. When the lord arrives and he separates you as a sheep from the goats you will rejoice to hear his well done. Submission requires humility a Godly quality resistance is Satanic.

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-28 13:14:48

        A brother,
        I am sorry you feel the way you do about our discussion. You may not intend it, but the use of capitalization though whole sentences online is considered to be shouting. I do not feel the need to shout at people on this matter. We can simply stick to the scriptural discussion and if at any point you or I do not wish to continue then we have that option.
        Here is a simple point of reason which I feel you ought to able to relate to given your Catholic background. In our publications we have frequently heralded individuals throughout history who took a stand against the false doctrine and authority of the Roman Catholic church have we not? Martin Luther, the Waldenses, William Tyndale and others spring to mind. True, these are not all given a clean bill of health either (in that they supposedly didn't have the "complete" truth we have today), but the implication is always that the stand that they took against the authority of the church was a good thing. It helped the Christian congregation progress out of darkness and into something better. And yet to apply your reasoning these individuals and groups should never have done so. They should have reasoned that God permits the authority of the church and therefore nobody should speak out against error. How do you reconcile this double standard?
        As Meleti pointed out earlier the Father is looking for those who wish to worship him in "spirit and truth" (John 4:23,24).
        Let's break that down. Firstly we are to worship "in spirit". Consider this passage:
        (Romans 8:12-14) So, then, brothers, we are under obligation, not to the flesh to live in accord with the flesh; 13 for if YOU live in accord with the flesh YOU are sure to die; but if YOU put the practices of the body to death by the spirit, YOU will live. 14 For all who are led by God’s spirit, these are God’s sons.
        There are only two choices for Christians according to Paul. Either we are "led by God's spirit" or we are "in accord with the flesh" and are "sure to die". But at the same time "all who are led by God’s spirit, these are God’s sons". Now we have a situation whereby we can choose to believe this, or we can accept the word of men that this passage cannot apply to us. We are told that we cannot be God's sons, therefore according to God's Word we cannot be led by the spirit, and therefore we are sure to die.
        And yet you ask how we have been damaged?
        The second point is that we must worship also "in truth". But your argument is that we must worship according to any doctrine that is given us as long as someone who we consider to be in authority is passing it down. Even if we see a clear conflict between a doctrine and God's Word, then we are still obliged to go along with it according to your reasoning, since the greater sin would be to not accept the authority.
        "A brother", if you have read all of my comments and articles on this site you will see that I have never advocated disunity. I have often stated that we need the congregation and that at this time it would be wrong to work against its interests. To me that does not mean that I have to accept that which conflicts with God's Word. And I do not believe that Jehovah requires that Christians should be prohibited from open discussion on his Word either.
        For those that see this as a cause of division and stumbling I say, do not read this site or enter into discussion with us. I have no desire to stumble anyone. The objective of this site is simply to delve for a deeper understanding of God's Word. Those who do not have the same objective should probably stay clear.
        Your brother,
        Apollos

        • Reply by A brother on 2013-09-28 23:14:50

          My dear brother Apollos. Thank you for your very kind message I greatly appreciate it. I offer my sincere apology for the use of capitalised sentences, if it means one is shouting I was not aware of this, I was only using it as a means for emphasis, Very sorry for that and thank you for pointing this out to me. Dear brother Appolos I have not read your other comments yet, I will try, and I have no reason doubt your sincerity.
          I understand the point you are making about how in our publications we have praised those who in the past have stood up against the religious establishment to defend some important spiritual truth. And how hypocritical it might seem if that same organisation that praises these ones, now appears to crush any and all dissention.
          OK. I am going to be entirely frank with you my brother. I have considered that same point my self in the past - Its not a new point I personally favour - personally I too like you would like to see a greater freedom given to spiritual discussion. speaking personally I would also like to see other changes in the direction we might be taking.
          Ok. So what scriptural conclusion have my observations lead me to make.
          I considered Mat 24:45 and I have come to this realisation that in this parable the lord has described possibilities of what might be happening in any given time. In the parable the lord asks a question - who is the faithful and discreet slave whom the master has appointed over his domestics? for me 3 things stand out in that question - 1 the lord has appointed a slave over his congregation ( a person or persons or a group not groups) and he has vested them with authority as indicated by appointment. 2 The lord intentionally in the parable left us wondering who that faithful slave is. We won't know who he is until the lord rewards him for his faithfulness. that means that today we only have the slaves word for his appointment. not like in the first century with the miraculous works of the holy spirit 3. There is a second group who are domestics who don't do the feeding directly but they are fed by the slave the lords appointed. Then the lord goes on to say that, Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. He will be rewarded with kingdom rule over all the masters belonging.
          The lord leaves open the evaluation of the slaves performance up to his coming. An evaluation that he will conduct personally. In verse 48 the lord allows for another possibility that that slave becomes evil. He develops a lack of faith due to the masters delay and instead of feeding starts beating the domestics who are now identified as his fellow slaves. From this illustration two clear groups appear a slave appointed to care for the Christian congregation and the domestic slaves making up the congregation. With this illustration in mind and using the bible we can address our question relative to the possible intransigence of the appointed slave. First let me say that it would not be unreasonable to assume that along with feeding the sheep that appointed slave is also charged with protecting the sheep. Ok
          Now we come to the GB, how are we to regard them and what is our responsibility as domestics? Since the apostle Peter tells us that the things written affore time where written for our instruction. And Paul tells us that all scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial for teaching reproving and setting things straight we should let the scripture indicate to us what we should do. I'm sure brother Appolos that you agree with me on this. In the past when God appointed a man as his servant he has asked the congregation of his people to show respectful obedience and submission to this one.
          What this one does may have drastic consequences on Gods people but in most cases they were not required to rise up in open rebellion against Gods anointed one even when he had clearly turned bad. It seems that Jehovah our God continues a personal relationship with his faithful one regardless of what the now corrupt appointee may decide to do. most of the time resistance consisted in personal private action only. In any case what is consistent is that those who took action were themselves appointed by God as his agents for doing so. The majority of the congregation patiently waiting on Jehovah to act.
          When I look at the scriptures this is the pattern which constantly emerges
          When I look at history a similar pattern emerges. when we examine men like Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Wycliffe, What do we see that those who took up a cause for the bible died faithful to their beliefs true martyrs and faithful and discreet slaves. While those who took up a cause for their truth on teaching or dogma ended up an evil salve drunk with power who went off beating their fellow slaves.
          No matter where we look our lords advice and instruction is perfect do what they say but not what they do. By saying this our lord was not saying that we do all they say regardless of the consequences. but he was saying in a way is that we should also not rise up against what they say. I am as zealous for truth and for justice as what you are my brother only I have learned to considered my steps more carefully. there is wisdom in Gamaliel's words, let it proceed and do not hinder for time will tell, for if this work is from God you will actually be fighting against God. The point being that if your an I are house hold servant we are not authorised by appointment to be in management of the dispensing of food that much is clear from Jesus parable, why did he give that parable? Can we ignore it or anything else that he said? My brother this is a very difficult question and one that can not be answered in a small brief comment so please forgive me if my reply is so large. Please consider what I have said in the light of what I have previously stated. I look forward to hearing from you. I hope that my comments have been of help to you.

    • Reply by BeenMislead on 2013-09-30 10:22:45

      Excellent reply Meleti !!!
      I concur.

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-28 08:02:34

To A Brother,
Alas, you have managed to avoid a clear and direct answer to my question. You counsel submission, but do not specify to whom.
"Submission requires humility a Godly quality resistance is Satanic."
A general statement, and as is often the case with generalities, both true and false. For instance, to whom are you counseling I submit? To God, to Christ, or to men? Jesus told us to resist the wicked one, so all resistance is not satanic and all submission is not Godly.
"SINCE THE LORD MADE THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO HIM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LORD HAS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED THINGS TO BE THIS WAY."
Whether we are speaking of the Pope or the Governing Body, you are making the Lord responsible for their actions. Is the Pope's rule or the rule of the Governing Body or the rule of any other church authority the DESIGN OF GOD? What Jehovah permits and what he designs are two very different things.
"BY POINTING THESE SO CALLED WRONGS YOU STUMBLE OTHERS - HOW IS THAT CHRISTIAN? "
Careful! You judge me and yet your judgment is not based on Scripture but your opinion. (Mt. 5:22) How can revealing truth to those in darkness cause stumbling? It is the truth that sets us free, it is not. Allowing someone to remain in error, now that is what stumbles. Our work is likened to warfare. One must first destroy the bad to then make way for the good. Lofty things are being raised up against the knowledge of God. Are we to remain silent? You speak much about submitting to men. But our job is to bring "every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ." Not to men. "To the Christ." (2 Cor. 10:3-6)
"My question based on the lords instruction was WHAT DAMAGE HAVE YOU SUFFERED?"
I explained that. I really don't know how to explain it any better.
My brother, you have rambled on for almost 2,000 words, yet not cited a single scripture to support any of your claims. You speak in generalities, evade direct answers to questions, and sidestep or dismiss outright important Scriptural reasoning. Truly, after reading your comment, I'm not really sure where you stand. If I were to sum is up, I think you are saying, "Let's not make waves. Let's try to get along and don't challenge anyone who sets himself up as lord over your souls, because that's the way Jehovah wants it to be. If you see that something is wrong, keep it to yourself and wait on Jehovah to fix things."
I do not mean to be harsh. I'm sure you speak out of sincerity of heart. However, it you are to reach the hearts of others, sound scriptural reasoning will go much farther than personal opinion.

• Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-09-28 12:15:35

  A suggestion here might be, while I understand your frustration, Meleti, I also understand A Brother who's in typical transition and who, like us, awaits the return of our Lord. Try not to misunderstand. While reading him I didn't need him to quote scripture. We've read them all in context and out of context. True he missed clarification and context from your perspective, but as moderator of another site, I often read what others write whose attitude is misunderstood. Speaking face to face we have opportunity of clarification. However, venting written dialogue such as we all read A Brother, it's a little like hear the loosening of bowels to rid the body of infection. While letting it all out there's little chance for clarification.
  sw

  • Reply by A brother on 2013-09-28 20:27:19

    Thank you brother smolderingwick for your reasonable approach but please do not stereotype me as a brother in a typical transition although I do await the return of the lord. Thank you also for acknowledging that my statements were related to scriptures and since I was speaking to brothers, I naturally assumed for the sake of expediency to paraphrase them in my comments. I don't quite understand your illustration entirely but I think you are trying to say that when one has a lot to say and little space to do it in one may leave out certain details which the other person if not honest our humble could capitalise on by pretending he did not understand or by ignoring. Brother Meletic is not the spiritual man I thought he might be and I'm not saying this to insult him Only to say that I over estimated his spiritual stature. This is apparent to me since he latches on to each word rather than try to comprehend my meaning. Why would one take issue with the statement that submission is a godly quality and resistance is Satanic? Doesn't the very name Satan mean resistor? As I said at the outset I'm not interested in engaging in a form of discussion like a litigation because the other party is aggressive and has his mind so made up that he will not listen to reason. As a Christian brother offering scriptural advice and counsel I have no desire to swing spiritual blows to strike the air. I suppose I had better quote the scripture I'm referring to, otherwise my brother Meleti may interpret this statement as a threat. 1 Cor 9:26
    Brother Milleti I have not tried to deliberately avoid your questions some questions just can be answered that way. Rather than examining my motives wouldn't you be better off considering the spiritual arguments. Rather than pointing out only what you don't agree with, would our discussion benefit from a more positive approach by also point out what you found interesting, considered, or agreed with. Brother Meleti I counsel submission because the lord and Paul counsel it. Brother Meleti I'm sure that you have read Rom 13 :1 - 2 What does the apostle say under holy spirit as you rightly pointed out. Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities --- for there is no authority except by God ---- the existing authorities stand placed in their relative position by God. ------ Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God ----- Those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgement to themselves. Brother Meleti Who placed the authorities mentioned here in a position of power? Verse 4 for they are Gods ministers to you for your good. If God permits it, they are part of his design. By that I mean his purpose, verse 4 makes that very clear. Since I provide for you a scriptural answer directly from the scriptures without interpretation I am not expecting to have to prove this point again based on what I stated in my second posting.
    In the end all authority allowed or permitted by God is working to accomplish God's purpose in one way or another. NOTICE I SAID IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER Cyrus king of Persia was not a worshiper of Jehovah God but God nevertheless called him his servant. Even the Pharasees, the pope, the governing body. Pharoe of Egypt even Satan the devil all serve a purpose. In Gods purpose. Is God thus responsible for what they do? How could that be so? God did not make them what they are they became what they are. God merely allows them to exist to ultimately accomplish his purpose and to the extent that he allows them, they are relatively placed in authority by God. God is omnipotent and omniscient his purpose can not ever fail. Unless he specifically calls us, he does not need you and me to defend him. Notice I also included the GB into that list because it really doesn't matter. They are the present authority those taking the lead they stand placed in their relative position by God so far. If it wasn't for that governing body I might never have come to know Jehovah my God. In any case it was they who first brought me the good news or someone organised by them. You point out how the governing body has stated this or that in the past and it has not come to be so. You take exception to that. But most, if not all of those brother who said this or that in the past, are no longer there. They are gone. Take 1914 - lets say that the kingdom of God was not established in 1914? I say what does it matter? THE KINGDOM IS REAL The kingdom will be established soon. It must - for it will bring to ruin those ruining the earth and since today we have the capacity to ruin the earth and we are in fact doing it right now, the kingdom must either be established or it will be soon OK? What's the point, Right or wrong about its establishment - who is preaching the good news about that kingdom? It has to be preached right? I suppose I better put in the scripture in here, Mat 24:14 Now in our present world who has taken upon itself the responsibility of preaching that good news in fulfilment of prophecy?
    THE GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES even if it is not who it claims to be it is performing a function in line with Gods purpose is it not? - and to this extent, it, more than any other religious organisation on the planet is serving Gods purpose. I ask you is the governing body any less a servant of God that Cyrus was? By the way brother you did not answer my previous questions either.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-29 10:34:09

      "Brother Meletic is not the spiritual man I thought he might be and I’m not saying this to insult him Only to say that I over estimated his spiritual stature."
      Let us agree not to engage in judgments of one another, either of our spiritual nature or of our motivations.
      Now your comments are very long. I am not being critical in saying that. I say it only because addressing the many issues and questions you raise can be a challenge in this format. A long and involved comment requires a longer and more involved response. That response will raise new questions and issues which will result in a still longer and more involved response. This is the nature of the beast unfortunately and it makes the discussion increasingly difficult and time consuming to follow. So let us change the format and try to stick to one point at a time and then move on to another single point; resolving to explore and resolve each point fully before moving to the next.
      Please allow me to start.
      Now, since your key point or position which I've distilled from a re-reading of your comments (and if I've got this wrong, please correct me) is that the Governing Body has been appointed by God and therefore should be obeyed even if they are wrong. Is that correct?
      This viewpoint you summed up at the close of one of your comments by saying: "Submission is a godly quality and resistance is Satanic?"
      I took issue with that by saying: "A general statement, and as is often the case with generalities, both true and false. For instance, to whom are you counseling I submit? To God, to Christ, or to men? Jesus told us to resist the wicked one, so all resistance is not satanic and all submission is not Godly."
      I know you agree that we must submit to God. You also agree with me that we must submit to authority which Jehovah has placed for our protection, such as the human governments of this world, which at one point included the Pharisees of Jesus' day. You also acknowledge that resistance is not always a bad thing. I'm sure you agree with these words of James.
      (James 4:7) "Subject yourselves, therefore, to God; but oppose the Devil..."
      So resistance is a requirement in certain circumstances, and while submission to God is not relative, it is relative to every human authority currently in place.
      Now if God to whom we owe absolute submission tells us to oppose the Devil, we must obey him, correct? It follows that we should oppose his ministers.
      (2 Corinthians 11:15) "It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness"
      So when Jesus told his disciples to do what the Pharisees said, he could not have meant that they should obey any command of those men that conflicted with God. He was referring to the teachings of the Pharisees which transmitted the law code which was from God. However, when they began to teach things that conflicted with God's word, the disciples understood that resistance wasn't optional, but a requirement. Submission to such commands would have constituted sin and disobedience to God. So they told the Pharisees and priests that they had to "obey God as ruler rather than men". (Acts 5:29)
      It was their place to resist. It was their obligation to resist. They could not argue that the Sanhedrin was placed by God and so had to be obeyed.
      

      (You see, even making one, single point can involve a long comment. So I will raise one point in the form of a question, and if you could just answer this one question, I think we can make progress.)
      
      Would you agree that as Jehovah's Witnesses we must follow the example of the apostles before the Sanhedrin and resist any teaching from the Governing Body which is false?

      • Reply by A brother on 2013-09-30 12:12:56

        Brother Meleti
        Thank you for you response and I will try to reduce the size of my comments,
        Lets see if I can address your points one by one.
        1. I don't know and cannot say with certainty if the governing body has been appointed by God - No -all I know is that a governing body was present and had oversight of the work of Jehovah's witnesses when I was brought the good news.
        The governing body should be obeyed yes ---- Now you add even if they are wrong
        My response with the condition you imposed hypothetically speaking is that my obedience would depend on the degree and the nature of the wrong request. If no one but me is affected by their wrong request I would obey Yes.
        Your next point ------ “Submission is a godly quality and resistance is Satanic?”“A general statement, and as is often the case with generalities, both true and false. For instance, to whom are you counselling I submit? To God, to Christ, or to men?
        Answer - To God primarily for God wills it - I scripturally counsel that you submit to whomever God through Christ would have you submit to.
        Your next point ------ Jesus told us to resist the wicked one, so all resistance is not satanic and all submission is not Godly.”
        Answer - Jesus told us no such thing - Mat 5 ;39 On the contrary Jesus told us not to resit. There are occasions when Christians would offer some form of proper resistance but they are measured and rare.
        Your next point ----- You also agree with me that we must submit to authority which Jehovah has placed for our protection, such as the human governments of this world, which at one point included the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. You also acknowledge that resistance is not always a bad thing. I’m sure you agree with these words of James.
        Answer - Yes I agree that we as Christians should submit to human government even though these governments are ruled by Satan ------ I don't agree that a Christians obedience to the Pharisees is related to government they were a religious sect who claimed to worship God.
        Your next point ----- You also acknowledge that resistance is not always a bad thing. I’m sure you agree with these words of James. (James 4:7) “Subject yourselves, therefore, to God; but oppose the Devil…”
        Answer - Resistance is not always a bad thing when its directed primarily at Satan - When its directed at men its rarely a good thing James 4 -11 counsels quit speaking against one another brothers. he who speaks against a brother or judges his brother speaks against law and judges law. now if you judge law you are not a doer of law but a judge - One there is that is both law giver and judge. he who is able both to save and to destroy. But you who are you to be judging your neighbour?
        Your statement ------ Now if God to whom we owe absolute submission tells us to oppose the Devil, we must obey him, correct? It follows that we should oppose his ministers.
        Answer- We obey God instruction to oppose the devil Yes - But it doesn't necessarily follow that we do the same to his ministers it depends - Are my Christian brothers in GB ministers of the devil? - I don't think so! James 4:11 would seem to apply here.
        Your statement ----- So when Jesus told his disciples to do what the Pharisees said, he could not have meant that they should obey any command of those men that conflicted with God. He was referring to the teachings of the Pharisees which transmitted the law code which was from God. However, when they began to teach things that conflicted with God’s word, the disciples understood that resistance wasn’t optional, but a requirement. Submission to such commands would have constituted sin and disobedience to God. So they told the Pharisees and priests that they had to “obey God as ruler rather than men”. (Acts 5:29)
        Answer - In very sorry but you are confused here my brother I can't not agree with either your premise nor your conclusion which are booth incorrect statements of opinion. When Jesus told his disciples to be obedient to the hypocritical Pharisees Jesus knew exactly what they taught and where they stood in all things. The Pharisees exaggerated Gods commands to make themselves look good and looked down on those who with low means could not keep the laws they set. Obedience to them would only require that a Christian do more for nothing. That's all. Religion even false religion has some moral outcome as its goal in order to attract a servant away from God. but in them selves they are not bad or at least so bad that obedience to them for the sake of peace would put a Christian in conflict with gods requirements. The situation of acts 5:29 is very different from what Jesus said. The disciples where told to do something that went directly against what God through his son had commanded them to do - bear witness to his son. two vastly different sets of circumstance - Even Caesar is to be obeyed only until he ask for something that belongs to God.
        You Ask ------- Would you agree that as Jehovah’s Witnesses we must follow the example of the apostles before the Sanhedrin and resist any teaching from the Governing Body which is false?
        Answer - I consider your question partly hypothetical. I do believe that we should follow all the examples of faith set by the apostles of our lord. Yes - However I don't agree with your premise that we should resist any teaching from the GB even if as you say it were false. For the reason already stated above. My position is one of conscience based primarily on humility and subjection to God. Like David I ask Who am I that I should thrust my hand out against my brothers who are in a position of authority and allowed to be there by God. Again using your hypothesis the governing body may think they are running the show but the congregation belongs to God they are his sheep and they can only stay there as long as he allows it. you see my brother I know our father and our lord enough (from what I've studied) to know that they would not be pleased with me if I presumptuously did otherwise. Even the world acknowledges that patience is a virtue
        Sorry if I took a lot of space again.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-30 16:21:37

          To A Brother,
          I understand your desire to address every issue I raised, but as I stated in the previous comment, I would rather stick with one at a time and resolve it one way or the other. Then of course we can move on to others if we deem the important enough for ongoing discussion.
          I appreciate your opinion and respect your right before God to make the choice you feel is right. It seems to me that we have to differing opinions and in the end we may simply have to agree to disagree.
          You have stated yours in your various comments, so I would like to make mine clear as well.
          I believe that within the framework of the Organization, we should obey the Governing Body just as the Christians in Jerusalem obeyed the superior authorities there, such as the Sanhedrin which was made up of the priests, Sadducees and Pharisees. However, their obedience to that body or to the Romans was relative and when a command came from those men that conflicted with God’s law, they rightly disobeyed. They resisted.
          Therefore, my obedience to the Governing Body is likewise a relative thing. For example, I don’t agree with the requirement to hand in my field service time, but I don’t see that doing it is a direct conflict with God’s law and so I “allow myself to be persuaded”, which is the meaning the Greek word “obedient” found at Hebrews 13:17. Perhaps that understanding will change for me in the future, but for now, I see no reason to make an issue out of it. However, there are other commands of the Governing Body that I must decline to obey. The principle guiding me in this is found in the book of Revelation.
          (Revelation 21:8) . . .But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.”
          (Revelation 22:15) . . .Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie.’
          To give you a concrete example, I could not teach a Bible student that as a Christian forming part of a class called the “other sheep” he was not God’s son, Jesus was not his mediator and he had no hope of going to heaven. Nor could I teach him that Christ has been reigning invisibly since 1914. These teachings are false.
          To submit to the Governing Body in this because I feared reprisals would be for me an act of cowardice. I don’t want to be outside with the dogs when that time of judgment comes. Likewise, to believe that I have to obey them because they tell me that God has appointed them is to fear man, making me a coward. To participate in these false and harmful teachings would be to “like and carry on a lie”. I do not like lies and I will not help others to carry them on.
          This is my scripturally based position.

        • Reply by A brother on 2013-09-30 19:09:26

          Dear Brother Meleti - I would like to ask you a few questions if you would be so kind to allow me? I will wait until you're ready if you don't have time presently. Tank you

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-01 07:53:08

            That would be fine.
            Let's start a new discussion thread though, because we've narrowed the columns down to the minimum on this one.

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-29 09:47:31

A brother,
[Got to start a new thread as columns are getting too narrow]
Thanks for your further reply.
Let's consider all our options here and not confuse the issues:
There is the issue of authority inside the congregation. There is the issue of authority outside of the congregation. There is the issue of truthful doctrine.
To me you seem to be blending all the issues together.
In your comment to sw & Meleti you said “In the end all authority allowed or permitted by God is working to accomplish God’s purpose in one way or another. “ This is true. But there is still a sharp distinction between “all authority” and what authority we allow to govern our faith. That is the reason that authority has relative position. We do not allow the pope or human government to rule our worship of God.
In the same way when Jesus said to “do and observe” what the Pharisees told them, it was in relation to their sitting in the “seat of Moses”. That is what the text says. In this capacity therefore the people were still under obligation at that time to follow the law as relayed to them by the Pharisees. However note carefully how the text continues.
(Matthew 23:10) Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ.
(Matthew 23:13) “Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for YOU yourselves do not go in, neither do YOU permit those on their way in to go in.
So please answer me this. Was Jesus advocating that people follow the Pharisees because of their authority to the point that they would be excluded from the kingdom of the heaven?
Obviously such a conclusion would be in complete contradiction to Jesus entire earthly ministry. If all of Jesus' audience took what he said at Matt 23:3 out of context and used those words literally and without limitation, then the Christian congregation would never have even got started.
Nevertheless his words would clearly temper the actions of those who heard them. As you point out Jesus was not advocating an uprising and revolt against that authority. But he was warning against their false teachings.
Likewise, as I have stated, I have no desire to rise up against any authority, whether directly appointed by God or not. I merely wish to have freedom in exercising my desire to stick closely to God's Word and freedom to reject anything which is in conflict with it.
If we were to get down to the specific question of how we decide the pecking order of relative authority, then we can reason from both scriptures and history, as you have done to an extent.
For example, how did the people know that Moses was chosen as Jehovah's mediator? How did the people know that the kings of Israel were anointed of Jehovah? How did people know that Jesus was God's Son and the messiah? How did people know that the apostles had received an appointment from God? How did people know that J.F.Rutherford was chosen as the first faithful and discreet slave in 1919 in fulfillment of Matt 24:45?
I put it to you that the answers to all of the above are clear from scripture, except for the last. In fact the true unadorned history of the period throws up serious questions as to how this could be the case. And yet we are told that our salvation now depends on believing in this new succession that began in 1919. If our foundation is not based upon scripture and it is not based upon the events of history, then what is it based upon?
Do you personally believe the new doctrine that Jesus fulfilled Matt 24:45 through Rutherford in 1919?
Apollos

• Reply by on 2013-09-29 11:58:34

  Apollos, this is just more circular insanity of WTism, its time to move on!

• Reply by A brother on 2013-09-29 20:40:03

  Hello my brother Apollos I don't know why or how (so soon) but I feel a real sense of brotherly affection towards you, and I thought I should tell you so. In this response I will try to be as brief as I can, and do my best to attempt to answer some of the questions you pose. First of all let me say that as Christians guided as we are by God's spirit we do not look at things like physical men do. We consider things from a much higher perspective as spiritual men. To physical men this higher perspective appears foolishness. What do they know of the superiority of turning the other cheek? or of humility over pride or If some one asks for your outer garment give your inner garment also or indeed of submission over resistance. These are spiritual decisions made with spirit. Physical men consider these things foolishness because they don't operate from the perspective of faith. When they hear that faith endures all things, believes all things, they think that Christians are gullible and ignorant people. this is the case from Paul to this very day. Except that today, the times are more critical, since the attitude in our wicked and twisted generation has greatly deteriorated. unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to agreement, fierce without self control, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride. without love of goodness.
  My brother Apollos, you don't have to convince me that some things today are not what they should be scripturally in our Christian congregation. I can and I have seen these things for my self. But as I have stated before the wise man King Solomon realised that what is crooked can not be made straight (by man) human imperfection will be with us no matter what we do and no matter where we go. That means that we can not expect perfection and should not do so - to do so is unrealistic - Under the present circumstances if you go looking for fault will you not find it? We can find it without even looking for it. I'm not using it as an excuse, as some claim - but it is a reality. Even Moses full of Gods spirit had to confront fault finding. murmuring and complaining. When you say this some respond, Moses and Paul were inspired the governing body is not. They totally miss the point. If these inspired men met opposition and made mistakes. Wouldn't a governing body that is not inspired make bigger mistakes and meet with even greater opposition. Some reading the bible can perceive the kind of administration God intended and seeing the failings of the present administration feel they must do something about it. They forget hat's why we await for Gods kingdom. The commandment you shall not covet is unenforceable by man. How can a man accuse another of having a wrong thought or desire? Can we look into a mans mind? Can we read his heart? That why Paul stated that a spiritual man is not examined by any man even another spiritual man. Why because to do so would be tantamount to instructing God. Why? because we all have a personal relationship with God the faithful and discreet slave of Jesus parable was not appointed as the guardian of the individual faith of his fellow slaves only the feeder. He was not to lord it over his brothers. If he acts wickedly and stats to beat is brother what should his bother and fellow slaves of Christ their lord do? Rise up and remove the unfaithful one? NO that's not what they are told to do! where is that written? In the general instructions given to his disciples by the lord Heb 13: 7 17 24 but most of all its implied in the parable it self. The slave his dealt with by the lord when he arrives. That means that we are not sanctioned to take matters into our own hands. To stand up against the appointed slave. How do we know he is the appointed slave? He claims he is - He has assumed the responsibility. The appointment is in the scripture by invitation. Who is the faith discreet slave who is master appointed over the domestics. So does it mean that we go along for the ride I believe so in this case. Why out of respect for the Lord because obedience is better than sacrifice. Some will argue if we adopted this attitude we would be still in Christendom. Other say a person doing so is applying a double standard. I say No! we are not. Jesus said the good news will be preached if someone came to you to talk to you about the bible as a JW would you not invite him into your house and enter into a discussion with him? Yes you would, OK lets say that he showed you thing correctly from the scriptures wouldn't you accept what he said? Yes you would. OK If he could point you to a better place of worship were worshipers worshiped God with sprit and truth, would you not find yourself compelled to go there. Aren't these the thing that attracted the first bible students. YES. Now the question asked by our lord comes into effect you do not want to go also do you? Lord were would we go lord? that's why God has given us a conscience. Wheat and weeds exist everywhere no place is excluded. The wheat does not remove the weeds it learns to live side by side with the weeds knowing and trusting with faith that the field is the lords and that he knows and has the power to change whatever he wants. We don't want to become like the Jews who did not accept the messiah because he did not live up to their expectations. What I propose is patience, longsuffering, endurance, peace, love. No were did I say that you should compromise your obedience to God or your faith in his word or your love of truth. Its a case of exercising a comprehensive spiritual understanding that distinguishes the difference between right and wrong. If you act on a just premise but the action you take in not sanctioned you are not justified on the premise alone. The end does not always justify the means. I know that I have not quoted scriptures here but I believe you know the scriptures to which I am referring and more that apply. The Pharisees were not appointed to the task of teacher by God. They sat themselves on the seat of Moses. Because they sat themselves on the seat of Moses our lord advises that we don't resit them but simply do what they say. If they said this constitutes work on the Sabbath when a Christian knows its not a requirement. He shows his Christian superiority through humble compliance. This agrees totally with what Paul stated with respect to conscience. Please ponder on these things and consider how they address your questions.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-10-01 08:52:35

    A brother
    I am not looking for imperfection in people. But I fail to see what that has to do with looking for truth in God's Word. Again we need to separate the issues.
    As far as I am concerned anyone inside or outside the organization is free to believe whatever they choose. That of course includes those in authority. What I do not accept is the right for another human to demand that I believe that which is false. I have come to appreciate that surrendering my power of scriptural reason to others can become a barrier to a true relationship with God. You may disagree, and buy into the idea that “religion by the numbers” is the safe way to go even if we have to pretend to believe that which we know in our hearts to be untrue.
    If I were looking for imperfection in people then you would hear a very different tune. The members of the GB have in recent years given themselves more of a public image than was the case a couple of decades ago. It has become more like the days of the individual presidencies of Rutherford and Franz, where those in the organization were well aware of the names of those taking the lead. As a result it is noticeable that there has been a rise in websites and videos attacking the GB as individuals – exactly as you say – looking for imperfection in people. I find such attacks distasteful, and immediately avoid listening to or reading anything that engages in them.
    I say again that I have no desire to usurp or challenge authority, or to cause division. I believe that division in Christianity is actually caused by an absolute demand for intellectual submission to doctrine that goes beyond what is written.
    You avoided my question as to whether you believe Rutherford was appointed as the Faithful Slave in 1919. I therefore suspect that you also find no foundation for this belief. And yet you see it as qualification enough that someone “claims he is – He has assumed the responsibility.”. That to me sound like very dangerous reasoning, that you would surrender your power of reason simply on the basis that someone makes a claim.
    Our Lord says that people would make claims that he had come, and he explicitly says “do not believe it” and “do not go out after them” (Matt 24:23-26; Luke 17:23)
    And yet, you reason that if someone has a collection of Bible teachings, and claims to have been appointed as God's channel then we should “go along for the ride”, since we should bend to any authority. Why then did Jesus provide the aforementioned warnings?
    As I say, if someone wants to believe that Jesus returned invisibly a century ago, and that Jesus is not their personal mediator, that much of the Christian Greek scriptures does not directly apply to them, and that an organization is “the way” to the Father, then that is their choice. What the effect of those beliefs will be, both now and through the end of this system of things, remains to be seen.
    Apollos
    P.S. “A new thread” just means I did a general reply, rather than to your comment, so that my comment starts full width again, rather than a narrow column.

    • Reply by A brother on 2013-10-02 02:12:42

      Dear brother apollos. Thank you for your comments. First of all let me assure you that I have not deliberately avoided your question. Nor would I ever do so - I consider doing so dishonest. I this response entirely to your question. Do you believe Rutherford was appointed as the Faithful Slave in 1919.
      Answer - No - I don't believe this premise (although I prefer the word accept) . You may be surprised to learn that I have not accepted this whole premise of a faithful and discreet slave (as we have understood it) for well over a decade. But I would ask that you don't draw from my confession the wrong conclusions. It could be misconstrued to imply things it do not intend. We are all created by God as free moral agents with independent thought. I love Christ and I have a great deal of affection and respect for my brother Paul. I'm well aware of what they say on this matter. The lord instructs that we worship God with spirit and truth and my beloved brother Paul tells me to; make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine. From Paul I have also learned both; (1) how I should humbly view my independently acquired knowledge and more importantly (2) how it should be used. Let me share this with you from scripture. Brother anonymous will probably comment - more WT dogma apollos! - even though what I say is taken directly from the bible and from Paul. Brother anonymous's comment might actually turn out to be a compliment to the WTs adherence to scripture. Sorry for my slight divergence here brother apollos, but I just could not help my-self, I'm imperfect. In 1 Cor ch 8 starting from verse 1a Paul warns us about our over reliance on knowledge. "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up". (In other words love is more important that knowledge. Example, if I have no knowledge what so ever and I obey God entirely out of love for him - I am profited. On the other hand, if I have all the accurate knowledge in the world but I lack love for God - I am not profited at all.) Paul continues in verse two. "If anyone thinks he has acquired knowledge of something". (Similarly to the knowledge that I think I have acquired on the proper understanding of the parables.) "he does not yet know it just as he ought to know it". ( (Paul is telling me that my knowledge of these matters pertaining to God, I should allow for the possibility that I may be wrong and that I do not understand it they way I ought to. Many things in the bible have deliberately been made secret by God and await his time to be understood and revealed. How do I know when that time has arrived? Can I afford to make the same error that I have observed others making? Wouldn't that make me a hypocrite?) Verse 3 But if anyone loves God this one is known by him. (Its not our knowledge that makes us known to God, its our love. As stated previously we can dispense with knowledge but not with love.) Verse 7a Nevertheless, there is not this knowledge in all persons. (Our brothers don't all have the same knowledge of truth. So what should we do?) Verse 11. Really (if) by your knowledge the man that is weak is being ruined, your brother for whose sake Christ died ---- When you people thus sin against your brothers and wound their conscience that is weak, you are sinning against Christ.
      We are very familiar with the principle that we should obey God as ruler rather than man. But are we equally as familiar with the principle that I should obey God as ruler rather than me. "Yet not as I will but as you will". Knowledge and truth are important yes,but in our worship of God we can't exclude our bothers. (Please read 1John 3:10 and 2:10) Truth is not more important than love for love not truth shows our real motivation our real reason for doing the things we do. We don't lie, but It not truth at all cost either, regardless of who is affected and who is stumble. We can believe what ever we know to be right but in the end we must allow for others by not insisting on our rights what ever the cost. If a person come onto this public site and reads some of the comments I read. Will he be encouraged to associate himself with the congregation of JW you presently associate with while at the same time he can read how you criticise it as not having the truth or as impostors. Isn't it more reasonable not to insist on our rights to truth and surrender it for love of God and brother? I hate to sound like the Borg here - but resistance is futile John 13:35 Jesus instructs us to love our enemy. love is laws fulfilment. A command of the kingly law. I ask you! This is not a matter open to personal opinion. We should all be speaking in agreement even while we hold different views we can't be absolutely sure are right. Damaging our brothers is not open to conscience ever. Very sorry again but due to scriptural importance there seemed no briefer way of say this.
      Ps. how do you do that with the general reply?

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-10-02 13:40:40

        Brother
        There is surely a big difference between not risking stumbling our brother or sister over dietary issues, and withholding Christian truth.
        You and I evidently agree that certain teachings are without foundation. I will go so far as to say that certain teachings are falsifiable in scripture. You choose to express these as teachings that you simply might not accept. But it amounts to the same thing. It seems that the fundamental difference between us is our perception of how damaging these teachings might be. That was the essence of your first comment on the site I believe.
        I can certainly empathize because I was in the same place as you only a few years back. For example I rationalized that 1914 was simply not important to the foundation of my faith, and therefore I could somehow compartmentalize it outside of my personal belief in order to avoid the gap between the doctrine of my chosen religion and my power of reason (Rom 12:1).
        However, the more I read God's Word, prayed and meditated, the more untenable this position became.
        I have given you some examples already of where I feel that wrong doctrine is actively damaging. As far as I can see you haven't responded to any of those specific points. What is your understanding of why Jesus would warn against false declarations of his presence? If this is just something we can disregard then why would those warnings exist in scripture?
        Personally I also feel strongly about the danger of dictating certain medical decisions to our fellow Christians. I am aware that not all on this site agree with me in regards to my research on the principles of the use and misuse of blood according to God's Word, but nobody can deny that it is not a trivial issue. In this I have kept silent for a very long time, and it has troubled my conscience to do so. Whatever the truth of the matter, is it right that we cannot have Christian freedom to even discuss such an important matter without fear of sanction?
        You talk of love, and I believe there is truth in what you say. However let us remember that God's Word says “There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside” (1 John 4:18)
        A brother – do you truly feel that the love that we experience is like that? Here I am specifically talking from an organizational perspective. I fully appreciate that there are many fine individuals in our congregations who are truly Christian and loving, and I thank God for that.
        Perhaps the most dangerous and damaging teaching of all is that the organization itself is “Noah's ark”. This is not a scriptural teaching. The wheat is growing among the weeds in all religions including ours. The “ark” concept clearly encourages the thought process that we can do religion by the numbers. Simply do what an organization tells you to do, keep closely associated with it, never question anything, and all will be well. The analogy with the ark is false. If you truly believe otherwise then I ask you to demonstrate from scripture how it is so.
        Jesus said that division would naturally occur as a result of the truth that he brought. “A man's enemies will be persons of his own household” (Matt 10:36). If that is true of families then it can be true of any relationship we may have if we do not have in common the confession of union with Jesus (Matt 10:32).
        That is what unifies us. You tell me that you love Christ, and I believe you. Therefore you are my brother. If another human party says that if I believe something different from you such as the year that ancient Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians then you and I can no longer be brothers, then I reject them. Do you? Who is truly the source of division in this case?
        Apollos

• Reply by A brother on 2013-09-30 12:40:02

  What's a new thread?

Comment by on 2013-09-29 11:54:46

This is just another boring dogma of congregation WTism Apollos

Comment by A brother on 2013-10-01 08:59:28

Thank you brother Meleti
I would like to know something about you personally (if it's Ok )
How do you see your self? - As one of JWs?
From some of your comments I read, it seems that you hold an office - Do you presently hold an appointment in the organisation? If so - would you mind telling me what it is? and How long you served?
How long have you been a dedicate baptised brother?
I live in Australia and I'm just naturally curious about the person I'm communicating with. Please If in any way uncomfortable with any of the question above you need not respond.
The first question I would like to ask you is -
Would you please give me your take on these scriptures as to their meaning and importance in principle and in context as to how they relate to each other and to the importance of the oneness in the faith? Mat 12:25 - Eph 4:2-6 and verses 13,16,29 -31. Thank you.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-01 20:32:30

  I would love to tell you all about myself. If our organization provided the type of freedom which the Christ granted to us, I would be able to. Alas, that is not the case.
  As to the Scriptures you have asked me to comment on, I particularly like the idea of "oneness of spirit" from Eph. 4:2 followed by the idea of "one body, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism and one God and Father of all". I find it hard to equate this with the concept of the two-body system we have of the anointed and the other sheep, and the idea that God isn't my Father but my friend.
  I find that when different ones argue against disagreeing with the Governing Body and use the idea of oneness of mind and faith and spirit, they forget the mind and faith and spirit with which we should be one. It matters not if millions of us are of one mind, if that collective mind is not one with the mind of the Christ. It matters not if we are of one spirit, if our spirit is at odds with Christ's. It matters not if we are of one faith, if our faith differs from that which Christ revealed.
  We should not be divided, true! We should not be divided from the Christ. He is the head of the body. Those calling for unity of the body at the cost of separating ourselves from the head are to be resisted.
  You should have mentioned vs 14 and 15 instead of jumping from 13 to 16. Allow me:
  (Ephesians 4:13-16) . . .until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ; 14 in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body, by being harmoniously joined together and being made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed, according to the functioning of each respective member in due measure, makes for the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
  Paul felt no compunction about mixing his metaphors and what wonderful metaphors they are! So easy to relate to. An adult versus a babe; the human head and body. Our oneness results from "accurate knowledge" of the Christ. From knowing him and understanding his mind, his way of reasoning, his way of doing things, his...spirit! This brings us to the maturity of a man. He's admonishing the Ephesians not to "be babes, tossed about by...every wind of teaching." Not to be taken in by "trickery of men and cunning in contriving error." Too often we have allowed ourselves to be so taken in. So often our teachings have blown in one direction, then the other, then back again. Take just three dates: 1914, 1918, 1919. How many times have the winds of teaching changed direction with regard to these years? Even now we hold on to them, supporting the teachings by cunningly contrived pseudo-logic. And like babes, so many gush at what they believe are the 'revelations of holy spirit' instead of what they really are, the trickery of men.
  It is time for us to grow up; to stop being divided from the Christ and join once again to him and the Christian brotherhood which will no longer follow men instead of our Head, Jesus.
  It is easy to identify such ones. Their body, under Christ, is building itself up in love. A loving person doesn't destroy the life of a brother simply because his brother points out he is wrong on some scriptural interpretation. Instead he listens to his brother and if he finds that he cannot sustain his own point of view from the Bible, he willingly accepts the truth of what his brother is saying. The unloving man will persecute his brother for daring to speak the truth and reveal error.
  I have been a Jehovah's Witness all my life which is now much closer to its end than its start. I continue as one, though for how much longer I cannot say. Like the Christians in Jerusalem in the first century who called out to their Jewish brethren, I and others like me are calling out to our brothers to become reconciled once again to God in spirit and truth. Give up falsehood and the age-old pattern of following men. Follow the Christ without fear and in the freedom of the children of God.

Comment by peely on 2013-11-01 14:36:25

Oh, my, you capped it off well there, dear brother. "Give up falsehood and the age-old pattern of following men. Follow the Christ without fear and in the freedom of the children of God" 2 Cor. 11:3,4,20, Romans 14:8.
That is the crux of the matter. NO earthly house holds our Father in Heaven; worship in spirit and truth.
1 Cor 2:14 - But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

Comment by Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today (w13 11/15 p. 16) | Beroean Pickets on 2014-01-15 20:19:58

[…] is an updated post of one released back in August, 2013 when this issue of The Watchtower was first […]

• Reply by Tptptp on 2017-08-27 20:30:12

  https://e-watchman.com/seven-dukes-mankind/

Comment by Jo Joel on 2019-02-19 01:28:18

I find it interesting that the angel of Revelation tells John, that his brothers are prophets about 7 times...however in times of Israel besides the well know prophets (4 + 12) there were others numbering into thousands...