It is true that we will all have to face serious tests of faith. Jesus told us that unless we are willing to abandon all things for his name, we cannot be worthy of him. That was the meaning behind his words regarding the need for Christians to take up their torture stake (or cross). (Mt 10:37-38) Those who were hung on a stake were stripped of all things including their outer garments. They had to be willing to give up the love of family and friends, their position and status in the community, their good name (not as God viewed it but as the community did) and to be held by others as beneath contempt. All that and their life too. (De 21:22-23)
How each of us will be tested individually is not something we can predict with any accuracy. Indeed, if we attempt to do so, we can get into trouble and this is where this week’s review of the video is likely to lead.
The organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses would have us believe that a similar event will occur in our day. They’re looking for an anti-typical fulfillment in which the nations will surround Jehovah’s Witnesses in an all-out attack. Our teaching is that after all other religions are destroyed, we will be – organizationally speaking – “the last man standing.” Then the nations will notice us and turn on us.
This is based on their particular application of the 38th and 39th chapters of Ezekiel concerning the attack of Gog of Magog. Of course, this application could well be to another time. The only parallel account is found at Revelation 20:8-10 and that is clearly speaking of a time after the 1,000 year reign of Christ has ended. Whatever the case, it is not analogous to the siege of Jerusalem in 66 C.E., because in both Ezekiel and Revelation God’s people do not have to do anything to be saved. This was not the case in the first century. Jesus gave his disciples very clear and precise instructions on what to do. He did not leave them in doubt or guessing.
What about us as Christians? Has Jesus told us what to do prior to Armageddon to be saved? The only thing he tells us to do is to endure. (Mt 24:13) He does say not to be misled by false prophets and false Christs (anointed ones). He also says that the angels will gather his chosen ones, giving the distinct impression that our salvation is not in our hands. (Mt 24:23-28, 31)
However, faithful reliance on Christ and endurance is not good enough for many. We cannot fully trust in our Lord to handle matters. We feel we have to do something ourselves as well. We need some specific instruction, a plan of action.
Enter the Governing Body. Though there is nothing in the Bible telling us to be on the watch for specific instructions for our salvation coming from a group of men, this is what we have come to believe.
It is true that the Bible says: “For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) However, the foremost prophet, Jesus Christ, has foretold what will happen. We have no need of more instruction. So why should we think that there is something more not stated in Scripture? Who is telling us that what the Scriptures say is not enough? Who is making an antitypical application...again? Who would have us believe that more scrolls are to be opened before Armageddon?
(w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today)
"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."
This revelation is coming from the same Organization that thought Armageddon was coming in 1914, then again in 1925 and then again in 1975. The same Organization that has reinterpreted Matthew 24:34 more times then there are fingers on both your hands, and has now given us the remarkable "overlapping generations doctrine". We are now expected to believe that our loving Father would choose such a discredited source as the sole means by which we can be saved?
Would that not be contradicting his own warning to us not to “put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs”? (Ps 146:3)
The Governing Body would have us believe that specific instructions will be forthcoming from Jehovah God, and they will be acting as his spokesman – despite Geoffrey Jackson’s sworn testimony to the contrary – directing us to salvation. Our very survival will depend on our unquestioning obedience to their directives.
"Let the reader use discernment." (Mark 13:14)
If you go to the meeting this week please share with us the comments you hear from the audience to help us understand how the brotherhood is thinking and how widespread the problem really is.
I fear that the Governing Body is setting the flock up for a colossal disappointment, and possibly much more, possibly a great tragedy.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-15 21:23:11
Meleti, you bring up a number of interesting points. For the WT to believe it is going to be "the last man standing", it would have to be the one true religion. For the many readers of this site who don't believe WT qualifies as such, they would end up being destroyed with all the other false religions, and (assuming their proposed scenario is correct in general), some OTHER organization will be that "last man". Well, the reality is likely to be far more interesting than the theory, I suspect.
Just wondering out loud, could it be that various attacks of Gog of Magog are applicable whenever any secular governments interfere with God's theocratic oversight of his earthly followers? If so, maybe there have already been more than one instance of Gog's activities, with more to come. Just wondered ...
You make a good point about what has been asked of people at various times. In the first century, people were asked to flee, but now they are asked to endure. Since the actions are different, that would seem to dictate against the thought of applying first-century events as parallels of the modern world. Yet WT does just that. What happened to that (apparently, quickly-forgotten) pledge not to apply the type/anti-type paradigm unless it's really warranted? I guess it's always warranted - except when it isn't. Hmm ...
I do think WT has a serious problem if it tries to apply Amos 3:7 to itself. You see, Amos says that God reveals confidential matters to his PROPHETS. If God has revealed the confidential future events of Armageddon to the WT, that would make WT his prophets, would it not? But, isn't being a prophet something that WT has disavowed - if for no other reason that to evade the charge of being a false prophet when so many of their prophecies (excuse me - NEW LIGHT) turned out to be wrong? On the other hand, the April 1, 1972 WT article ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’ seems to be making that very claim - a claim they have never disavowed, to my knowledge. (Please point out if I am mistaken on that.) I don't see how they can have it both ways, without running head-on into a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.
Finally, you brought out the passage in Mark 13:14 which notes, "Let the reader use discernment". This was said regarding the abomination, or the encamped armies, standing in a holy place, where they ought not.
I have always felt that the "discernment" expected from readers was the discernment that the "holy place" was NOT holy at all - but rather, it was unholy and defiled, because the nation of Israel failed to uphold the Law covenant, and worse, was the center of a form of false worship that rejected His son. It was only "holy" in the minds of men, but NOT in the estimation of God.
Today, JWs need to apply a similar "discernment" to realize that the WT is not a holy place either, and that it is not God's organization. We can also see a similar parallel to that of the first century Jews, in that WT has diminished and minimized the role of Christ in our salvation, and instead attributing salvation to an organization of imperfect men. That is not technically the same as "rejecting" Christ, but it is uncomfortably close to it.Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-16 02:44:03
Good points meleti and T R A on the point minimising the role of christ . To my mind when someone says they are gods spokesman are they not really standing in for christ and really claiming to be the word of god the logos . Isnt it christ that is gods spokesman . Hebrews 1 v 1;2 another description is they are gods channel of communication but did jesus not say that we must approach god through his name and his name only . Without doubt they have set themselves up as leaders and masters over our faith but did not jesus say we have just one leader and master the christ .They really do need to back down from this power trip they are on and start to listen to the real representavive of god . All of us and them .
Reply by katrina on 2015-12-16 05:23:06
It is the individual not the religion or organization.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-16 16:30:47
Yes, the scriptures say that except for Christ, there is no other name by which men may be saved, but WT says that survival through Armageddon can only be obtained by approved association with "God's organization". If you do a search on the WT CD for "surviv* organization" you will see how many times they make this claim. They say that the only organization that will survive is the WT, and the only way to survive is to be part of it. Of course, in saying this, we can put two and two together, and realize when they expel persons from their organization, in their eyes it is a death sentence. Jesus said to love one's enemies, but WT says they should be murdered.
Reply by Miken on 2015-12-16 06:47:39
"But, isn’t being a prophet something that WT has disavowed"
Do all the clergy of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism agree that Jehovah’s witnesses have been and are God’s prophet to the nations? but, Who discerned the divine will for Christians in this time of the world’s end and offered themselves to do it? Who have undertaken God’s foreordained work for this day of judgment of the nations? Who have answered the call to the work and have done it down till this year 1958? Whom has God actually used as his prophet?
14 By the historical facts of the case Christendom is beaten back in defeat. Jehovah’s witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. All the preaching and all the Bible educational work that they have done till now in 175 countries and islands of the sea they confess has been, not by help of a military army, nor by human power, but by God’s spirit, his invisible active force. (Zech. 4:6, AV) It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths.
WT Jan 15, 1959 pp 40-41Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-16 16:26:42
Correct, Miken. Being a prophet is something that WT has disavowed RECENTLY. From the 1972 article, and the 1959 one you cited, they "shouted" in the past that they were prophets, but in the present they "whisper" that they are not.
Comment by Lightflashup on 2015-12-15 21:32:28
Hi Meleti, I just came from the meeting , the last question met the objective as the watchtower intended, there was brothers at my meeting resolving in their hearts to obey any instructions that they received through the faithful slave, some even brought up the statement that was use at this year convention " that they will follow it even if it does not sound logically from a worldly stand point" so to your point even in this date and time it would seems that much of the brothers still believe every word of the GB of Jehovah's even more than Christ...
It is so sad to find ourself in this position
Comment by Out of Africa on 2015-12-15 22:20:00
Meleti, your concern exactly matches what I have been saying to anyone that will listen.
Having recently stopped going to the meetings, I have been feeling a bit vulnerable. The reason is that it was very comforting to be in the organization and to have my future mapped before me in a cut and dried kind of way. I just had to be part of the congregation and go in the field and I was saved. My level of spirituality and relationship with Jehovah and Jesus did not matter as all I had to do was make sure I was in one of the local brothers’ basements with my grab bag (last Sunday’s WT picture). I had also come to the conclusion that my salvation depended on my actions in the tribulation: If I had a guilty conscience for example it would lead me to make the wrong decision and thus be destroyed. So our own actions would lead to our judgement.
The danger for brothers and sisters still in the organization today is that they are being weakened spiritually by being spoon-fed junk food. Then they are being lulled to sleep with an idea that everything will be ok, ‘just listen to us and you’ll be fine’. They will be totally unprepared for what will really happen as they do not even know what the real sign of Jesus presence will be (Matthew 24:27). The majority are unable to follow their consciences in opposition to the organization and take a stand for true worship.
For me, walking by faith, not sight, means that I need to rely on Jehovah and NOT on what I can see such as the organization and my works of faith (field service, meetings etc.) It has led me to see that the human race (including me) is completely vulnerable and that I am a spiritual babe after nearly 30 years in the organization. We are totally dependent on Jehovah’s mercy and salvation from him.
It is no wonder that right-hearted brothers and sisters are terrified of leaving the security of the organization: They won’t be allowed into the basement and will face sure destruction! The organization is indeed a very effective trap, ensnaring many sheep-like ones and ensuring that they will not be spiritually awake and on the watch.
Comment by Smitch on 2015-12-16 00:01:51
My meeting- someone said that because Naham and Abital did not get their portion of the grain from the generous brothers of the north they should not have missed the meeting.
Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-16 13:25:40
Thats like the one i heard because gideon had his army whittled down to 300 that shows that its important to report our time in the ministry .
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-16 13:56:22
That's just too funny.
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-16 16:35:26
The account of Gideon might justify group statistics, but would not justify individual reports. The 300 men that lapped up water instead bending down on their knees were not individually asked exactly how much water they drank.
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-16 00:28:43
So if I grow old and die in this system, I will have spent my entire life worrying about surviving impending Armageddon...for nothing. Ok
Comment by CX516 on 2015-12-16 01:25:35
Hello Meleti,
We had two strong comments (coincidentally from two individuals who would really like to be appointed and noticed by the elders) repeating the line about 'obey instructions from organization and the elders regardless how strange it may be'. One gets the feeling this is almost a mystical event we’re waiting for; it’s another aspect of the sacred secret akin to the mystery among the organization of how the GB gets its instructions from Jesus and how the anointed know they’re anointed.
It feels like their reasoning detracts from Jesus’ instructions for us to 'individually' keep on the watch because we’re told that the organization will keep on the watch for us. (Apparently they’re required to tell us what to do because Jesus instructions at Mat 24:31 only apply to the anointed...)
Thanks for your emphasis as Jesus as one of the last Prophets that would give instructions on what do for salvation during the tribulation at Armageddon. Its quite thought provoking. Regarding prophets in the Christian scriptures, its interesting that there was the gift of prophesying given to men and women in the first century, but this ‘gift’ was done away with and apparently none of those prophets added any ‘new light’ about what Gods people need to do at Armageddon. Jesus had already said it all. The apostle Paul alluded to instructions for salvation when he said people who are destroyed ‘don’t know God’ and ‘don’t obey the good news about Jesus’. There were no other requirements from Paul like ‘and God will destroy those who don’t associate with our organization and take direction from the older men such as myself (Paul)’.
Its noteworthy that the organization uses the account of Moses turning back to Pihahiroth as an example of the Israelite's obeying without understanding. However the account in Exodus 14:1-4 strongly implies that Israelites were made aware of the instructions from Jehovah and the logic behind it. The account states the Moses was to ‘Speak to the sons of Israel that they should turn back…Then Pharaoh will say…the are wandering in confusion…and the Egyptians will certainly know that I am Jehovah’. There was no request for, or pattern established to support blind obedience. All they were instructed to do was to ‘stand firm and see the salvation of Jehovah’
The account in Exodus goes on to show that they really panicked and afraid when the pursuing Egyptians galloped into view, but this was in no way connected to illogical instructions. They made no case before Moses saying, ‘we didn’t know what you were doing...”
I find it interesting that nowhere else in the scriptures is there a reference to this account of Moses turning back used to underscore the importance of obedience to God’s prophets.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-16 10:30:06
Apparently they’re required to tell us what to do because Jesus instructions at Mat 24:31 only apply to the anointed…
Very insightful, CX516. It's the old story that there can never be one lie. The first lie requires another and another, all to support the first. Soon the web of lies grows to the point that it can no longer be held together and strands begin to fray, until one day the whole structure falls.
Since they started with the abominable lie that there is a secondary class of Christian denied adoption from God, they had to exclude such ones from being part of God's "chosen ones". That meant that any scripture involving the salvation of the "chosen ones" could not apply to the other sheep. Since there are no scriptures--NO SCRIPTURES--that explain how these secondary "other sheep" Christians are to be saved, a new lie must be invented. Hence, the teaching that divine revelation will be forthcoming from the men appointed to the Governing Body. Of course, that will then require them to speak forth with such a "revelation". But from what source will their inspiration be coming then???
Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-12-16 12:01:11
According to WT 11/15/2013 p.20 par.17: "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."
But in Romans 12:1-2: "Consequently I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
So, the Bible says our worship is to be governed by our power of reason, and we are instructed to use that power of reason to prove to ourselves what God's will is, but the WT says that we must obey the will of men, even when that is contrary to our power of reason, even when this appears unsound, and even if we cannot make sense of these commands and thus are unable to prove to ourselves that they are correct.
Hebrews 5:14 tells us, "But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong."
Tell me, dear readers of this forum, can YOU distinguish right from wrong here?Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-16 12:44:13
Well said, The Real Anonymous.
Now the defenders of WT doctrine would put forward examples like that of Moses leading the Israelites to the very unstrategic encampment before the Red Sea allowing the Egyptians to box them in. However, such a defense is flawed. The Israelites were not abandoning their power of reason. Reason would have told them that God was with Moses. What other conclusion could they reasonably draw after witnessing 10 devastating plagues.
If we are to us Moses as an example of obedience to the Governing Body, then we have to show why it is reasonable to trust them with our lives. What historical evidence is there that would allow us to put faith in the words of these men?
To date, no one has come forward with that evidence.
Comment by MarthaMartha on 2015-12-16 05:36:36
Thanks for that article Meleti; it mirrored and expanded on my thoughts on this item. I haven't had that meeting yet but expect much of what the others have experienced.
One thing that has puzzled me about the application of the flight of the Christians in Jerusalem to the mountains in obedience to Jesus warning is....
The Christians affected by this prophecy and the action needed ONLY applied to those in Jerusalem.
There were other Christians dotted all over the inhabited world by the time of Jerusalem's destruction weren't there? Those Christians in Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, etc... Would have no need to apply the warning and flee because they weren't in Jerusalem!
It seems to me that Jesus' words were distinctly for the Christians living in Jerusalem.
So why does WT insist on applying what was a local event to the whole body of Christians (JWs) at a future time?
It's illogical to apply an instruction to a localised few to ' flee to the mountains' to a world wide scattered flock.
Hence the logic of Jesus' words to endure. We can endure wherever we are and trust that Jesus will follow through on the promise to save us. No need for any overexcitable pronouncement of 'any instructions whether they seem sound' and pictures of people huddled in basements. That sort of instruction sounds a bit cultish to me and I get the same feeling Jesus spoke of when he described himself as the true shepherd in contrast to the stranger who speaks with 'a stranger's voice'. John 10: 1-5
Please correct me if I've made an error in this thought process about Matthew 24: 15-22 applying to a local group of Christians.
Thanks again for a thoughtful and comforting article.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-16 09:06:26
Hi MarthaMartha,
Your logic is spot on. They are taking a specific historical event (a type) and extracting from it (without Scriptural support, mind you) a future and great fulfillment (an antitype). Since the March 15 Watchtower's Questions from Readers says that this is now wrong to do, the Governing Body is violating its own instructions.
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-16 13:13:05
Meleti,
Is it really the case that no one has come forward ? Only if we go back in history starting from the first century moving forward can we answer the question of who has the teaching authority to interpret scripture? What do say if we start the diaologue on this question:
Was there a governing body in the first century?
http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=621Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-16 13:50:30
Yes indeed it is. I'm speaking for this forum, of course. I have no idea if others have put forward a defense on other forums or in other arenas.
Apollos wrote an excellent analysis of the question of whether there was a first century governing body. (There wasn't.) You can view it here.
However, if you want to open a dialogue on the topic, www.discussthetruth.com is the place to do that.
Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-17 11:42:26
I personally feel that the scriptures do indicate that there was a group of men that did have the responsiblity to direct christianity in the first century . These men were the apostles and they did it under the direction of the spirit of christ . However i think it was a far different than the sort of domination practiced by the hierarchy of jehovahs witnesses today . This fact remains though that even if there was that sort of arrangement in the first century . How on earth does that prove that the governing body of jehovahs witnesses are gods arrangement for direction today , acts 15 even looking at it from the viewpoint of the witnesses would only prove that there was such an arrangement in the first century full stop , and thats it nothing else . Its a red herring again the real question is what evidence is there that christ is using such an arrangement today in the form of the governing body of jehovahs witnesses ? I personally have no problem with listening and being in subjection to those whom are taking the lead in christs congregation , but they THEMSELVES HAVE TO BE IN SUBJECTION TO CHRIST ALSO and as far as i can see they are at odds with what i read in my bible so i honestly feel that thier claim is false and worse many of thier procedures actually work against the spirit of christianity so its a case of we must obey god as ruler rather than men
Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-18 17:59:15
Anonymous thanks . For the link . Its always good to hear different viewpoints on a particular subject . I try to be reasonable when i can . I was just thinking of comment about discerning who has the teaching authority to interpret scripture though . I think when we say such things for the most part we would have to be speaking of prophecy of scripture or at least the very difficult verses in NT . However i really do feel that for the most part when read in context the NT is actually not that difficult to understand . The meaning of very many verses in the NT are obvious to a serious bible student . What worries me is in my opinion at least some of our official interpretations seem to run against the ovbious contextual meaning of even the most simplist verses. Not only that but for many of our organisational procedures i can find no scriptural support at all . I really do wish that that was not the case . The JW religion is the only religion i have ever been officially part of , and so the witnesses are the only spiritual brothers i have really known . But based on what ive experienced for many years and also based on my knowledge of the christian scriptures im having a really hard time believing that its the one true religion that jesus started .
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-20 20:22:54
Father Jack,
I really hope you get to look in the articles in the links, this question merits more than a cursory look.
I would think that regardless of what argument any organization, including the WT, would offer in establishing that God does not have a personal name, nothing could overturn the clear and concise statements that are found in the scriptures to the contrary. They truly stand as absolutes that any one with normal insight can see.
Of course, this is merely an example for the sake of demonstrating a point, which is, that any teaching that stands against the clear and concise statements, or absolutes, as found in the Bible, should be rejected as should any organization that would insist on something that clearly contradicts the scriptures. Other examples could be used that would demonstrate the same point, such as claiming that Christ is really not the messiah or there is no such thing as a resurrection or that adultery is not a sin. The list could go on and on that would violate absolute Biblical statements.
Look at this Quote for instance:
“Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.”—The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 587 Unquote
The true intent of this statement is entirely correct. The Bible indeed is a book that belongs to the Christian congregation, and in order to understand it as fully as one can understand it, it does require instruction from those who are approved by God to do so. For instance, how does one define adultery or fornication or idolatry? What exactly constitutes things like that? How many standards of definition should be entertained? This is extremely important when we consider that these things can cause one to be removed from the
congregation and that only adultery is accepted as a Biblical foundation for divorce. Should each person or should each couple determine on their own what constitutes fornication or adultery? It should be obvious that in some instances, the church, the multitude of counselors that the scriptures encourage, is a necessity for proper understanding and Christian living. When it comes to prophecy, God makes it clear that private interpretations are not to take place. The logical conclusion would be then that an “objective” view of prophecy, one promoted by the church collectively, is what Christians should view as acceptable. As long as a prophetic view does not violate scripture, logic and known history, then the Christian should be able to submit and obey the views that are presented until such time that the church, objectively, sees the need to adjust the understanding. That’s what the scriptures encourage.
Statements of this nature, following your comment above, are not intended to say that not a single word or statement in the Bible can be understood without the GB telling you what it means. This would be in direct conflict with their invitation for anyone and everyone to examine our teachings to see if they originate in the words of God and are true to his words. How could we make such an invitation with the stance that you are claiming in regard to the GB? As mentioned, Peter acknowledged that in the writings of Paul there were things that were hard to understand, which he said the UNTAUGHT were twisting to their own demise.
Quote:
“We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ organization.”—The Watchtower, February 15, 1981, p. 19 Unquote
Please note that it was not said that the Bible, categorically, cannot be understood without help. However, it is certainly true that in order to understand some very important aspects of the Bible, direction from God’s appointed gifts in men, is necessary. For instance, we are told that we must get out of Babylon the Great. Since this means our life, is it not necessary to properly identify who Babylon the Great is? Or should the individual decide? If you say the individual should decide, then that amounts to nothing more than private interpretation of prophecy, which God assures is not proper.
Simply put, there are indeed many things within the scriptures that are ambiguous, but then there are many things that are not ambiguous. Natural common insight can be used to recognize the absolute teachings for the scriptures. If a person can read and understand what they are reading, then many truths are easily discernible in the Bible. They simply need to see the whole picture of what the Bible presents. Sometimes even seeing the whole picture requires some assistance.
Once a person can see, by means of those clear Biblical teachings, who is truly representing the body of Christ, the scriptures are clear that they should not be creating division or sects within the congregation, that they should all speak in agreement and be of the same mind and the same line of thought. Hebrews tells us to not only be willing to obey these trusted individuals but also to submit, which means to surrender your view to theirs, again, as long as there are no clear Biblical contradictions in what they are saying or practicing.
We obey and submit, not because we regard them as higher than the words of God, but it is because God himself tells us to do so. Why? It is because these men must render an account for our souls to God. But this is all under the umbrella of having come to appreciate that these men are indeed representing the true body of Christ, and not some counterfeit. Heb. 13:17
In reality, if a person holds a different view then the GB, they can do so privately. Although not recommended to harbor such a view, which means to feed and protect it, it is not forbidden to have such a view. Otherwise, how could they recommend to such ones to “wait on Jehovah” and see what happens?
It is only when this view is promoted as the correct view against the GB determination, is there a problem. Why? Not because the view is WRONG necessarily, but because promotion of such a view causes division and could create a sect within the Christian congregation. Eph. 4:11-17 teaches us that unity trumps PERFECTION of understanding, and that the process of readjustment by these GIFTS IN MEN will continue until full understanding is achieved, but all for the sake of unity so that the church is not divided and that individuals are not carried like a wave by many winds of teaching.
Take care Father Jack
Regards,Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-20 21:51:48
The problem with what you allege here, Anonymous, is that everything is predicated on the unproven assumption that the Governing Body is being used by Jehovah God as Paul was. Before we can accept this, we need proof. We know that Paul was approved because a) he performed miracles and b) nothing he wrote ever needed to be adjusted, refined, or changed. Neither element is found when we examine the Governing Body.
So I ask you, why should we believe they represent the true congregation of God?
We don't want our readers to be taken in by spurious reasoning, but we would be remiss if we didn't warn them that what your comment demonstrates is typical WT logic. All the proof you provide comes from men. Your proof quotes are from publications written by men. We hold to a higher standard than the Watchtower on this site. To be taken seriously, you will have to make your points using only God's word. The word of men is not held in high esteem here, because men can lie, but God cannot. (Romans 3:4)
Examine each of these verses and you will see that they are not directed to an organization or a ruling ecclesiastical hierarchy like the Governing Body, but to each of us as individuals. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11)
Your reasoning, if it were valid, would authorize a Catholic to remain in his religion or a Mormon in his.Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 04:46:01
Meleti,
How can one discern who is truly the body of Christ? How does one identify the body of Christ apart from the counterfeits?
Simply put, we have to let the scriptures identify for us who it is that would be truly representing the body of Christ. But, how do we let the scriptures help us in that regard?
As most any Bible student knows, there are teachings which are explicitly stated within the Bible where there is no ambiguity as to what is taught. For example:
“There will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.”
Acts 24:15
No one can deny the explicit nature of that statement. They may debate over the implications and purpose of that resurrection, but they cannot deny the explicit element within that statement that unambiguously declares that there will be a resurrection for both the righteous and for the unrighteous.
There are numerous explicit statements and teachings within the Bible that most will agree upon. Such as: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is Almighty. God is the Creator. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus Christ provided the ransom for the salvation of mankind.
Other teachings are not explicit in nature and present ambiguity to one degree or another, such as: prophecies, parables, symbolic language. It is not the purpose here to explore the ambiguous elements found within the Bible.
It can be said that when it comes to the explicit teachings found in the Bible, the body of Christ would never find itself in contradiction of such. The body of Christ would unquestionably be led by the spirit of God and therefore would not find itself contradicting explicit Biblical statements and teachings. For instance, they would clearly never teach that Jesus Christ was not resurrected. To do so would immediately disqualify them from any claim of being the body of Christ for that could not be the result of God’s spirit upon them, but rather the opposite.
Therefore, we can use the scriptures to help us to identify who would be the true body of Christ on the earth today by comparing explicit Biblical teachings with what those groups who claim to represent the body of Christ are teaching. If a group or individual contradicts explicit Biblical teachings, or even a single explicit Biblical teaching, then they could not qualify as the body of Christ, for such an error would surely not be the result of the direction of God’s spirit upon that body. True, the body may reinterpret ambiguous elements on occasion as clarity is achieved through time and or better understanding of words and phrases found in the original languages of the scriptures, (1 Cor. 13:12) but when it comes to explicit teachings, they could not be found in contradiction of such and it still be possible that they represent the true body of Christ. They would be counterfeits.
One might think at the outset that all religions who claim to be Christian already agree on the explicit statements so there is no real way to use explicit statements to affect a differentiation.
However, such is not the case. In fact, it is proposed that there is a glaring error on the part of many who claim to be the body of Christ, and that has to do with what one could easily refer to as the very foundation of Christianity, the identity of God. Is God three persons? One person? Or two? Is the Son of God the Almighty God himself? If you go to the website you can see how this question is addressed by concentrating on different statements and teachings in the Bible which are, in the final analysis, unmistakable.
This is clearly at the heart of the belief system of any religious body that identifies itself as representing the body of Christ. If they are regarding the Son of God as God Almighty and are therefore worshipping him as God Almighty, if he is not God Almighty, but a creation, then they are committing a sin condemned by scripture, by rendering ultimate worship to a creature.
(Romans 1:25) 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Although not contextually speaking of the identity of God, the principle rings loud and true. One does not present absolute worship to the creature, but rather brings absolute worship only to God.
The author of Hebrews also states for us that one of the foundation elements of Christianity is “faith toward God.”
(Hebrews 6:1) 6 For this reason, now that we have left the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works, and faith toward God,
Clearly the body of Christ would not be guilty of rendering absolute worship to the creation rather than to the Creator. So, the question is: Do the scriptures explicitly teach the Son of God to be created? Do the scriptures identify for us who is the “only” true God? The purpose here is to demonstrate that this is indeed the case. This has great bearing upon who it is then that could be representing the body of Christ in the world today. If it is true that the Son of God is indeed a creation, then the Trinitarian believers and promoters cannot be representative of the body of Christ and should be rejected as counterfeit. This would mean that, by necessity, it could only be from among those religious organizations that teach the Son is indeed a creation of God, and is not the “only” true God, that one might potentially find an organized effort to qualify as the body of Christ in the world today.
This would be a huge differentiation as far as numbers and choices. Since the Trinitarian religions represent by far the majority of all claimed “Christian” religions, this would negate a large portion of the “Christian” population. It would necessitate a focus upon those religions which teach the truth about God, his Son, and who they are, eliminating the rest of the world of Christendom.
Meleti, his is where I would invite you for us to consider together in dialogue the implications of the "fundamental teachings in Hebrews 6:1,2 to identify the Body of Christ. You can send me an email to the email on the links I provided on my earlier comments.
Regards,Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-21 08:19:19
Hi Anonymous,
I would agree with your conclusion that one can use the unambiguous teachings found in scripture as a way to differentiate between true and false religion. Of course, this is not the sole criterion as shown by John 13:35 and John 7:15-20. In fact, I would suggest that the latter reference shows that simply looking at teachings is not the best method of distinguishing between worship that God approves and that which he condemns. The fact that the Devil can transform himself into an angel of light and his ministers can cloth themselves in a façade of justice illustrates the need to utilize all the criteria the Lord has given us so as to protect ourselves from false prophets and wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing. (Mt 7:15)
Your wrote:
Meleti, his [sic] is where I would invite you for us to consider together in dialogue the implications of the “fundamental teachings in Hebrews 6:1,2 to identify the Body of Christ. You can send me an email to the email on the links I provided on my earlier comments.
I would be willing to engage in such a debate on the premise that I would be debating with another Jehovah’s Witness. If so, I would also require that the debate be reproduced on our sister forum, DiscussTheTruth.com so that the benefits of it would reach a wider audience.
Finally, based on the criteria you have specified here, I believe that to be truly beneficial the debate should focus on doctrines unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses and which are not ambiguous in nature. These would not be minor doctrines, but doctrines that are important to the salvation of the flock. I would therefore be willing to engage in a debate on the doctrine of the other sheep, or 1914. Perhaps both, though one at a time.
I feel that resolving these doctrines in a public forum by debating between two sides which are diametrically opposed doctrinally will prove beneficial to the many.
Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-20 23:40:40
Thanks for your comment and concern anonymous . Im just trying to be like a beroean who uses the scriptures to test the claims of others . Ill keep your viewpoint in mind. Christian love father jack .
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 01:37:47
Father Jack,
I'm glad you asked that question,because if you get a chance to examine this passage about the Bereans who search the scriptures after Paul told them that Jesus was the Christ. Now this is highly misinterpreted by people who are trying to support biblicism because they think that because the Bereans are checking scripture they only believe scripture and that somehow Paul is beneath the scripture and the Bereans are using scripture over Paul and as the authority over Paul, but that is not the case at all, as a matter of fact what is occuring here as you read the whole chapter. Paul comes to them and says that this Jesus that I tell you about is the Christ of the Old Testament. Now that would give them pause because the Old Testament never named the Messiah. It never called him Jesus, now here, Paul is coming with new revelation to them, apostolic authority no less. And he is saying that the Jesus that I preach is the Christ, so they go back and read those passages about the Messiah “the
Christ” and they say: “yeah, he was going to suffer and die, he wasn't going to be a king, yes we can agreee with Paul that this Jesus who suffered and dyed in the torturing stake is the Christ of the old testament”... you see what the Bereans are doing , they are not saying that scripture is the authority over Paul. Paul just gave them a revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. Where did he get that revelation? It wasn't from the Old Testament, it was directly from God. Jesus talked to Peter on the road to Damascus and told him I am Jesus whom your persecuting, that's where he got that revelation from. So no, the Bereans are not practicing biblicism, here as a matter of fact they are getting an education on how to interpret the old testament. That is what the education is all about here.
The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s
apostolic authority on the identity of the Messiah, not because they could extract for themselves from the Old Testament that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Thus, their “examination” of Scripture was limited to reevaluating those passages which spoke of the Messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Messiah. Before Paul’s teaching, the Bereans, like most Jews, thought that the Messiah would be recognized by a majestic appearance and a subsequent conquering of the Gentiles. It was not until Paul pointed out that the Old Testament passages which spoke of God’s servant as one who had to suffer must be interpreted to apply to the Messiah and, more importantly that his name was Jesus. The typical Jew, although he knew his Scripture, invariably skipped over the numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggested his Messiah had to first come as one to suffer and die. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16:
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same
veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been
removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to
this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But
whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
After Paul was done teaching, the now enlightened Jew could read a
passage like Isaiah 53 and see it in a whole different light (cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 8:26-35). It was in connecting Paul’s divine revelation of the person of Jesus with the suffering passages of the Old Testament that the Berean “examined Scripture to see if what Paul said was true.” The Berean did not first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then examine Scripture to see if Paul’s identifying of Jesus as the Messiah was true. No, he examined the
Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” about whom Paul spoke was indeed the Messiah. His faith was based on accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, while Scripture served mainly as a witness to what Paul preached. Scripture could not serve as the sole determinant of what Paul taught for the simple reason that Scripture never identified “the Christ” specifically as “Jesus.”
He was designated with names like “the prophet” (Deut. 18:15)
Regards,Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-21 04:17:11
Yes thanks again anonymous and thanks for the interpretation of acts 17 ; 11 ps can you tell me what watchtower article that is based on i seemed to have missed that one sorry . FJ
Comment by AR on 2015-12-16 17:09:24
Hi Meleti, thanks for your review of this acct, and the other comments, Just feedback from the meeting.
Most of the bro's and sister's answered as per the question, however it was the study conducter who said , that " no matter how foolish or 'bizarre' the instructions we recieve seem to be by those on the outside, we should trust the direction given " or words to that effect.
Comment by F.S. on 2015-12-16 20:57:18
This article in the k.m coincidentally mirrors todays & yesterdays daily text which taiks about the ffds & those who are taking the lead.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-17 06:05:42
I do believe in coincidences, but only when they are few and far between. The number of times that the daily text supports Watchtower articles and the number of times both support changes made by the GB makes me think something else is at play.
Reply by Buster on 2015-12-17 13:11:06
I know look how many times they mentioned the Faithful slave and Matthew like over four times in this years daily text, don't worry next year is Guardians of Doctrine, heck they have a Talk in the Assembly about that, Woops I think I went to far, No not far enough
Reply by F.S. on 2015-12-17 14:07:38
Did any one hear about the 2 new memorial songs? They will be released and practiced in the new year...hmmmm.. Worship & praise the G.B. Now I've gone too far...lol
Reply by F.S. on 2015-12-17 13:34:54
Thanks Meleti for sharing this insightful article. Lots to contemplate & think about. In your honest opinion, what do you think is at play with all the simultaneous changes and articles written by the W.T?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-17 13:50:39
One thing that seems evident is that they have been planning and preparing for these changes for quite a while.
In the mid 1990s it seemed we'd reached a turning point with the abandonment of Mt. 24:34 as a means to measure how close the end was. We could have abandoned our Adventist mentality then, and it was an excellent opportunity to acknowledge past errors, apologize, take our lumps, and reorganize by focusing on what really matters. This would have meant abandoning 1914, but I am sure that we would have supported the governing body if we saw real humility and a willingness to submit to Christ. A process could have begun then that by now could have seen us free of all the doctrinal encumbrance that bears down on us.
However, as the numbers started to fall at the turn of the century, a different mentality took hold of the leadership. It begin with the creation of a fictitious doctrine. Starting in 2007, with baby steps they introduced what is now the overlapping generations doctrine. Then they seized absolute power for themselves in the 2012 annual meeting. Each step along the way is accompanied by a phalanx of supporting publications, broadcasts, and convention talks. Even the daily text seems to be prepared in advance to dovetail with new developments.
These are having the effect of alienating many, while binding many others even more tightly to the skirts of the Governing Body.
There is a spirit at work here. I'm convinced of it. And it is not the spirit of God.
Each new revelation from Headquarters seems to reinforce that conclusion.Reply by Out of Africa on 2015-12-20 09:28:42
I agree that the GB is co-ordinating their changes with the publications. And it is misleading many into thinking that Jehovah is behind the changes.
For example, a sister I know well really believes Jehovah is behind the re-assigning of Bethelites and that He will take care of them because 'look, even the daytext today says...., and last week's WT said....' It hasn't occurred to her that all the different publications and meeting parts are made by the same people.
Comment by Rosie Temple on 2015-12-16 22:46:49
Let's see, hmmm...
They can't even take care of a Bethell dishwasher, but they want JWs to place their own life and families in their hands? They cannot even take care OF THEIR OWN!!!
That is THE RECIPE for: COLLASSAL [sic] TRAGEDY.
It is what it is.
All that remains is for the globalists to create the global context of Bethel's own "self fulfilling prophecy". And Bethel bumping heads with Caesar, as shown in that previous RC Response article on that subject, has actually set up part of this now all JW expected "attack".
Bethell is setting up their own INVASION for rampant lawlessness, and stubborn denial! (1Pet4:15-17) In fact, the very thing Peter warned of by God, is now present AT [criminal] BETHELL:
(1 Peter 4:15-17) . . .However, let none of YOU suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer [or a pedophile], or as a [GB] busybody in other people’s matters. 16 But if [he suffers] as a Christian, let him not feel shame, but let him keep on glorifying God in this name. 17 [BECAUSE] it is the APPOINTED TIME for the judgment to START with the house of God. . . .
It is ALL an orchestration, to crash the JW-org, sack the corporations and send JWs helter skelter OBEYING SOLD OUT Pied Pipers in the GB.
Yes, FLEE the doomed apostate JW Organization (Matt24:15), NOW, the GB Caesar aiding "disgusting thing" is "standing in a holy place", complete with their UN NGO Ensigns.
It is time for a final Temple Judgment cycle, not "the end", but of the compromised GB led Bethel apostate farce.
Comment by Buster on 2015-12-17 13:07:22
(w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today)
“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.”
This infamous quote my friends is going to be Used on the first week of 2016 weekday meeting, and it is one of the Answers for the new Christian life book, Nice.Spiritual Food indeed, Spiritual Food my Foot....:)Reply by Buster on 2015-12-17 13:39:39
To everyone that knows me here I am making funof this quote and pointing out it's wrong, but I wanted to let everyone know they use it, and they even want people to answer it with this quote, yup how that will be said
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-17 13:17:45
Father Jack,
Thats why I encourage everyone to do a careful study of history, scripture, the marks of the congregation and the great apostasy. Starting with the Christian congregation in the first century at the time of the Apostles, and then tracing the congregation forward, decade by decade, to the present day. As you trace the congregation forward through the centuries, you will encounter a myriad of sects all claiming to be the christian congregation. In each case you will note whether they fit the criteria("fundamental teachings") laid out by Jesus in Hebrews 6:1,2 that the church will be teaching. By such a study, and by the help of the Holy Spirit, you would discover that the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's witness is the Congregation that Christ founded, the restored congregation of the first century.
I encourage you to go to the link and read the debate and if you want to dialogueReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-17 13:38:59
You neglected to post the link where we can find this proof.
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-18 06:57:08
Anonymous, to trace the origins of the Jehovah's Witness religion you need to start with William Miller, Nelson Barbour (former Millerite), and Charles Taze Russell. Start by reading The Three Worlds by Barbour. Have fun. The truth is out there
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-18 08:27:21
Anonymous,
We got to have a common starting point that doesn't beg the question. Having a shared common ground will help us mutually evaluate the events in the 19th century and sort them without assuming at the outset which position is correct. I submit to you that shared starting point should be that of the early congregation. Any other way your assuming a priori and beggin the question.
Regards,
Reply by Anonymous on 2015-12-17 14:49:41
Sorry,
1st Century Governing Body?*** & WT interpretation of faithful slave:
http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=40&sid=6d55ee58da9b02e98f635d0dd42d01f4
Examining the JW teaching of the Faithful and Discreet Slave:
http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=829
Membership to the Truetheology website is only granted if one is interested in engaging in discussion or debate of one of the articles posted in the "ARTICLES FOR THE PROMOTION OF BIBLICAL TRUTH" section of the board or another pre-arranged topic. If you are interested in that, please send your request and/or challenge to challenges@truetheology.net
Please specify which article you would like to discuss or debate or which topic you would like to engage, and you will be contacted by the board admin for further information and instructions.
Reply by Father jack on 2015-12-17 17:47:57
Fair enough anonymous please send me the the evidence ,
Comment by Anonymous on 2015-12-21 04:10:59
Meleti,
I would very much will like to dialogue further on these points you mention, you can reach me at the links/email address i provided in my comments earlier. Not to debate but for the purpose of reaching agreement concerning the truth of the matter under dispute.
Some comments are in order for each of your selected texts:
I wonder if your conflating the inspiration of the letters of the new testament with the authoritative judgements of the first century church .Inspiration is a technical term that refers to the inspiration of scripture and that term is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and that’s the only place the bible uses that word: Inspiration. In Acts 15 Peter and the apostles are speaking on their own authority given by Christ and they are deemed with this authority because they are the ones taking the lead and governing the church. How can they give a doctrine, that is because they are guided by the holy spirit, but is not because of inspiration but because of the guidance of the holy spirit and there is nothing elsewhere, where that has been rescinded.
There is nothing wrong with the scriptures you presented and every Jehovah's witness will concur. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11)
We agree what 1 Th 5:21 says but the Bible also teaches, as DOCTRINE that we are to submit the the Congregation.(Hebrews 13:27, Acts 1,5 & 15) That is a teaching of the Bible, Meleti, just as much as the ones that tell us to make sure of all things.
Regarding Galatians 1:8-9, Paul is not teaching that individual christians should subjugate the teaching authority in the congregation to their own interpretation of Scripture. Paul is saying that the Galatians must not abandon the gospel which he and all the other Apostles had preached to them. The foundation laid is absolutely true and therefore must never be torn up and re-founded on something different. That initial apostolic preaching is an infallible and irrevocable foundation. But the gospel that Paul and the others had preached was not defined as the individual Galatian believer’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. It was something much bigger than that. It was the faith that had been preached throughout the world by the Apostles. There was a communal, historical and personal dimension to the received faith and its identity. To see whether someone was teaching a novel teaching, one would compare the message in question to the teaching universally received from the Apostles throughout the whole universal Church. The standard by which to measure the message in question was not “my interpretation of Scripture.” Otherwise, anyone following his own novel interpretation of Scripture could claim to be following the original gospel. Instead, Paul is exhorting the Galatian believers to test the spirits against what had been originally given to them and to the whole world by the Apostles, namely the Apostolic deposit. He is not advocating the authoritative supremacy of private interpretation of Scripture but rather the irreversibility and irrevocability of the one universally received Apostolic deposit. That’s what Witnesses have always affirmed and still affirm.
If an elder comes along who teaches contrary to the Apostolic deposit that has been taught and believed throughout the Christian Congregation, we must not follow him because he is a going against it. But the standard is not our own private interpretation of Scripture; rather, the public and communally-shared faith received by the whole Congregation from the Apostles is the standard. It is public and communal, not a standard of private interpretation. So the governing body is not requiring anyone to give more obedience to those taking the lead after the Apostles than did Paul because Paul was not teaching that each individual has supreme individual interpretive authority. The duty to submit to present interpretive authority is not incompatible with a duty to hold to what has previously been given; the two duties go together, and neither nullifies the other. The duty to hold on to what has been handed down from the Apostles does not give us a green light to pick as our ecclesial ‘authorities’ those who teach according to our own interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the duty to hold on to the Apostolic deposit and not to forsake it does not justify doing what Paul condemns in 2 Timothy 4:3-4—i.e. choosing one’s ecclesial ‘authority’ on the basis of their agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.
Now in regards to 1 John 4:1 – No one is expecting you to be a blind follower Meleti, but God does expect you to distinguish between when you have such prerogatives (test the inspired expressions) and when you don't.
For example if you were back in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, and you saw the elders and the apostles make the proclamation of dogma that they did for the whole Christian Congregation in Acts 15:10-12, would you have the prerogative to stand and say “Hey Guys, I don't believe what you are saying is right. God has led me by the Holy Spirit that it is wrong. And if you don't change it , I'm leaving and starting my own church?” If you did, Meleti, the next thing you would have experienced is dis-fellowship. That is the way the Congregation works, and that is how we keep “ one Lord, one faith, one baptism. On the other hand if, according to 1 John 4:1 some false prophet comes to you and says “ Jesus isn't God”, naturally, you have the right to turn away and reject him. In other words, Meleti, you can call him a “false prophet”, but you would not be able to call the elders and the apostles a false prophet. And if you can't call elders and the apostles a false prophet, then you can't call the governing body apointed by Jehovah false prophets. Those are important distictions you need to keep in mind.
Acts 17:1 - if you get a chance to examine this passage about the Bereans who search the scriptures after Paul told them that Jesus was the Christ. This is highly misinterpreted by people who are trying to support biblicism because they think that because the Bereans are checking scripture they only believe scripture and that somehow Paul is beneath the scripture and the Bereans are using scripture over Paul and as the authority over Paul but that is not the case at all, as a matter of fact what is occurring here as you read the whole chapter. Paul comes to them and says that this Jesus that I tell you about is the Christ of the old testament. Now that would give them pause because the old testament never named the Messiah. It never called him Jesus, now here, Paul is coming with new revelation to them, apostolic authority no less. And he is saying that the Jesus that I preach is the Christ so they go back and read those passages about the Messiah “the Christ” and they say: “yeah, he was going to suffer and die, he wasn't going to be a king, yes we can agreee with Paul that this Jesus who suffered and dyed in the torturing stake is the Christ of the old testament” you see what the Bereans are doing , they are not saying that scripture is the authority over Paul. Paul just gave them a revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. Where did he get that revelation? It wasn't from the old testament, it was directly from God. Jesus talked to Peter on the road to Damascus and told him I am Jesus whom your persecuting, that's where he got that revelation from. So no, the Bereans are not practicing biblicism, here as a matter of fact they are getting an education on how to interpret the old testament. That is what the education is all about here.
The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s
apostolic authority on the identity of the Messiah, not because they could extract for themselves from the Old Testament that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Thus, their “examination” of Scripture was limited to reevaluating those passages which spoke of the Messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Messiah. Before Paul’s teaching, the Bereans, like most Jews, thought that the Messiah would be recognized by a majestic appearance and a subsequent conquering of the Gentiles. It was not until Paul pointed out that the Old Testament passages which spoke of God’s servant as one who had to suffer must be interpreted to apply to the Messiah and, more importantly that his name was Jesus. The typical Jew, although he knew his Scripture, invariably skipped over the numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggested his Messiah had to first come as one to suffer and die. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16:
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
After Paul was done teaching, the now enlightened Jew could read a
passage like Isaiah 53 and see it in a whole different light (cf. Luke 24:26;Acts 8:26-35). It was in connecting Paul’s divine revelation of the person of Jesus with the suffering passages of the Old Testament that the Berean “examined Scripture to see if what Paul said was true.” The Berean did not first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then examine Scripture to see
if Paul’s identifying of Jesus as the Messiah was true. No, he examined the Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” about whom Paul spoke was indeed the Messiah. His faith was based on accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, while Scripture served mainly as a witness to what Paul preached. Scripture could not serve as the sole determinant of what Paul taught for the simple reason that Scripture never identified “the Christ” specifically as “Jesus.” He was designated with names like “the prophet” (Deut. 18:15)
Meleti It is your conclusion that doesn't follow by logical necessity from your premise. You would need an argument to establish the assertion that “ nothing he wrote ever needed to be adjusted, refined, or changed. Neither element is found when we examine the Governing Body.”
Regards,Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-12-21 09:22:33
We agree what 1 Th 5:21 says but the Bible also teaches, as DOCTRINE that we are to submit the the Congregation.(Hebrews 13:27, Acts 1,5 & 15) That is a teaching of the Bible, Meleti, just as much as the ones that tell us to make sure of all things.
It appears you mistyped the reference to Hebrews, so I was not able to confirm your point from Scripture. Also, the reference to Acts is confusing. Are you referring to the entire chapters 1, 5 and 15, or is this also mistyped.
I think you’ll agree that the commenting feature of Beroean Pickets is not the best format for long back-and-forth exchanges on doctrine. It is for this reason principally that we established DiscussTheTruth.com. I would be happy to continue this discussion there. However, rather than argue each point you have made, I will address the underlying issue which constitutes the flaw in all your reasoning.
Your argument boils down to the fact that Christians in the first century accepted the apostolic authority. The apostles were appointed by Jesus. There is no denying that. Their writings and the writings of other first century Christians like James, Mark and Luke are part of the inspired writings. So we have their authority right down to this day in the form of the Holy Bible. On that we agree, I believe.
The flaw in your reasoning comes with equating the authority of the Governing Body with that first century authority. I understand why you reason this way for I once did as well. You accept without question that the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the one true religion, largely based on our position on fundamental doctrines that reject the Trinity, hellfire and the immortality of the human soul.
Since they are the one true religion, then the Governing Body must be the modern-day equivalent of the congregation in Jerusalem which you see as the first century Governing Body.
The premise of my argument is that there is no proof for what you say. Merely rejecting the Trinity, Hellfire and the immortality of the soul does not make us God’s one chosen people. There are other religions that do that as well. My contention is that for there to be a replacement for the authority of the apostles, there would have to be some proof such as was given in the first century to identify them as Christ’s chosen ones. The only proof we have today is adherence to the inspired record and that is something that must be assessed individually. We cannot surrender that task to another, be he a single man like the Pope or Meleti, or an ecclesiastical governing body such as the College of Cardinals of the Holy See or the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Even your reasoning on the authority of the apostles is flawed, for Paul says:
“8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed.” (Ga 1:8)
The circumcision issue was not a salvation issue. Submitting to an authority such as the original congregation in Jerusalem with the apostles in attendance over such an issue promotes unity and does not hinder our salvation. However, to suggest that this serves as an example for surrendering our obligation to examine all things to such an authority ignores the inspired record quoted above.
By “we”, Paul was referring to himself and all those in authority. He then extends the lesson further to include angels out of heaven. The fact is the Good News he had declared is part of the inspired record.
The Governing Body has subverted the message of the Good News. The good news is not only that Jesus will reign, but that he has extended the opportunity for all who put faith in his name to reign with him as children of God in the new covenant. (John 1:12) The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses has convinced millions that they are not God’s children, are not in the new covenant, and do not have Jesus as their mediator. This is all part of the Good News that Paul declared. Further, we have the very clear, unambiguous teaching that Christians are to partake of the emblems, but the Governing Body has subverted that message and induced millions to disobey our Lord’s express command.
These are all issues relating to salvation and Paul, by his words, shows that even he or the other apostles could not teach another Good News without being accursed. Their authority did not extend to changing the message of Jesus.
If you want to dialogue, then let us dialogue on this issue: What is the Good News of Salvation? (Eph. 1:13)
To suggest that a first century Christian would not go,
Comment by yobec on 2015-12-23 20:18:02
Jesus told his disciples before he left " I did not hold back from telling you anything". True, Holy Spirit would arrive to teach them. However this would not be "new things". Instead, Holy Spirit would " bring back to mind" the things that Jesus had already told them.