Jehovah, the God of Communication

Comment by Karen on 2016-01-31 17:42:58

Thank you Meletti once again for such a well written and thoroughly researched article... Your dedication and stamina is appreciated...... My journey of walking away from what I knew as 'truth' has only just begun. Therefore the information I am discovering through my own research is somewhat overwhelming at times... I first had doubts after watching the Australian Royal Commission into sexual abuse.... This was the only subject, the only one major issue I could not accept nor be apart of. I continued to believe in everything else I was ever taught from the platform....... As you have said though today, with the help of the internet and access to sites such as yours, it has been a shattering journey to discover almost all of what I held dear, as truth has in fact been untruths.....
Meletti, I am sure you have shared your journey, your 'story' before... However for all those 'new' to this grieving process of leaving a way of life behind, are you able to share just a little of how it began for you and where you are now? Many thanks .....

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-31 20:40:50

  I'm working every day to get the new sites ready. But once that is behind me, I should be able to put something together.

  • Reply by Karen on 2016-02-01 21:26:51

    Join the discussion .... Again .... Many thanks .....

    • Reply by katrina on 2016-02-05 22:50:57

      Did not the apostles and disciples give food at the proper time their message of salvation through Christ alone. All that was written in the NT by these faithful brothers inspired by God was given to give food at the proper time, and the bible is not out dated and has always been food at the proper time.
      John 21:16He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." 17He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.
      How pompous of the GB to deny that any of these faithful brothers were not of the FDS.

Comment by Nemorino on 2016-01-31 18:58:11

Meleti,
Thanks for another incisive article. Your comments about identifying the Faithful and Discreet Slave through the intervening nineteen centuries brings to mind my experiences at Bethel in the mid- to late sixties. It was a fascinating, when researchers were energized by the prospect of producing the Aid book by starting with a "tabula rasa," or clean slate, wiped clear of preconceptions.
Among the priorities: confirming the validity of the 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem, a job to which Ray Franz and a good friend, Charlie Ploeger, were assigned. Crisis of Conscience, of course recounts their experiences. Another of these priorities was to seek to identify groups through the intervening centuries that bore enough of the earmarks of core JW doctrine; i.e., pacifism, anti-trinity, anti hell fire, God's name,soul sleep, etc., to warrant inclusion in a list of qualifiers as "wheat, or latter-day manifestations of the Faithful and Discreet servant.
Dead ends both, as we've come to appreciate.

Comment by CJ on 2016-01-31 22:08:39

The reason why they chose 1919 and previously 1918 is because Rutherford wanted to discredit Russell and this paved the way I e setting up "Jehovah's Organistion". Rutherford wrote in his book enemies that if we didn't accept the 1918 date we were enemies of God.

Comment by Harrison Webster on 2016-02-01 04:46:51

Thank you once again for a well written and thought out Article. It makes me wonder what the GB think they have gained by dropping the idea of a more or less unbroken line going back to the Apostles, surely claiming that provenance would give them more credibility.
I have prayerfully considered our Lord's words, and cannot accept that the parable of the discreet and evil slaves is anything more than that, a parable.
It is though one that touches my heart, as it speaks to me , asking me what kind of servant to the Lord am I right now, and for the rest of my life.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-01 07:30:00

  I agree Harrison. I see no basis in the parable for the idea Jesus was setting up a ruling clergy class. The fact that the faithful slave is appointed over all his belongings should tip us off. His faithful servants who endure to the end get the reward, be they male or female. All partake in the work of feeding by sharing the word of God with those in need, knowing which words are needed in any particular instance to encourage, alleviate suffering, and to motivate to love and fine works (ergo, food at the proper time).

Comment by yobec on 2016-02-01 14:30:46

In the past when the Watchtower wanted to show that the faithful slave had always been with us unbrokenly throughout the centuries, they used Jesus' departing words " look !
I am with you ALL THE DAYS until the conclusion of the system of things ".
How would they now explain this scripture ?

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-02-01 16:33:34

Meleti,
Maybe your preaching to the choir, but Brother Splane, didn't just say there was no one that served as the faithful slave for 1900 years because of the “source” the bible (he didn’t say nature of the food) was not readily available before the 15th century. But in fact made an argument composed of 4 reasons as to why there was no 1900 year old slave. Maybe you can address why the his argument in toto is fallacious, or perhaps you believe the role the F & DS serving food at the proper time just involves translating the bible as opposed to Witnesses understanding that the governing body’s role includes the authority to teach, the authority to lead and the authority to govern the Christian congregation.
The Witness understanding is that the church was fragmented and disjointed during the “growing” season of the wheat and the weeds. The church was the true anointed ones on earth, but they were not organized or unified. If Russell was among those as we believe he was, then he was a member of the true church, which was not unified. His effort would not be the causing of division but the attempt to unify the brothers. Since we are now in the harvest, the church is clearly identified and the situation has therefore changed. There was no way to definitively condemn a sect during the days of Russell and before his time because the church was riddled with wheat. They couldn’t be differentiated, and any “weeding out” was forbidden by the sower, Christ, until the harvest began.
I believe David Splane portrayed the bible translators in a positive light based on his concluding remarks:
“The point of this discussion is not to malign these men. We don't know how Jehovah felt about them. We don't know whether any of them where of the anointed. Or just had a few problems in understanding. In the early years we had problems in understanding. But the point is this if you take a good unvarnished look at history you just do not see a faithful and discreet slave providing food at the proper time. First of all, in the beginning the source was not available. The attitude towards the spiritual food was not always wholesome. Then there were divisions, tremendous divisions among the reformers and finally the attitude towards the preaching work. It was a start but there was no 1900 year old slave.”

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-01 17:06:42

  I did a detailed review when the video first came out. You can see it here.here.
  However, to dissect Splane's four main points:
  

  “The point of this discussion is not to malign these men. We don’t know how Jehovah felt about them. We don’t know whether any of them where of the anointed. Or just had a few problems in understanding."
  

  
  He disqualifies them because they had problems in understanding. If that is a valid criteria for disqualifying someone from being a faithful and discreet slave, then the Governing Body are disqualified because they continue to teach false doctrine. The most egregious example is the JW doctrine of the other Sheep. At last year's annual meeting, Splane gave a talk in which he introduced a new understanding that types and antitypes which are not applied by the Scriptures themselves are "going beyond the things written". This new official understanding was then published in the ws15/03 "Questions from Readers". However, the doctrine of the other sheep is based solely and exclusively on several non-Scriptural applications of types and antitypes. (See Going Beyond What Is Written for a detailed analysis of Rutherford's articles which launched this understanding in the mid-1930s.
  

  "In the early years we had problems in understanding. But the point is this if you take a good unvarnished look at history you just do not see a faithful and discreet slave providing food at the proper time."

  
  This argument is predicated on the JW interpretation that the Faithful Slave constitutes a ruling class over the congregation. If you review the eight articles under the topic Identifying the Slave you will see that that argument is not valid, nor Scriptural.
  

  "First of all, in the beginning the source was not available."
  

  
  Based on the Organization's definition of the word, I find it hard not to call his an outright lie. The first century Christians had the original word, not translation like we have now. They had the actual letters. We also know that they pioneered the use of the codex over scrolls as a better way to research the scriptures. The Bible was their bread and butter. Copies would be made and distributed. Additionally, they had prophets uttering inspired expressions in the congregations.
  What Splane says is simply untrue and that is why he was not able to offer up any proof to support this ridiculous statement.
  

  The attitude towards the spiritual food was not always wholesome. Then there were divisions, tremendous divisions among the reformers

  
  This isn't proof there was no slave. It could be considered proof that there was an evil slave, as well as a slave that did not do the master's will out of ignorance and one that failed to obey knowingly, just as Luke 12:41-48 details. How could these three slave types exist, while the fourth was no where to be seen. No, it just doesn't follow.
  "...finally the attitude towards the preaching work."
  The "attitude towards the preaching work"! Would Splane have us believe that the 2 billion plus Christians on earth today came into being by some evolutionary process and not by dint of a worldwide centuries-long preaching campaign?
  You will notice that he quotes not a single scripture to support his contention. So what we have here is one-man's opinion. An opinion likely shared by the six other members of the Governing Body, but an opinion nonetheless. Are we to base our faith on human opinion or on God's inspired word?

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-01 22:40:30

    Meleti,
    You said:
    'First of all, in the beginning the source was not available.'
    "Based on the Organization’s definition of the word, I find it hard not to call his an outright lie. The first century Christians had the original word, not translation like we have now. They had the actual letters. We also know that they pioneered the use of the codex over scrolls as a better way to research the scriptures. The Bible was their bread and butter. Copies would be made and distributed. Additionally, they had prophets uttering inspired expressions in the congregations."
    I don't want to say that you’re nit-picking here but analyzing overall what he said in the context of the same talk I took him to mean what he said in minute 8:30 about “in the beginning the source was not available” what he had said earlier in Minute 3:40 “So the source of spiritual food was not always available.”
    Why was it not always available? Because of what he said starting at the 1min in his talk
    "What do we know about the bible? Well first of all up until about 1455 or less there where no printed copies of the bible and the bible's that existed were hand copied, very valuable, very expensive and very rare. So how would someone have access to the spiritual food? And even so, most of the bibles where in Latin and most people in Europe could not read Latin. In fact , historians tells us that until about the year 1000 even the kings of Europe some of the kings of Europe could not read ,period. So if you couldn't read, if you had little access to the bible or if you didn't know Latin. How will you get access to the spiritual food"
    I think David Splane was just stating the condition that people founded themselves in the middle ages  between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Renaissance in the 14th century when the majority of the population couldn't read at all. The church printed the Bible in Latin because those who could read, read Latin and those who could not read Latin, could not read anything.This together from what you know about the historical articles already writing by the Governing body about the dissemination of the bible in early christianity before the 5th century.
    I don't know , just my thoughts. Maybe due to the nature of online interaction, dialogue of these issues are expressed in a confrontational way rather than an objective difference of opinion.

    • Reply by Menrov on 2016-02-02 06:48:48

      In general, to state "the source was not available" is leading the witness to a conclusion which is not based on facts but on one's definition of SOURCE. Is the bible the source of faitht? Or is Jesus the source? Jesus did not walk with a written bible (containing all prophets and law etc). Still, many believed. Most peculiar, many of the ones that actively used the scriptures that were available (pharisees) were actually against Jesus.
      The so-called SPIRITUAL FOOD (a term that does not exist in the scriptures) cannot depend on the written word. It would mean that God is partial and would only grant this so-called food to people who can read or do not mind to be completely dependent on the ones that read to them. Also, thinking that the written word is key is against the scriptures; Heb 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws on their hearts and I will inscribe them on their minds,”
      Organized religion have used the written word (bible) as a means of power. That is why many denominations have their own translations, their own interpretations, their own truth and their own doctrines. It gives these organisations a sense of power, as they have special skills or blessings that others do not have.
      If something is a parable, it is not a prophecy. Using the parable as a prophecy (or as the WBTS calls it a prophetic parable) and as a result claim superiority and power is proof of ones own interpretation. Therefore, as the whole interpretation of the fds parable is based on "prophetic air", any justification of their role is air as well.

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-02 08:31:02

        Menrov,
        I thought it was a giving that the source is divine revelation. Sacred Scriptures are divinely inspired. God is their author.They contain (in written form) the words of God, including the final word given to us in His Son. Witnesses will agree that In giving us His Son, God has said everything He has to say, because to see Jesus is to see His Father. There will be no other word than this one. Hebrews 1:1,2.
        Any witness can tell you that salvation doesnt not depend in having a bible especially many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The bible tells us so in Romans 1:18-20, and Romans 2:14-16 even if they only have creation to observe and the law written in their hearts can be saved. Of course they grant that a person will have a much better opportunity to be saved if he actually hears the good news, but it is not absolutely necessary to have the words of the good news preached directly in person in order for him to be saved.
        Again, David Splane is just decribing the actual situation of the middle ages. Together with the understanding that christianity was rotten to the core affecting the foundational teachings (Hebrews 6:1,2) In light of the paradigm of Jw's ( the great apostasy after the first century and there not being any group appointed by Jesus) you may diasgree but I think this is how a JW will hear his words.
        The understanding of an ecclesiastical authority has always been there, REGARDLESS of how one interprets Matthew 24:45-47. It appears that so many others think that entire belief structure is built upon that verse. Witnesses will say you could remove it if you want. Nothing would change.
        Who exactly would make up the FDS and when they would exist, was and still is a minor point when it comes to the overall structure of foundational teachings. As I have mentioned before, they surely don't even need Matthew 24:45-47 to establish that there is an ecclesiastical authority within Christianity and that surely in the last days, when the cleansing would take place, it would be paramount for it to be functioning. So if you took away Matthew 24:45-47 and how they apply it, do you think anything would be different? They surely don't.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-02 09:29:12

          What do you mean that you don't need the Bible to be "saved". Do you mean they will be resurrected in the resurrected in the resurrection of the unrighteous and be given a chance to know Christ then, or do you believe that good people will just get everlasting life without having to do anything else?

          • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-02 20:05:25

            The sheep and the goats illustration says: Yes, people who do good will have life in God's Kingdom regardless if they followed Christ in this life. They are granted entrance into the Kingdom because they love their fellow man.
            Joshua

        • Reply by Menrov on 2016-02-02 10:45:24

          Just one comment. You state: Again, David Splane is just describing the actual situation of the middle ages. Together with the understanding that Christianity was rotten to the core affecting the fundamental teachings (Hebrews 6:1,2)
          On what basis can anyone say that Christianity was rotten to the core during the middle ages? Who killed Jesus? What was the situation in certain congregations during time of Paul and Revelations? I agree that so-called Christian denomination acted during the middle ages in various cases badly and oppressed the people instead of helping them. But that is what so-called ecclesiastical authority bring: abuse of power. If you disagree with the official doctrine, you are expelled / thrown out. That happened during time of Jesus with those who expressed support for Jesus which was against official doctrine in the synagogues: Joh 9:22 (His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jewish religious leaders. For the Jewish leaders had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.
          In other words, throughout the centuries, not just in the middle ages but before and after, religious denominations have built a very mixed reputation.
          Many of the current, centrally organized and controlled denominations (WBTS, Mormons, Iglesia N'Christo etc) have a strict policy in place to ensure all accept the official doctrines, regardless if these doctrines are sound from a scriptural point of view or actually honor the Father and the Son.
          You state: The understanding of an ecclesiastical authority has always been there,
          Please provide some scriptural support as I cannot find it. The fact that within a congregation you have roles that are there to oversee but nowhere can we find a central authority, overseeing all congregation and defining all doctrines. If that were the case or if that model was to be followed, then Jesus would have addressed His 7 letters to that central body for distribution and teaching and not to John (Revelations).
          I agree with Meleti that parables contain a lesson and can refer to a future situation. But that is not the same as a prophecy. Parables are used to describe something like the Kingdom or to teach on certain behaviors. But it is not something that is fulfilled. The parable is not time dependent in itself. A prophecy is saying something about a future event. Something.that will happen or be fulfilled.
          Matt. 13:10 Then the disciples came to him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 He replied, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but they have not. 12 For whoever has will be given more, and will have an abundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 For this reason I speak to them in parables: Although they see they do not see, and although they hear they do not hear nor do they understand. 14 And concerning them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
          ‘You will listen carefully yet will never understand,
          you will look closely yet will never comprehend.
          Well, this is my view. But I respect if others disagree.

          • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-02 16:51:04

            Menrov,
            You said:
            “Please provide some scriptural support as I cannot find it. The fact that within a congregation you have roles that are there to oversee but nowhere can we find a central authority, overseeing all congregation and defining all doctrines. If that were the case or if that model was to be followed, then Jesus would have addressed His 7 letters to that central body for distribution and teaching and not to John (Revelations).”
            When I said “The understanding of an ecclesiastical authority has always been there” I was strictly speaking about Jehovah’s Witnesses history. Their understanding since their beginning, not whether they find this in first century Christianity.
            They will also say that your argument “Jesus would have addressed his 7 letters to that central body for distribution and teaching and not to John” is an argument from silence trying to do major ecclesiological work. It only does this work if you bring in an extra-biblical question begging assumption. You are inferring from Christ’s not mentioning an Ecclesiastical authority there to the conclusion that it doesn’t exist. That’s a bad argument, especially because from other places in the NT they claim you can find it. It’s inconsistent if one imports into the interpretive process the extra-biblical assumption that Jesus must say in Revelation everything that is true of the structure of His Christian Congregation. This book is the same one who doesn’t speak of overseers and ministerial servants. You could use that same argument to eliminate the offices of elder and ministerial servant because those offices are not mentioned in Christ’s words to those seven congregations. Ergo, it is not a good argument. For Witnesses, Jesus can speak anywhere and any way He wants. Because he’s God’s son; He can do what He wants, how He wants.
            You also said:
            “That happened during time of Jesus with those who expressed support for Jesus which was against official doctrine in the synagogues: Joh 9:22 (His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jewish religious leaders. For the Jewish leaders had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue”
            Menrov, neither Jesus nor the apostles opposition to the authorities of their time serves as precedent, since they themselves were the new authority in Israel, as God’s son and his commissioned apostles.
            Later you said:
            In other words, throughout the centuries, not just in the middle ages but before and after, religious denominations have built a very mixed reputation. Many of the current, centrally organized and controlled denominations (WBTS, Mormons, Iglesia N’Christo etc) have a strict policy in place to ensure all accept the official doctrines, regardless if these doctrines are sound from a scriptural point of view or actually honor the Father and the Son.
            JW’s believe once you know the Governing body’s authority, and their teachings then your conscience is bound. If one’s conscience is in error, then a third option (besides following your erroneous conscience and violating your conscience) is to seek to inform one’s conscience. This is the third option typically overlooked in claims that the Christian congregation sometimes forces persons to violate their conscience. If he truly believes that the Governing body has no divine authority, then his conscience is not bound by their teachings and sanctions. But insofar as he knows that the GB has divine authority, then his own conscience tells him to submit to the Christian congregation, and the penal sanctions in that case only provide an incentive to follow his own conscience.

            • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-02 22:22:10

              Menrov,
              Correction to one sentence in my previous response to your comment above.
              This:
              "For Witnesses, Jesus can speak anywhere and any way He wants. Because he’s God’s son; He can do what He wants, how He wants."
              Should read:
              For Witnesses, Jehovah can speak anywhere and any way He wants. Because he's God; He can do what He wants, how He wants."
              I just noticed the mistake, since it's "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him". Although they can argue that Jesus is the head of the christian congregation and has been giving authority over it.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-02 09:24:05

        If something is a parable, it is not a prophecy. Using the parable as a prophecy (or as the WBTS calls it a prophetic parable) and as a result claim superiority and power is proof of ones own interpretation.

        
        While I agree with you that the GB interpretation of Mt 24:45-47 is invalid, I would like to clarify that I believe that many of the parables are prophetic in nature. A parable is an illustration, nothing more. But if the thing being illustrated is future, then the parable has a prophetic aspect to it, such as the parable of the wheat and weeds. However, I think you point is that it is an illustration, not an actual prophecy and in that we concur. So the four slaves and the food are representative of something which lay in the future at the time Jesus gave the parable.
        There is nothing in the parable that proves that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, as brother Gerrit Losch put it, was being proposed by Jesus.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-02 00:58:06

    Meleti you said:
     However, to dissect Splane’s four main points:
    “The point of this discussion is not to malign these men. We don’t know how Jehovah felt about them. We don’t know whether any of them where of the anointed. Or just had a few problems in understanding.”
    He disqualifies them because they had problems in understanding. If that is a valid criteria for disqualifying someone from being a faithful and discreet slave, then the Governing Body are disqualified because they continue to teach false doctrine. The most egregious example is the JW doctrine of the other Sheep. At last year’s annual meeting, Splane gave a talk in which he introduced a new understanding that types and antitypes which are not applied by the Scriptures themselves are “going beyond the things written”. This new official understanding was then published in the ws15/03 “Questions from Readers”. However, the doctrine of the other sheep is based solely and exclusively on several non-Scriptural applications of types and antitypes. (See Going Beyond What Is Written for a detailed analysis of Rutherford’s articles which launched this understanding in the mid-1930s.
    Meleti I don't think David Splane is saying that they are disqualified for problems of understanding. Since Jehovah's witnesses are convinced that we are living in the last days, in the SUNTELEIA (conclusion) of the system, according to Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 (the parable of the wheat and the weeds), and Ephesians 4:11-16. they would expect to have been be digging out from age-long errors of the weeds that were introduced and perfection of understanding would be approached.
    They claim and have always argued that if Christianity would suffer from errors clear down until the time that they reach full understanding, what kind of errors would we expect them to be? Certainly not fundamental, foundation errors like the one's listed at Hebrews 6:1,2. Such as, who do we worship? Who is God? What is faith? What is the role of Jesus Christ? Hebrews 6:1 mentions "the resurrection of the dead" and "everlasting judgment" as some of the foundation teachings. When it comes to those foundation doctrines, from the very start, Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have understood and taught those things correctly. And they came to those understandings under the constant pressure of resistance by the churches.
    So they believe when the inspection was done, God and Christ were not looking for perfection of understanding. They believe he would be looking for those who had shown themselves protective of those fundamental, foundation doctrines, even though they needed correction on many peripheral teachings, and not those that were full of error from the bottom up, teaching God-dishonoring and confusing doctrines, such as the Trinity, hellfire, immortal soul and the list goes on? False teachings directly affecting the very foundation of Christianity. (See Hebrews 6:1,2) Also, what was their attitude toward their own errors? Pride? or Humility? The ability to be TAUGHT, or plain stubborness to hold onto error for the sake of some supposed righteous continuity with old traditions?
    In regards to the peripheral teaching of the “other sheep” I think you will have a hard time arguing to witnesses that they have misinterpreted it. Your determination of the meaning of Scripture,or the-meaning-of-Scripture-as-interpreted-by-you does not demonstrate a misinterpretation, it simply demonstrates a “difference” in interpretation. Witnesses believe that their interpretation is a valid way to view what the bible says about the other sheep, as any offered by others. What one needs to ask for or demand from any interpretation is whether it is reasonable and accurate when it comes to history, logic and the rest of what the scriptures reveal. If any interpretation remains true to those things, it would be "accurate" to the eyes of the beholder. Unless one could prove that it is scripturally, historically or logically unsound, there is no way to state that it is inaccurate.

    • Reply by Menrov on 2016-02-02 06:58:56

      It is very common for WBTS to claim that only they understand the bible and have the right interpretation. Hence the over 100 changes is doctrines, I guess. I do not think it is up to us humans to say that the teaching of a trinity (which for many have a very different meaning) or hell fire or immortal soul is worse that the teaching of blood transfusion, only JW's will be saved, shunning etc. Every teaching that does not honor the Father nor honors the Son is evil. However, only Jesus can judge as He is the appointed Judge.
      Regarding the other sheep doctrine, I can only say that the WT interpretations actually means that so-called non-anointed JW's have no future as according to their interpretation, only the so-called anointed JW's are considered sheep. All non-sheep are goats. There is no middle group. Therefore, no sheep = goat = death???
      I do agree with you that anyone arguing with a witness will have a hard time.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-02 09:18:18

      When it comes to those foundation doctrines, from the very start, Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have understood and taught those things correctly. And they came to those understandings under the constant pressure of resistance by the churches.

      
      Yes, but let's give credit were credit is due. The Adventist movement from which we sprang and which gave birth to most of the Adventist religions today is the source of all these fundamental truths. This video gives an easy to follow historical path for both our religion and that of the rest of those whose main thrust is the Advent or Presence of Christ.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_c-PdT0SsE
      I'm not sure by your wording if you believe this or are just stating what JWs believe. Either way, the idea that Christ approves of them because they do not teach the God-dishonoring doctrines of the Trinity and Hellfire but that they hold to the fundamentals of Christianity is a valid point. However, it is predicated on their definition of what it fundamental, not Christ's. In Christ's time, these doctrines did not exist, but that did exist was the most fundamental doctrine of all, the Good News of salvation. To call the "other sheep" doctrine a peripheral doctrine is to ignore the significant role it plays in undermining the Good News. Those who teach a different Good News are to be accused. (Ga 1:8)
      I am not minimizing the negative impact of the Trinity or Hellfire as misrepresenting the nature of God, but those do not directly impact my salvation. However, denying me the adoption as a son of God, and telling me I must disobey the express command of my Lord to partake of the emblems that represent his blood and flesh sacrificed for my eternal salvation, and telling me that my hope is to live for a 1,000 years as an imperfect, sinful human denied the heavenly hope is directly messing with my salvation and distorting the Good News.
      As for proof that the other sheep doctrine is false and can be proven to be so beyond question, please access the category on this site "Other Sheep". We've written on it extensively.

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-03 08:29:30

        Meleti,
        Witnesses will tell you that no one can judge who truly has the heavenly hope. That who are they to question that? If that is your hope then who can tell you otherwise? Why would think that?
        They are not denying you the heavenly hope and the adoption as a son of God, or that you must disobey the express command of our Lord to partake of the emblems that represent his blood and flesh sacrificed for your eternal salvation, and that your hope is to live for a 1,000 years as an imperfect, sinful human.
        You said:
        “I am not minimizing the negative impact of the Trinity or Hellfire as misrepresenting the nature of God, but those do not directly impact my salvation.”
        A witness will respond:
        Who am I to say that only things directly messing with my salvation(as determined by my own interpretation of Scripture) is the criterion to judge a teaching as fundamental? Am I setting the parameters? I can't object based on what is directly messing with my salvation, but only on what is inspired by God, regardless of whether is essential to salvation or not?

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-03 10:16:58

          Is this your belief as well, Anonymous, or are you playing Devil's advocate?
          

          They are not denying you the heavenly hope and the adoption as a son of God, or that you must disobey the express command of our Lord to partake of the emblems that represent his blood and flesh sacrificed for your eternal salvation, and that your hope is to live for a 1,000 years as an imperfect, sinful human.

          
          I am sure they would argue this, but they would be exceedingly disingenuous in making such an allegation. The message they--I--preached was for an earthly hope. That is the good news published over and over in all the publications. The truth is there is no earthly hope at all. There is the eventuality--not hope--that all the unrighteous will return to life during Judgment Day, but all one has to do to get there is continue as one who is unrighteous. Hardly a hope. They preach if you don't accept this hope, you will die for all time at Armageddon. Again, a false teaching with no support in Scripture. This is the good news they preach. At the same time that they acknowledge that anyone can partake, they give talks at every memorial and publish articles prior to each to dissuade all from doing so, alleging that many partake for wrong reasons, pride, emotionality, mental instability.
          For years we have taught that 1Co 11:27 shows that if one isn't called, one is sinning if he or she partakes. There is no evidence to support some mystical "calling". Christians are commanded to partake, plain and simple. All are commanded to partake. So to instruct some to not partake (eight million "some" to be more precise) is to countermand the Lord's order. That is a sin.
          

          A witness will respond:
          Who am I to say that only things directly messing with my salvation(as determined by my own interpretation of Scripture) is the criterion to judge a teaching as fundamental? Am I setting the parameters? I can’t object based on what is directly messing with my salvation, but only on what is inspired by God, regardless of whether is essential to salvation or not?

          
          Are you putting words in the mouths of Witnesses, or is this how you feel?
          As for stating that salvation is not a fundamental issue, some statements are just too ludicrous to address without granting them a validity they have no right to.

• Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-02 01:59:52

  I get the distinct impression that Russell, sincere as he might have been, was tricked by ex-Millerites and Adventists into believing a whole heap of rubbish, and he got too caught up in his personal opinions and private ruminations. Try reading the Millenial Dawn series now. Oh dear. Pyramids? Really? Denouncing Christendom because they wouldn't believe this rubbish? Pictures of shooting arrows in the priests bottom in Rutherfords day? So embarrassing. Discreet. Might want to look up the word.

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-02-01 17:46:01

Meleti,
You cite several quotes to support your claim that "During the Middle Ages, those taking the lead in the Christian congregation, aka the Catholic Church, blocked the distribution of the food by prohibiting its publication in English. Latin, a language dead to the common man, was the only acceptable tongue for communicating God’s Word, both from the pulpit and on the printed page".
I encourage you to read the Book Where We got the Bible by Henry Graham I think you can find an online PDF copy for free that will help you understand better the real situation of the English bible translation in Wycliffe's and Tyndale's time.
In the book you will find why Wycliffe was condemned and why Tyndale's translation was not accepted. You will find "that people who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. (I) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382. To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof; one wonders that nowadays any lecturer or writer should have the temerity to advance it. Now, observe I am speaking of the days before the printing press was invented; I am speaking of England; and concerning a Church which did not, and does not, admit the necessity of Bible-reading for salvation; and concerning an age when the production of the Scriptures was a most costly business, and far beyond the means of nearly everybody. Yet we may safely assert, and we can prove, that there were actually in existence among the people many copies of the Scriptures in the English tongue of that day."
The reasons most people did not own or read the bible before the 16th Century. For hundreds of years, most people were illiterate.The Church printed the Bible in Latin because those who could read, read Latin and those who could not read Latin, could not read anything.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-01 19:03:54

  Those are strong assertions, Anonymous. You may be right, but telling us to read a book isn't the way we do things here. You should get out the book you reference and give us relevant quotations from it.
  That being said, it doesn't alter the point I was making that the belief that there was no one feeding the flock with God's word during those years, ergo, no faithful slave, is preposterous.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-01 21:06:24

    Meleti,
    I understand the point you were trying to make. I was just concerned about YOUR blog's (article) historical accuracy. I have cited the quotes below so you can read and decide for yourself if you want to update or rewrite it.
    Here is an excerpt from Where we got the Bible by Henry Graham. In Chapter 11 titled Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliffe page 70-73:
    …. “To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue.
    In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a
    monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of
    Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages.
    After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens’ for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished.
    We have proof of this in the words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: 'The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was
    by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read’ (Dialogues III). Again, 'The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some folks’ hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.’
    (2) But you will say, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also.
    The translators of the Authorised Version, in their 'Preface’, referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the following important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions,
    they proceed: 'The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin… but also for
    the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided
    translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto
    them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.’
    As all these nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there was then no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. The translators of 1611, then, after enumerating many converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others. 'Much about that time,’ they say (1360), even in our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . ... So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] ... but hath been thought upon, and put in practice
    of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.’ This testimony, from the Preface, (too little known) of their own Authorized Bible, ought
    surely to carry some weight with well disposed Protestants.
    Moreover, the 'Reformed’ Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: 'The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers
    copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this
    language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof
    yet also many copies remain and be daily found.’
    Again, Foxe, a man that Protestants trust, says: 'If histories be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wycliff was born as since, the whole body of Scripture by sundry men translated into our country tongue.’ 'But as of the earlier period, so of this, there are none but fragmentary remains, the “many copies” which remained when Cranmer wrote in 1540 having doubtless disappeared in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place within a few years after that date.’ These last words are from the pen of Rev. J. H. Blunt, a Protestant author, in his History of the English Bible; and another Anglican dignitary, Dean Hook, tells us that 'long before
    Wycliff’s time there had been translators of Holy Writ.'
    One more authority on the Protestant side, and I have done: it is Mr. Karl Pearson (Academy, August, 1885), who says: 'The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for, but in the 15th century it certainly did not hold back the Bible from the folk: and it gave them in the vernacular (i.e. their own tongue) a long series of devotional works which for language and religious sentiment have never been surpassed.
    ....(3) There is no need, it seems to me, to waste further time and
    space in accumulating proofs that the Bible was known, read and distributed by the Catholic Church in the common language of the people in all countries
    from the 7th down to the 14th century. I have paid more attention to the case of England because of the popularity of the myth about Wycliff having been
    the first to translate it, and to enable the poor blinded Papists, for the first time in their experience, to behold the Figure of the Christ of the Gospels in 1382.
    Such a grotesque notion can only be due either to ignorance or concealment of the now well-known facts of history. One would fain hope that, in this age of enlightenment and study, no one valuing his scholarship will so far imperil it as to attempt to revive the silly fable”

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-02 07:51:11

      Thank you, Anolnymous. I really do appreciate your effort to ensure historical accuracy. I would very much like to learn more of this. I'll see if I can get a copy of that book. Questions remain, but not in the way of a contrary challenge, but merely to make sure of all things. Therefore, I would like to discuss this further, but not in the comment section, which is not well suited for weighty discussion. Could you email me at meleti.vivlon@gmail.com so we can discuss further?

    • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-02 09:50:47

      Thanks for that anonymous i didnt know that .the only history ive read on this was that which was presented by the watchtower .. cheers

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2016-02-01 21:35:05

    Here's another excerpt from Chapter 13 titled "Tyndale's condemnation Vindicated" pages 89-90 from the book Where we got the Bible:
    In the third place, there was no demand for a printed English Bible to any great extent—certainly not to the extent of making it at all an urgent or pressing duty on the part of the authorities to issue one. Dore, (so often quoted already) ridicules the idea that at that time England was a 'Bible-thirsty land’. He declares that 'there was no anxiety whatever for an English version excepting among a small minority of the people’, and 'the universal desire for a Bible in England we read so much of in most works on the subject existed only in the imagination of the writers’.
    Dr. Brewer, another Protestant, also scoffs at the idea. 'To imagine,’ he says, 'that ploughmen and shepherds in the country read the New Testament in English by stealth, or that smiths and carpenters in towns pored over its pages in the corner of their master’s workshops, is to mistake the character and acquirements of the age.’ There has, in short, been a great deal of wild and groundless talk about the intense desire of the people of that century to devour the Scriptures.
    We can prove it by these simple facts, that the people had to be compelled by law to buy Bibles, for acts were passed again and again threatening the King’s displeasure and a fine of forty shillings per month if the Book was not purchased; we have documentary evidence that inhabitants of certain parts of the country, such as Cornwall and Devonshire, unanimously objected too the new translation, and that even among the clergy Reformers like Bishop Hugh Latimer almost entirely ignored the English copy and always took their texts from the Latin Vulgate; printers had large stocks of printed Bibles left unsold on their hands, and could not get rid of them at any price, except under legal coercion; the same edition of the Bible was often re-issued with fresh titles and preliminary matter, and
    new title-pages were composed for old unsold Bibles, without any regard to truth, simply to get them sold.
    I do not see how we can resist the conviction that there was really no extensive demand for English Bibles among the mass of Christians at that time in England, whether clergy or laity, and that the design of spreading them wholesale among the masses was borrowed from the Continent which was then in a perfect ferment of Religious and Civil Revolution. Hence you can understand at once how Tyndale’s proposal was viewed with suspicion and disfavor by the Bishops, and himself refused any assistance or encouragement from Tunstall, Bishop of London, and other prelates.
    Unable therefore to proceed with the work in his own land because of ecclesiastical prohibition, Tyndale goes abroad, and after much wandering about settles at Worms, where in 1525 the Bible was printed and thence smuggled in considerable quantities into England.”

Comment by Father jack on 2016-02-01 17:49:59

Why is it that every time the parable of the faithful slave is discussed by the organisation that the food given at the right time is always thought to be some spiritual instruction . ? Why cant they just take it on face value . FOOD given when people need it .the context in the preceding verses to the parable at luke 12 jesus says to sell all your things and give to the poor and have treasure in heaven . Even in the parallel parables at matthew 25 about jesus return . Jesus says to the sheep i was hungry and you fed me . While there is such a thing as feeding people spiritually and jesus did such did he not also literally feed the hungry of his day as well . For goodness sake what was the good samaritan all about . ? Preaching or charity .

• Reply by Yobec on 2016-02-01 19:54:41

  Father Jack you make a valid point. After all, I don't think the word " spiritual food" is found anywhere in the scriptures. The faithfull slave is found feeding, while the evil slave is found beating them. This may simply mean doing acts of kindness as opposed acts of oppression. Hence, the contrasting traits between the weed like Christians and the wheatlike ones.

  • Reply by father jack on 2016-02-02 08:07:04

    The term spiritual food does occur at 1 corinthians 10 v 3 yobec . But i dont believe its speaking of spiritual instruction but of the manna . Which in turn seems to be a symbol of exercising faith in christs flesh . Possibly connected to the partaking of the bread of the communion meal . John 6 1 corinthians 10 . Ironic that isnt it . FJ

Comment by AR on 2016-02-01 23:53:10

Again thanks Meleti, for the article, I like Tyndall, today we would say, he had a love of God and people to do what he did, he had guts, we would say, and it cost him his life, these ones and there were others, they played a role there's no denying it.
So, If we take this new light The GB =F&D slave since 1919, and no one qualified to this role to provide food at the proper time to Christians from 33CE to 1919CE. This would mean that the entire New Testament was not officially food at the proper time. Would that be a fair statement to make. How likely does that seem to you and I ? When you read John 21 Jesus made it clear to Peter to feed his sheep and shepherd them( a F&D slave) role.
And most of the doctrinal foundation of our Organisation as JW's was developed by Russell( be it a collection from others) prior to 1916, was it not. So why bother holding onto these fundamental truths, if he wasn't a faithful and discreet slave. Doesn't make sense to me.
Fj Harrison and yourself alluded to this , We all are a faithful and discreet slave.
When Jesus sits to judge sheep and goats, he says in Matt 25:41 in reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. Did what, Vrs 31- 46 explains what is involved , being charitable hospitable etc, . the reward comes after this period of accounting.

Comment by F J on 2016-02-02 11:04:16

Ka the sta me . Strongs g 2525 will appoint . Its the same word used at matthew 24;45 as it is at titus 1;5 where titus is encouraged to appoint overseers in crete . It seems to me that jesus by means of the scriptural qualifications set forth by the holy spirit in the bible appoints overseers to do his bidding So in a sense jesus could appoint a slave at anytime during history from the first century onward for is he not with us until the conclusion of the system of things . Im pretty sure the appointing over all his belongings speaks collectively of all appointed faithfull christians even those like peter who will gain his reward in the recreation for being faithful . Are we really to expect that those who are alive at jesus return will recieve a greater priviledge than the apostles of the first century .. i dont believe so . I suppose for most the return of jesus will come at thier own ressurection . Its an exhortation that we must be a faithful servant during our time in this world .

Comment by Roxie Temple on 2016-02-05 20:37:18

The "governing body" term was first mentioned among JWs, in 1944. In 1976, they "Governing Body", termed as a title in 1971, took control of the JW org. The hard work of Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz, and millions of witnesses, was then hi-jacked at the perfect time to assume the controls, reap the benefits, and slip in under the cloak of the former brothers' hard work, AS IF the "Governign Body" did all these things.
The did not. (Rev2:2) They are meddlesome power seekers who usurped the ministry from the capable hands of Knorr and Franz, to produce the apostate folly all Jehovah's witnesses are now sharing in today.
The takeover of this rogue and illegal "body" can all be summed up on a business card, in 8 pt print. It is VERY SIMPLE. It is what it is.
Now why should we care what the Bethel "evil slave" has to say about the faithful? Soon, God will have to utterly destroy the evil Governign Body, from the midst of the crashed JW ministry, for a first warning (Dan8:13-14), of more to come. (Isa66:6).
Hell on earth awaits the GB, but JWs will escape (Hos1:4-7), but not untouched, we will all suffer the various consequences of rogue and illegal apostate leaders decisions.
Its a coming. (Dan11:41)