by Titus 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • elderelite


    w 02 2/15p.19par.6CopingWith“aThornintheFlesh”


    As such, he was humbly submitting to the authority of the first-century Christian governing body.




    Serious questions that could not be handled by local elders were referred to mature traveling overseers, such as Paul.

    These quotes clearly show that we do not believe or assert that Paul was on the first century governing body. A small point to be sure, but it shows just how ignorant you really are of what you claim to believe. You were so busy trying to prove what you thought I was asking (whether or not there was a governing body in the first century) you failed to answer what I asked. Was Paul on that body. You come here and write huge dissertations that never really addresses the question answered. Just like a good little JW. Good job outa you.

    (BTW there was no first century GB either)

  • djeggnog

    @djeggnog wrote:

    What do you think about this response to your non-question about me? Do you think it to be a straight answer to your non-question, a cloudy, perhaps an irrelevant counter question or a case of my using a bit of sleight of hand in order make things "hopelessly and needless convoluted"?

    @Essan wrote:

    Yes. I think it's a complete waste of time. I wasn't talking to you and I'd like not to talk to you further, if that's OK. I don't mean to be rude in saying this, I'd just like you to plainly answer the OP's questions, rather than making distractions out of countless other issues. For that reason, I won't be responding to you further.

    What you do in this thread is up to your; your choice. However, whether you decide to be either rude or nice to me, I'm going to be the kind of person that I want to be, and I do not wish to take notes on "etiquette" from you. I don't recognize you someone that is moderating this thread, and only if you were the moderator of it, would I accord you the respect to which you would be entitled as such. Respond or do not respond is your choice, but if you should say anything in this thread to which I decide to respond, I will do so without seeking your permission.

    BTW, @Essan, please feel free to ask me any question at all should be inclined to do so in the future, but if you decide to do so, you should be an adult. This isn't some high school kids gather so you might want to try another approach, one that usually works for you when you are speaking to another adult. If it would help, next time you post something to me, you might imagine that I'm your mother, ok?

    Let's see if a simple question - the OP's - can receive a straight, sound JW answer.

    Frankly, I'd be more interested in hearing how you would answer the OP's question(s).


    The Abrahamic covenant is "a covenant to time indefinite." Its terms require that it extend on until the destruction of all God’s enemies and the blessing of the families of the earth have been accomplished.

    [QUESTION 1]:

    Why does Jesus lead them out of the sheepfold, or out of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is "a covenant to time indefinite"? (John 10:2-5)

    Let assume that it is true. then we have:

    •Sheepfold1 - is identified with the Mosaic Law covenant arrangement

    •Sheepfold2 - congregation of anointed Christians who will rule with Christ in heaven

    •Sheepfold3 - those who will live on the Paradise earth

    We can say this: The sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from - the Sheepfold1.

    [QUESTION 2]:

    Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold3 come from? (John 10:16)

    [QUESTION 3]:

    Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from TODAY? TODAY! Isn't the answer - from Sheepfold3? Or you claim that all GB members were under the ... Mosaic Law before?

    Jesus calls his own sheep by name and leads them out of the Sheepfold1, which is the Mosaic Law, according to gt. (John 10:3) He leads them out of the Sheepfold1, and brings them in the Sheepfold2.

    [QUESTION 4]:

    Who brings the sheep INTO the Sheepfold3?




    Please, keep it simple!

    Support every answer with the WT publications.

    My answers to your four (4) questions are based (in part) on the source material you provided in your post: (1) Chapter 80 of the Greatest Man book, "The Sheepfolds and the Shepherd," and (2) the article, "The 'Fine Shepherd' and His 'Other Sheep' [ w80 7/15 p. 22-28]. You will find my responses are interleaved between the text of your questions repeated below:

    1) Why does Jesus lead [the sheep] out of the sheepfold, or out of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is "a covenant to time indefinite"? (John 10:2-5)

    While it is true that Jesus led the sheep out of the sheepfold to which his second cousin, John the Baptist, was the doorkeeper -- that "sheepfold" being the descendants of Jacob/Israel, the nation of Israel, who were "kept" by means of the Law of Moses (Sheepfold 1) -- only a remnant from Sheepfold 1 that had become Christians are those that became a part of the "little flock" that represented spiritual Israel (Sheepfold 2).

    Jesus led these sheep out of Sheepfold 1 after Pentecost. The rest of this "little flock" were the Gentiles that had also become Christians to become the "composite" seed of Abraham by means of which the nations would eventually come to bless themselves, spiritual Israel. Since Jesus is the principal member of the "seed," Jesus as well as his "little flock" are a part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

    2) Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold3 come from? (John 10:16)

    The sheep that are a part of the third sheepfold (Sheepfold 3), that is to say, the "other sheep," are those that come from all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues in response to the preaching of the good news of the established heavenly kingdom of God.

    3) Where do the sheep in the Sheepfold2 come from TODAY? TODAY! Isn't the answer - from Sheepfold3? Or you claim that all GB members were under the the Mosaic Law before?

    You are correct that the sheep in Sheepfold 2 come from Sheepfold 3. What any of this has to do with the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not know, since the Mosaic Law was nailed to Jesus' torture stake in 33 AD! I'd be curious to know the connection between this question you ask about the GB and the sheep in Sheepfold 2 if you care to share it.

    4) Who brings the sheep INTO the Sheepfold3?

    Both the remnant of sheep in Sheepfold 2 that are still alive today as well as the sheep in Sheepfold 3, their companions, who are both one flock under one shepherd, Christ Jesus, are those that bring the sheep -- that is, the "other sheep" -- into Sheepfold 3. Although it is obvious that they cannot be a part of the "great crowd" that survives the "great tribulation," those resurrected during Judgment Day will also join Sheepfold 3 as Jesus' other sheep, during which time the great crowd will be a blessing to the resurrected dead of Sheepfold 3 in helping them to learn righteousness.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    I don't mind 'helping you out' at any time as long as what you want is help. I'm not sure that you do want help from me though, @elderelite.

    @elderelite wrote:

    and so again i ask.... Where is there any indication, at all, of any sort, that paul was on the first century governing body?

    So it seems evident that you do not want any help from me, and that's fine.


    These quotes clearly show that we do not believe or assert that Paul was on the first century governing body.

    I don't know who the "we" is, but you might consider going back through my posts to see if in any of them I have heretofore stated anything at all to the effect that Paul sat on the governing body back during the first century AD. Why not go check and see.

    A small point to be sure, but it shows just how ignorant you really are of what you claim to believe.

    I suppose I might be ignorant.

    You were so busy trying to prove what you thought I was asking (whether or not there was a governing body in the first century) you failed to answer what I asked.


    Was Paul on that body[?]

    If you say you had asked this question, then I believe you, but I don't recall at the moment being tossed this particular question.

    You come here and write huge dissertations that never really addresses the question answered.


    Just like a good little JW.

    So you are disparaging me now for being one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I mean weren't you one of Jehovah's Witnesses once-upon-a-time?

    (BTW there was no first century GB either)

    Is this your opinion (I have one, too, and I do not agree with you) or do you have any proof that there was no first century governing body? What's the big deal about this? You keep raising this point (regarding the governing body) as if this is personal with you. If you have a gripe with the modern governing body, why not draft a letter and send it registered mail to the Governing Body, c/o WTS? If you need specific address information I could supply such information to you on request, but I do not speak for the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.


  • pirata

    Here is another related article:







    NINETEEN hundred years ago a group of persons tried to live in the past. By so doing they deprived themselves of great blessings. Who were they?

    They were persons who claimed to be Christians, but were really trying to make an apostate fusion religion of Christianity and Judaism. They were Judaizers. They taught that Gentiles who became Christians should be circumcised "according to the custom of Moses" in order to be saved. Indeed, some such persons felt that it was necessary to teach new believers to observe the Mosaic law.—Acts 15:1-5.

    The Judaizers were overly conscious of the fact that for more than 1,500 years God had dealt exclusively with the Jewish people. During that time anyone from another nation who wanted to become a worshiper of Jehovah needed to become a proselyte, or convert, to Judaism. Such a person would be ‘circumcised and charged to observe the law of Moses,’ which is just what the Judaizers wanted to do with the new Christian disciples.

    However, with the establishing of the Christian congregation, there was a change. It was no longer necessary to be a Jew or a Jewish proselyte in order to serve God. Nor should this change have come as a surprise. As the Christian apostle Paul pointed out, Jehovah had foretold as much through his ancient prophets. "It is as he says also in Hosea," Paul observed: "Those not my people I will call ‘my people.’"—Rom. 9:25; Hos. 2:23.

    It required faith for a first-century Jew to become a Christian—faith in what Jehovah’s prophecies said about his gathering people of the nations, as well as natural Jews. It required humility for Jewish Christians to acknowledge that birth as a Jew no longer automatically made one a member of God’s people. The Judaizers did not have such faith or humility. They tried to cling to the past, and so lost out on marvelous blessings. In what way?

    By overestimating the importance of being a physical Jew, they failed to appreciate what is meant by being a spiritual Jew. At that time the way was open for persons to become members of "the Israel of God"—spiritual Israel. (Gal. 6:15, 16) The Israel of God consists of 144,000 persons whom the Bible describes as being in heaven with Jesus Christ, a glorious prospect!—Rev. 7:1-8; 14:1-5.




    Today it is no longer difficult for people to imagine Christians’ going to heaven to be with Christ Jesus. For many hundreds of years the churches of Christendom have been teaching that all good church members go to heaven. So, today, they teach that all Christians are spiritual Israelites.

    Such a teaching leaves unanswered a number of basic Bible questions. For example, Paul told members of spiritual Israel that "if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise." (Gal. 3:29) What was that promise? It was the promise that God gave Abraham long ago that he would have a "seed" and that "by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice."—Gen. 22:18.

    So the question arises, If the spiritual Israelites make up Abraham’s "seed," who are the "nations" that get a blessing? No doubt those "nations" would include resurrected persons who lived before Christ. But is that all? Do the Scriptures indicate that all the Christians living at the time when the promises are fulfilled would be spiritual Israelites? To the contrary!

    Consider what is foretold in the prophetic book of Revelation, chapter 7. The first eight verses of this chapter describe the sealing of 144,000 persons representing "every tribe of the sons of Israel." There is no question that these are spiritual Israelites. Then what?

    "After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’"—Rev. 7:9, 10.

    Are these latter persons Christians? Obviously, since they are approved by God and owe their salvation to his Lamb, Jesus Christ.

    Are they spiritual Israelites? Clearly they are not, since they are described as coming out of all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues, after John describes the sealing of the 144,000 members of spiritual Israel. Thus, it is evident that not all Christians today are spiritual Israelites.




    That many Christians are not spiritual Israelites should not be a surprise. Jesus himself predicted such a development in his well-known parable of the fine shepherd. In his parable Jesus spoke of a fold, or pen, for a smaller flock, and of a much larger flock, comprised of these and also of his "other sheep."

    It was after discussing at length the sheep that "go in and out" of the fold, that Jesus went on to say: "And I have other sheep‘ which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd." (John 10:8, 16) What did Jesus mean by "other sheep, which are not of this fold"?

    Jesus was describing a large flock, some members of which lived in the "sheepfold" and some members of which did not. All the sheep belonged to the same enlarged flock, but not all of them lived in the fold. The flock could be quite large—indefinite as to size—but only a limited number of sheep could fit inside the fold, which was typically a stone pen with walls of definite length and height.—John 10:1-9.



    Many people today believe that all Christians must be spiritual Israelites, just as the ancient Judaizers believed that all Christians had to be literal Jews or proselytes. The major denominations of Christendom all teach this way. So they explain Jesus’ parable to mean that the first Christian disciples were from inside the "fold" of Judaism, and later disciples, the "other sheep," were taken from outside that "fold," being Gentiles. Then, according to the churches of Christendom, both the "sheep" inside the "fold" and the "other sheep" became spiritual Israelites with a heavenly hope.

    While this may sound plausible, it overlooks a key feature of Jesus’ illustration. Jesus indicated that there would continuetobe sheep inside the "fold" as well as "sheep" outside it in his enlarged flock. Nowhere does the parable indicate that the "other sheep" are somehow jammed into the small "fold," or pen. Nor does the parable indicate that the fold itself was destroyed so that there would no longer be a difference between the sheep formerly inside it and the "other sheep." Jesus’ comment that the sheep would go "in and out" of the pen and "find pasturage" indicates that the pen was a permanent arrangement. It represents the continuing arrangement of the Abrahamic covenant, not that of the Law covenant, which God took "out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake." (Col. 2:14) But not all of the flock would have access to the pen. As Today’sEnglishVersion puts it, "There are other sheep which belong to me that are not in this sheep pen," though they, too, "bless themselves" through faith and obedience.

    If the fold, or pen, represents an ongoing distinction between two classes of Christians, then it cannot represent the difference between Jews and Gentiles, because that distinction is abolished in the spirit-begotten "little flock." (Luke 12:32) As Paul put it: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus."—Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:15.

    The only ongoing distinction between two classes of Christians would be the distinction between spiritual Jews and those who are not such. This is the same as the distinction between Abraham’s "seed" and the "nations" who would be blessed by it. It is the same as the distinction between the 144,000 members of spiritual Israel, mentioned in Revelation chapter 7, and the limitless "great crowd" of persons from all the nations mentioned right afterward.

    Just as the early Judaizers did not want to admit that a person could serve God without being a Jew or a proselyte, today’s "Judaizers" do not want to admit that a person can serve God without being a spiritual Jew. They say that all Christians must be anointed as Kingdom heirs. Yet since 1935 millions of "other sheep" have been serving God faithfully, despite the ridicule and sometimes the persecution of modern-day "Judaizers," including the members and clergy of Christendom.

    These "other sheep" are Christians. They put full faith in Christ’s ransom sacrifice and follow his footsteps. Yet they have no desire to go to heaven. Although the Bible indicates that God’s spirit bears witness to members of spiritual Israel that they have a heavenly hope, it bears no such witness to the "other sheep." (Rom. 8:15-17) The existence of such faithful Christians who have no heavenly hope cannot be explained if all Christians are going to heaven, as Christendom claims. But they do exist, over 2,000,000 in number, and produce the fruitage of God’s holy spirit in abundance, although that same spirit does not tell them they are going to heaven.—Gal. 5:22, 23.

    In the first century it took real courage to accept the teaching of the apostle Paul and admit that one who was not a Jew or proselyte could be a Christian. Few people believed as Paul did. The Jews could till 70 C.E. point to their temple in Jerusalem in their endeavor to "prove" that they were still God’s organization. Or if that did not convince people, they could resort to outright persecution, as they often did.—Acts 9:23; 14:19; 20:3; 23:12-15.

    Today, Jehovah’s Witnesses alone are pointing out from the Scriptures that persons can be Christians without being spiritual Jews. As in the first century, these Christians are few in number, comparatively speaking, and often unpopular. Christendom, which claims that all her members are spiritual Jews, can boast of her size, her wealth, her many temples, and so try to prove that she is God’s organization. When that fails, she can resort to outright persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as she has often done.

    If you have been raised to believe that you are going to heaven because you are a member of a church of Christendom, then you are in a position very similar to that of a Jew who might have heard the preaching of the apostle Paul. But do you have the humility and faith needed to consider closely what Jehovah’s Witnesses are pointing out from the Bible? That is to say, are you humble enough to serve God, even though you are not of the "little flock" of spiritual Israelites? If so, you can put yourself in line for the wonderful blessings that "all nations of the earth" are to receive shortly through Jesus Christ and the "little flock"!—Gen. 22:18.

  • miseryloveselders

    I'm not planning on hanging around too late tonight as I've gotta get up early in the morning. But just wanted to say one quick thing..................

    djeggnogg, just answer the question!!!!

    You did exactly what the WT does when pressed to defend their interpretation of the Faithful and Discreet Slave and the meaning of Other Sheep. Excuse my language, but you typed a whole lotta shit, and didn't say anything. Absolutely nothing. Just answer the question. From one doubting Jehovah's Witness to another I'm assuming Jehovah's Witness, answer the question. This is a subject that's been on my mind for quite a long time even before I started lurking here. The WT CD Rom doesn't satisfy me. The Insight Books completely gloss over the question as well, the same way they do the Faithful and Discreet Slave teaching. If you can't answer the question, then don't post a bunch of convoluted bull shit.

    G'night everybody .

  • No Room For George
    No Room For George

    Bump this thread for my man, DJEggnogg.

  • pirata


    I concede on the "straw man" point because of the following sentence " Would they be the Jewish disciples, whereas the “other sheep” would be the Gentiles who, in time, were accepted as anointed Christians?". They indeed did bring out this point in th discussion, so you are correct.

    I still stand by the faulty logic analysis. This is what is stated in the article:

    Back in the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, all who accepted him as their shepherd came in line for membership in the heavenly kingdom. Jesus said to his disciples : “Have no fear, little flock , because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32) At other times Jesus Christ referred to this “little flock” of disciples as his “brothers.” (Matt. 12:49; Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21; John 20:17) When, in time, Gentiles were accepted by God, anointed with his holy spirit and called to heavenly life, they also were “joint heirs with Christ,” his “brothers. ” (Gal. 3:27-29; Rom. 8:17) Logically, then, the “other sheep” would be persons who are not his “brothers” but who are brought into close association with them.

    Here's the premise/conclusion equivalent:

    Premise A: The 'little flock' are called Christ's Brothers

    (Premise B: The 'other sheep' are not the 'little flock')

    Conclusion: The other sheep are not his "brothers" (the litle flock)

    Although not stated explicitly, the conclusion relies on the premise that becaue one group is called "brothers", the other cannot also be "brothers". That's the point I was making in my Russians/Americans/Humans example (though looking back, my example didn't directlyparallel my point). Just because you call Russians "humans" does not mean that the other group, Americans, are not humans.

Share this