Pirata, Thanks so much. Could you please explain all those scriptures then? What is your take on them?
Another question about the Governing Body
by dgp 38 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
dgp
Not to disrespect anyone, but it seems clear that there's no point arguing the Bible here. It's easy for me, an atheist and former Catholic, to believe that the whole thing is a lie because I was never indoctrinated to believe in a Governing Body at all, and don't find support for its creation on the Scriptures.
BUT, and this is a big BUT (one T only), we happen to know for a FACT that the Governing Body was created to limit the power of one man. We know for a FACT that the Governing Body is a relatively recent creation, and it didn't exist for most of the Watchtower history. We know for a FACT that it didn't exist when Jesus is supposed to have arrived invisibly, so apparently Jesus was fine with NOT having a Governing Body at all. So, why go against the grain, common sense and, above all, TRUTH, and explain FACTS away with DISCUSSION about whether the Scriptures back its creation? The Scriptures had nothing to do with the creation of the Entity! WE KNOW THAT, FOR JEHOVAH'S SAKE!
I see a curious thing here. One man, Fred Franz, was supposedly inspired by Jehovah, but he had to be controlled, or else he would ruin Jehovah's organization. The inescapable conclusion is that, all alone, he could be deemed to be more powerful than Jehovah. But the same Jehovah who inspired other men to curtail Franz's power did not think about having him removed. Funny, eh? And Franz was controlled by other men, all supposedly having a special relationship with Jehovah, too. The result being, for example, "tacking in the wind", "new light", "overlapping generation"?
Come on.
-
PSacramento
Here is the thing, you can't take ONE part of ONE letter from ONE apostle aimed at a specififc circumstance, and Paul make sit clear that his opinion is in regards to that one circumstance, and use it to justify shunning on the grounds OUTSIDE THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
Where is the sense in that? what would Jesus have done?
There is a passage where Paul even says to treat him like a tac collector right? well then, how did Jesus treat tax collectors?
He ate with them and even made one of them his apostle.
A far cry from shunning don't you think?
The point is, Paul told them to disassociate with an unrepentive sinner, someone that was breaking Jewish law of adultery and he stated it as an opinion ( when Paul would make a statement from Christ he would specifify that with "the Lord says") and that this ONE example is not enough to base a whole shunning doctrine on, especially sense Paul never mentions anything like that again.
-
darth frosty
As far as the Dis-felloshiping thing here is something I wrote a while ago about pauls intentions from this post.
As far as them worshiping paul, your right. I believe that despite his enlightenment that happened on the road to damascus, paul still felt a need to hold on to the hard core rules of judism. On the flip side one thing about paul he was quick to amend a wrong.
I love the account that the dubs point out to justify DF'ing. The story of the man knocking off his step-mom and the whole congo knew. Paul came down hard on him and said the congo should have nothing to do with him. Within six months of sending out that letter, the congo had another one in their hands telling them to disregard what he had said earlier and to accept the guy back into the fold, saying he had repented and suffered enough.
Now think about this. There is a time difference of six months between 1 cor and 2 cor. 6 months!!! We're talking about 1st century mail here. In six months time paul coined the first letter and sent it out, got feedback and tales of repentence on part of the sinner (oh I forgot to mention that his heavy handed sentence was causing divisions in the congo because many felt it was too harsh a punishment.) So hearing about the commotion and anguish his words were causing...paul retracted his statement. He said to accept him back so as not to have division in the congo that satan can take advantage of. So for the betterment of the congo paul in 2 books or letters started the practice of disfellowshiping and did away with it. Pity the dubs dont look closer to the real end results of this practice.
-
james_woods
I think Botswana (or Bane or whoever) should start their own thread on Disfellowshipping (and being pro-Disfellowshipping JW style) and leave this one on the subject of the governing body.
-
PSacramento
Darth Frosty (love that nickname) is correct and makes a few excellent posts.
It was Paul zeal that made him such a great "candidate" for spreading Christianity and it was also that zeal that mad ehim do and say things he later regreted and repented on.
Paul was an extremist Pharisee, to a point where his own views of judaisim were at odds with the mor emoderate judaisim of his time ( and certaibly later on) but it was this "zeal" that drove him and made him a useful tool of Our Lord.
-
Black Sheep
A big reason for going to a GB is to ensure continuity.
Having your guru die without his prophetic mumbo jumbo coming to fruition can affect membership. Now, a GB member can die and much of the membership doesn't even know who they were, let alone care.
-
pirata
I started this thread to continue the disfellowshipping discussion:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/203054/1/Is-Disfellowshipping-Scriptural
Botzwana, I'll post my follow up there when I have more time to put my thoughts together.
-
james_woods
I see a curious thing here. One man, Fred Franz, was supposedly inspired by Jehovah, but he had to be controlled, or else he would ruin Jehovah's organization. The inescapable conclusion is that, all alone, he could be deemed to be more powerful than Jehovah. But the same Jehovah who inspired other men to curtail Franz's power did not think about having him removed. Funny, eh? And Franz was controlled by other men, all supposedly having a special relationship with Jehovah, too. The result being, for example, "tacking in the wind", "new light", "overlapping generation"?
Once again, perfectly on target.
It does occur to me that the Freddy Franz 1975 incident was sort of a repeat of Watchtower history - didn't they (in effect) have to do the same thing with Judge Rutherford? Ironically, rather than the 9 or 7 man GB, they had the duality of Knorr/Franz running things while Rutherford was bought off with the mansion, the cadillac limos, the booze, and the girlfriends. Rutherford also imagined himself to be God's spokesman - inventing his own 1975 (it was 1925), the mad notion that the heroes of the bible would be resurrected onto earth in the 1920s and 1930s, the heavenly calling and the earthly calling, and even the name "Jehovah's Witnesses". But, unfortunately, he was not only crazy, but also a distressingly antagonistic human relations example - he had to be stopped. Stop him they did - but they did not bother to stop his doctrinal ravings...
Knorr, the businessman, eventually took the controls - leaving crazy Freddy to stew on the doctrines, eventually bringing about the most notorious false prophecy (1975) in Watchtower history.
Freddy simply had to be stopped - hence, the governing body. I wonder how many of the GB3 actually realize the dark side of this history?