My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason 41 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    I open my Study and the "Readings" with Franz's speech, since not everyone has a transcript. I provided an edited version it to make it easier to find his main points as well as the full transcript.

    There are other major issues I felt neede to be canvassed, such as the formation of the NT by the Church Fathers that the WTS rejects.

    In addition, I did not want to simply leave a hole with "that's where the WTS is wrong", but I wanted to take the opportunity to provide alternative and hopefully constructive views.

    I fully expect that every single reader will disagree with things that I wrote. That is natural; we are not clones. I do not mind. But if someone is helped with just one idea, then I am satisfied.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Wayward son,

    Apologies for the size - and for the range of topics. That's the reason I collected the Summaries at the start; otherwise the thread would get lost.

    It took me a few weeks to put together, so I suspect it will take tme to work through - and agree here and there, as well as disagree.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    Right from the start, there were any number of Christianities. Their beliefs were so diverse, it is difficult to comprehend how they saw themselves as having allegiance to a common source - Jesus (Yeshua).

    Paul was only one movement among an array of movements.

    It just so happens that one of these numerous groups was ultimately victorious - Paul's followers. It was a political decision on the part of the state (Roman emperors). Since they were victorious, Paul's successors decided that their writings would form the Christian sacred writings - the NT.

    If some other Christian group had ganed the victory - and the differences were immense, much greater than today - then the NT would have been different (or none at all), we would not have the same Christology (no Trinity), etc. I go through these issues in my Study, so I fail to see how you can say I was taking advice from him. I simply recorded what he said - in his genuine writings.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Vanderhoven 7,

    I am quite open to correction. Can you clarify for me the names of the people who were appointed in 1919? Where will I read that? Can you give me a quotation from that time?

    In 1919, whom did the organisation say was the FDS? I know that CTR's wife wanted him to be known as such, but he rejected the idea.

    Who was the FDS in say 1935? Where can I get the reference sources.



  • mP


    I think its fair to say that what we know about Paul can only be learned from the Bible and tradition. Tradition of course are confused many times. Even the bible tells us contradictory things about Paul like the story of his vision of christ where he turned his way on the road to damascus.

    I think its fair to say Paul is a character who tries to setup a multinational church. He seems to address issues about control often. he doesnt really care about freedoms or rocking the status quo. he wants women and slaves to be quiet. he is not a moral teacher or goodness.

    How exactly did his churches find him and write letters when he was travelling abotu the place and moving around so frequently ? They didnt have our modern communication systems, everything took months. How did they know where he was ? How does a humble man like Paul manager to notify so many churches where he is so they can find letters to find him ?

    I believe his letters are a fabrication a literary device. Pauls religion is incompatible with jesus. One was jewish the other not. Its easy to see Paul was the start of the "catholic" or universal church. Any bullshit as long as we are in control. He himself said words to the same effect.

  • Phizzy

    I think we do well to differentiate between the "genuine" writings of Paul, and those later ones purporting to be by him, which were obviously written with a later view and agenda.

    I often wonder how much the real Paul knew about Jesus of Nazareth, or really cared, it seems to me as though he was convinced that the voice he heard, and the later visions, were direct from a heavenly Messiah, that was who he was concerned with, not the man who the cult was based on.

    Interesting to ponder what exactly that late first century melting pot of beliefs and burgeoning "Christian" movements was like.

    Certainly the mid to late 1st Century christians were not a single group, and none of them were anything like the WT of today, as JW's would have us believe they were.

  • Indian Larry
    Indian Larry

    Doug, I would like to thank you very much for all the reasearch you have done. I have downloaded both .PDF's and I plan on studying them tonight. Thanks again!

  • Vanderhoven7

    Doug, Glad you are open to hearing suggestions.

    My take is that your intro should at least present the appearance of research objectivity..e.g. you set out to examine their claims...rather than disprove them. My second suggestion is to limit your enemies/battles. Using the Bible to undermine the WT while undermining the Bible might just be counter productive. I would at least adopt a neutral stance towards scripture....and attack that in a future paper perhaps. But that is just my take.

    I don't have the info you are looking for; who exactly Jesus appointed, or how He conveyed their appointment to these men. I'll try to find out however.

  • Crisis of Conscience
    Crisis of Conscience


    I look forward to seeing this topic develop more. Thanks Doug Mason.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    I know I am biased - show me someone who is not. It was not my intention to produce a document that pitched Conservatives against Liberals. I think that in general, people are biased towards conservatism already (such as "the Bible is the 'Word of God'"), so I do not need to reiterate those views. They are already well known. Besides, my focus, as I set out at the start before the body of "The Study" shows the limits of my investigation.

    I hope that I presented reasons for arriving at my conclusions. Since readers will likely find the ideas challenging, I decided to cite parts of my sources, rather than simply provide the conclusions I drew from them. Hence the size of the documents.

    Regarding the 1919 FDS (if there was one), do you think we would benefit if I started a thread asking people for information? The thought running through my mind is that Rutherford was a singularly autocratic domineering person, so I wonder if he would have run the operation by committee. That, I guess, coloured my expression at identifying who was "appointed" (as against "anointed").

    If there was indeed a group in 1919 that collectively was the FDS, what happened with each individual? What consultation process did JFR indulge in? From my reading, their experience was just the opposite. He dreamt up the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and imposed it. He authored the books.

    Perhaps the question is: at what stage did the leadership transfer from a President to a Governing Body? And I don't think it happened during the reign of JFR.

    As I asked, should I repeat these thoughts on identifying the people appointed in 1919 as a new thread?


Share this