Thanks for your prompt and insightful reply, Oldsoul
Outoftheorg
Can any JW answer OldSoul's 4 questions about JW teachings scripturally?
by kwintestal 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
toreador
Hello Old Soul,
Would you say the Catholic Church went apostate from what was taught by the Apostles? Do you feel there is an ongoing gathering of people at this time in history. Just curious as to you comment
Otherwise, we are still living during the Great Apostasy and there would be no expectation of a gathering of people at this time.
Thanks,
Tor
-
shadow
OS,
I think there is really a fundamental difference in our approach. Do you believe there is no difference between rulership/governance over people and religious authority?
You keep using the comparison to King David. King David was not a religious leader. He did not deliver religious edicts to his people. He was a governmental ruler.
Pharisees and Sadducees would be a fitting comparison, but Jesus rejected their authority, encouraged others to reject their authority, and sought out those the Pharisees rejected. I can provide Scriptural examples of each of these, but I am sure you know where they are.
If religious authority should be viewed as equal to governmental authority, why are Catholics less correct than Witnesses?
I'm not suggesting that all religious authority is equal to governmental authority. A current example is the imams in Iran. Their religious authority is not legitimate because it is based on a group that does not have standing before God, the religion of Islam. On the other hand their exercise of political authority is legitimate since they are the recognized governmental authority in that nation and Christians should be in relative subjection to that authority as much as any other government.
Paul states that the governments are legitimate authorities. It is also clear from the scriptures that God's people, from ancient Israel through first century Christianity had the latitude to form authority structures that were political and/or religious. When Jesus talked about submitting to the religious leaders it was only a relative subjection, which is and has always been true of any human institution such as marriage, family, city, nation, congregation, etc.
As far as the religious arena, the only legitimate authority would arise from an adherence to scripture by some group. Islam fails that test as does Catholicism. If it is determined that JW's as a group are God's people (Isa 2, Mic 4, other scriptures previously cited showing existence of opposing groups), then the authority within that group would have some legitimacy subject to the factors limiting any other human authority.
Since you are focusing on the position held by the Governing Body and not on their claims, their failed prophecies, or their teachings, please explain why the same exact line of reasoning does not apply to the position held by the Papacy and Bishops of Roman Catholicism. The two claim the exact same position as far as I can tell. It is a clergy class complete with a doctrine of magisterium "teaching authority."
The only distinction I can see is that one authority does not publicly claim infallibility. But they expect the authority to be regarded as infallibile anyway and they punish dissenters as heretical.
The Catholic Church is not living up to scriptural standards. They have often been leaders in the most sanguinary conflicts in human history. They have compromised on morality and defense of the Bible itself. Since the group is illegitimate, so is the authority.
I cannot disagree with you about the infallibility issue other than to the extent that I know some have disagreed with a teaching and not been df'd over it. On the whole, I believe the GB has come to have an inflated view of themselves, which is just proof that history repeats itself.
(Ecclesiastes 8:9) . . .man has dominated man to his injury. . .
(Luke 9:46) . . .Then a reasoning entered among them as to who would be the greatest of them. . .
Steve,
SOME ONE will fit the bill. I think he will or has 'found the faith' here. As your question states, "who might fit the bill" , not what ORGANIZATION. All the scripture citations you gave apply well to individuals. There is no hint in their context that they are actually predicting an organization. Even if God gathers these individuals into a "group" it would be called a congregation. There is nothing to hint that a "class" of men would rule over these individuals and only this class would be led by holy spirit.
Any group of humans that work together for any length of time will develop some type of authority structure, whether tacitly or explicity. The rise of an organization for any group of any size working together for a common purpose is inevitable and practically essential. As far as working with individuals, I agree with you that I see nothing in scripture that would exclude the possibility that Jehovah would work with individuals, nonetheless I also see clear indications that he would gather a group together that would stand apart from the world and serve him.
(Matthew 8:10) . . . Hearing that, Jesus became amazed and said to those following him: "I tell YOU the truth, With no one in Israel have I found so great a faith. . .
Regardless, we are still looking for scriptural support, not for a people who would respond to the message of Jesus, but to specific Authority being give to a Class who are exclusively Spirit directed to dictate even the Conscience of Lessor Christians (other sheep).
Going beyond the bounds of their authority does not entirely extinguish the legitimacy of their authority. If GWB demands that I go kill Iraqis or go to jail, that does not mean that I can ignore traffic laws or start robbing banks, does it? Jehovah would approve of ignoring the illegitimate exercise of authority but condemn the violation of legitimate exercise of authority.
(Acts 23:2-5) At this the high priest An·a·ni´as ordered those standing by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him: "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall. Do you at one and the same time sit to judge me in accord with the Law and, transgressing the Law, command me to be struck?" Those standing by said: "Are you reviling the high priest of God?" And Paul said: "Brothers, I did not know he was high priest. For it is written, ‘You must not speak injuriously of a ruler of your people.’"
-
OldSoul
Shadow,
It seems to me that you are trying to apply one standard to the Catholic claim to authority and another to the Governing Body claim to authority. With the Catholic claim, you address teachings, lack of morality, and the fact they do not defend the Bible. These are not focused on the position, they are focused on the validity of the claim of authority. Which is the same approach I am trying to use with the Governing Body.
Shadow: The Catholic Church is not living up to scriptural standards. They have often been leaders in the most sanguinary conflicts in human history. They have compromised on morality and defense of the Bible itself.
I submit that the same is true of the Governing Body, to the degree that their teaching contradict or cannot be based on the Bible, and to the degree that they have engaged in behavior opposed to their own teachings (10-year voluntary Association to the UN/DPI).
They have neither been around long enough nor become powerful enough to be able to be leaders in sanguinary conflicts, so there is no basis for knowing what they would do in that circumstance. However, I consider it immoral in the extreme to punish someone with excommunication for disagreeing with them, or even for simply challenging their dogma for Scriptural support. Do you consider that a moral stand that they take?
You mentioned this proviso:
Shadow: If it is determined that JW's as a group are God's people (Isa 2, Mic 4, other scriptures previously cited showing existence of opposing groups)
Their Association to the UN/DPI violated their understanding of both the principles you direct attention to. They were Associated to (members of) the UN/DPI as recently as 2001, this is not ancient history. They have not admitted that it was wrong to Associate to the UN/DPI in the first place, they only admit that the "Criteria for Association with the DPI contain some language that [they] cannot subscribe to."
They continue to minimize their wrong, when according to the standards they hold others to, submitting the Application to Associate constituted disassociation from the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. (od p. 155, paragraph 2) That is, unless the UN/DPI is not "a secular organization with objectives contrary to the Bible" that is "under judgment by God." I am reminded of Matthew 23:4. And I apply Romans 2:1, 2.
Shadow, I am beginning to suspect this conversation will end with you stating that you are convinced they are God's people and have God's authority, and I will still be asking for Scripture to establish that basis for authority. Do you have Scriptures to support the teachings on the authority of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, from which the authority of the Governing Body supposedly derives? If not, for what reason (gr. logikos, logos Romans 12:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 13:11; 1 Peter 3:15) should I view them as having valid authority?
I can't blindly credit them with authority from God any more than I can blindly credit any other religious authority with authority from God. I don't see Scriptural proof of any degree, relative or otherwise, of authority from God being vested in a class of people who have authority to vest it in a Governing Body. I need Scripture to support this claim of authority, not to support authority in general. Can you provide any?
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
OldSoul
Toreador,
Would you say the Catholic Church went apostate from what was taught by the Apostles?
Yes. I have several Scriptures that demonstrate that for anyone who is interested. Especially do Paul's writing strip authority from groups of men who "rise up" from among congregations and claim to speak for God. The book of Galatians makes this more clear than any other, in my opinion, and it is a relatively short book.
Every codified Christian religion I know of whose doctrine includes a "body of select," "Governing Body," "Clergy," etc. try to use Acts 15 in support of that doctrine. Galatians utterly destroys the notion that Paul viewed the men in Jerusalem that way.
Do you feel there is an ongoing gathering of people at this time in history[?]
Well, if we are still living during the Great Apostasy then there is not an ongoing "gathering," per se, although I am of the opinion that may come in time. If it does it will be unmistakable what is going on and why. No one will have to dance and dodge through Scriptures to try and make a case for what is happening. I would say there is more of an increasing awareness and that those who are becoming more aware are working to increase the awareness of others, whenever they are permitted to by others.
I hope this answers your questions about my current beliefs (pending Scriptural correction by Shadow). If you have more questions or comments/criticism, feel free to pursue them here or by PM.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
shadow
OS,
Earlier you agreed that scriptures clearly indicate the existence of two groups. How would they be distinguished from one another? Are these groups in existence today? Would you say that it is possible that we live in a period of time when Jehovah would gather a people together (Isa 2, Mic 4, Rev 7)? I
Do you believe it is possible to gather a group of people and have them work together for some common purpose and not have some authority structure? Is so, could you provide an example?
They have neither been around long enough nor become powerful enough to be able to be leaders in sanguinary conflicts, so there is no basis for knowing what they would do in that circumstance.
I disagree with that statement. The stand on neutrality by JW's stands in stark contrast to the stance taken by the great majority of religious groups. At least one GB member served time in a concentration camp. Would you agree that such a position is a criteria for a group to have a legitimate claim to be serving God?
However, I consider it immoral in the extreme to punish someone with excommunication for disagreeing with them, or even for simply challenging their dogma for Scriptural support. Do you consider that a moral stand that they take?
I agree with you, I consider it to be immoral and unChristian with the exception of what is clear in scripture. The Corinthians who had unorthodox ideas were not shunned. Their response to challenges is often hypocritical.
Do you have Scriptures to support the teachings on the authority of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, from which the authority of the Governing Body supposedly derives?
I have presented scriptural precedents for God's people developing authority structures. I think it is clear that I have a high degree of skepticism about their claims as to how they derived their authority while at the same time postulating that their authority is legitimate when exercised within scriptural bounds.
-
OldSoul
Shadow,
shadow: Do you believe it is possible to gather a group of people and have them work together for some common purpose and not have some authority structure? Is so, could you provide an example?
No, I do not believe that is possible. However, I believe the Bible lays out a clear authority structure. God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, congregations (individual people, not elders—and the Governing Body is completely absent, as is the Faithful and Discreet Slave).
Do I believe that authority structure exists today? Yes. Do I see any indication in Scripture of an earthly authority structure necessary beyond that one? No, not yet. Do you have some Scriptures that indicate a need for Christians to recognize an authority beyond the God, Jesus and the Spirit?
shadow: I disagree with that statement. The stand on neutrality by JW's stands in stark contrast to the stance taken by the great majority of religious groups.
Okay. You are free to disagree. Which sanguinary conflict they could have been "leaders" in? The stated and published stand on neutrality was violated by members of the Governing Body itself, how does Romans 2:1, 2 not apply to them?
Does the presence of true teachings and teachings that are based on the Bible mitigate the presence of false teachings and teachings that are not based on the Bible? If so, how and why?
Besides this, there is contradictory application of their stand on neutrality. Witnesses in Mexico could accept political pary cards while brothers in Malawi were being beaten and killed, sisters being raped, beaten and killed for refusing on the grounds of neutrality. In 1991, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. joined the mouthpiece of the UN, the UN/DPI and maintained that relationship until apostates called the contradiction to their attention in 2001. The UN/DPI is anything but a neutral organization. So if there is a preaching of neutrality and a punishing for lack of it at the bottom, but not a practice of it at the top...is there neutrality, in truth?
shadow: I have presented scriptural precedents for God's people developing authority structures.
But you haven't demonstrated Scripturally that these men who started a religion on the basis of false prophecy, (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) appeal to pyramidology as proof (Colossians 2:8-10), and authoritative teachings that do not originate with God (1 John 4:1) actually are God's people. That would, I suppose, have to come first.
I'm afraid I can't use works as a method of determining God's people, Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22, 23; and Luke 21:8 warn me not to listen to any who point to works as proof or who say, "the due time has approached."
shadow: I think it is clear that I have a high degree of skepticism about their claims as to how they derived their authority while at the same time postulating that their authority is legitimate when exercised within scriptural bounds.
I am understanding that clearly from your posts, and I think it is a courageous stand to take. One that will eventually lead to your expulsion from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. So, when someone in your congregation is disfellowhipped are you always aware of the grounds? What about outside your congregation?
When the disfellowhipping is outside scriptural bounds, do you continue to freely seek out and associate with the ones wronged, as Jesus did (John 9:34, 35) or do you limit your association?
It is my understanding that religious authority is not legitimate if they lie about how it is derived, or claim Scriptural support for the claim when they do not have it. Am I understanding that incorrectly? Can you show me evidence of religious authority that God recognized as legitimate that was not authored by him?
Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace” chap. 1 p. 10 The Desire for Peace and Security Worldwide15 It would be out of line with the plain teachings of the Scriptures to believe that God does not have an organization, an organized people, that he exclusively recognizes. Jesus Christ recognized that his heavenly Father had a visible organization.
As I am sure you are well aware, this is far from the singular publication where "honest seekers of truth" can find this claim.
If there are plain teachings of the Scriptures that show Jesus viewed the religious leaders of the Jews as God's organization that he exclusively recognized or that there is such an organization today, please share them.
If not, please explain, Scripturally, how I should view an organization that makes this lying claim and then punishes people, or even threatens to punish (John 9:22), with excommunication for publicly disputing this claim.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
shadow
OS,
No, I do not believe that is possible. However, I believe the Bible lays out a clear authority structure. God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, congregations (individual people, not elders—and the Governing Body is completely absent, as is the Faithful and Discreet Slave).
Do I believe that authority structure exists today? Yes. Do I see any indication in Scripture of an earthly authority structure necessary beyond that one? No, not yet. Do you have some Scriptures that indicate a need for Christians to recognize an authority beyond the God, Jesus and the Spirit?
So the 1st century pattern of elders is to be abandoned? Was there a need in the 1st century for elders & servants?
Okay. You are free to disagree. Which sanguinary conflict they could have been "leaders" in? The stated and published stand on neutrality was violated by members of the Governing Body itself, how does Romans 2:1, 2 not apply to them?
I believe it does apply to them and everyone else.
Does the presence of true teachings and teachings that are based on the Bible mitigate the presence of false teachings and teachings that are not based on the Bible? If so, how and why?
Were true teachings mixed with false ones in the 1st century? Should everyone wanting to serve God have left those congregations?
Besides this, there is contradictory application of their stand on neutrality. Witnesses in Mexico could accept political pary cards while brothers in Malawi were being beaten and killed, sisters being raped, beaten and killed for refusing on the grounds of neutrality. In 1991, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. joined the mouthpiece of the UN, the UN/DPI and maintained that relationship until apostates called the contradiction to their attention in 2001. The UN/DPI is anything but a neutral organization. So if there is a preaching of neutrality and a punishing for lack of it at the bottom, but not a practice of it at the top...is there neutrality, in truth?
That may reveal hypocrisy at the top but does not invalidate the thousands who have maintained neutrality even to the point of death. What groups manifest that determination to remain neutral?
But you haven't demonstrated Scripturally that these men who started a religion on the basis of false prophecy, (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) appeal to pyramidology as proof (Colossians 2:8-10), and authoritative teachings that do not originate with God (1 John 4:1) actually are God's people. That would, I suppose, have to come first.
I'm afraid I can't use works as a method of determining God's people, Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22, 23; and Luke 21:8 warn me not to listen to any who point to works as proof or who say, "the due time has approached."
What method would you use to identify God's people?
I am understanding that clearly from your posts, and I think it is a courageous stand to take. One that will eventually lead to your expulsion from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. So, when someone in your congregation is disfellowhipped are you always aware of the grounds? What about outside your congregation?
When the disfellowhipping is outside scriptural bounds, do you continue to freely seek out and associate with the ones wronged, as Jesus did (John 9:34, 35) or do you limit your association?
I will exercise my own best judgment on such matters. If I accepted WT policy on this I wouldn't be here.
It is my understanding that religious authority is not legitimate if they lie about how it is derived, or claim Scriptural support for the claim when they do not have it. Am I understanding that incorrectly? Can you show me evidence of religious authority that God recognized as legitimate that was not authored by him?
Did Jehovah author the arrangement of bishops and deacons in the 1st century?
If there are plain teachings of the Scriptures that show Jesus viewed the religious leaders of the Jews as God's organization that he exclusively recognized or that there is such an organization today, please share them.
If not, please explain, Scripturally, how I should view an organization that makes this lying claim and then punishes people, or even threatens to punish (John 9:22), with excommunication for publicly disputing this claim.
While Jesus was on the earth, did Israel constitute God's chosen people? How did Jesus view worshipping God within that arrangement? Did he only observe what was specifically stated in scripture in matters of worship?
You stated to Toreador:
Well, if we are still living during the Great Apostasy then there is not an ongoing "gathering," per se, although I am of the opinion that may come in time. If it does it will be unmistakable what is going on and why. No one will have to dance and dodge through Scriptures to try and make a case for what is happening.
Was it unmistakable that Israel was God's people? If so, do we still have indisputable evidence that was true?
Was 1st century Christianity unmistakably supported by God? Why then did the disciples have to make a case for it?
Though I confess that I have wondered the same things. On the other hand our time is unique in the fact that mankind has never faced so many threats to our continued existence.
-
OldSoul
Shadow,
So the 1st century pattern of elders is to be abandoned? Was there a need in the 1st century for elders & servants?
I don't think the first century pattern of elders was a pattern of authority. On what do you base a view that it was? Greater accountability? Clearly evident. That they were servant in the congregation, no question. That they had authority over the flock? I can't find one Scripture to support it.
Were true teachings mixed with false ones in the 1st century? Should everyone wanting to serve God have left those congregations?
Everyone who wants to serve God has a responsibility to exercise their reasoning ability (Scriptural) and perceptive powers (Scriptural) and learn to distinguish right from wrong (Scriptural). This organization claims that there is no need for people to do that and eventually disfellowships those who do as apostates.
The question is, did the early Christian congregations expel everyone who taught false teachings? If not, why should I compare this organization to the early Christian congregations?
What groups manifest that determination to remain neutral?
Does political neutrality excuse shunning over disagreements or questions, thereby killing reputations, destroying families, and undoing lifelong friendships? How can that be the only important criterion, when the Bible doesn't even directly hold it out as one criterion? By extension, neutrality is a manifestation of love among yourselves. What is shunning on unscriptural grounds a direct example of a lack of, if not love?
What method would you use to identify God's people?
Fair question. I would identify you as one and I would use the marks outlined in the Scriptures. To my knowledge, you have not prophesied falsely. You do not accuse those wrongly who do not deserve it. You do not seem to hold the traditions of men above God's law. You seem to exemplify what Christian love would motivate. You appear to have a fervent love of God and His righteous standards.
But do you feel most Witnesses are like you? Do you feel this is a good description of the Organization? Do you believe you represent the majority, or the teensy minority of Witnesses? If you are in the minority, is the organization displaying the marks of true Christianity?
To demonstrate the point: If you clearly communicated the body of posts you have made on this forum to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and disclosed the environment you made these posts in, would you be disfellowhipped if you failed to repent from your iniquitous ways? What would be the impact to your family? To your friendships?
In other words, do you have great freeness of speech that belongs to Christians? Yes. Do you use it? No, not if you are still a Witness. Why? (John 9:22)
Did Jehovah author the arrangement of bishops and deacons in the 1st century?
No. Nor did he author a Faithful and Discreet Slave "Class" or Governing Body to distribute "new light" with magisterial authority, or an eldership that came with authority over the flock ("Not that we are masters over your faith..."; "neither as lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock."). I am not trying to make a case for the Catholic Church, I am demonstrating that such a case could be made just as easily.
How did Jesus view worshipping God within that arrangement? Did he only observe what was specifically stated in scripture in matters of worship?
He did to the extent that the Law allowed. I guess that answers both parts. However, he also had Scriptural evidence for the authority of the Law. I do not think that because he honored some customs that he was advocating the illegitimate authority that was the source of those customs, do you? He failed to honor so many customs and traditions, even simple ones that could be easily performed without violation of God's Law (e.g. washing hands up to the elbows, etc.), that the argument really wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.
While Jesus was on the earth, did Israel constitute God's chosen people?
No, not anymore. Their house was abandoned to them. Jesus was inviting out as many as would follow him and learn from him. The Jews were, by agreement, expelling (shamatta) any from the synagogue who confessed him as the Christ (on the grounds of Apostasy). So, no, they did not constitute God's people at that time. God favored them with the first opportunity to respond to the Good News because of his friendship with Abraham, not because they were his chosen people at the time of Jesus' arrival.
I ask again, if there are plain teachings of the Scriptures that show Jesus viewed the religious leaders of the Jews as God's organization that he exclusively recognized or that there is such an organization today, please share them.
If not, please explain, Scripturally, how I should view an organization that makes this lying claim and then punishes people, or even threatens to punish (John 9:22), with excommunication for publicly disputing this claim. I can Scripturally show that Jesus made his choice clear. (John 9:34, 35)
I keep asking for Scriptural proof, you bring up proof of authority being okay. I already know authority is okay. I don't need proof of that. I need proof that I should specifically regard the authority exercised by the Faithful and Discreet Slave (who really don't exercise any authority) and the Governing Body as approved by God.
Was it unmistakable that Israel was God's people?
Before Jesus began his ministry? Yes.
Was 1st century Christianity unmistakably supported by God? Why then did the disciples have to make a case for it?
Christianity? Yes. Authority over other humans? No. (1 Corinthians 4:1-5) I don't think the disciples had to make a case for Christianity being supported by God. I believe Christianity is supported by God, but I don't feel I have to make a case for it. I fear there may be some mixing of ideas here, an unstated implication that Christianity demands a human authority structure. I don't agree that a human authority structure is needed where the Spirit operates.
Upshot is, I see a need to defend a current claim of "authority from God over other people" with Scripture. If you do not see that need then I won't try to dissuade your confidence. However, if there is Scripture to support the Governing Body's claim for authority over other people, I would like to know.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
toreador
Hello Old Soul,
Would you say the Catholic Church went apostate from what was taught by the Apostles?
Yes. I have several Scriptures that demonstrate that for anyone who is interested. Especially do Paul's writing strip authority from groups of men who "rise up" from among congregations and claim to speak for God. The book of Galatians makes this more clear than any other, in my opinion, and it is a relatively short book.
Every codified Christian religion I know of whose doctrine includes a "body of select," "Governing Body," "Clergy," etc. try to use Acts 15 in support of that doctrine. Galatians utterly destroys the notion that Paul viewed the men in Jerusalem that way.
I would like you to post or pm me the scriptures that you have that strips authority from those who claim to speak for God or make "we have the truth" claims if you would be so kind and have them handy. I have a Catholic friend that I go round and round with in this regard.
Thank you so much,
Toreador