But more to the original question asked TheSheppard, you replied in relation to my asking the basis for the GB's claim to being God's sole channel of communication of truth as follows:
You said: I think the answer to your question comes down to faith. First of all, you might not agree, but it is logical to have a governing body. Jehovah has always had representatives taking the lead in his theocratic government on earth. Acts 15 describes this arrangement for the first century Christian congregation. Acts 16:4,5 shows that the congregations followed the decrees that were decided by the apostles and elders from Jerusalem.
My reply: Logic? WHose logic? Man's? That of the people claiming to have this authority? Acts 15 and 16:4 and 5 are the ONLY instance of any such council. And that was in relation to a specific issue caused by the cong in Jeru. There is never again any sort of mention of this sort of council. Hebrews does say something that would actually rule against a governing body: Hebrews 8
10 “‘For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.
11 “‘And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from [the] least one to [the] greatest one of them. 12 For I shall be merciful to their unrighteous deeds, and I shall by no means call their sins to mind anymore.’”
So the WT is doing exactly what Jehovah said his people will not do!
You said: Please allow me to quote from a 1990 watchtower regarding the governing body in the first century:
"While all anointed Christians collectively form God’s household, there is abundant evidence that Christ chose a small number of men out of the slave class to serve as a visible governing body. The early history of the congregation shows that the 12 apostles, including Matthias, were the foundation of the first-century governing body. Acts 1:20-26 provides us with an indication of this. In connection with a replacement for Judas Iscariot, reference is there made to “his office of oversight” and to “this ministry and apostleship.”"
My reply: Yet the GB says that apostolic succession is not a Bible teaching. So why are they claiming it here?
You said:
Now comes the role of the faithful and discreet slave who was assigned to be the master's steward, which included dispensing spiritual food to the individuals within the household of God. Witnesses have published that the modern day "official" appointment came to be in 1919.
My reply: And on what basis do you assert that this is a composite acting as a single slave who is to be identified as those considered to be 'annointed' JWs?
You said: Firstly, wether it is in 1919 or at another time, Luke 12:43, after describing the faithful Steward says "Happy is that slave, if his master on arriving finds him doing so!". So there would come a time when the master would arrive to inspect if the slave or house