Can any JW answer OldSoul's 4 questions about JW teachings scripturally?

by kwintestal 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kwintestal

  I am waiting for any Jehovah's Witness to offer support in Scripture of these four articles of faith:
  
  (1) the Faithful and Discreet Slave is a class of people,
  (2) that the holy spirit directs organizations in addition to individuals,
  (3) that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is responsible for revealing "new light" (as opposed to "food at the proper time") to anyone, and finally
  (4) that Jehovah deals with individual other sheep differently than the little flock.
  
  Where is the Scriptural support for any one of these teachings? Can they be established Scripturally without uninspired human interpretation?

  Kwin (for OldSoul whose topic limits are up)
• 

  gringojj

  Kwin, good questions.

  Actually those questions are very easy to answer.

  1. Because the fds says so

  2. Because the fds says so

  3. Because the fds says so

  4. Because the fds says so
• 

  OldSoul

  Thank you, KWIN!!! You da' man!
• 

  Cygnus

  Kwing, simply, no. These are matters fully covered in Joseph Malik's book Beyond the Watchtower (I sound like a publicist for him). There are a lot more unanswerable questions I came up with within Watchtower teachings and "truth" in their literature which the elders and the WTS via letters could not answer that made me conscientiously leave that religion for good.
• 

  shadow

  (1) the Faithful and Discreet Slave is a class of people,
  
  Is the label the critical factor in this point? Is the question whether 144,000 go to heaven?
  
  (2) that the holy spirit directs organizations in addition to individuals,
  
  An organization is not an intelligent entity. It is possible to have an organizational 'culture' but only a sentient being can be given direction in the sense mentioned here.
  
  (3) that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is responsible for revealing "new light" (as opposed to "food at the proper time") to anyone, and finally
  
  Anyone familiar with WT history would certainly be prudent to take "new light" with a grain of salt. I am not sure of the point of this distinction.
  
  (4) that Jehovah deals with individual other sheep differently than the little flock.
  
  Could you elaborate on what is meant by this?
• 

  shadow

  OK, only took 5 attempts to figure out that Firefox doesn't work too good here.

  Old Soul,

  Maybe I should go back to that old thread and try to get back up to speed? Or would it be easier to just start over?
• 

  OldSoul

  Shadow,

  It has been a while. As I understood things, you said that while these cannot be supported Scripturally that other organizational arrangements were put in place at different times and these were used by God.

  I have a few questions regarding that: Were they stated to be arrangements of God, or were they admitted to be arrangements of men?

  I ask because we have an example of an arrangement by men that was not supported by God, although the creators of it claimed that it originated with God. I speak of the Sanhedrin. (Wikipedia entry) There are many similarities: (1) the Sanhedrin as it existed after the rebuilding of the Temple claimed to have originated with the arrangement of Moses, an antiquity claim that would obviously be enviable and difficult to challenge; (2) the leaders of the Sanhedrin were the highest religious authority among the Jews; (3) the Sanhedrin alone determined all points of Law; (4) the Sanhedrin relied on prior determination of law to derive new law; (5) the members Sanhedrin highly valued the traditions of the former members, revering them to the point of basing future law on their works whether there was basis in Scripture or not.

  It was clearly an arrangement by men. Did God use it, or simply permit its continued existence? There is a distinct difference between the two. The Catholic reasoning is very similar to your reasoning on this point. And by your reasoning, no one who claims authority to establish a new arrangement in God's name should be challenged for doing so, even on the basis of a lack of support in Scripture. In which case, we should all be Catholics. At least, that is the way the logikos seems to work out to me.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  shadow

  
  No, I would not suggest that such claims go unchallenged. Clearly we can find examples of organizations that would fit either of those parameters. Additionally we could look at examples that were both used by God while at other times just permitted to exist. I'm thinking of Babylon or Persia under Cyrus as examples.

  An essential test of the veracity of their claims would be an examination of the fruitage that is produced, a test that Catholicism fails miserably IMHO.

  Even this test at times would not be applicable as evidenced by the history of ancient Israel.

  Another point is that ultimately we are judged as individuals, not on the basis of our membership in an organization. However that is not to say that Jehovah has not used groups or organizations such as Israel or Christian congregations.
• 

  OldSoul

  I don't really want to get diverted away to chasing rabbits in this discussion. It is also clear that although God used human arrangements at times, like Babylon and Medo-Persia, they were not His organizations.

  Is it true that there is no Scriptural support for the four articles of faith I described above?

  (1) The label is critical, because of how it is applied (or, grossly misapplied) through use of Matthew 24:45-47.

  (2) So if anyone says there is a "spirit-directed organization" then they are lying, because a corporation cannot be spirit-directed?

  (3) The point of distinction is that neither "new light," nor the concept of new light appears in the Bible prior to the opening of New Scrolls in Revelation 22, whereas "food" can be (and usually is) continued sustenance of a variety that is not novel.

  (4) The claim is made that the little flock enjoy a closer relationship with God than the other sheep, and that they receive "as a class" special knowledge from God (see Point #1, #2, and #3) to use in feeding both the other sheep and the little flock at its due time.

  I hope you were not being deliberately obtuse in your understanding of why I asked for collective and several support of those points, shadow. I credit you with not being too slow to catch on. I never indicate that these points do not hang on each other for support. These four articles of faith form the ENTIRE basis for crediting the Faithful and Discreet Slave (pen name for the Governing Body) with ANY authority whatsoever to speak in God's name. You are fully aware of that.

  Does the Faithful and Discreet Slave have Scriptural support for its claim that (1) as a class they comprise (2) God's spirit-directed organization on earth today for the purpose of (3) discerning and dispensing "new light" to the (4) other sheep who can't get this light through any other means?

  In all or in part, is there Scripture to sustain those articles of faith or not?

  Without substantiation of those articles of faith is there any Scriptural reason to go along with one word from the Faithful and Discreet Slave "class" (Governing Body's 2/3 majority decisions)?

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  OldSoul

  ANY WITNESS WHO CAN ANSWER! PLEASE ANSWER, in here or by PM I don't really care. If you go the by PM route, I will post the answers here anonymously for others to see.

  Hopefully,
  OldSoul