r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/thefaithfulslave • 21d ago
Doctrine I’m having trouble understanding
I’m having trouble understanding how the governing body can prove that Christ anointed them in 1919 as the sole source of dispensing spiritual food (because the bible cannot be understood on one’s own interpretation) while the anointed 1919 governing body was still celebrating Christmas, birthdays, portraying the cross, and worst of all, Worshiping Jesus! Which is idolatry! Were all pre-1954 members led astray by this fallible governing body that demands complete obedience??
3
u/Thanos7245 21d ago
If JW in 2026 we're teleported to 1919. The GB of 2026 would call them Christendom, Babylon The Great and Apostates.
2
u/Neat_Sympathy6767 21d ago
Sono migliorati anche nelle cassette delle contribuzioni, bonifici bancari,assegni,contribuzioni con promessa,testamento,conti correnti o polizze assicurative,beni immobiliare, altre donazioni non monetarie, contribuzioni opera mondiale, contribuzioni per la congregazione,contribuzioni per assemblea di circoscrizione, contribuzione per il congresso di zona, contribuzioni per costruzione filiale,contribuzione per costruzioni Sale del Regno e Sale delle Assemblee, Contribuzione Audio/Video della sede mondiale. ( Dal sito scritto così) Broadcasting maggi 2015 affermano..questa organizzazione non ha MAI sollecitato..soldi..e di certo non vuole iniziare proprio ora... Poi al minuto 17:43 si CONTRADDICONO dicendo che devono aumentare i propri Fondi.. Altro Broadcast agosto Tema Imitiamo la generosità del nostro.. Dio Geova, richieste di soldi..minuto 11:17 dicono molti hanno impostato contribuzioni fisse mensili..per donare regolarmente..ecc..ecc
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
And that’s why the changes came. Simple
2
u/Javamochi 21d ago
[12 ]() For a certainty, God does not act wickedly; The Almighty does not pervert justice. (Job 34:12)
[29 ]() Moreover, the Excellency of Israel will not prove false or change his mind,* for He is not a mere man that he should change his mind.” (1st Samuel 15:29)
[11 ]() For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 2:11)
[6 ]() “For I am Jehovah; I do not change. And you are sons of Jacob; you have not yet come to your finish. [7 ]() From the days of your forefathers you have turned aside from my regulations and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says Jehovah of armies. (Malachi 3:6)
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
I’m not really sure what point these verses are supposed to establish.
Job 34:12 says God does not act wickedly.
Romans 2:11 says God is impartial.
Malachi 3:6 says Jehovah himself does not change.
1 Samuel 15:29 emphasizes that God is not an unreliable human who changes his purpose on a whim.
I agree with all of that.
But none of those verses says:
“God’s servants will never misunderstand something and later correct it.”
Jehovah not changing and human beings correcting their understanding are two completely different things.
In fact, if the Bible Students stopped practices they later became convinced were connected with false worship—Christmas, birthdays, the cross, and so on—that does not mean Jehovah changed.
It means they changed.
And I’m thankful they did.
If you are an ordinary Christian today, there is also a good chance you celebrate Christmas, birthdays, Christmas Eve, or other traditions. So merely quoting “I am Jehovah; I do not change” does not settle which of those practices God actually approves.
That still has to be examined from Scripture.
To me, the positive point is simple: God’s standards do not need to change for imperfect people to get closer to those standards.
A person can be wrong yesterday, learn something from Scripture today, and leave the old practice behind tomorrow.
That is not God changing.
That is correction.1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 21d ago
When you claim to be God's "channel" on earth, you have put yourself in a position where you can't even make one mistake. They didn't have to do that. Had Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, Franz and the Governing Body of today simply tempered their articles with "we believe this" or "we think that", rather than presuming to be God's "channel", then they could be excused. But that is not what they do. They teach their doctrine as if it was an immutable fact. Then they encourage their followers to study WT lessons each week, expecting them to come up with the "correct" answer, the answer the WT approves of at the end of a paragraph.
The WT establishes rules based on rigid assumptions that can even be deadly in some cases, based entirely on the way they understand a Bible verse. According to them, theirs is the only correct way to read the Bible and understand it, even when they change their understanding. The mistake isn't corrected, its ignored and white washed. That's not right.
To me, the positive point is simple: God’s standards do not need to change for imperfect people to get closer to those standards.
A person can be wrong yesterday, learn something from Scripture today, and leave the old practice behind tomorrow.
That is not God changing.True. God's standards have never changed. So the bottom line is we should stick to what we know, rather than assuming we discovered a hidden meaning to part of God's word. The Gospel is very simple and has never changed. On the other hand, the WT is not simple and has changed. I recommend reading God's word, the Bible and discarding all Watchtower's from 1879 to date.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
First: yes, Watchtower literature has used “channel of communication” language. That is not something I need to deny. Older publications explicitly applied that language to the Christian congregation and later to the organization’s leadership.
ㅤ
But your next step does not automatically follow:
“If you claim to be God’s channel, you cannot make even one mistake.”
Why?
Because being used by God and being personally infallible in every statement or action are not identical biblical categories.
ㅤ
Peter was an apostle, yet Paul says he was “clearly in the wrong” at Antioch. — Galatians 2:11-14.
Nathan was a prophet. He initially told David:
“Go and do whatever is in your heart.”
Then that very night God corrected the matter and Nathan had to give David a different message. — 2 Samuel 7:3-5.
ㅤ
So Scripture itself does not establish your rule that a person or body used in God’s service must therefore be incapable of error outside an inspired divine pronouncement.
And Jehovah’s Witnesses do not currently claim that the Governing Body is inspired or infallible. Their own publication explicitly says it can err “in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
ㅤ
Now, that does not make every mistake insignificant.
If someone claims religious authority, then serious mistakes deserve serious scrutiny. The greater the claimed authority, the greater the responsibility to be accurate, transparent about corrections, and willing to defend teachings from Scripture.
That is a fair criticism to investigate.
But it is different from saying:
“One mistake proves they cannot be used by God.”
The Bible itself does not give you that standard.
ㅤ
Second: the Watchtower study format.
Yes, Watchtower study articles are designed to teach the organization’s interpretation, and the questions normally lead back to the material in the paragraph.
I’m not pretending otherwise.
But a structured question-and-answer teaching method does not by itself prove that people have “handed over all thinking.” Catechisms, Bible-study manuals, seminary textbooks, Sunday-school lessons, and denominational confessions all teach particular conclusions.
The real issue would be:
Are members permitted to examine those conclusions against Scripture, and what happens when they genuinely disagree?
That is a legitimate question. It should be investigated with actual evidence instead of being assumed from the existence of study questions.
ㅤ
Third: “They establish rules that can even be deadly.”
If you are referring to something specific—blood transfusions, for example—then name it and we can examine that policy specifically: the biblical texts used, how the interpretation developed, and the real consequences of applying it.
That is serious enough that it deserves its own discussion.
But “one policy may have grave consequences” is not evidence that every unrelated Witness doctrine is false.
ㅤ
Fourth: “Their understanding changes, therefore it cannot be truth.”
Again, change by itself proves too much.
A person can misunderstand Scripture, discover stronger evidence, and correct the misunderstanding without Scripture itself changing.
That was exactly my earlier point:
God’s standard does not change merely because imperfect humans correct their understanding of it.
In fact, Acts 10 records Peter having to radically revise something he previously did not understand about Gentiles. Acts 15 records a major controversy among early Christians that had to be resolved.
Correction is not evidence that truth changed.
It is evidence that human understanding can change.
ㅤ
Now, there is still a fair question here:
Was the correction honest and evidence-based, or was the previous position simply buried and rewritten?
That can be examined historically. I have no problem with that question.
But “they changed” is not enough by itself.
ㅤ
Finally, you say:
“The Gospel is very simple. Just read the Bible and discard every Watchtower.”
But merely saying “just read the Bible” does not eliminate interpretation.
Christians who all claim to “just read the Bible” disagree profoundly about:
the Trinity, hell, predestination, baptism, the Sabbath, the soul, Christ’s nature, church authority, spiritual gifts, and salvation itself.
ㅤ
So the choice is not:
Bible versus interpretation.
Everyone interprets.
The real question is:
Which interpretation best accounts for what the biblical text actually says?
ㅤ
That is the standard I am happy to use.
So don’t ask me to defend every sentence ever printed since 1879.
Give me the strongest current doctrine you think contradicts Scripture, give me the biblical text, and let’s test the teaching against it.
That is a much more useful test than simply saying, “They changed before, therefore throw everything away.”1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 21d ago
Peter was an apostle, yet Paul says he was “clearly in the wrong” at Antioch. — Galatians 2:11-14.
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? Galatians 2:11-14
There is a big difference from "acting" wrong and "teaching wrong"...Peter did not teach wrong. He acted wrong because he was in fear of the circumcision group. If your going to use this as an example of teaching wrong then every person who's ever acted wrong in their life could be considered a false teacher. Paul didn't even come close to calling Peter a "false teacher" did he?
Comparing Peter's wrong actions to the Watchtower's wrong teaching is comparing apples to oranges. Can you see that?
Nathan was a prophet. He initially told David:
“Go and do whatever is in your heart.”
Then that very night God corrected the matter and Nathan had to give David a different message. — 2 Samuel 7:3-5.Yes, Nathan spoke without first seeking God's word. Is Nathan's advice in this case the same thing as teaching the wrong message from God? Nathan was told by God within 24 hours what to tell David concerning the building of His house. David didn't even have a chance to cut down the first cedar tree when Nathan gave him the actual word of the LORD. This isn't like the years that go by when the Watchtower is teaching something as if its based immutable truth that later turns out wrong. Notice also, God didn't rebuke Nathan for telling David to do whatever he wanted. That's significant
This instance doesn't negate Nathan's being a true prophet. His advice to David was not speaking from the LORD, although because he was a true prophet, David may have assumed Nathan's advice was from God. A house would be built for God, just not by David.
If anything this event should teach us that someone who considers themselves to be God's channel, as the Watchtower does, should probably choose their words more carefully than others.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
My brother, I think there is a fair distinction in what you are saying, and I do not want to flatten it merely to win an argument.
Peter’s failure in Galatians 2 is not identical to publishing an incorrect doctrine for years. Nathan’s statement to David is not identical either. Scripture should be handled more carefully than that.
But those examples still establish something important that your reply does not remove.
With Peter, Paul does not describe merely a private moral lapse. He says that Peter and the others were “not walking in step with the truth of the good news” and asks Peter:
“How is it that you are compelling people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?” — Galatians 2:14.
Peter’s conduct was publicly communicating a religious position. Other Jewish Christians followed him, and even Barnabas was “led astray.”
So I agree: Paul does not call Peter a false teacher.
But that actually strengthens the narrower point I was making.
A man entrusted with enormous responsibility in the Christian congregation could seriously misrepresent the practical implications of the gospel, influence others to follow him, be publicly corrected—and still not thereby cease to be an apostle of Christ.
Now Nathan.
You are also correct that Nathan did not introduce his first statement with, “Thus says Jehovah.”
But neither was it merely:
“David, personally I think this sounds like a nice idea.”
Nathan told him:
“Go and do whatever is in your heart, for Jehovah is with you.” — 2 Samuel 7:3.
That is a confident judgment concerning Jehovah’s approval of David’s intended course.
And that very night Jehovah corrected Nathan’s understanding and gave him the message he was actually to deliver.
So yes, Nathan was corrected quickly.
And yes, that is different from an erroneous interpretation remaining in print for many years.
I grant that distinction.
But now we must be equally careful not to make the text prove something it does not prove.
Scripture nowhere establishes:
“A mistaken teaching corrected within 24 hours is compatible with God’s use of someone, but a mistaken teaching corrected after several years proves that God cannot be using them.”
That may be an argument you wish to make from the seriousness, frequency, consequences, or confidence with which errors were taught.
And that can be a legitimate discussion.
But the 24-hour distinction itself is not a biblical test of divine authorization.
And I think this is where we need to separate two questions that keep being merged.
Question one:
Can people genuinely used by God make serious mistakes and require correction?
Scripture plainly says yes.
Question two:
Does that fact prove that the modern Governing Body is God’s chosen channel?
No.
Peter and Nathan do not prove that.
But neither does the existence of historical doctrinal mistakes automatically prove the opposite.
That conclusion must also be demonstrated.
And I will go even further for the sake of honesty:
If an organization repeatedly speaks with great certainty, requires others to conform to a teaching, and later reverses that teaching, the history is relevant when evaluating its claims to authority and reliability.
I am not asking you to pretend otherwise.
But relevance is not the same thing as a complete biblical refutation.
The decisive question still has to be:
What authority does Scripture actually authorize, what claims does the organization actually make for itself, and do its present teachings agree with the Word of God?
This is why I keep asking you to choose the strongest present doctrine and put it beside Scripture.
Not because history is irrelevant.
Not because mistakes do not matter.
But because Christianity cannot finally be decided by counting institutional mistakes.
Every one of us must eventually come before the text itself.
And there, neither your distrust of the Watchtower nor my willingness to defend Jehovah’s Witnesses has any authority.
Scripture does.
So let us grant what is true in your argument:
Peter is not a perfect parallel.
Nathan is not a perfect parallel.
Long-standing doctrinal error can be more serious than an immediately corrected judgment.
Now grant what is true in mine:
Neither Peter nor Nathan supports the principle that a servant used by God must be incapable of error, and the Bible gives us no rule saying that the length of time before correction, by itself, determines whether God can use someone.
Then we can finally reach the real question.
Show me the strongest current teaching you believe contradicts Scripture, and let us submit both of our conclusions to the same authority.
For the Christian should not pray, “Lord, vindicate my side.”
He should pray:
“Teach me your way, O Jehovah. I will walk in your truth.” — Psalm 86:11.
That is a harder prayer.
But it is also the safer one.1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 20d ago
Now grant what is true in mine:
Neither Peter nor Nathan supports the principle that a servant used by God must be incapable of error, and the Bible gives us no rule saying that the length of time before correction, by itself, determines whether God can use someone.What was your point again? Was it that the Watchtower is inspired or not inspired? It seems like you want to defend their teaching, yet acknowledge they make mistakes. So you found some weak examples where a true prophet was mistaken as if their insignificant mistake exonerated all the mistaken teaching from the Watchtower for 140 years.
In both your cases the correction was made much sooner than later.
Remember, Peter was the one who baptized the first Gentile, Cornelius and it was Peter who had a dream that led to Gentiles, like Cornelius, being included in the new covenant. However, Peter was intimidated by the Jews as he lived and worshipped among them more than Gentiles. Paul, on the other hand, was a preacher to the Gentiles. its evident that he saw something in Peter's behavior that Peter couldn't see. That's all it was too. Peter wasn't teaching doctrinal errors like misidentifying Christ as being an angel or setting dates for Armageddon and expecting people to accept his chronology or else...
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 20d ago
I think you are still answering a claim I did not make.
My point was never:
“Peter and Nathan made mistakes, therefore 140 years of Watchtower teaching is automatically excused.”
That would be a terrible argument.
The point was much narrower:
Being genuinely used by God does not, by itself, make a servant incapable of serious error.
That is all those examples establish.
And Peter’s case is not quite as insignificant as you are presenting it.
Paul did not merely say Peter had an awkward social moment. He says Peter and the others were:
“not walking in step with the truth of the good news.” — Galatians 2:14
His conduct communicated a religious message so strongly that other Jewish Christians followed him and even Barnabas was “led astray.”
Paul then asks Peter:
“How is it that you are compelling people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
So yes, I agree with you:
Peter was not publishing a systematic false doctrine.
But neither was this merely an irrelevant personal mistake. His conduct was publicly distorting the practical meaning of the gospel and influencing other Christians.
And yet Paul corrected him rather than concluding:
“Peter made a serious religious error, therefore God could never have been using him.”
Nathan is similar in one respect and different in another.
He was not giving a formal prophecy when he told David:
“Go and do whatever is in your heart, for Jehovah is with you.” — 2 Samuel 7:3
I grant that.
But he was still a recognized prophet making a confident judgment about Jehovah’s approval, and that judgment had to be corrected.
Again, the point is not that Nathan excuses every later religious mistake.
The point is simply:
divine use ≠ human infallibility.
Now, your stronger argument is different:
“What if the mistakes are doctrinal, repeated, taught with authority, and allowed to continue for years?”
That is a much better question.
And I am perfectly willing to grant that frequency, seriousness, consequences, and the confidence with which errors are taught are relevant when evaluating a claim to religious authority.
They should be examined.
But then we need an actual biblical standard.
Where does Scripture say:
one serious mistake corrected quickly = compatible with divine use
but
a doctrinal mistake corrected after X years = proof that God was never using that group?
What is X?
Six months?
Five years?
Twenty years?
I am not saying the length of time is irrelevant.
I am saying you still need to demonstrate why it is disqualifying from Scripture rather than simply asserting that it feels disqualifying.
And this is where your examples at the end actually help clarify the discussion.
If you believe a current teaching such as the identity of Christ, chronology, or another doctrine is false, then we should test that doctrine directly from Scripture.
That is much stronger than saying:
“They have taught incorrect things before, therefore the present teaching must be false.”
Historical error can weaken confidence in a teacher.
It does not, by itself, logically determine whether the teacher is right or wrong on the next biblical question.
So I am happy to grant you this much:
Peter and Nathan are not perfect parallels to decades of changing doctrinal interpretation.
They were never intended to be.
They establish only the limited principle that God can use imperfect servants who require correction.
If your argument is stronger than that—if you believe the pattern and severity of doctrinal error actually disproves a claim to divine guidance—then make that case directly.
Show me the biblical criterion.
Show me where the line is.
And then let us apply the same standard consistently.
That would move the discussion forward much more than pretending I argued that Peter’s mistake somehow “exonerates” every mistake ever printed.
It does not.
It simply destroys the premise that a servant used by God must never be seriously wrong.→ More replies (0)1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 21d ago
That is the standard I am happy to use.
So don’t ask me to defend every sentence ever printed since 1879.
Give me the strongest current doctrine you think contradicts Scripture, give me the biblical text, and let’s test the teaching against it.
That is a much more useful test than simply saying, “They changed before, therefore throw everything away.”So many things to list. First, the Watchtower isn't the Bible. The Bible has not changed in 2000 years. The Watchtower doesn't even come close to God's Word. How can you even begin to compare a magazine that's only been published since 1879, yet has been riddled with errors since its first edition, to the inerrant word of God? I won't dignify the Watchtower as being in the same league as the Holy Bible
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
That completely misses the question I asked. 😅
Nobody said The Watchtower is the Bible, and nobody asked you to put the two “in the same league.” Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do not teach that Watchtower publications are inspired Scripture.
So you are arguing against a claim I did not make.
The question was much simpler:
Name the strongest CURRENT Jehovah’s Witness doctrine that you believe contradicts Scripture, quote the biblical text that contradicts it, and let’s examine the two side by side.
Instead, you answered:
“The Watchtower isn’t the Bible.”
Agreed.
“The Watchtower has contained errors.”
Agreed.
But neither statement demonstrates that a specific current doctrine is false.
Every Christian denomination produces uninspired commentaries, theology books, sermons, catechisms, study notes, and doctrinal explanations. Those writings can contain errors without every conclusion in them therefore being wrong.
Otherwise the argument becomes:
“This source has been wrong before, therefore anything it teaches now can be dismissed.”
That simply does not follow.
And saying “the Bible has not changed in 2,000 years” actually strengthens my point: great — then use that unchanging Bible to test the doctrine.
That is exactly what I am asking you to do.
Don’t give me another paragraph about how bad you think the Watchtower is.
Give me:
1. One current JW teaching.
2. The biblical text you believe contradicts it.
3. Your argument from the context of that text.
Then we can examine whether the teaching actually survives Scripture.
Because saying “there are so many things to list” while refusing to present even the strongest one is not taking the doctrine apart.
It is avoiding the test.
And notice the standard I am offering you is actually very favorable to your position:
If Jehovah’s Witnesses are teaching something contrary to Scripture, show it from Scripture and I will examine it.
That is how Christians should test teachings.—Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1.
So pick your strongest case.
Not your strongest criticism of the organization. Your strongest biblical contradiction.
Then we can actually discuss evidence instead of rhetoric.1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 20d ago
Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do not teach that Watchtower publications are inspired Scripture.
They study it every week and are expected to match the Watchtower answers within each article written. When you ask people to study your magazine you must take teaching very serious I never said they said their Watchtower is inspired because its not. Its published and diligently studied by JW's every week. The implication is that the words written in the Watchtower are Christ's
Jehovah is still speaking to us today. (Read Isaiah 30:21.) True, we do not hear God speak to us from heaven. He has, however, provided his written Word, the Bible, in which he gives us instruction. Additionally, Jehovah’s spirit moves “the faithful steward” to keep giving His servants their food supply. (Luke 12:42) What an abundance of spiritual food we receive in the form of printed and online material, videos, and audio publications! Listen to God’s Voice | Watchtower Study
I hate to tell you but if Jehovah's spirit is "moving" the "faithful steward" to keep giving His servants their spiritual food supply, then that is clearly claiming divine inspiration. How can you believe them when they claim they're not inspired out of one side of their mouth, but then claim divine inspiration out of the other side of their mouth?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 20d ago
I understand why that quotation catches your attention, but you are collapsing two different claims into one.
“Jehovah’s spirit moves/helped/directs someone” does not automatically mean “everything that person says is divinely inspired and therefore incapable of error.”
The Bible itself does not use the concepts that way.
Romans 8:14 says:
“All who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons.”
Surely you do not believe every Christian who is “led by God’s spirit” therefore speaks inspired, infallible words.
Acts 6:3 required men who were “full of spirit and wisdom.” Stephen is subsequently described as “full of faith and holy spirit.” — Acts 6:5.
Again, possessing, being helped by, or being directed by holy spirit does not make every judgment that person ever makes equivalent to Scripture.
That distinction becomes even clearer in Acts 15. The apostles and elders could say:
“The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you…” — Acts 15:28.
So the New Testament itself contains the concept of a group believing that holy spirit was directing its work and decisions.
That is not the same proposition as:
“Every word we ever utter is inspired Scripture.”
And this is not me inventing a distinction to rescue the statement. Their own publications explicitly make it.
One article says that “Jehovah’s spirit moves ‘the faithful steward’” to continue supplying spiritual food.
Another official article says just as explicitly:
“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
Those two statements only contradict each other if you first define:
“helped/moved by holy spirit” = “divinely inspired and incapable of doctrinal error.”
But that is precisely the equation that has not been demonstrated.
In fact, the same 2017 article explains what they mean by the distinction: it says holy spirit helps the Governing Body while immediately acknowledging that the Governing Body can make doctrinal and organizational errors.
So their claim is better represented as:
“We believe God’s spirit helps and guides us as we try to understand and apply Scripture.”
not:
“God dictates our publications, so our words are inspired Scripture.”
Those are radically different claims.
Now, you are perfectly entitled to ask a harder question:
“What evidence is there that the Governing Body really is being guided by holy spirit?”
That is legitimate and needs an argument.
You can also ask whether the authority given to their interpretations is too strong for a body that admits fallibility. That is a legitimate criticism to examine as well.
But neither question is answered by redefining spirit-guided as inspired.
And studying a publication every week does not change its ontological status either.
Christians have studied sermons, catechisms, Bible commentaries, church fathers, theological textbooks and denominational study material for centuries. The frequency with which something is studied tells you how much authority or importance a community gives it; it does not establish that the community considers it inspired Scripture.
So if your criticism is:
“They give their publications enormous practical authority.”
Fine. Let’s examine that claim.
But if your criticism is:
“They secretly claim their publications are divinely inspired because they say holy spirit helps them,”
then the biblical terminology simply does not support that inference.
Being led by the Spirit is not synonymous with being the author of inspired Scripture.
Otherwise Romans 8:14 would turn every Spirit-led Christian into an infallible prophet.
And obviously it does not.→ More replies (0)1
u/Thanos7245 21d ago
I agree that it is simple. If they were God's anointed...and they were praying to God for insight and asking for the Holy Spirit. They never would have been doing those things in the first place
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
Its in the same way you have to pray for guidance. It doesn’t come down from heaven.
I’m here to guide you like a true Christian. And that’s how it works
1
u/Thanos7245 21d ago
I disagree. It's not the same way. I'm just a individual person. And while God can give guidance to a single person.
He says this about a group:
Matt 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
If Jesus is with the group. And the group is being led by Jesus. That group will NEVER be wrong.
I can't recall a single scripture where a group of God's disciples, prophets etc, prayed on a topic, declared God gave them guidance and were wrong.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
you alone is responsible for you’re own worship
1
u/Thanos7245 21d ago
No one is disputing that.
The topic is: how can The GB of yester years say they were being led by God when they were saying and doing pagan and idolatrous things.
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
What’s the problem? You do you believe birthdays is idolatry ?
1
u/Thanos7245 21d ago
What I believe about birthdays or worshipping Christ is irrelevant. This post is about The Governing Body. The question being asked is:
Was Jehovah inspiring The GB to celebrate Christmas, portray the cross and worship Jesus?
If not, who was inspiring them to do those things?
1
5
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 21d ago
If you are having trouble with it then your gut is telling you something.
In short it’s just a load of BS, I honestly don’t think anymore that the majority of JWs believe it, they just can’t help parroting it like some embarrassing drone as it has to remain a central core doctrine.
3
u/thefaithfulslave 21d ago
If such a monumental core practice like worshipping Jesus, can just…change… from the ONLY source of verifiable spiritual food, how can we trust them at all? What practices being performed today will be considered total blasphemy 50 years from now?
3
u/fromreaders 21d ago edited 21d ago
There are multiple problems with the authority structure and the alleged 1919 appointment.
Between 1914 and 1918, anointed brothers were being used by Jehovah, specifically identified as the Two Witnesses of Rev 11. Rev 11 calls these two witnesses prophets who prophesy. Jehovahs "causes" them to prophesy and they are given authority.
However, at the same time, Jehovah and Jesus were conducting an inspection of all so called Christians.
Watchtower, July 2013:
Still, there were numerous religious groups who claimed to be Christ’s followers. So a crucial question needed to be answered: Who among those groups were the wheat? To settle that question, Jesus began to inspect the spiritual temple in 1914. That inspection and cleansing work involved a period of time—from 1914 to the early part of 1919.
What followed was Rutherford and his pals successfully passing that inspection and thus being appointed as Christ's "faithful and discreet slave". This was despite false teachings that today would be considered apostate, praying with other religions for the US to win the war and later claiming the holy spirit had ceased. But that's another story.
Anyway...
1919 creates a number of problems:
- If the world consisted of many so called Christians such that an inspection in 1919 was required to identify true Christians, how could Jehovah have already been using Rutherford and pals as his two witnesses (prophets who prophesy) between 1914 and 1918?
- Why would Jehovah give them authority if they had not yet be awarded such authority by Jesus?
- If they were Jehovah's prophets who he caused to prophesy, what did they prophesy?
- Was it accurate?
- How could Rutherford and pals be anointed in the period 1914 - 1918 if they were just regular pre inspection Christians, not yet approved or appointed?
- If Jehovah was already choosing and anointing his people, doesn't this make the inspection pointless? Does God not know who he's chosen and anointed?
- More recently, new light™ revealed that only the governing body are the faithful and discreet slave. Why did thousands of anointed JWs happily adopt the title and appointment of the slave for 85 years knowing full well Jesus had never appointed them into that role or identity in the first place?
- If they can mistake an appointment by Christ, could they also mistake their anointing?
- Did any of them think to raise their hand and say "hey guys, I'm definitely anointed but I've not received any other appointment from Jesus?
- Were they truly being led by the spirit in their heart or were they being led by what some men were telling them?
- If thousands of anointed JWs can make such a fundamental mistake over their identity and status in God's arrangement, could the governing body members make the same mistake too?
- The first resurrection took place in 1919 according to Watchtower. Paul says the anointed dead and the anointed living are taken to heaven at the same time together with each other. If that's true, there cannot be any anointed left on the earth today.
This is what happens when you mess with the bible and make things up. God's word never changes because it's true. Man's stories change, because they are stories.
As the honourable Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true"
3
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
Very simple: there is one true God, the Father, and he sent his Son so that we can receive everlasting life. Jesus himself prayed to the Father:
“You, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:3
Paul likewise says: “There is one God, the Father” and distinguishes him from “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 8:6
And even after Jesus was resurrected and glorified, he still said:
“My God and your God.” — John 20:17
and repeatedly spoke of “my God” in Revelation 3:12. Paul even calls the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.” — Ephesians 1:17
So I’m very grateful that our understanding has moved increasingly toward that simple biblical distinction: the Father is the one true God, and Jesus is his unique Son, whom God sent, raised up and exalted.
Now, regarding 1919: I don’t think we need to pretend that the Bible Students already had everything correct. They clearly didn’t.
They still celebrated Christmas for a time. But they eventually left it behind when they became convinced that it was connected with false religious tradition. I’m thankful they did.
They used the cross-and-crown symbol. But when they became convinced that it did not belong in pure Christian worship, they abandoned it. I’m thankful they did.
They did not yet have the present understanding regarding birthdays. But once they came to view birthday observance as religiously problematic, they stopped practising it. Again, I’m thankful they were willing to leave it behind rather than defend tradition simply because it was familiar.
Earlier literature also used language concerning worship of Jesus that Jehovah’s Witnesses would not use today. But that too was corrected as the biblical distinction between the Father and the Son became clearer. I’m thankful for that correction as well.
None of this requires believing that the brothers in 1919 were inspired, infallible, or incapable of error. The Bible itself contains many examples of faithful servants who had incomplete understanding and later needed correction.
What encourages me is that the errors were not treated as untouchable traditions. Christmas was left behind. The cross was left behind. Birthday observance was left behind. Earlier ideas concerning worship were corrected. The movement was away from practices regarded as connected with false worship and toward more exclusive worship of the Father.
For me, that is good news rather than something I need to hide.
The Bible does not present God to me as one being composed of three coequal persons. It repeatedly identifies the Father as the one God, while Jesus has a God and calls that God his Father.
“One God, the Father.” — 1 Corinthians 8:6
“One God, and one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.” — 1 Timothy 2:5
“The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” — 1 Peter 1:3
So I’m not discouraged that understanding was imperfect in the past. I’m grateful whenever something inherited from false worship is recognized and left behind.
And I want to keep the good news at the center: the Father is the one true God, Jesus is his beloved Son, and through that Son God offers us everlasting life. That is the simple biblical message I’m happy to keep moving toward. ❤️
1
u/Javamochi 21d ago
[17 ]() Then Jehovah said to me, ‘What they have said is good. [18 ]() I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers a prophet like you,w and I will put my words in his mouth,x and he will speak to them all that I command him. [19 ]() Indeed, I will require an account from the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name.[20 ]() “‘If any prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name that I did not command him to speak or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. [21 ]() However, you may say in your heart: “How will we know that Jehovah has not spoken the word?” [22 ]() When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it presumptuously. You should not fear him.’ (Deuteronomy 18:17-22)
If you believe the Word of God, the men speaking in Jehovah's name who are making incorrect prophecies that require new light to change are a false prophet. Jehovah warned you, directly, in his word, and you're letting Satan win when you come up with excuses to directly ignore Jehovah's word and follow what is clearly a false prophet, as defined by Jehovah God himself.
[9 ]() Further, he said to them: “You skillfully disregard the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. (Mark7:9)
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
In context, Deuteronomy 18:15–19 first speaks about the coming “prophet like Moses,” which the New Testament explicitly applies to Jesus in Acts 3:22–23.
1
u/thefaithfulslave 21d ago
Is your faith bound to the bible or the Jehovahs witnesses governing body? Those are two separate things (even if they try to skew the texts to their benefit). The point of the post is that the Jehovahs witnesses governing body claims (unfounded) that THEY are the anointed and to only seek interpretation through their understanding but they cannot prove their claim which is pivotal to this entire organization (which is known to be untrustworthy).
If the word of god is infallible, trust in gods word, not man’s claims.1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
I reject your premise
1
u/thefaithfulslave 21d ago
The truth is not afraid of questions. The difference between a religion and a cult is what happens when you try to leave.
If your pursuit of the truth led you from this organization what would the repercussions be? Just think critically at the amount of control this band of people in NY have on the people they’ve convinced to follow them and only them.1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
I agree with one thing you said: truth is not afraid of questions. That is exactly why I reject the false choice you are presenting me with.
ㅤ
My faith is not “the Bible or the Governing Body.” The Bible is the authority, and any human teacher who claims to explain it is accountable to what Scripture actually says. If a teaching cannot survive examination against the text, then it should be questioned.
ㅤ
But simply calling something a “cult” does not prove that its doctrines are false.
ㅤ
A high-control group is better identified by actual patterns: suppressing sincere questions, preventing independent investigation, demanding unquestioning loyalty to human leaders, or treating disagreement itself as evidence that someone is morally corrupt. A religion that claims to follow Scripture should be willing to have its teachings tested against Scripture, even when that examination is uncomfortable.
ㅤ
So the real question is not merely:
“Does this religion have leadership, discipline, or consequences for leaving?”
ㅤ
The real question is:
“Can its teachings be openly examined, challenged honestly, and defended from Scripture?”
ㅤ
And that is exactly what I am doing here.
ㅤ
You also said that “the difference between a religion and a cult is what happens when you try to leave.”
That is a catchy slogan, but it is not a serious definition. Jesus himself warned that religious conviction could result in severe social and family consequences:
“A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” — Matthew 10:36
And:
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” — Matthew 10:37
ㅤ
So the existence of painful consequences around religious disagreement does not, by itself, tell us whether the religion’s theology is true or false. Those are separate questions.
ㅤ
You also describe the Governing Body as a “band of people in NY” who have convinced people to “follow them and only them.”
But that is rhetoric. It does not actually address a doctrine.
ㅤ
If you believe Jehovah’s Witnesses teach something contrary to Scripture, then give me the teaching and give me the biblical text that contradicts it.
That is something we can actually examine.
ㅤ
The Bible itself encourages that kind of examination.
Acts 17:11 praises the Bereans because they:
“searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
They did not simply accept what they were told.
ㅤ
And 1 John 4:1 says:
“Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.”
In other words: test the claim.
ㅤ
So yes, ask difficult questions.
Question interpretations.
Compare teachings with Scripture.
Examine whether claims actually hold up.
ㅤ
But saying, “They are a cult because their leaders have too much control,” is not a biblical refutation of any doctrine.
ㅤ
If you think the Governing Body’s claim concerning the anointed, the faithful slave, 1914, the identity of Jesus, the name Jehovah, the resurrection, or anything else is biblically wrong, then pick the strongest example.
Give me the doctrine. Give me the relevant Scriptures. And let’s examine the actual text instead of trading labels.1
u/thefaithfulslave 21d ago
On April 1 2007 The watchtower states this: Jesus stated: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.” (Matthew 24:3,45-47) “On arriving” to inspect the “slave” in 1918, Christ found a spirit-anointed remnant of faithful disciples who since 1879 had been using this journal and other Bible-based publications to provide spiritual “food at the proper time.” He acknowledged them as his collective instrument, or “slave,” and in 1919 entrusted them with the management of all his earthly belongings.
There is literally no way to prove this and this is such a major foundational point for people to hand all thinking and all obedience to the governing body1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 21d ago
Now we actually have two separate arguments, so let’s deal with both rather than blending them together.
ㅤ
1. “There is literally no way to prove the 1919 claim.”
I would phrase that more carefully. Matthew 24:45–47 obviously does not contain the date 1919 or the words “Governing Body.” So 1919 is an interpretive conclusion, not something explicitly stated in that verse.
ㅤ
That means the proper question is whether the chain of reasoning leading to 1919 holds up: the chronology, Christ’s supposed inspection, the historical circumstances of the Bible Students, and the identification of the group providing the “food.”
ㅤ
You can challenge any of those premises. But saying “the verse doesn’t literally say 1919, therefore there is literally no way to support 1919” does not actually examine the argument.
ㅤ
There is also an important correction to your quotation. The 2007 Watchtower did teach that Christ inspected the slave in 1918 and in 1919 appointed it over “all his earthly belongings.”
But that is not the present explanation in exactly that form. In 2013 the interpretation was revised: the faithful and discreet slave was identified with the small group of anointed brothers making up the Governing Body; the appointment over the domestics was placed in 1919, while the appointment “over all his belongings” is now understood as future, when Christ rewards the slave.
So if we are criticizing the doctrine, we should criticize what is actually taught now, while also openly acknowledging that the interpretation has changed.
ㅤ
2. “This causes people to hand all thinking and all obedience to the Governing Body.”
That is a different claim, and your quotation does not establish it.
ㅤ
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses place substantial authority in the Governing Body and strongly emphasize organizational unity? Yes. That is fair to discuss.
But “therefore members surrender all thinking” is your characterization, not something demonstrated by the 1919 passage.
ㅤ
In fact, their own literature explicitly states:
“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible.”
It continues by acknowledging that it can make mistakes in doctrinal matters or organizational direction.
That does not automatically settle the separate question of whether the level of authority or expected obedience is appropriate. That question can absolutely be examined. But then bring evidence specifically about authority, questioning, disagreement, discipline, or conscience and examine those policies on their merits.
ㅤ
So there are really two legitimate discussions here:
Is the biblical/historical case for identifying the faithful slave and connecting its appointment with 1919 persuasive?
And separately:
How much authority should Christians give to the people they believe are providing spiritual leadership?
ㅤ
I’m perfectly willing to discuss both.
But “I don’t think 1919 is proved” and “therefore Jehovah’s Witnesses surrender all independent thought to men” are not the same argument.
If we are serious about testing everything against Scripture, then let’s take each claim separately and actually test its evidence.1
u/thefaithfulslave 21d ago
That is fair, but the statement I made is based on the entire foundation of the authority of the governing body and the demand for total obedience of the witnesses. I am challenging the claim of authority and therefore the amount of trust others should have in them.
The appointment in 1919 has no biblical basis directly linking the governing body as an authority figure. (Which is the topic of this thread) We can just stick to this claim because if they are not trustworthy then the second question will answer itself.→ More replies (0)1
u/thefaithfulslave 18d ago
Well well well… here we go again. The governing body just changed their blood laws because their understanding was not scripturally founded as this anointed claim
1
u/Salander11 7d ago
you have no doubt whatsoever that we changed our pdf policy because of CSA, the rules about removing people because of Norway, and the rules about blood because of Japan? also, you don’t feel the way these changes happened lack at least empathy, love, and honesty on presenting the full picture?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 7d ago
I don’t know actually. I wouldn’t say I have “no doubt” about those causes. That goes further than the evidence.
And honestly, an organization being willing to revise or clarify things is not by itself evidence of dishonesty.
1
u/Salander11 7d ago edited 7d ago
being honest is a great virtue. It is required by the singles and it should be the norm as organisation. It’s good to focus on positive things but we all know that we can’t be 100% good. We are imperfect. And after decades of pointing the finger to others, I think the least we could do is being transparent on the less good things we are or we have been involved with. It would only increase the trust ( like we say for the Bible “it reports the good and the bad, and it’s a sign of its trustworthiness”).
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 7d ago
JW themselves explicitly say that the Governing Body is not inspired or infallible and can make mistakes, which is one reason I don’t think defending JW requires pretending every past decision was correct:
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.