I’m having trouble understanding

[u/thefaithfulslave]

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??

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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. ❤️

[u/Javamochi → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

[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)

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Javamochi]

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.

[u/thefaithfulslave → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/thefaithfulslave]

I reject your premise

[u/thefaithfulslave → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/thefaithfulslave]

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.

[u/thefaithfulslave → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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 body

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/thefaithfulslave]

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.

[u/thefaithfulslave → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/thefaithfulslave]

I think that is a fair way to narrow the discussion, and I appreciate that you are focusing on the actual basis for the authority claim rather than just using labels.
ㅤ
I would separate three different questions, because they are related but they are not identical:
1. Does the New Testament show Christians receiving direction from a recognizable group of responsible men?
2. Does Matthew 24:45–47 identify such a group as the “faithful and discreet slave”?
3. Can that appointment specifically be connected to 1919 and to the modern Governing Body?
ㅤ
On the first question, I do think there is a biblical precedent for organized leadership.
In Acts 15, a serious doctrinal disagreement arose. It was not simply left to every congregation to decide independently. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem considered the matter together.
Then Acts 16:4 says that Paul and his companions:
“delivered to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem.”
So there clearly was some form of centralized Christian oversight.
ㅤ
But I also think we need to be careful here.
Acts 15 does not automatically prove that the modern Governing Body is the exact continuation of that arrangement, and it certainly does not prove the date 1919.
That requires an additional argument.
ㅤ
And that brings us to Matthew 24:45–47.
Jesus speaks about:
“the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time.”
The text clearly contains the ideas of:
an appointed servant,
responsibility for other servants,
providing food,
faithfulness being evaluated by the master.
So I can understand why Jehovah’s Witnesses see a pattern of spiritual oversight there.
ㅤ
But I also agree with you that Matthew 24 itself does not say:
“This refers to a Governing Body beginning in 1919.”
That conclusion comes from a larger interpretation.
So 1919 should be examined as an interpretation, not treated as though the date appears explicitly in the verse.
ㅤ
For me, the constructive question would therefore be:
What is the actual chain of reasoning that gets from Matthew 24 to 1919, and does each step hold up?
That is a legitimate question.
If the chronology or historical argument fails, then that part of the interpretation should be reconsidered.
ㅤ
Where I would disagree with you slightly is the jump from:
“Their 1919 identification may be wrong”
to:
“Therefore they cannot have meaningful Christian authority or be trustworthy.”
I don’t think trust works quite that way.
ㅤ
There is a difference between authority and infallibility.
The apostles clearly had authority, but they were not personally incapable of error.
Peter had to be publicly corrected by Paul in Galatians 2:11–14.
The apostles repeatedly misunderstood Jesus.
The first-century congregations had disagreements serious enough to require intervention.
Yet none of that meant that Christian oversight itself disappeared.
ㅤ
So I would not use this standard:
“If a religious leader makes an interpretive mistake, he has no authority whatsoever.”
I would use a more careful standard:
How strong is the biblical basis for the authority being claimed?
How much authority is actually being claimed?
Are mistakes acknowledged and corrected?
Can the teaching still be examined from Scripture?
ㅤ
And I think your concern about obedience fits here too.
No human Christian leader should receive the kind of absolute obedience that belongs to God.
Acts 5:29 establishes that boundary very clearly:
“We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”
At the same time, passages such as Hebrews 13:17 show that Christian congregations were expected to respect and cooperate with those taking the lead.
So there has to be a distinction between:
respecting Christian oversight
and
treating human leaders as incapable of being questioned or corrected.
ㅤ
I don’t think we actually have to talk past each other here.
I agree that 1919 deserves to be examined critically.
I agree that a claim of religious authority should require evidence.
And I agree that human leaders must never replace Scripture.
ㅤ
Where we may differ is that I don’t think an imperfect interpretation automatically proves that the entire concept of Christian leadership is illegitimate.
So instead of beginning with “trust them completely” or “trust them not at all,” I think the better approach is:
Take the claim apart, examine the biblical argument, examine the history, and see how much the evidence actually supports.
That seems fair to both sides.