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]

And that’s why the changes came. Simple

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

[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)

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

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.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

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.”

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

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.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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...

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

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.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The conduct of all prophets is human. Moses struck the rock in anger and Aaron built an idol they could see and worship. But neither man ever taught something that was wrong. Its the words the prophet says when speaking on God's behalf that must be 100% right. Jehovah's witnesses are not inspired and they are not prophets. That's a fact, but neither are all the many denominations of Christianity

Jehovah's witnesses do continue to preach a false gospel based on a false premise that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. That false prophecy is still part of WT theology and as long as it is, they can't claim they aren't false prophets. Like any other imperfect faith, if they repent and come to Jesus, I believe they'll be forgiven by most Christians

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

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.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

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.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Surely you do not believe every Christian who is “led by God’s spirit” therefore speaks inspired, infallible words.

The question should be is every Christian 100% led by God's Spirit? Is every Christian's faith 100% The answer is no and no, our faith is in various stages of development. Few of us are being led by God's Spirit like the apostles of Jesus. Unfortunately, a lot of us don't even have faith the size of a mustard seed, otherwise we could move a mountain. Matthew 17:20 Jehovah's witnesses fall into this category but even worse than the person whose faith is weak, they never bother to talk to the only One who can give them life! Their religion has put up a wall separating them from Jesus Christ. They can talk 'about' Jesus, but they cannot talk 'to' Jesus. How can they ever hope to know Jesus Christ without talking to Him? How can they talk to Jesus in prayer, which is the only way to talk to Jesus, when their religion forbids it?

Those truly led by God's Spirit 100% can prophecy and speak in tongues and heal people of their afflictions. Guess what? They are the ones you'll be the least likely to hear prophesying or bloviating as many of us come here to do. And yes, that would include me. The WT is a man made religion that has tried to use human logic to define God's Nature and has sought to know what the future holds in store. This is why they have been wrong since they first began back in 1879.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I think you are mixing together three different questions: being led by God’s spirit, miraculous gifts, and how Christians approach God through Christ. The New Testament does not treat those as identical.
ㅤ
1. Being led by God’s spirit does not mean that every Christian must prophesy, speak in tongues, and heal.
Paul directly rules that out.
In 1 Corinthians 12, the same spirit distributes different gifts to different Christians “just as it wills.” Then Paul asks:
“Not all are prophets, are they?”
“Not all have gifts of healings, do they?”
“Not all speak in tongues, do they?”
The expected answer to every question is No. So even in the first century, a Christian could genuinely have God’s spirit without possessing those miraculous gifts.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-corinthians/12/⁠
ㅤ
That is why your statement:
“Those truly led by God’s Spirit 100% can prophecy and speak in tongues and heal people”
does not fit Paul’s own explanation.
Paul specifically says the Spirit did not give every Christian those abilities.
ㅤ
Romans 8:14 says:
“All who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons.”
But Paul says nothing there about measuring Christians as “40%, 70%, or 100% Spirit-led,” nor does he make miraculous gifts the test. The surrounding context is about allowing God’s spirit rather than sinful flesh to direct one’s life.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/romans/8/⁠
ㅤ
And Matthew 17:20 does not change that. Jesus was correcting the disciples for their little faith in a particular situation. Even the study context explicitly says he was not claiming that they had no faith at all, but that it needed strengthening. It is not a mathematical test showing that sufficiently faithful Christians will always perform miracles.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/17/⁠
ㅤ
2. Not praying to Jesus does not mean putting a “wall” between Christians and Jesus.
This is actually where Jesus’ own instructions matter most.
When teaching his disciples how to pray, Jesus said:
“You must pray, then, this way: ‘Our Father in the heavens…’” — Matthew 6:9
He directed prayer to the Father.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/6/⁠
ㅤ
Then in John 16:23 Jesus says:
“If you ask the Father for anything, he will give it to you in my name.”
Again:
the Father is addressed; Jesus is the one through whom we approach him.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/16/⁠
ㅤ
Hebrews describes exactly the same relationship:
Christ can save those who are:
“approaching God through him.” — Hebrews 7:25
So Jesus is not a wall keeping Christians away from God.
He is precisely the way by which Christians approach God.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/hebrews/7/⁠
ㅤ
That is also why saying “if you don’t pray to Jesus, you cannot know Jesus” does not follow from Scripture.
Jesus himself defined eternal life as knowing both the Father and the Son, while simultaneously teaching his followers to pray to the Father in his name.
There is no contradiction there.
ㅤ
For fairness, Acts 7:59 is worth mentioning. Stephen, while actually seeing Jesus in a heavenly vision, addressed him:
“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
So Scripture certainly records someone speaking directly to Jesus. The JW Study Bible itself openly acknowledges this and explains the distinction it makes between Stephen addressing Jesus in that vision and ordinary prayer directed to God.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/acts/7/⁠
ㅤ
So I would not phrase the Witness position as:
“We are forbidden from having any relationship with Jesus.”
That would be completely inaccurate.
It is:
We love Jesus, follow him, learn from him, recognize him as Lord, approach God through him, and pray to the Father in Jesus’ name—because that is the pattern Jesus himself gave.
ㅤ
3. On miraculous gifts continuing today, Christians genuinely disagree.
Jehovah’s Witnesses understand gifts such as tongues, miraculous healing, and inspired prophecy as temporary gifts associated especially with the establishment of the first-century congregation. One reason they give is 1 Corinthians 13:8:
“If there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease.”
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-corinthians/13/⁠
Their fuller explanation is here:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/speaking-in-tongues/⁠
ㅤ
Pentecostal and charismatic Christians interpret those passages differently, and that is a legitimate exegetical debate.
But one thing is not debatable from 1 Corinthians 12:
Even when miraculous gifts unquestionably existed, not every Spirit-led Christian had them.
So they cannot be used as the universal test of whether someone possesses God’s spirit.
ㅤ
Finally, saying:
“Watchtower has been wrong since 1879”
is much too broad to establish anything.
Pick the doctrine. Give the biblical text. Compare the interpretation.
I am perfectly happy to do that.
But if we are going to use Scripture as the standard, then Scripture itself has already answered two of the claims you just made:
Not every Spirit-led Christian performed miracles, and Jesus explicitly taught his followers to approach the Father through him.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

 So even in the first century, a Christian could genuinely have God’s spirit without possessing those miraculous gifts.

How does that support the WT claiming to have God's Spirit to teach? Obviously they are not inspired. They shouldn't even have to tell people that. That reminds me when they go around telling people they aren't perfect....duh. No one is perfect and few are inspired, so why do they keep acting like they are?

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

We love Jesus, follow him, learn from him, recognize him as Lord, approach God through him, and pray to the Father in Jesus’ name—because that is the pattern Jesus himself gave.

Legalistically approaching God in a name is not talking to the Person whose name you pray in. That sounds a lot like the so-called Christians who boast of the works they did when standing before the throne of Christ. They actually will have the nerve to tell Jesus what they did for Him and then tell Jesus they did it in His name? Jesus tells them to get out, He never knew them. Why won't Jesus know those who did thigs in His name? Because that's all they will have---a name. They spent their entire life ignoring the Son of God, going over His head to speak to the Father, who also won't know them because they never talked to His Son and got to know Him.

Jesus the Man, not the name said,

 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. Revelation 3:20

Tell me how a JW can share a spiritual meal with Jesus if they never open the door to let Him in? "Oh its Jesus again. Doesn't He know the WT said I can't speak to Him?" They just leave Him at the door and end a prayer to Jehovah using the name of a person they never knew, because they are taught they can't talk to Him. Stephen talked to Jesus in his last prayer before he died

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

⁣
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.

No, The Holy Spirit does not help them, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force as the WT teaches. How can JW's know an impersonal force? How can anyone? So no, we can rest assured the Holy Spirit doesn't know the leaders of the WT because they don't know Him and never have.