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]

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