To You Don't Know Beans:
:: Well there Booby, at least you managed a reply without any
my-God-will-kill-you's.
: Where have I ever replied in such a manner?
Time would fail me if I tried to count.
: I think you are becoming a delusional paranoid.
Perhaps, but you've already arrived.
:: You first have to prove that this "slave" is a composite rather than
:: an illustration of individual Christian rewards. Neither you nor your
:: Mommy has ever done so. Without this foundation, the rest of
:: your claims are meaningless.
: That's easy Fraudbacker.
Only if you ignore the context as well as simple considerations about how
Jesus taught with parables.
: Of course it requires the use of reason, so I don't know where that will
: leave you in this matter.
After reading our back-and-forth, readers will have no doubt about where
that leaves both of us.
: But it is obvious that the illustration does not apply to the reward or
: punishment of individual Christians for the very reason that Jesus said
: that the slave was appointed over the master's entire household of servants.
Your conclusion does not follow. Luke 12:41 explicitly states that Peter
understood that Jesus was giving a parable. In this parable, Jesus was
simply saying that slaves who prove faithful in small things will be
rewarded by being given much greater responsibility. In Luke we have a
servant being appointed over other servants -- a relatively smaller
responsibility. In Matthew we have a servant being appointed over the
master's household -- again a relatively smaller responsiblity. In both
Luke and Matthew, having proved faithful in these smaller things, the
master rewards the slave with the ultimate responsibility of a slave:
"he will put him in charge of all his possessions." According to Jesus,
every one of his followers must prove himself to be as faithful as did
the slave in the parable.
Do keep in mind, Booby, that merely declaring that your viewpoint is
"obvious" does not make it so. You have to prove it. Also keep in mind
that the above explanation is quite reasonable, and that if you want to
prove that your own viewpoint is THE valid one, you also must prove that
alternative reasonable explanations MUST be wrong. Again, merely
declaring it doesn't make it so.
Let me emphasize this so that even you understand it: the fact that
Matthew 24:45 and Luke 12:42 are illustrations is proved by the fact
that Peter himself, in Luke 12:41, says so. End of argument. The notion
of "appointment of a slave" simply illustrates various responsibilities
and rewards that Jesus, the Master, will give individual Christians during
their Christian walk.
: ... But, to establish the fact that the faithful slave has authority
: over other Christians, one only has to turn to the more detailed account
: of the faithful slave found at the 12th chapter of Luke.
We will do that fairly extensively below. When we do, we'll see that your
vaunted expositions aren't worth shit.
: Verse 48 that concludes Jesus' discussion of the slave by driving home
: the point of accountability, says: "...The one whom people put in charge
: of much, they will demand more than usual of him." Clearly, the faithful
: slave is the one whom Christ put in charge.
Precisely: a Christian slave who is faithful over smaller things will
get a much bigger responsibility when the Master arrives. Being faithful
over smaller things is illustrated by a slave's being put in charge of
other slaves, or of the household. Being rewarded when the Master arrives
by being put in charge of all the Master's belongings gives him a bigger
responsibility.
Now let's look at the context of the passages in Matthew and Luke, using
the New American Standard Bible (NASB):
Matthew 24:36-51:
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor
the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be
just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they
were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day
that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood
came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will
be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and
one will be left. Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which
day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the
house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would
have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken
into. For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is
coming at an hour when you do not think He will. Who then is the faithful
and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give
them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master
finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in
charge of all his possessions. But if that evil slave says in his heart,
`My master is not coming for a long time,' and begins to beat his fellow
slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that slave will
come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does
not know, and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the
hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Note the context of the bolded word "parable in Luke 12:35-48:
Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit.
Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the
wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he
comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on
the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself
to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait
on them. Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third,
and finds them so, blessed are those slaves. But be sure of this, that
if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming,
he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. You too, be ready;
for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect."
Peter said, "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone
else as well?" And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible
steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them
their rations at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master
finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him
in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says in his heart,
`My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves,
both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of
that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour
he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with
the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master's will and did not
get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but
the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging,
will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will
be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all
the more.
Now let's examine parallel passages in Matthew and Luke.
The first part of the Matthew passage has no parallel in Luke:
Matthew: But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,
nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be
just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they
were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day
that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood
came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will
be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and
one will be left.
The point here is that the "coming of the Son of Man" will be completely
unexpected, both for Christians and for everyone else. This automatically
eliminates from being "faithful slaves" any who think they can set a date
for this coming -- in particular JW leaders, who have done so many times,
including with their foolish 1914 doctrine, where they have invented a
"two-stage coming" doctrine where Christ arrives in 1914 and then again at
some future date. It also sets the stage for the parallel passages that
follow:
Matthew: Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your
Lord is coming.
Luke: Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit. Be like men who
are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so
that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks.
"Be alert" is the watchword in the above. In the next passages, the idea
that the time of Christ's coming will remain unknown is reaffirmed:
Matthew: But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at
what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the
alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
Luke: Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on
the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself
to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait
on them. Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third,
and finds them so, blessed are those slaves. But be sure of this, that
if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming,
he would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
For future reference, note that in the Luke passage, it is "those slaves"
(plural) who are all to remain on alert, and when the Master arrives
all of "those slaves" who remain alert are "blessed". How are they
blessed? By being "appointed over all his belongings".
Next is another admonition to be alert and ready:
Matthew: For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is
coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
Luke: You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you
do not expect.
Next we have the key passage for our discussion:
Luke: Peter said, "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us,
or to everyone else as well?"
Rather than giving a direct answer, Jesus simply continues with the parable:
Luke: And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward,
whom his master will put in charge of his servants,
to give them their rations at the proper time?
Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
Matthew: Who then is the faithful and sensible slave
whom his master put in charge of his household
to give them their food at the proper time?
Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
So Jesus' indirect answer to Peter's question was, in effect: "a faithful
and sensible steward will understand to whom the parable applies."
Just who would this "steward" be? The Luke passage answers clearly: it is
"that slave whom his master finds" doing the Master's will when "he comes".
Is the "that slave" of this passage a single composite slave? Not at all,
since the context makes it clear that the sense is more like, "whatever
slave whom his master finds doing his will". This is shown by the way the
above-mentioned "those slaves" are told to all remain on alert.
When the master arrives all of "those slaves" who remain alert
are "blessed" by being put "in charge of all his possessions."
After that Jesus tells what will happen to the Christian slave who proves
unfaithful in any way, either by "beating" his fellow slaves (other
Christians) or by failing to be alert for the Master's arrival:
Luke: But if that slave says in his heart,
`My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves,
both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him
and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces,
and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
Matthew: But if that evil slave says in his heart,
`My master is not coming for a long time,' and begins to beat his fellow slaves
and eat and drink with drunkards;
the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him
and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him in pieces
and assign him a place with the hypocrites;
in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Finally, Luke has a section with no parallel in Matthew:
Luke: And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or
act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who
did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive
but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required;
and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
In other words, Christians who screw up out of mere ignorance will be
punished lightly, whereas Christians who screw up deliberately will be
punished severely. Jesus elsewhere made it known that hypocritical
Christians who appoint themselves over their brothers rather than
waiting for him to appoint them are among those who will receive a
heavy judgment.
Now back to Booby's apostatizing:
: Now, as for whether that slave in charge is an individual or a composite
: body, again, the power of reason will have to be employed,
Good idea.
: actually in this instance it is merely common sense,
Experience proves that "common sense" as defined by most JWs
is nothing more than Watchtower tradition.
: but like I say, I don't know where that will leave you.
Given that true common sense means that one takes into account the entire
context of a biblical passage, and given that you've completely missed the
import of Peter's statement that Jesus' parable was a parable, it's evident
where the common sense lies.
: But the mere fact that Jesus said that the slave could have two different
: destinies, depending on his faithfulness, indicates that there is more
: than one individual slave.
Ah, here we will see the precise reasoning abilities of Booby at work.
If the "slave" is a composite, then it would be inconsistent to speak of
THE slave in some passages but in others to speak of a SUBSET of the slave.
The consistent position is that such a slave refers to all Christians,
who took on the responsibilities of a slave of Christ by becoming
Christians. Some would prove faithful and some would not. This is so
simple that a child can understand it, but since JWs have a clear agenda
to support their Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, obviously
they have not even the reasoning powers of young children.
: If it's possible for the slave to simultaneously beat his fellows and
: faithfully feed them,
Here's where your reasoning breaks down: You've merely assumed that
there is one and only one "slave" -- a composite one. Wrong assumptions
lead to wrong conclusions.
: it is clear that there are two different slaves with the same assignment
: to feed Christ's household.
Really. Why two? Just what process of reasoning -- not the circular type
of argument that you and Mommy use -- leads you to exactly two
slaves? Do keep in mind that the notion of a faithful and an unfaithful
slave, in the context of Matthew 24 and Luke 12, do not suggest two actual
slaves or slave "classes" -- it merely indicates two alternative ends:
that of the faithful slave and that of the unfaithful slave.
: The key though that allows us to identify the slave as a class of
: anointed Christians, is the context of the 12 chapter of Luke.
As we've seen, the context indicates quite the opposite, especially in
view of Luke 12:41.
: Jesus had just finished assuring his apostles
Not quite. The passage (Luke 12:22) reads "disciples", and the context
indicates that many more than the apostles were present to hear Jesus'
discourse.
: that his Father had approved of giving the little flock the kingdom.
But nowhere does the passage suggest that this "little flock" was to
be made up of a special class of "anointed" Christians taken out from
among all Christians. This is yet another implicit assumption of yours
that you have not justified, nor has Mommy.
: Then Jesus strongly encouraged them to remain in faithful expectation
: because Christ would return when they thought it least likely.
Very good. But you then trip up badly. And the manner in which you trip up
tells us that you knew about Luke 12:41 all the time, but think that people
are so stupid as not to notice your lies:
: Peter than asked if Christ was saying this to the apostles only or to all.
Ah! Saying what? What is this "this" that you sweep under the rug?
Why, it's Peter's statement that Jesus was giving an illustration, a parable!
Have you no shame, Booby? Have you no fear to lie to defend your foolish
organization and yourself and your ridiculous notion of "God"? Do read
the advice given in Job 13:7-12. Especially read how James Moffatt's
translation reads. It mocks you and shows how you are truly a "sycophant
for God". Your arguments are like broken pieces of pottery and mere
fluffy ashes.
: That's when Jesus replied with the question: "Who really is the faithful
: steward?" So, Jesus was deliberately ambiguous because the real slave
: would not appear on the scene until the arrival of Christ, because that
: was the context of the illustration in the first place.
All of this is completely consistent with the interpretation I've given.
It does not support your argument at all.
: However, it should be noted that in Luke Jesus was not giving his
: detailed prophecy of his presence.
It doesn't matter. The above parallelled passages prove that the parable
Jesus gave was the same parable in both passages. Are you claiming that
they are not?
But it matters not.
The point is that Jesus himself determines the faithfulness of his slaves
when he arrives. When is that? Obviously, when the events desribed
in the passages surrounding Matthew 24:45 take place: When the Son of Man
arrives in his glory and so forth.
Yet, JW leaders reject all this and have proclaimed themselves to be
faithful, thus usurping Jesus' prerogative and proving themselves to be
gross false prophets.
: But, whether the faithful steward disignation applies to the modern
: apostolic governing body or to all of the little flock is largely
: irrelevant.
True, but that's because the JW idea of a "little flock" is bogus.
: The true slave will be identified by his feeding the household of Christ
: and by his faithfully keeping on the watch for Jesus' arrival.
No, the Bible clearly states that the true slave will be identified by
Christ himself, upon his arrival in glory. Nothing in the Bible indicates
that any "slave" would identifiy himself as THE faithful slave, but only
as A slave, by virtue of accepting Christian responsibilities to tell
others about his hopes and beliefs, and so forth.
: Unquestionably that is what the Watchtower has been doing all these
: many years.
LOL! If you can call things like the nonsense expounded upon in Watchtower
publications like the now-discredited Studies in the Scriptures
volumes "feeding the household of Christ", you're welcome to. But you
only show how silly your ideas and those of Mommy are. And if you can
call the numerous failed predictions that the Watchtower Society has
made in the name God "faithfully keeping on the watch", your delusion
becomes self-evident.
On to the next segment:
:: I'll ask you this: WHEN was that "slave" appointed? If you claim it
:: was appointed in the 1st century, then you'll have to demonstrate and
:: prove that present JW leaders are the successors and the only successors
:: to that early "slave". If you claim a date later than the 1st century,
:: then prove it.
: That's an easy question to answer but I am sure that it will be impossible
: for you to accept, not due to any defect in the answer,
Oh, no!
: but rather to the sheer spiritual blindness of your own mind and heart.
This is a standard way of discounting in advance the fact that you're
about to give a bullshit answer.
: Examining both acounts carefully,
What a novel idea! So far you haven't managed to do so.
: we note some interesting contrasting details. In Luke's account Jesus
: speaks of both appointments of his slave as taking place at a time yet
: future from the time when he was speaking directly to his apostles.
So far so good.
: Now, at that particular time, Jesus had already chosen his 12 as his
: appointed successors. In effect they were appointed over his household
: already at that time.
They were appointed in a certain sense, but neither you nor the Society
have shown any connection between that specific appointment as apostles
and the parable under discussion here. Indeed, all that the Society has
ever managed is a circular argument that is nothing but a house of cards.
You obviously understand that the Society's interpretation is bogus:
: Yet, at Luke 12:42 Jesus referred to the original appointment as still
: to take place. That indicates that the apostles were not the ones
: directly being spoken of in the illustration although they certainly
: set the pattern for a future slave to feed Christ's little sheep as
: Jesus commanded his apostles to do.
All well and good, but viewing the apostles' appointment as an appointment
to be shepherds has nothing to do with Jesus' parable.
: Now, as to when such an appointment might take place, in Matthew's
: account, Jesus speaks in the past tense as if the first appointment
: of the slave has already taken place.
As usual your "explanation" is far too simplistic and ignores context.
The fact is that Jesus switches verb tenses and time viewpoints freely,
so it's not necessarily clear whether he is speaking as if his actual
viewpoint is from a particular time reference, or he is only in a
manner of speaking using that time reference. For example, the
following two passages are smack in the middle of the parable, but have
a viewpoint future from Christ's arrival in judgment and from when
"the thief" was to arrive:
Matthew: But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at
what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the
alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
Luke: But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at
what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house
to be broken into.
Clearly, Jesus' time reference is shown by the phrase "had known", and so
the time reference is after the Master arrives.
Since Jesus mixes tenses and time viewpoints like this, in no way can one
be so definite about the time reference in this parable to when some
supposed appointment took place as to hang an important doctrine on such
an interpretation. People speak like this all the time, often mixing
tenses and switching viewpoints. It rarely has any significance. If I
say, "So I go into the store and buy some beer. Then I went home and
drank it", I'm not being consistent with tenses, but people understand
exactly what my time reference is.
: The reason for the difference is because in Luke's account Jesus had not
: yet revealed the prophecy concerning his presence leading up to the
: revelation of the Son of Man.
You really can't tell that from the accounts. The overall sequences of events
in Matthew and Luke are quite mixed up. What you're saying is that on
two different occasions Jesus gave similar but not identical parables.
That makes little sense. The parallels between the two accounts of the
parables are too great. But even if Jesus gave the same parable on two
separate occasions, it still makes no difference, because the parables
are so obviously referring to exactly the same future events. The point is
that all of the events he referred to are future from the time at which he
gave the parable.
: In Matthew's account however, it is as if Jesus speaks to his disciples
: who would be living DURING his presence.
This pretty well nails the coffin shut on your interpretation. The "parousia"
is not a "presence", but a "coming", an "arrival", an "advent". The many
parallels between various future references to "parousia", "erchomai" and
so forth, in various New Testament writings, proves that to these Bible
writers, the words all had reference to the same thing: Jesus' future
"coming on the clouds" as the Master. The New World Translation goes
out of its way to obscure this fact. Various Watchtower defenses of its
interpretation of "parousia" as "presence" contain flat-out lies as well
as self-evidently wrong arguments, which proves that the Society knows
very well that its claims are wrong. One doesn't have to lie if one is
in the right.
: That's why Jesus says: "When you see all these things occurring."
You obviously have not absorbed the latest "new light" from the "faithful
and discreet slave class". This seeing of "all these things occurring"
appears at the end of Matthew 24:29-33. The passage describes the
appearance of various "heavenly signs" including "the sign of the Son
of Man". Jesus prophesies that "all these things occurring" would
immediately precede the "coming of the Son of Man", and "the Son
of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory."
Since these events are explicitly stated to occur within a short
time frame, the notion of an "extended presence" is unscriptural.
: Obviously the apostles didn't see the fulfillment of the sign of
: Christ's presence. That was reserved for his future household of
: anointed ones to observe.
The Preterist school of biblical interpretation would disagree. But I'm
not into that, and will simply go with the explanations I've given so far.
No matter; what I've said is essentially consistent with Preterist and
Post-Millennialist interpretations.
: So the faithful slave is logically appointed to his first post over
: the domestics, to feed them, during the period of Jesus' ongoing presence.
Since there is no such time of "ongoing presence" spoken of in the
scriptures, this explanation is wrong.
: At his manifestation is when he rewards or punishes accordingly. That is
: yet in the future for our point of reference.
Since Jesus' "manifestation", "parousia", coming, arrival, etc. all
describe the same event, there can be only one explicit appointment -- the
one "over all Christ's belongings". This is consistent with the fact that
anyone who becomes a Christian automatically becomes "a slave of Christ".
The first "appointment" is simply an acknowledgement of servitude to
Christ; the second is a metaphor for the Christian's receiving his reward
for a job well done, at Christ's "parousia".
: So that's why in Matthew Jesus also speaks of a future appointment for
: his faithful slave.
You've certainly got that down pat.
:: Of course, we know you can't prove anything at all, and so will resort
:: to your usual blustering "my God will kill you soon!"
: I really think my recent installment of "DOOM" articles must have
: unnerved you. LOL
Right. Your doom rantings are just as frightening and amusing as those of
the average looney standing on the street corner yelling "THE END IS NEAR!"
You're just as looney as they are, Booby. Your laughter has the same
ragged edge as did Jack Nicholson's in his portrayal of the crazed
ax-wielder in Steven King's movie "The Shining". LOL!
Really, Booby, both you and the Society are so completely out of touch
with Christianity that you don't comprehend a simple warning scripture like
Luke 21:8: "See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name,
saying, `I am He,' and, `The time is near'. Do not go after them[/]."
:: Prove your contention by scriptural and historical references. But you
:: can't do that either. In fact, you can't even prove when Christ's
:: "parousia" supposedly began.
: Nonsense.
Proved.
: There is a mountain of evidence that the system is finished.
Ah, yes. Lyndon LaRouche et al. And your fulfilled predictions for
1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. But I was talking about 1914 and all that.
You already know that the Society's "gentile times" chronology is complete
nonsense. You already know that its claims about all sorts of dire
happenings as part of a "composite sign of the end" are bogus. You Know
that its claims about earthquakes, famines, pestilences etc. are those
of crackpots. But even they're smart enough not to rely on the likes of
LaRouche and "The National Enquirer". I know that they would like to
use such nonsense in support, but they're a bit more sophisticated than
you are.
: You just refuse to accept it.
I just refuse in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
: And I am not going to waste my time trying to convince someone as
: unreasonable as yourself.
So says the armless, legless Black Knight.
: The very fact that you are so outspokenly against the truth of Jesus'
: presence is the fulfillment of a number of prophecies.
Wow! AlanF foretold in prophecy! What an honor!
: Ironic, isn't it Fraudbacker? You demand proof and yet you and your
: many apostate associates are living proof of Christ's presence.
No Booby, your rantings on this simply prove that you're so stupid that
you don't understand that "predicting" that people will laugh at nonsense
is no prediction at all.
Here's an example: Booby will keep ranting and raving about "the end".
Whenever he does, that's a sign that AlanF is a prophet and that You Know
will have a bowell movement the next morning.
See how easy it is?
So, Booby Old Don't Know Beans, just as I said, you've demonstrated fully
that you've completely failed to understand many major points I brought
out. Your points have been addressed and refuted. But you lack the honesty,
humility, and the spiritual comprehension to recognize or acknowledge that
fact.
Most of all, you have entirely failed to address the most significant
point of all: Because you yourself are claiming that the claim of JW
leaders to have been appointed "over all Christ's belongings" in 1919
is false, you're claiming outright that JW leaders are false prophets.
But you continue claiming that these [b]demonstrated false prophets
--
including yourself -- somehow are the only religious leaders on earth
that have God approval. How you think that false prophets could have
God's approval is probably best explained as a by-product of your
drug-soaked binges of yesteryear.
The fact that I've repeated the notions in the above paragraph two times
and you've ignored that information two times proves that you have no
answer for it. From the Society's point of view you're an apostate, and
YOU KNOW IT. / AlanF Knows
