To Booby Bobby Don't Know Beans Priest-King:
: As regards AF's long-winded post on that thread, It is obvious to me
: that you don't know what you are talking about, and that you are
: merely trying to obfuscate the issue with this enormously long post.
Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about and I know that I can't
logically answer anything so I'll perform my usual bluster/sidestep routine
and pretend to myself that no one notices."
Won't work, Booby. Everyone is on to you.
: But your argument falls flat on this count:
:: 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.
: Of course it's a parable.
Good! End of argument. Or so it would be for someone who had an ounce
of honesty. But not for you. So we will continue:
: But, contrary to your implied claims that all Christians are given
: responsibility to feed God's household,
Strawman. I didn't imply that. What you fail to understand is that the features
of a parable are not to be taken as literal events. In the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus, Abraham and the other characters are certainly not
intended to be literal. You can understand this, and you can even point this
out to other Christians who claim that the parable is to be understood
literally. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that in Jesus' parable about
the slaves, the slaves and what happen to them are not to be taken literally.
They are representative of other things. What things? I've told you
several times now. In my last "long-winded" post I clearly stated (readers
can verify this for themselves:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=6124&page=2&site=3 ):
:: 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.
:: ...
:: 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.
:: ...
:: ... 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.
Since the apostle Paul makes it clear that only some Christians would
be apostles, and only some would be prophets, and only some would
be teachers, and he said this to anointed Christians, he clearly
indicated that not all "anointed Christians" would be put in charge of the
spiritual feeding of the Master's household.
I also made several other relevant points:
:: 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.
In view of my above-quoted statements, Booby, for you to pretend that I made
the argument that you claim is just knocking down a strawman of your own
making, and is thoroughly dishonest. Or is it that you're just plain too
morally stupid to understand what I wrote?
: the lesson of this particular parable applies only to the slave that is
: put in charge over the domestics.
Prove it.
: James later wrote that not many should be teachers among God's family
: because they shall receive a heavier judgment.
So what? The Bible also says that some slaves would be teachers, some
prophets, some evangelizers and so forth. If your implied reasoning is
correct -- that James' statement indicates that only a small group would
be in charge of other Christians -- then it would be equally
correct to claim that only a few Christians would be evangelizers.
Yet the Society teaches quite the opposite, that all Christians should
be evangelizers. So they take the one position where it is convenient,
and the inconsistent and opposite position where it is convenient.
Note the relevant scriptures (NASB):
God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third
teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations,
various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not
prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers
of miracles, are they? -- 1 Cor. 12:28-29And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists,
and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the
work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ. -- Eph. 4:11-12
Obviously, all of the Christians who read these words when they were first
penned would have been "anointed" Christians, so it is perfectly clear
that among these "anointed ones", only some would be teachers.
Thus, it cannot be that James 3:1 is talking about some sort of future
appointment of the entire body of anointed ones "over all Christ's
belongings."
Christians are instructed to "be submissive to those taking the lead among
you." But that is clearly only a relative submission, because the Bible
makes it clear that Christians must first be responsible to their own
well-trained consciences. Indeed, for a Christian to subvert his own
conscience in favor of the conscience of another, if he really didn't
agree with the other's conscience, would be a gross sin. Therefore, no
Christian or group of Christians can possibly be in charge of other
Christians except in a very relative way, and only to the extent that
they can convince other Christians by logical reasoning from the Bible,
and without threat of punishment, that they should go along. But
because Watchtower leaders have "put themselves in the seat of Moses"
and have installed the threatening punishment of disfellowshipping those
who conscientiously disagree with them, they have literally perverted
the clear teaching of Scripture.
: So unless you can explain how it is that each individual Christian
: supposedly receives an appointment over God's household to teach them
: God's word, you really don't have anything here and there is no point
: on my even commenting on anything else in your post. / You Know
Since the Bible demonstrably does not teach what you claim, and I certainly
made no such claim, there is nothing that I need explain. You're doing
nothing more than inventing strawmen and knocking them down. What else
is new?
At this point I can only reiterate the conclusion of my last post:
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 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 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 three times
and you've ignored that information three 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
