Posts by Recovery

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Ding said: It was Jesus' way of stressing the importance of ALL Christians being faithful to God rather than being wicked servants who lord it over others

This argument was already pulled by sebastious and it horribly failed when these questions were asked:

How is it that all of God's people provide spiritual food to each other?

How is it that the FDS is about all faithful Christians yet they are appointed over all of Christ's belongings? How is every individual Christian placed over Christ's belongings?

How could the FDS possibly be all faithful Christians when they are above the domestics? How could anyone be lower than the FDS since it represents all faithful Christians?

Theocratic Sedition said: It's a parable, nothing more or less. Simply a thoughtful illustration depicting the responsibility of a Christian and the blessings that one will recieve for carrying out those responsibilities.

I surely do not see how it is possible for every individual Christian to be given responsibility over all of Jesus' belongings, do you? Also your illustration does not fit within the context. Jesus is answering the question: "What will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things"? Therefore, nothing is rhetorical. He is answering a direct question. Everything is serious because this affects the lives of his disciples then and into the future. So thanks for the illustration, but it really doesn't hold much weight.

Jeffro: If 'the faithful slave' 'must' have a 'modern fulfilment' because Jesus (allegedly) asked, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"... then what is the Watch Tower Society's 'modern fulfilment' of Luke 10:29? 'Surely' Jesus 'must' have been 'identifying' a specific 'neighour' 'class' when he (allegedly) asked "Who really is my neighbor?"

Well Luke 10 is not in reference to the question: "What will be the sign of your presence and the conclusion of the system of things"? That is a strawman argument which relates an illustration totally unrelated to the question that was asked and the response that was given, simply because it has the words "who really is..."

Moshe said: Sounds like real people to me, like a vote was taken, orders given, right? Except, if you called up Bethel and inquired just who the F&DS were that arrived that this decision and issued the orders, they would never give you a single name. Just who really are these people?

Well of course they are real people. I emphatically stated that the FDS is not a 'legal entity' as you somehow thought it was clever to point out. I still don't see the point of your argument, though. Maybe you should use some more pictures as you are not too good with words?

mrsjone5: It's not my job to make you see or provide you with anything. If you wish to believe that the wt/bOrg have the truth and the fds spray are real, fine. I, my darling, don't really give a damn.

Well this thread was created for those who can prove the JW's scripturally wrong. No one asked you to participate. You are just one of the many who have either refused (directly) or indirectly with unscriptural arguments to answer the original question. Moving on.

DATA-DOG said: "Why don't YOU use a scripture to disprove what I have said, namely, " The faithful and discreet slave can be any INDIVIDUAL that follows Christ and teaches the TRUTH of God's word.". Matthew 24:45 "whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 47 He will appoint him over all his belongings." There cannot be countless millions and millions of individuals who are appointed over all of Christ's belongings. There cannot be countless millions and millions of individuals who are providing proper spiritual food at the proper time since Jesus said that "few are the ones finding it (the road to life"). It is beyond all logic and reason to say that this can be any individual Christian, when the parable calls for the existence of domestics as well. If all individual Christians are appointed over Christ's belongings, why aren't the domestics appointed over his belongings as well?

Emery said: The real question is -- On what evidence or basis does the Watchtower Society have the right to claim that they are the Faithful and Discreet Slaves in which Jesus gave them all his belongings? Have you examined the evidence or explanation utilized by the Society for the greatest gift in mankind's history?

Yes I have. If you'd like a thorough explanation of why JW's have the right to claim that the FDS is found among them then I suggest you research it using the Online Watchtower Library. Otherwise, if I get time I will make a post that explains why scripturally.

LostGeneration said: But don't come around here trying to convice us to EAT SHIT, because 99.99% of us have already had our fill, and we aren't going to do it anymore, no matter how many sets of mental gymnastics you present.

I am not trying to convince anyone to do anything. I asked you, the members of this board, to JW's and thus me scripturally wrong. If you cannot do so, it is not my problem. I understand there will be a lot of weeping and gnashing and lashing out at me because it cannot be done using the Bible only. Only the opinions of man can lead one to discredit JW's and this thread has thoroughly demonstrated that. Attack my character, call me a troll, whatever, it only proves my point that no one has ever been able to scripturally disprove JW's regarding this doctrine.

Fernando said: In the end though you may find that you are best served by doing your own in-depth, prayerful, honest and in-depth research rather than relying on the words of ANY humans (the present company included).

Of course, I have done this numerous times and it is why I believe Jehovah's Witnesses to be the only ones who are God's organization of people.

(Psalm 146:3) . . .Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.

(Psalm 60:11) . . .As salvation by earthling man is worthless.

I don't see how this disproves the FDS doctrine. Besides, by this ridiculous reasoning I should not trust what I read in the Bible. And if I were a first century Christian I shouldn't listen to the words of Paul or any of the brothers taking the lead since they are earthling man. Our salvation does not belong to the FDS, it is only through Jesus' sacrifice.

Everything somewhat interesting on page 3 answered. Still no scriptural refutation of JW's doctrine.

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

You have highlighted this verse in a way that suggests you take it to mean that Jerusalem would be desolate for 70 years.

Correct.

This is not what the statement means at all. The wording of the original text means that the land will become desolate, with no indication of for how long it was desolate, which is a separate statement to the period for which Babylon's kings would be dominant (70 years). This is in agreement with the original-language wording of Daniel 9:2, where the word translated "fulfilling" (Hebrew chareb) means brought to completion, such that the 'devastations' were 'complete' by the end of the 70 years, not that it was desolate for 70 years. Further, none of the words related to the '70 years' say anything at all about exile, or about complete depopulation.

That's funny. I think 2 Chronicles 36:20 is quite clear: "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land HAD PAID OFF ITS SABBATHS. ALL THE DAYS OF LYING DESOLATED IT KEPT SABBATH, TO FULFILL SEVENTY YEARS.

The servitude begain in 609 when Babylon became the dominant power in the region.

Actually, Babylon became the dominant power when it crushed Assyria three years earlier. 609 BCE was just the crushing blow. That is like saying the Union's military force was not the dominant one during the last two days of the Civil War since the confederates had not yet surrended. That is ridiculous reasoning. Babylon became the dominant power when it was obvious they were not going to be defeated and overpowered Assyria.

However, the Watch Tower Society confuses the matter by implying that the servitude is the same as the "calamity", which affected Jerusalem in 605BCE, as well as other nations at different times during the 70 years. (See Jeremiah 25:32)

It is the Bible who links the servitude to the calamity. After describing how Neb will come against the nations and Jerusalem, Jeremiah 25:11 says: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations WILL HAVE TO SERVE the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

Notice how other translations render the later part of verse 11

21st Century KJV: "and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

ASV: " these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

New Living Translation: " Israel and her neighboring lands will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years."

Jeremiah tells us that these words occurred to him "the first year of Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon." This indicates that the prophecy had not yet started in Neb's first year since that is when the prophecy occurred to Jeremiah.

It is equally valid to refer to Nebuchadnezzar as 'ruling' even earlier than 605BCE in the same manner that Belshazzar is also called 'king' when he was actually only a prince. None of the Bible's fans complain that Balshazzar's father, Nabonidus, goes unmentioned.

The difference is, in many cases Belshazzar acted on behalf of his father and thus can rightly be referred to as a king. Is there any record of Neb acting on behalf of his father as ruling in command of his military force or something of a similar nature? No. Nebuchadnezzar was a prince, but he had his own separate army and thus could not have acted on behalf of his father when he was in command of his own military chain. Even if this were true, however, it still proves nothing, as the scriptures indicate that Jeremiah 25 had still yet to be fulfilled during Neb's first year (605) which is 4 years after the supposed servitude began.

No one is saying Jerusalem was destroyed in 609BCE (or at least if anyone is saying that, they're wrong). Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BCE. The Bible never says that Jerusalem was destroyed at the beginning of the 70 years at all, and Ezekiel 40:1 makes it quite clear that the Jews did not equate the 70 years with their exile.

How does Ezekiel 40:1 prove this? All it tells us is what was going on in the 25th year of Ezekiel's exile. Not the exile that took place in the year of Jerusalem's destruction. Of course they would not equate the 70 years with their exile, since their exile was entirely different from the exile that take place at the beginning of the seventy year desolation.

2 Chronicles 36:20 "to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

Daniel 9:2 "discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years"

The land of Judah had to lie desolate for 70 years. If Jerusalem was destroyed/desolated in 587 this takes us to the year 517 which we know cannot possibly be the time when the Jews were released since Cyrus released them in his first year of ruling.

Incorrect. Jeremiah 28 actually confirms that they were already under a yoke (it should be stated though that the setting for these verses is actually 595BCE), but that it would get worse. Notice verse 13: “Go, and you must say to Han·a·ni′ah, ‘This is what Jehovah has said: “Yoke bars of wood you have broken, and instead of them you will have to make yoke bars of iron.” Jeremiah states that they would come under a heavier yoke, indicating they were already one.

Notice that the yoke bars were broken. Did Judah and the nations somehow overpower Babylon in 595 BCE (your year)? How did they break the yoke of the mighty Babylonian power? Since they broke the yoke bar, this means the 70 years would had to have been interrupted at some point. Thus pushes the possibility of the 70 year servitude being exactly 70 years even further back, if this yoke was interrupted until another one was placed on. Question: What was the heavier yoke of iron put on the inhabitants of Jerusalem?

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

Taking the 70 years figuratively is a valid approach and some scholars interpret it that way. The 70 years for Tyre is a case in point. But you know I was just being playful with you.

Regarding the WTS quote on Tyre, the point I was hoping you'd go away with was that the 70 years represented Babylon's greatest domination with different nations coming under that domination at different times. Just as the WTS/GB see it that way because Tyre only came under Babylonian domination sometime AFTER Jerusalem's destruction and their starting point for the 70 years, it can also be understood the same way with the conventional chronology and a starting point of 609 BCE.

Okay, well my point is it is too late in the argument to try to say the 70 years are figurative. The original argument was that the 70 years of servitude was from 609 BCE to 539 BCE. When this was proven to be impossible since Nebuchadnezzar had not yet begun reigning when the supposed 70 year servitude had begun, you took the 'maybe it's a figurative servitude' route. I am not debating if it was figurative or literal. I am debating that the author's statement that the 70 years were from 609 to 539 is inaccurate and unscriptural.

Because when the prophecy was given, Nabopolassar was already dead and Jeremiah was warning the people of the time about how they should behave toward the Babylonian power.

The prophecy occurred to Jeremiah during the first year of the reign of Neb. The prophecy could not have had reference to his father since his father was 'dead' as you say and thus no longer the king of Babylon. At the very least, since the prophecy occurred to Jeremiah in the first year of Neb (605 BCE), it would have started at the earliest then. But the 609 chronology requires that it start during the reign of Neb's father and that is not what the Bible says. The scriptures also say Jehovah gave the nations into the hand of Neb. Jehovah could not give Neb something he would have already inherited as the successor of the previous Babylonian king. You cannot assume the prophecy began with a different Babylonian King when the prophecy occured during the reign of Neb, thus 'the king of Babylon' could only be in reference to the now living, now reigning, Neb.

By the way, there is an issue with which king Jeremiah was addressing (see 27:3 and the continuation of the prophecy in 28:1).

Whether he was addressing Zedekiah or Jehoiakim either way it crushes your 609 BCE argument. If the passage described happened in 608 BCE (the first year of Jehoiakim according to secular chronology) or the fourth year of Jehoiakim (594 BCE), the scriptures show us that the Babylonian yoke and servitude of the nations had still not begun at that time. So 608 BCE or 594 BCE, both cause your argument to contradict scripture.

Certainly, Nabopolassar was long dead by Zedekiah's reign and Jeremiah needed to neutralize a rebellion brewing among the surrounding nations trying to throw off or break the Babylonian yoke. They could not be attempting to break a yoke that didn't yet exist for them.

I'm sorry this does not make any sense. Can you please show me the scripture that tells us Jeremiah went and preached a message of servitude to the surrounding nations. I've never ever read a scripture that says so. Jeremiah warned the Jews only. So how could Jeremiah be attempting to neutralize a rebellion brewing among the surrounding nations?

No I didn't admit that. See above. The context shows that the nations were wanting to throw off that yoke of servitude they were under. Jeremiah is urging them to put it on and submit.

Yes, the 70 year servitude had not yet begun since Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed. We are not discussing the regular yoke of servitude that all nations had since Babylon was the world power. There is nothing extraordinary about all nations being in subjection to a world power hence the Bible's reference to it as a broken yoke of wood. A broken yoke of iron would be much heavier, and this corresponds with the desolation of the specific nations mentioned in chapter 27 and it is this 70 year servitude that would begin after calamity was brought upon Jerusalem.

I don't see how the timing of Jehoiakim's accession to the throne contradicts the timing of Assyria's defeat and the beginning of the 70 year servitude. A non-sequitur. Anyway, Jehoiakim began to reign about the Fall of 609 BCE.

Read your own words. "The context of Jer. 27 is that "in the beginning of the kingdom of Jehoiakim [if indeed it was him]" Judah and Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon should, at that time, put on Babylon's yoke; anyone who doesn't will get it worse and reap severe punishments, so don't listen to the false prophets who say you don't need to serve Babylon; if you do as God says and serve Babylon (i.e. not rebel), you'll be left in peace, etc.

The destruction and desolation of these nations is not something that had already taken place during the events of Jeremiah 27 (the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign). If the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign was 608 BCE (not 609 BCE, according to secular chronology), and Jerusalem had not yet received the 'severe punishment' (the calamity of the destruction of the temple) which started the 70 year servitude for the nations, then it is impossible for the 70 years to have already started, at the very least, one year earlier. Also you failed to address Jeremiah 25 which showed us how in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the king of Babylon had not yet came against Jerusalem and the nations had not begun the 70 year servitude

You can't seem to get past this fallacy. The 70 years servitude of the nations was not dependant on Jerusalem and its temple being destroyed. Jerusalem and its temple could have continued on quite happily until Persia came along and the nations would still have served Babylon 70 years, thus fulfilling prophecy.

Yes it was. Notice how the calamity is described in more detail a few verses down "“A calamity is going forth from nation to nation, and great tempest itself will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. And those slain by Jehovah will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth.” Now notice verse 29 "For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU (THE NATIONS) yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”’
“‘YOU will not go free of punishment, for there is a sword that I am calling against all the inhabitants of the earth,’ is the utterance of Jehovah of armies."

As if that wasn't plain enough, Ezekiel has a vision that tells us exactly what's the beginning of the calamity of the nations. “Pass through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem... Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion... from my sanctuary you should start.” The sanctuary is the temple as 1 Ch 28:10 tells us.

So we can choose to believe your unscriptural interpretation of Jeremiah's words, or what the scriptures plainly state? That Jehovah is starting off with the city (Jerusalem), and it's sanctuary (the temple), and then the calamity (from nation to nation) would begin.

'Calamity' is not limited to razing a city to the ground. According to the Bible's dating, and piecing in what we know from history, we can deduce that the battle of Carchemish occurred before the Jer. 25 prophecy, right? Then, was not the crippling defeat of Egypt a calamity?

Of course. But this is not the specific calamity referred to in the Bible. The prophecy of Jeremiah 25 is very specific: "Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE NORTH,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] TO NEBUCHADREZZAR THE KING OF BABYLON, my servant, and I will bring THEM (the families of the north, the king of Babylon and his military force) against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’ It is in this context (in reference to Neb) that the statement: "29 For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU (the nations) yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”" The calamity will be brought upon the nations after calamity has been brought upon Jerusalem. Therefore your argument: It can be argued, therefore, that Egypt felt the full force of God's wrath before Jerusalem did. is proven to be misleading and inaccurate since this is not the calamity of God's wrath prophecied in Jeremiah 25.

And what about the siege of 597 BCE, where Jehoiachin and the royal family were forced to surrender and, along with "all Jerusalem," were taken into exile - 18,000 according to 2 Kings 24 - as well as having the temple virtually stripped of its sacred treasures? Was that not a calamity?

Yes, but that is not the specific calamity mentioned in Jeremiah 25. Verse 32 describes this: "This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Look! A calamity is going forth from nation to nation, and a great tempest itself will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. 33 And those slain by Jehovah (people of the nations by Nebuchadnezzar) will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth."

Moreover, does not the fact that Nebuchadnezzar himself appointed a puppet king of his own choosing further demonstrate that the kingdom of Judah was already in servitude to Babylon BEFORE the city was destroyed 11 years later?

No it does not. The calamity of Neb that would be brought upon Jerusalem had still not occurred during the time of Jer 25. Verse 1 tells us this was the 4th year of Jehoiakim. It would be the year 608 BCE according to your chronology. And the calamity against the nations and Jerusalem was being prophecied as a future event in that year. This again proves that the 70 year servitude of the nations had not yet begun since the servitude and thus the calamity was supposed to have started in 609 BCE.

Dan. 1:1f indicates that Judah's servitude to Babylon began in Jehoiakim's 3rd regnal year, when he besieged the city, took some temple treasures and some nice, young nobles back to Babylon. This would have been when Nebuchadnezzar swept through Palestine after Carchemish.

No it does not. As I just showed you from Jeremiah 25, the calamity of Jerusalem and the nations was being prophecied as a future event during the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which would be a year after the event described in Daniel 1 took place. So the calamity had not yet started during Jehoiakim's 3rd year, since Jer 25 tells us how in his fourth year the calamity had not yet been brought upon Jerusalem and the nations.

It's also worth noting that Ashkelon was reduced to rubble at the end of 604 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year (Babylonian Chronicles). That city's calamity began long before the same fate befell Jerusalem.

The prophecy never stated anything about Ashkelon being one of the nations that would be in servitude to Neb for the 70 years. Of course Neb plundered and destroyed other nations. We are talking about the specific nations mentioned in the 70 year servitude prophecy. Read Jeremiah 25, 27, and 29 to refresh your memory. Showing us how other nations were plundered before Jerusalem's destruction does not disprove my argument. If you could prove that the specific nations mentioned were desolated before Jerusalem's destruction, then you'd have a point.

So can you see how your insistence that 'calamity' = 'Jerusalem's destruction' = 'the start of the nations' 70 year servitude' doesn't fit with the scriptural and historical facts?

Nope. It is your argument that requires so much twisting and contradiction of the prophecies of Jeremiah. Jeremiah says the calamity had not yet happened and yet your argument requires that it already has. You take the prophecy out of Jeremiah and making it nothing more than a statement of facts, presented as prophecy, which doesn't add up since he tells us what specific year he made these prophecies.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

I am on a posting limit so I will try to address everything in this one post

Moshe did nothing but post random/cute pictures which we'll thank him for. It was an nice 20 seconds of laughter at their ridiculousness. Still no scriptural argument given.

mrsjones5 didn't provide a scriptural argument to provide the interpretation wrong but just said it was a parable/myth that had a different meaning but still no scriptural argument given.

transhuman68 stated the problem with the faithful and discreet slave doctrine is that you have to accept the FDS's interpretation of the parables/illustrations in the gospels in literal/figurative ways. Still no scriptural argument given.

144001, like his buddy mosche, posted another cute picture for us. Thanks! Still no scriptural argument given.

JWGoneBad wrote 10 "responses", none of which scripturally argued against the JW FDS doctrine. It was simply rhetoric, distorted facts, and of course his/her opinions. He later admits that he doesn't know who the FDS is, yet he's for sure it isn't the WTS. Thanks for the apostate rhetoric and opinion, but save it. We could all throw around our opinion about this religion or that religion. All I asked for were scriptural arguments. JWGoneBad failed to provide one just as all his other apostate buddies did.

King Solomon stated: A parable is NOT a prophecy, and is NOT literal. It is ALWAYS a type of ANALOGY. NOT a prophecy. The JWs as well (as many others) have been turning parables into prophecies with as much ease as Jesus turned water into wine.... That fact doesn't excuse the practice.

There are many parables/illustrations that turned out to be prophetic signs/portents, thus foreshadowing literal, actual events. Your quoted definition proves my point: "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.." Look at Ezekiel 23. It tells a story about the history of Oholibah and Oholah. How these beautiful young women were raised and adorned with fine gold but later became prostitutes. In the story Jehovah says he will rouse passionate lovers against Oholibah. Because this is a parable (according to your definition: a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson i.e. the downfall of Jerusalem for her spiritual adultery), this means Jehovah isn't rousing passionate lovers like the Chaldeans against Oholibah, right? Wrong. You are taking a general rule you believe to be so, and applying it to every parable in the Bible which does not fit since some parables contain prophecies, and thus your argument against the FDS doctrine has no real merit whatsoever. Still no scriptural argument given.

CaptainObvious went on a rant about Rutherford and Russell and more rhetoric, but didn't use any scriptures to prove JW's wrong.

Aware! simply pointed out that there is no point in arguing about it, and didn't use any scriptures to prove JW's wrong but instead pointed to a website. Fernando wants to know who I believe the anointed are from my research of the scriptures, and that's fine, I will start a thread on that later but he still didn't use any scriptures to prove JW's wrong. AussieOz provided a simple explanation of why he believes the FDS aren't found among JW's but didn't use any scriptures to prove JW's wrong. DATA-DOG posted some interesting points and maybe one or two scriptures, which I will address when I am able to make another post (since I am restricted to one for the day) moshe continues to post cute little pictures of old ladies for us, thanks for the laugh! Gotta love moshe. Sadly no scriptural arguments given after at least 5 posts in this thread Jeffro went on a rant about there's barely evidence that Jesus ever existed and that the Bible isn't God's inspired word, but sadly no scriptural arguments given. Jeffro, you can start a new thread proving your claims against the Bible's inspiration and I will engage in a discussion once my posting is no longer restricted. stillstuckcruz referred to Ray Franz's explanation of why the FDS doctrine is wrong. Sadly, no scriptural arguments given. But for the record, yes I have read portions of the book years ago and that particular section, but trust me it didn't weaken my faith one bit. sir82 asked: Please explain why this particular parablemust be a prophecy that applies to the 20th / 21st century? The Bible shows us this had a literal fulfillment in the first century. Since the FDS would have to be providing spiritual food when the Master returned then this must be fulfilled in our present day. We know that Jesus parousia started in 1914 so it would be necessary for it to be happening right now in the 20th/21st century.

leavingwt asked: Recovery: Welcome! Have you read either of Ray Franz's books? I've read bits and pieces of In Search of Christian Freedom and the part about the Mexico Military issue in the Crisis of Conscience. Why do you ask?

DATA-DOG continued on his opinionated rant, which I do not have the time nor the desire to address since there were no scriptural arguments given.

Ding just went on a rant about the WT's rant and why Jesus' parable couldn't possibly apply to them but still no scriptural arguments.

Moshe posted another adorable pictures for us

The rest of the responses were simply rhetoric of what was already stated and more opinions and miscellaneous quotes from the WT to support those again.

In all, over 2 pages of responses and they all have a common denominator: NO SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST JW'S DOCTRINE OF THE FDS WERE GIVEN.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

The verses in question are a parable

Yes we know that. Jesus is known for his great parables, many of which had literal, serious implications for his followers. What is your point?

and are designed to be interpreted for the purposes of epiphany.

Well thanks for your opinion but my question was asking for a better scriptural explanation of the parable.

The Watchtower interprets the parable wrongly by applying it to a single group of men.

The June 15, 2009 Watchtower comments: "It (Spiritual Israel) came into existence with the outpouring of God’s spirit at Pentecost 33 C.E. Thereafter, all spirit-anointed Christians became part of the nation that now served as the slave class appointed by the Master, Jesus Christ. " Doesn't sound like the WT interprets the parable applying to a "single group of men" and even if they did interpret it as such, you still have not proven them scripturally wrong for their interpretation yet you so forthcomingly pronounce it as wrong.

It's the Watchtower that ignores the "entire inspired Bible" when interpreting the parable.

Not at all. There are over 70 scriptural references in just 4 paragraphs of information under the heading "Faithful and Discreet Slave" in the Insight Book, page 805. Yet you have still failed to provide just one scriptural reference for your interpretation and yet the WT is the one ignoring the Bible? Who really is ignoring the Bible sabastious, you or the WTS?

They simply use it to create and enforce power

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm still waiting on that scriptural refutation of JW's interpretation of the FDS.

When they were called out to Victoria Australia for not complying with the "Working With Children Act" they sent a represenative that informed the Victorian court that the Faithful and Discreet slave were not a legal entity and essentially not real. This is because even THEY know that their interpretation of the parable is bunk and a means to control their populace.

Well I would never read in a Watchtower where the anointed claim to be a legal entity. I don't see how thousands of anointed Christians who have various responsibilities all over the world could be considered a 'legal entity'. Just because something isn't considered a 'legal entity' does not mean it doesn't exist. What type of reasoning is that?

Think of a cafeteria, there are servants and then there are guests. The "faithful slaves" are people who have taken it upon themselves to lead and teach in due season. They are not appointed, they are just slaves taken from the domestics who are given food to serve to the people. No single group of people or single man (Charles Taze Russell for instance) can be possitively identified as fulfilment of this parable.

Well that's funny because the Bible clearly says the faithful slave is appointed by the Master, Christ Jesus. So your interpretation definitely could not be correct since 'people take it upon themselves' to feed the children of God and are not actually appointed to do so by the Head of the congregation. I don't know which faithful slaves you're following. You say no single group of people can be positively identified as fulfillment of this parable, yet you earlier stated that the FDS represents all faithful followers of Christ (one group of people). You are contradicting yourself.

This makes sense to me, but like I said there is no identifying the faithful slaves, that's why the question is left open ended.

According to your interpretation the faithful slaves are faithful followers of Christ. Jesus said "All will know that you are disciples if....", "you will recognize those men by their fruits".. and so forth yet you are saying there is no identifying Jesus' faithful followers?

Only when the master returns is the faithful slave successfully identified and rewarded.

The faithful slave is providing proper food at the proper time before the Master arrives. Since Jesus appointed the slave before he arrives (again), then the slave would have to already be identified.

However the given criteria can still be used to ascertain the likely role that preachers of the Gospel would fill if the master returned.

Yes. Why don't we examine some of that criteria? I've yet to see you use or quote a single scripture. Moreover, you've failed to prove that JW's interpretation of the parable is wrong, so I'm not really sure if you can even provide 'criteria' that would be used to ascertain the likely role that preachers of the Gospel would fill.

Well, let me rephrase. The pool that the slaves are taken out of is the entire human population. They are taken FROM the domestics which signify everybody who didn't choose to take a leadership position in regards to the Gospel. The faithful slaves see a need and fill it, but they are not identified by any particular group or sect.

Please provide scriptural references to backup these statements. Otherwise, are you just going to continue throwing out your own private interpretations of how the parable is fulfilled? Again, not a single scripture quoted or referenced.

I didn't push anything, I answered the question you posed

No you did not. To answer the question, one would have had to provide scriptural support for a better interpretation than that of JW's. You didn't quote a single scripture so how could you possibly have answered the question?

The JW's cannot prove that the faithful and discreet slave is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

JW's don't believe the FDS is the Governing Body. You cannot even accurately represent what we teach yet you claim we are wrong. You have done nothing but eject your own private interpretations of what the parable meant and have failed to provide the scriptural presentation/refutation alluded to and asked for in the original post. You cannot prove the faithful and discreet slave interpretation by JW's is incorrect and therefore you did not answer the question satisfactorily. You tried but failed miserably.

and like I said there is written proof that they believe it's all a bunch of crap. They are not interested in Bible truth they are interested in money and power.

Sure, sure, sure! Who am I to argue against the private scriptural interpretations and mighty Biblical arguments of the mighty sabastious?

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Start by reading the passages before and after that one(*).

Have done so numerous times.

They are all about being prepared, about not knowing the day and time.

Well everything in Matthew 24 is in answer to this question in verse 3: "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”
Now read the "faithful servant" passage, staying mindful of that context.

Okay

What is that passage about? Is it an abrupt change in topic to identify a ruler of the faithful, immediately followed by a return to the previous topic? Or is it consistent with the other passsages in Matthew 24 and 25, a warning to always be ready because you never know when the time--your time--will come?

Well the entire chapter of Matthew 24 is about Jesus' presence and the conclusion of the system of things. There is definitely more involved with Jesus' presence than just being ready because you don't know the day nor the hour. That is a ridiculous line of reasoning and you know it.

The Watchtower interpretation only makes sense in isolation. It does not fit when the passage is read in context.

Actually the WT's interpretation makes perfect sense when we consider the context. Surely, Jesus' would provide a spiritual feeding program for his followers during such turbulent and gruesome days. Jesus is Head of the Congregation isn't he?

So again, we have another post that has yet to scripturally provide a better explanation than that provided by JW's.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Their explanation of it is wrong because the verses don't answer the question as to who the faithful slave actually is.

Well that's what we have the entire inspired Bible for. Just because something is not explained directly and completely in the context of the original statement, it does not imply that an explanation not contained in the original statement is false. That's a weak and misleading argument especially when we consider that there are many situations in the Bible where the original context did not explicitly explain the meaning/application of a statement/prophecy.

It leaves the question open ended and is rhetorical by nature. It's that way for a reason.

Okay, no objections here.

What the Faithful Slave Parable is really describing is the dichotomy of people during the presence of the son the "Son of Man." Even though there are always many ways to categorize a population by demographic Jesus is saying that there are essentially only two fundamental classes: the faithful slaves and the evil slaves.

Well I'd have to disagree with you here. Notices verses 46 and 47 "whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings."

If the faithful slave is describing a group of faithful people why is there a distinction between the faithful slave and the domestics? If there are basically two fundamental classes, why does the parable carry the differentiation between the responsibility of the faithful slave over the domestics? Why is the slave appointed over the belongings and not the domestics? How could all of Jesus' faithful ones be appointed over all his belongings from the time there were first faithful slaves until his arrival (which as you affirm is more than 2,000 years later)?

The "master being away" signifies Jesus leaving the earthly kingdom for an unknown amount of time.

Okay

The "master returning" signifies the second coming of Christ and that time period would be when these two classes would exist.

Since the faithful slave represents all faithful followers of Christ, these two class would exist from the time of Jesus' arrival in the first century, not just during his coming. Verse 48 proves this when it says: "But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My master is delaying'.." So the 'evil slaves' would exist BEFORE the Master returned.

When Jesus comes back (actually, not invisibly) he will simply reward and crown the victor between the two and the criteria is the feeding the children of God "at the proper time" or "in due season."

This is exactly my point. How could the faithful slave represent all faithful followers of Christ and at the same time have the responsibility to feed the children of God at the proper time? Is every so-called Christian feeding the children of God? Your own interpretation debunks itself.

The rest of your statement is just rhetoric and opinion. I can't help but notice you pushed your viewpoints and your interpretation, instead of what the Bible tells us. Isn't it interesting JW's can prove who the faithful slave is from the scriptures yet the opposers can only offer up what they think the interpretation is without using a single scripture?

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

Well, one can always go the figurative 70 years route :-)

Well, after parading around and promoting such a 'scripturally sound' argument supposedly based on God's word proving 609 BCE for months now, it's a little late to throw that explanation in there isn't it? After all, the author of the thread has affirmed that the 70 years are literal, and there's been no biblical evidence presented to show the 70 years to be figurative. I don't see how presenting the WTS view helps your argument or proves your point.

Londo already mentioned that Assyria was totally finished as the dominant empire in 609 BCE with the sack of Harran. So the Assyrians (despite a few revolts in the northern territories that Nabopolaasar had to squash) were already serving the king of Babylon.

Yes, of course. Babylon had already defeated Assyria as a world power in 612 BCE. 609 BCE was just the finishing blow. They were serving the king of Babylon but not Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah 27:6 reads "And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’

Showing us how Babylon demolished Assyria proves nothing. Notice how the scripture says "I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb". Jehovah would not have to give anything into the hand of Neb if these nations were already subject to his father during his rule. They would fall into his hand automatically as successor and king of Babylon. The scripture mentions the nations will serve Neb, his father, and his grandson. Why no mention of a father anywhere in any scripture if the 70 year servitude, figurative or literal, started with Neb's father? Isn't that a very important detail to leave out? Surely Jehovah was so focused on Nebuchadnezzar's future conquests that he forgot about the conquests his father had already made.

The context of Jer. 27 is that "in the beginning of the kingdom of Jehoiakim [if indeed it was him]" Judah and Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon should, at that time, put on Babylon's yoke; anyone who doesn't will get it worse and reap severe punishments, so don't listen to the false prophets who say you don't need to serve Babylon; if you do as God says and serve Babylon (i.e. not rebel), you'll be left in peace, etc. (Compare Babylonian Chronicle, Obv. 18-20.)

So you've just admitted that the servitude of the nations Jeremiah prophesied against had not yet begun by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule, which according to secular chronology began in 608 B.C.E. However, this contradicts the argument that the 70 year servitude had begun with the defeat of Assyria in 609 B.C.E. one year earlier. According to your own words the nations had not been in servitude to the king of Babylon by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule yet your argument regarding 609 B.C.E. as the beginning of the servitude requires that they were, otherwise the 70 years could not have possibly started in 609 B.C.E. Which is it AnnoMaly?

Similarly with Jer. 28. Hananiah was falsely prophesying (again an incitement to rebellion) that the Babylonian yoke the Jews were already under would be broken, that the exiles already in Babylon would return in a couple of years and the temple utensils restored. Not so, says Jeremiah, break the yoke you are under and you will get a far worse one. Then in ch. 29 Jeremiah does some damage limitation and sends out a letter to those exiles to say they will be there for the duration, until the "70 years for Babylon" are fulfilled. So none of your cited Scriptures, when taken in context, indicate that "the 70 years of the nations serving Babylon do not begin until after the days of Zedekiah."

Well it is only after Zedekiah's death that the temple of Jerusalem is destroyed and that the 70 year servitude of the nations (including Jerusalem) would begin. Jeremiah 25 makes this quite obvious. Verse 27 tells us: "And you must say to them (the nations mentioned in the preceding verses), ‘This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Drink and get drunk and puke and fall so that YOU cannot get up because of the sword that I am sending among YOU.”’ 28 And it must occur that in case they refuse to take the cup out of your hand to drink, you must also say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah of armies has said: “YOU will drink without fail. 29 For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”’

So the calamity of Babylon would be brought upon the nations after Jerusalem's desolation. That was the starting point of everything. But according to what you're saying Jerusalem and thus the nations were already under Babylonian yoke (the 70 year servitude) when the events that happened in the fourth year of Zedekiah (Jeremiah 28), while Zedekiah was still reigning. This is impossible because it is only after Zedekiah was removed as king and killed that Jerusalem was destroyed and thus the calamity was brought upon the nations.

You also have to remember that the nations' 70 years' servitude to Babylon was obligatory, decreed by God. Destruction of Judah's capital city and land was not a foregone conclusion - it was avoidable:

Well of course. I have never denied this. But the scriptures say the calamity started with the desolation of Jerusalem (that we know took place since it's well documented and recorded in the Bible). But I don't see how this substantiates any of your claims? Regardless of whether it was or was not a definite prophecy (being contingent on the response of the inhabitants), it still happened, and thus the 70 year servitude of the nations began with the desolation of Jerusalem.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

If you cannot produce a different, more plausible, and scripturally accurate meaning of Jesus' words, how can you say for sure that JW's explanation of it is wrong?

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Well I'd never consider the words of Jesus Christ himself to be a myth or to have no meaning whatsoever. Regardless of what JW's believe about the FDS, Jesus still used it in a parable and it is a statement found in God's inspired word. So since you so forthcomingly and boldly state it to be nothing more than a JW myth, surely you must have another plausible explanation of what it means/represents since JW's explanation of it is just wrong.