Recovery

Joined

• started 10 topics
• posted 300 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Recovery

• 
  207

  Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by Recovery in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Recovery

  chrisjoel said: Are you seriously going to sit here and pontificate your views without giving serious thought to Emerys post by passing it off as mere apostate conjecture.? When you know damn well you dont want to deal with it. Do yourself a favor and read In Search Of CHristian Freedom by Ray
  Franz

  I tried to give Emery's post serious thought, but once I saw he was more interested in quoting out of print books and 1950 Watchtower's to prove his argument I lost interest. Sorry, I am the JW. I read the publications enough. I wanted a scriptural argument against JW's, but all I got was a Watchtower argument. I'll read that book later but right now I'm more interested in seeing if anyone has scriptural arguments that hold water against JW's.

  outsmartthesystem: Thanks for the djeggnog quotes but I am not him, I merely reached that conclusion using a simple thing called common sense and reasoning based on the context. Psalm 34 does not start off with a question that requires an explanation regarding future events, does it? That is a poor example and a weak example. Are you going to debate what I've posted or are you going to continue to provide lovely quotes from your favorite JW djeggnog?

  leavingwt: Nice pictures.

  jgnat: Didn't see a scripture there. OOPS.

  King Solomon: No it would be ridiculous for the GB to keep a list of all who partake, since the Memorial is open to the public and anyone can partake and claim to be of the anointed. Merely partaking of the bread and wine does not make one anointed. Such a list would be inaccurate and a waste of time/energy.

  mrsjones5: Hm, it seems that Recovery has gone missing. I wonder why? Well, my 10 posts for the day were done. So I logged off, went to work, went out in field service, and now I'm back. Did you miss me?

  DATA-DOG: Did he give up?! I was just getting ready to ask why the Holy Spirit appoints recommends and then appoints child molesters.. Oh, well..... I'm sure you didn't need me to answer that question as enough common sense would tell you that appointment with holy spirit does not prevent one from engaging in gross immoral acts.

  So after 7 pages what have we gathered? Many posts of just copy and pastes from 1950s and 1970s WTs. Many posts of private interpretations of what Matthew 24:45 means. Many posts about who the burden of proof is on, and tit-for-tats when it comes to proper by the book "debating" fallacies. Many posts that asked questions (like Indian Larry) that were completely unrelated to the subject. Many posts that simply wanted me to read Ray Franz's book (apostates replacement for the Watchtower magazines I guess).

  BUT NOT A SINGLE REFUTATION (USING SCRIPTURES) TO DISPROVE THE FDS DOCTRINE. NOT A SINGLE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT THAT ACTUALLY HELD WEIGHT WHEN EXAMINED.

  Surely, the most popular 'JW' forum on the net can do better than this?
• 
  207

  Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by Recovery in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Recovery

  Indian Larry said: Explain to me why the FDS does not agree with when the 70 years ended. Jehovah was clear that it had to be COMPLETE BEFORE he called into account Nebuchadezzar. How can the slave say it ended two years after Nebuchadnezzar died if the dead are conscience of "nothing at all"?

  Jeremiah 27:6, 7 "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.’

  Daniel refers to Nabonidus as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather” or “grandson”; “son of” can mean “grandson of” or even “descendant of.” So the 70 years ended right on time since the nations were still serving Neb's "son" or "grandson" (either phrase would work).

  Who do you believe is the faithful and discrete slave? I assume from your line of reasoning you believe what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, is that correct? Yes.

  King Solomon and sebastious seem to be the type that like to argue over 'words' and grammar and fallacies instead of the subject at hand.

  That's been answered repeatedly, but for some reason you don't feel compelled to accept our interpretation, just as we don't feel to accept yours? Since you've simply assembled a series of nebulous inferred claims based on your desire to convert a parable into a prophecy, you haven't presented sufficient evidence to convince anyone, so we don't accept it... If you HAVE further evidence, lay it on us: we're all ears. No it hasn't. If it's been answered repeatedly then please present it. The only response I got repeatedly was that 'the faithful slave represents all faithful Christians'. When I showed this to be impossible there were no other answers given. If there is one, by all means provide it. I've shown my evidence in my post "The Faithful Slave- Letting the Bible Interpret Itself". Why don't you offer a rebuttal to it, if you can. I will not even address the rest of your post since it was a mere argument about who the burden of proof rests on, when it really doesn't matter as I've presented my case and no one has successfully challenged it scripturally.

  To sebastious: I really do not care to argue tit-for-tat about every little sentence I post about the scripture. This thread was not made for the purpose of arguing in circles about Matthew being God's word...maybe it's not...your painting a bad picture of apostates...etc. That is so tedious and pointless. Debate about the scripture/what I've presented or I won't be engaging in any further discussion with you as it's obvious you and your apostabuddies dont have a real case against JW's.

  DATA-DOG: You again asked a bunch of circular, irrelevant, misleading questions that do not debate the subject at hand. The Bible tells us God's purpose in connection with Christ Jesus is made known through the congregation. I'm sorry if you have a problem with how God has things in place for spiritual instruction, but that is not my problem nor is it something you can hold against JW's, when the Bible tells us this. Debate about the scripture/what I've presented or I won't be engaging in any further discussion with you as it's obvious you and your apostabuddies don't have a real case against JW's.

  Moshe: Debate about the scripture/what I've presented (using actual scriptures and not cut and paste from apostate websites) or I won't be engaging in any further discussion with you as it's obvious you and your apostabuddies don't have a real case against JW's.

  Jeffro: Debate about the scripture/what I've presented (using actual scriptures and not arguing over words and asserting your own opinions) or I won't be engaging in any further discussion with you as it's obvious you and your apostabuddies don't have a real case against JW's.

  Saeurkraut: Yes, my posts are quite lengthy given that I have to respond to 15/20 people everytime I log on and my posts are restricted to 10 a day. Paul says in Ephesians 4:4 that all who are called have one hope. Well, yes the anointed have one hope. That of going to heaven and ruling with Christ. Revelation 5:10 "and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.” There cannot be a government of heavenly kings without earthly subjects. So yes, there are two hopes and the rest of what you posted does not disprove what the Bible clearly says. Notice 2 Peter 3:13 "But there are new heavens and a new earththat we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell." So yes there is a hope of living on a new earth, as Revelation 21 clearly shows us. "1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth". The parable about the FDS is an encouragement to all Brothers of Christ to care for one another. It's aimed at every Christian individually. As I've already showed it is impossible for every individual Christian from the first century until now to be appointed over all Christ's belongings. The Society perceives itself as a Prophet quite clearly, whether you want to accept that or not. Yes, a prophet, a watchman, in the sense that they proclaim God's warnings. Not that their writings are divinely inspired as the list of quotes I provided repeatedly show. The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones." Of course it doesn't. Imagine if they tried to write down the name of every one who ate the bread at the memorial. It takes more than doing that to prove you are of the anointed. "By their fruits you will recognize those men". It's plainly obvious who the anointed are, so they do not need to keep tabs on every individual who claims to be of the anointed (as the reasons stated in the article show this to be quite reasonable). Besides that, if anointed are to dispense food at the proper time, why are mostly non-anointed responsible for writing publications? I'm sorry, have you spoken with the entire writing committee and asked them what hope they have? Didn't think so.

  Just mere rhetoric and again not a single scripture used to refute the FDS doctrine. Many have tried, few used scriptures, but all failed.
• 
  207

  Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by Recovery in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Recovery

  King Solomon said: Sooooo, using your own logic: if some other church claims to be the Faithful and Wise Servant, using the same scriptural proof as WTBTS does, then we MUST accept that, and prove them wrong?

  I could claim to be King of Mars, and you'd be forced to accept it until it is positively disproven?

  This is not my line of reasoning at all. Notice my original question: Let's assume, as most of your probably have, that the anointed Christians are not the FDS. If the anointed are not the FDS, who are? My question does not require that anyone accept what JW's teach about the FDS. The only thing my question is requiring is that it be shown that the FDS interpretation is wrong. It is like this: Someone says to me: You are not straight! (JW's are not the FDS) You are gay (JW's are not the FDS). I say: Okay, that might be true, but since you're saying that I am definitely not straight, prove it.(prove that JW's are wrong, you don't have to assume they are right, just prove them wrong) You don't have to believe that i'm straight to prove that I'm not. (You don't have to accept JW's FDS teaching to prove them wrong) Then the person responds: No, your logic is all messed up! YOU need to prove that you are straight. (No, the burden of proof is on you). I don't believe you are straight (JW's are not the FDS) but it is not my responsibility to prove that you are not straight (but the burden of proof is on you), it is yours to prove that YOU ARE straight!

  It is the opposers who have the ridiculous and absurd reasoning as shown here. My question did not require that anyone accept that JW's teach until it is proven wrong. It only required that the JW's be proven wrong. What a sly inference to thwart and belittle my reasoning ability when that was never a requirement of the question.

  Whathappened admitted he doesn't worry about the subject and thus had no scriptural refutation of my points.

  DATA-DOG asked a bunch of irrelevant, unrelated questions which I will now painstakingly answer. This question fails to take into account that a slave can be faithful and discreet, and then cease to behave in that manner. No it doesn't. The question simply requires that someone else, a different group of people, individual, or animal be shown to the faithful and discreet slave. Whether the faithful slave remains faithful is irrelevant to the question that I asked. What is the scriptural hope of all who died BEFORE Christ? Resurrection to a paradise earth under the Messianic Kingdom ruled by Christ and his 144,000 co-rulers. What is the Christian hope? Your hope is dependent on Jehovah. One hope is to reign as a king/priest in heaven over the earth, the other is to live forever and inherit the earth. did the heavenly hope ever end, if so by who's authority and when? No it did not. Do you personally feel that you will gain everlasting life? If so, why? Yes, because of my obedience and faithfulness to the instructions found in God's word for many years regarding how I should live my life. I do not believe I am guaranteed salvation, as I could stumble at any time.

  outsmartthesystem your questions were answered in my previous posts. Look closely.

  sebastious said: I did give you a scriptural reference of which you ignored and dismissed. You acted like I didn't give it and then asked the same question again. You don't give satisfactory reasoning as to why the particular reference is invalid, you just say so. The people who are reading this thread should consider Recovery as a quintessential example of confirmation bias. Now, the brain does work by association so it's constantly confirming data that is coming in with known data, so there is healthy range to confirmation bias as we need it to sort the data taken in by our senses. A lot of people get wrongly accused on this forum of acting out confirmation bias, but we need only take a look at Recovery here to see the real deal. The poster child so to speak. I showed you failed to post a single scripture (which is obvious from your first page of response) and you merely flouted your own interpretation about why the interpretation is wrong. I asked for scriptures and you failed to provide them. You then referred me to videos, instead of presenting scriptural arguments. If my eyes are playing tricks on me, please post your scripture and I can discuss it in detail when I am able to post again.

  Recovery is implying that we have in our possession the actual words of Jesus. As if we have an ancient tape recorder or something. This is not even close to true, but nonetheless he slams it on the table and demands that everyone just assume it's true because he does. When there is nothing but evidence that all of Jesus words were preserved through unreliable oral tradition that was translated into a foreign language. The end product of the Gospels are just copies of copies, but when Recovery refers to "Jesus' words" he acts like he has them on hand.

  Well I firmly believe the Gospels to be the actual words of Christ Jesus. I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God and completely accurate historically, scientifically, and prophetically. That is why I asked opposers to prove JW's scripturally wrong, since it is already assumed that the Bible is the infallible word of God that bears the exact words of Christ Jesus. You are refuting something that has nothing to do with the argument. If you want to refute the Bible, this isn't the thread. We can discuss that later. The question requires that the opposing viewpoint use scriptures to prove their argument, thus it is already assumed the Bible contains Jesus' actual words.

  Here is another assertion that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" which is just an assumption he tries to slam down all our throats. These foundational peices are unverified, but are nonetheless required for Recovery's theology to make any sense whatsoever. He has to make sure he's the "home team" or else he has no chance of winning even under his own definitions and requirements.

  Let me make this clear: When I asked for scriptures refuting JW's point, I thought it was seemingly obvious that the Bible would be regarded as the infallible guide which would show us what we should believe and what we should not. I'm sorry if it is too difficult for you to put those pieces together. If this is a scriptural discussion, why would even consider the notion that the Bible isn't God's word? If that's what was assumed when the question was asked: why are we even debating it in the first place?

  So now Recovery has shown his true intentions. He did not make this thread to get any questions answered, he wanted to show to the lurkers, that he knows exists here, that we are wrong by any means necessary. He essentially rigs the entire conversation by putting the burden of proof on this forum rather than where it logically should fall which is on the alleged Watchtower FDS and HIM.

  Yes, you correctly bolded my true intentions. My true intentions are to find a more scripturally sound argument/refutation of what JW's believe. I did not even start the thread proving anyone wrong, I just want them to prove JW's wrong. The burden of proof is not on the WTS and ME to start with since all the participants in this board are well familiar with the proof the WTS uses. They object to that proof, now I'm asking them to show me why.

  I then gave my answer to his question in his OP which was swiftly rejected as invalid. All of this is a set up for Recovery to be able to say thing like this:

  I am simply calling a spade a spade. You did not use any scriptures to back up your argument. All you did was give your own private interpretation (which I later proved to be impossible, which you never responded to), so you brought this upon yourself. If you can't argue without your own private interpretations of the Bible, referencing Youtube videos, and logical fallacies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, that is not my fault. I'm sorry this was too complicated for you.

  A lot of people have given you their time, Recovery, why not offer the same in return? Once again you are using your own bias to generalize and come to firm conclusions. What this all amounts to is that you are nothing but a JW troll who had a moment of braveness to go "expose" apostates on the internet. But what actually happened is the opposite of what you set out to do. You have given the JW's a bad witness as the vast majority of them do. All you did was confirm your own bias while many here have confirmed actual truths about how JW's interact with ex members: shamefully. I thank you for your time.

  I have given the members of this board quite a considerable amount of my time as my quite lengthy posts show since I have to respond to 15 or 20 people every time I log back on. That is far more than you did for me. I do not have the time to watch private interpretations of the Bible on Youtube, by an apostate, a JW, a Baptist, a Muslim, or anyone. I am not biased I am just honest when I tell you I don't see the appeal of it when it takes so much of my already limited time.

  Again, sebastious wants me to watch a video for his 'proof'. Why can't he type out his arguments like the rest of us? Is it because he knows he doesn't really have an argument and just wants to keep engaging in the discussion so he feels like he's winning?

  Indian Larry said: Explain to me why the FDS directly claims Jehovah lied in Jeremiah 25:12 - I have never read an article where it was stated that Jehovah lied about a scripture.

  When is the 144,000 sealed? See Revelation 7 - Well there are two sealings. The first sealing is when they are baptized and anointed with holy spirit. (see Ephesians 1:13) The second sealing is after they have demonstrated their faithfulness and proven their integrity. This sealing happens before the "four winds of destruction" are let go.

  Indian Larry said: You can not compare the “slave” to the apostles. The apostles had evidence of holy spirit. They could heal, raise people from the dead etc. That is evidence. Why can't I? They are all men, saying 'Here...this is where the Christ is' (with us). Also as I demonstrated earlier with my references to Matthew 7:22, 23, powerful signs (such as healing and raising people from the dead) and prophesying and expelling demons would not be evidence that those were his true followers. You use Luke 21:8 to prove the FDS doctrine to be wrong, but if we take it that literally it would also prove the authority of the apostles to have been wrong in the first century. Which is it, Indian Larry? Are we to take the scripture dogmatically literal or are we going to use our logic and reason to that it's understood in context?

  Battling quotes leads to nowhere though. The WTBTS claims to be God’s only “spirit directed” organization. How can you be spirit directed and not inspired. They want to have it both ways.

  1 Samuel 16:3 shows us that there is a difference between being led by holy spirit and being inspired. "And the spirit of Jehovah began to be operative upon David from that day forward..." Didn't David make an illegal census that resulted in the death of thousands of Israelites? Didn't David commit adultery and have Bathsheba's husband unjustly murdered? Didn't he almost kill another man until Abigail brought him to his senses? See spirit direction is perfect, but it does not always have to be followed. Spirit inspiration is also perfect, but when something is written under inspiration it is "God breathed" and thus perfect and infallible. Spirit direction is not that way.

  As far as Nathan, as I said earlier I am open minded and I will read those passages in the bible tonight with an open mind and see if there is indeed a parallel.

  Great.

  As far as Mark 13:31, did not CT Russel and JF Rutherford both say that Jesus was present in 1874? Yes they did. How does Jesus say to respond to teachings like that which are not true? He says “do not believe it”. You know what? That is good enough for me. Are you saying that we should do other than what Jesus clearly says to do?

  I think Jesus knows that his followers are imperfect and were trying to honestly understand the implications of the deeper things of God's word. I do not think Jesus would be angry/upset with Rutherford for saying he was present before he was, when it was an honest error from chronology they honestly thought to scripturally be true. Mark 13:21 is not talking about honest hearted people searching for Bible truths. It is talking about people who deliberately will try to deceive Jesus' chosen ones. So no, Jesus' words would not apply to Rutherford and Russell, although they were wrong.

  DATA-DOG said: Also do you believe that John 8:31 is true? Yes. Do believe that the GB has never went beyond what is written, or have they violated John 8:31? Of course they have. But let me ask you this: Didn't the apostles go beyond Jesus' words? Have they violated John 8:31?

  If you were on an Island in the middle of the Pacific, and a crate containing books washed ashore, one of them being a Bible, could YOU gain salvation by reading just God's word even though you may never have seen a Bible? Is 1 Timothy 3:16 really true? Or would Jehovah need to send you a crate each month containing the latest issue of the Watchtower and Awake magazines in order for you to gain life?

  No I could not gain salvation by just reading the Bible on my own. Why? Ephesians 3:10 "there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God, 11 according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord." So you see I could read the Bible over and over again on my own, but if I did not gain the wisdom from God to understand what I'm reading from the congregation, I could not gain salvation since I would not know how to apply what I read.

  He needs to stop reading the WT and Awake and stop using the CD-Rom for a couple of months, and then only read the Bible. I've read the Bible on my own numerous times when I was in college, much time before I became a JW. Of course the opposers don't want me to read the WT or Awake magazines. But I'm not going to disobey God's arrangement for feeding his people. I trust that he knows what's best for me, better than any human. But thanks for the tip, I'll keep it mind as I enjoy myself during the meeting tonight.

  Also to leavingwt and his various quotes showing where the WT has claimed to be a prophet, a prophet can simply be someone who proclaims a warning message (as the context clearly showed). Surely doesnt debunk the claims that the WT has repeatedly stated in every decade since its first printing that it is not an inspired prophet with infallible writings. Just mere apostate rhetoric trying to corrupt the mind. Yawn.
• 
  207

  Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by Recovery in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Recovery

  Answering all objections in this one post since I am on a posting limit:

  Jeffro said: Apparently my single brief statement about Jesus ("Aside from the fact that there's barely any evidence Jesus existed at all, and absolutely no evidence for anything attributed to him in the Bible") and my single brief statement about 'inspiration' ("There's no basis for the claim that the Bible is 'inspired', nor any clear definition of just what such 'inspiration' would constitute") is allegedly a 'rant'. And since there is no evidence that the Bible is 'inspired', why the hell would 'scriptural arguments' be needed in support??

  Yes it was a rant. Your answer to my question was that the Bible isn't inspired anyway, and a whole bunch of anti-Biblical rhetoric that wasn't called for since this is a scriptural debate.

  You clearly do not understand the concept of burden of proof. It is up to the person making a claim that something exists to prove that it does, not for others to disprove a negative. Aside from that, no actual definition for the supposed 'mechanism' for 'inspiration' has ever been offered, so there is no basis for any testable hypothesis. It's sad that this is the level of argumentation we're dealing with here. It is probably with good reason that you have a posting limit.

  The question acknowledges that JW's have already done their 'proving' of the doctrine. The members of this board are quite familiar with JW's doctrine and thus there was no need for me to 'prove' from the outset the doctrine since it was already known. However, I just proved it again just for the sake of the argument. The burden of proof is on the opposers since they so forthcomingly claim it is false. JW's have proven their side, now the opposers must prove it wrong, since they are the ones claiming it is false. The only thing sad about this argumentation is that you are better debating about the 'burden of proof' instead of actually proving JW's to be in error when interpreting scripture. Thanks for the insults as it was quite expected since you have no scriptural refutation of anything JW's believe and can only resort to insults/petty definition arguments.

  DATA-DOG said: Why ask for " evidence from those here and then say that you do not have the desire or time to read it? Please read what I have written below as well. Videos on youtube can be anywhere from one minute to many hours. It is much quicker to simply read an argument and discuss it, than to watch several hour long videos on Youtube and then discuss it. I simply do not have the time to do so, so if there was a specific argument presented in the video, type it up here and I'll discuss it. Secondly, I do not believe I am being disobedient to the FDS and even if I was that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

  Indian Larry said: Tell me why I should ignore Jesus's command at Luke 21:8. I am not telling you to ignore Jesus' command. I am telling to examine the subject in context. By this logic, if we were first century Christians we should not have listened to the apostles since they claimed to have authority from Christ himself. It is a relative command (to the context), not a definite one.

  Tell me why Mark 13:21-23 does not apply to the society. Same reason as posted above. The apostles gave spiritual instruction and told many to obey what they said because they were substituting for Christ. If we apply this line of logic, first century Christians should've ignored these statements:

  2 Corinthians 5:20 "We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us."

  Ephesians 3:10 "[This was] to the end that now to the governments and the authorities in the heavenly places there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God, 11 according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord.."

  1 Thessalonians 4:1 "Finally, brothers, we request YOU and exhort YOU by the Lord Jesus, just as YOU received [the instruction] from us on how YOU ought to walk and please God, just as YOU are in fact walking, that YOU would keep on doing it more fully. 2 For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus."

  You cannot apply such dogmatic logic, 'since they are saying Christ is among them they cannot be God's people' because this would mean the apostles were not inspired of God and were not directed by Jesus to give orders to the congregation. If you were in the first century, the congregation is where the backing of Christ and his father would be at, and so thus they would be saying: 'Here is the Christ!' (in the congregation).

  Explain to me why Deuteronomy 18:20-23 does not apply to who you call the "faithful slave" By this reasoning Nathan was also a false prophet when he told David God would be with him in building the temple. But that didn't come true. He later retracted this statement. OOPS! Nathan promised David, he had God's backing in doing something, and it turned out that didn't David didn't build the temple. I guess Nathan was a false prophet as well. However, the WTS is not a false prophet simply because it is not a role it has ever taken on. Whenever its given an explanation for an expectation, it's always provide a warning beforehand that their word is not infallible and should not be taken as the words of God himself

  1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."

  1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy. "

  We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. Zion's Watch Tower, 1908

  1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures.The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word,in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else.

  1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.

  1920s: However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.

  1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended

  1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes.It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles.

  1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.

  1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God]merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it

  Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)

  Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975 F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.

  1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God ’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president.

  1980s:It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8)

  1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God ’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.

  2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.

  I think this proves quite clearly that the WTS has never taken on the role of a prophet and never required that its readers view them as such. Your statements about the nations not beating themselves in lamentations yet can be simply answered with the definition of parousia. Matthew 24:37 "For just as the days of Noah were, so the PAROUSIA of the Son of man will be." Genesis 6:2 tells the days of Noah were 120 years. Christ's presence is not just him coming and avenging his people, but it is quite an extended period time, most of which people take no note that he is already present.

  I'll answer your other questions when I'm allowed to write more posts. Same sentiments regarding the posts of King Solomon and outsmartthesystem and sebastious
• 
  207

  Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by Recovery in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Recovery

  Who Really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave -Letting the Bible Interpret Itself

  Why The Words Are Important and Not Just a Mere Parable:

  Matthew 24 and the parallel accounts of Luke and Mark are in response to the question: "Tell us, Whenwill these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” So everything in Matthew 24 is in answer to this all-important question. This is surely something of importance since Jesus included it in his response and should therefore be taken seriously. Secondly, notice the words 'when will'... and 'what will be...' So Jesus is answering a question that has a future implication. Therefore Matthew 24 is a chapter of prophecy since it concerns future events. Therefore, everything, including the parable, could rightly be said to be a prophecy. So the claim that this is just a mere parable and not a prophecy is false and is clearly at odds with what the Bible tells us.

  Who is the Faithful Slave And What Do They Do?:

  A parallel account of Matthew 24 is found in Luke 12, specifically starting at Luke 12:42 "And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? So putting the accounts together we can gather the faithful steward = faithful steward, the body of attendants = the domestics, and the food supplies = proper food. What is a steward? It is defined as a house manager of administrator, although he himself is a servant. A good example of this would be Joseph (Genesis 39:1-6), who was a steward of Potiphar's house having much authority, although he himself was a slave/servant. This steward would be giving proper food supplies at the proper time. So who is the faithful steward? To answer this question we need to find out who the 'domestics' or 'body of attendants' are and where the spiritual food is dispensed from.

  Who Are The Body of Attendants And Where Does Spiritual Food Come From?

  Since a steward is a house manager (as in the case of Joseph), there must be domestics or the body of attendants. Who are these house servants? Notice 1 Timothy 3:15 "but in case I am delayed, that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in God’s household, which is the congregation of [the] living God, a pillar and support of the truth." Ephesians 2:19 reaffirms this when it says: "Certainly, therefore, YOU are no longer strangers and alien residents, but YOU are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God.."

  Hebrews 3:6 "but Christ [was faithful] as a Son over the house of that One. We are the house of that One, if we make fast our hold on our freeness of speech and our boasting over the hope firm to the end."

  So the domestics were the members of the Christian Congregation. However, such a stewardship of divine truths was also expected of ordinary, regular members of God's household, not just the apostles. 1 Peter 4:10-11 "10 In proportion as each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God." Peter later even references information presented in Paul's letter. So it was the duty of all Christians, whether prophesying, speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, speaking at congregation meetings, or ministering to one another, to provide this vital spiritual food. Even the apostles received spiritual food from one another. 1 Peter 1 tells us that he is talking to the 'chosen ones', the anointed ones, so all anointed ones would have a part in doing this. Even with this being the case, only specific brothers (such as the apostles) gave instruction to the congregations as a whole. This is because even though the entire faithful and discreet slave class, God's anointed ones, provided spiritual food, there were certain individuals put in place to provide spiritual food over the congregations as a whole.

  Notice Ephesians 2:20 "20 and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.."

  1 Corinthians 12:27 "Now YOU are Christ’s body, and members individually. 28 And God has set the respective ones in the congregation, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services, abilities to direct, different tongues..."

  So now all we need to know: was there a spiritual feeding program in the first century to the congregations by the apostles?

  1 Corinthians 3:1,2 "And so, brothers, I was not able to speak to YOU as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed YOU milk, not something to eat, for YOU were not yet strong enough. In fact, neither are YOU strong enough now.."

  Hebrews 5:12 "For, indeed, although YOU ought to be teachers in view of the time, YOU again need someone to teach YOU from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God; and YOU have become such as need milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone that partakes of milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong."

  1 Thessalonians 4:1 "Finally, brothers, we request YOU and exhort YOU by the Lord Jesus, just as YOU received [the instruction] from us on how YOU ought to walk and please God, just as YOU are in fact walking, that YOU would keep on doing it more fully. 2 For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus."

  Ephesians 3:10 "[This was] to the end that now to the governments and the authorities in the heavenly places there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God, 11 according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord.."

  2 Corinthians 5:20 "We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God."

  2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So, then, brothers, stand firm and maintain YOUR hold on the traditions that YOU were taught, whether it was through a verbal message or through a letter of ours."

  It is obvious beyond any doubt that there was a spiritual feeding program. The exact words of the apostles even indicate they used literal food or 'food supplies' as a metaphor for spiritual instruction.

  Who Is The Faithful And Discreet Slave Today?

  Many have put out various charts and photos showing what they believe should be required to identify the faithful and discreet slave of today. They use such things as miracles, infallibility, prophecy, and things of a supernatural sort to prove that JW's cannot be the FDS. However, is this really a valid line of reasoning?

  2 Thessalonians 2:8, 9 "Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents

  This echoes Jesus' earlier sentiments at Matthew 7:22,23 "22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.

  So clearly miracles and powerful works and infallibility and prophecying would not be the identifying marks of true Christians. How then do we identify the faithful and discreet slave today? John 8:31 "And so Jesus went on to say to the Jews that had believed him: “If YOU remain in my word, YOU are really my disciples," So judge JW's on how closely they follow the Bible. We know the Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, purgatory, worship of Mary, reverence of the cross, clergy/laity distinction/, many national holidays, involvement in politics and war, and other things to all be either unscriptural, purely human tradition, of pagan and thus satanic origin, and things that conflict with God's word. If we acknowledge that all these things are unscriptural (not remaining in Jesus' words), where can the faithful and discreet slave be found if it not Jehovah's Witnesses?
• 
  207

  Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by Recovery in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Recovery

  sebastious said: Why did you ignore the videos? In the second video a scriptual reference is given as to why the FDS cannot be the Watchtower. Can you tell me what it is so I know you watched the video?

  I do not have the time nor the desire to watch apostate videos on Youtube. I've already done so in the past countless hours and it was a waste of time and a dissapointment since I was expecting the almighty exGilead graduate to actually set me straight scripturally. If there is a scriptural reference you believe that debunks the FDS doctrine, post it, and we will examine it.

  sir82 said: I will repeat the question: What is it, exactly, that makes you so sure it must be a prophecy, regardless of whether you think the "fulfillment" of that "prophecy was in the 1st or 21st century?

  The answer is in response to the question: "When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and the conclusion of the system of things?" Jesus' response tells us when the things he's previously prophecied will be. To tell them when these things would be, he would have to be referencing something of a future connotation since these things had not yet taken place. Secondly, the Bible even demonstrates the fulfillment of this parable later which proves even further that this parable was also a prophecy.

  We do? Please provide evidence for this assertion. "We" don't know that.

  It is entirely unreasonable to expect me to prove the FDS doctrine, its fulfillment, how JW's fit the FDS today, and many other miscellaneous questions, and then take on the task of proving the parousia began in 1914. It can be done, but such a task would be immeasurably time consuming, and it would likely take this thread in a direction I don't want it to be in. The only suggestion I can give to you is to read the WT Publications regarding 1914. At a later time, I will prove it, but I simply do not have the time to do so right now.

  Fernando said:

  *** w09 10/15 p. 15 par. 14 “You Are My Friends” ***...obey the direction provided by the faithful and discreet slave class... A search for "slave class" in wt lib 2010 produces 870 hits!

  (James 2:4) . . .YOU have class distinctions among yourselves and YOU have become judges rendering wicked decisions. . . (doesn't disprove the FDS doctrine as there were clear distinctions between the congregational roles of 1st century Christians)

  (Matthew 23:8-11) . . .But YOU, do not YOU be called for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘[Governing Body],’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. (doesn't disprove the FDS doctrine as the apostles and other older men taught the first century Christians many things from the Bible)

  (John 14:26) . . .But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU. (Doesn't disprove the FDS doctrine as the FDS acknowledge the role of holy spirit in their understanding of the Bible)

  (1 John 2:27) . . .YOU do not need anyone to be teaching YOU. . . (does not disprove the FDS doctrine as John was in this very chapter teaching Christians about Christ and his sacrifice)

  (Hebrews 8:11) . . .And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother. . . (does not disprove FDS doctrine as Paul was teaching in that very chapter about how the high priest and the tabernacle foreshadow Jesus role as head of the congregation)

  I do not see any contradictions, but instead more scriptures taken out of context which do not disprove the FDS doctrine. But hey, AT LEAST FERNANDO USED SCRIPTURES!

  outsmartthesystem wrote: You are using unproven supposition as the premise from which to build your argument. YOU need to first prove that this scripture is prophetic in nature as opposed to merely being an unexplained parable. If that can be done.....then.....logically the debate can be had as to whom the prophecy should apply to.

  Fair enough. Since no one will use scriptures to disprove JW's, I will use the scriptures to prove that they are right, although the failure of 99% of the posters on this board to provide a scriptural refutation of JW's doctrine (which they already know quite well) already proves JW's right.

  KingSolomon said: You are VERY MISTAKEN on who bears the burden of proof here. It's NOT our burden to disprove their claim: it's up to THEM to quote scripture to PROVE that it's a prophecy pointing to the GB. They can't. That means they can "run their odd interpretation up the flagpole" all day long, but that doesn't mean anyone has to salute.

  They have already done so numerous times. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles where they quote scripture to prove that it is so. The burden of proof is on those who oppose their viewpoint, since it is them who claim that JW's are wrong. You cannot claim someone is wrong, without proving that they are. Therefore the burden of proof rests on you, the members of this board. I am definitely not DJeggnog and you can ask the admins to prove that.

  Emery's post was a bunch of miscellaneous quotes from books that I do not have the time to verify/question and it was not a scriptural refutation anyway. Mere apostate rhetoric, as is so common on this board.

  Moshe again posted apostate rhetoric about an unrelated subject and did not scripturally prove JW's to be wrong.

  Indian Larry admits that he cannot prove who the slave is and thus cannot prove that the FDS isn't found among JW's since he doesn't know who it is. He said:

  Who the slave is I can not prove scripturally for two reasons:

  1. The bible does not say specifically who the slave is. (yes it does, I will show this in my next post)

  2. Jesus names the slave AFTER his return. He has not returned. Has this happened? (the scripture doesn't say he names them after his return, it says he pronounces them happy after his return)

  The rest, again, are quoted scriptures (yay!) but simply do not disprove JW doctrine. I can quote those scriptures to refer to the members of this board or the churches of Christendom as well.

  The Searcher said:

  Have you typed in 'slave' or 'slaves' into the Watchtower Library CD ROM, and examined the usage in the Greek Scriptures?(YES)

  It becomes very clear that everyone who exercises faith in the ransom, becomes a 'slave' of God & Christ. (CORRECT, but they do not become apart of 'THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE' which is entirely different from being an individual slave of Christ)

  We are all accountable for what we do with the "talent". (True)
• 
  207

  Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by Recovery in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.