We have a word play in Portuguese with the name of a fish: Pescada. [Cyniscion leiarchus] In english, it literally means "Fished". So, we ask the riddle: "What is the thing that was, before being?" Answer: the "Pescada". Because it was Fished before it was fished.
The Governing Body wants us to believe they were before they became ... the "faithful slave".
The phrasing in Matthew 24:45 indicates that the reason why the Lord picks that particular slave to provide food in the proper time to the domestics is precisely because he is already considered "faithful and prudent" BEFORE he is assigned that task. The implication of this is simple: He must be in existence before this assignment. The mistake of the GB is to teach that BEFORE 1919 there was no slave, that it came to exist on that year with the supposed appointment by Jesus. This is an obvious misstep; why would the GB make such mistake? It seems obvious to me: They want to discard the teachings and work of Charles Taze Russell. That's why he has been now paralleled with John The Baptist, by saying he did the work of a precursor. But, because he wasn't yet the slave, it can be argued that he wasn't directed by the Lord, and that is why he made a lot of false predictions about 1914, amongst other teachings that were later discarded.
In fact, the true founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses is now JF Rutherford. Russell belongs to the Bible Students movement.
Of course, the whole point is moot when you consider that the "faithful slave" narrative is a PARABLE, not a PROPHECY. It is meant to be a moral story about readiness and faithfulness, that's all there is to it.
EdenOne
