Who Really IS the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by AGuest 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  May you have peace! My apologies for taking so long to respond: had an "eventful" weekend to recover from - LOLOL!

  AGuest, I must say though that I still have concerns about this interpretation, according to Matthew 24:45-51, this faithful and wise servant CAN be punished, cut to pieces actually. Does this apply to Jesus as well ??

  No. The second slave CANNOT be Christ because he would never beat anyone... let alone his FELLOW servants. Thus, it HAS to refer to ANOTHER slave of the house... indeed, a lesser slave. The first slave HAS to refer to Christ, as he is the ONLY one appointed over ALL of the Master's belongings (the problem is that folks don't know how to identify the "Master" in this case. That identification is provided at Matthew 21:33.

  Why does the account at Matthew 24:45-51 seem to be indicating that the slave are one and the same? Because... the TRANSLATORS did not understand who the Master really was! They ASSUMED it was Christ; however, virtually EVERY reference in the NT to "master" refers either to the MOST Holy One of Israel... or to some benign master in a story (Christ is referred to as "master" on only on 4-5 occasions. He is OUR Lord and Master; however, God is HIS Lord and Master).

  In making this assumptive error, the translators then assumed that the next slave was the SAME slave... and wrote the translation to reflect that. It is an error, one made according to the "false stylus" of the "secretaries" ( the scribes/copyists whose job it was to write and translate accurately, but who relied on their OWN understanding... or that given them by whoever retained them to do the translating/writing). Jeremiah 8:8 Rather than going to the ONE about whom these things are written (because they lack the FAITH it takes to do so!)... they wrote what they did... to the great confusion of many. Indeed, the entire Bible contains such errors.

  For my part, I listened to the Spirit, my Lord and master, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, and let his voice guide me. He was the One who guided me to the verse that identifies who the Master is, HIS Father and Master, the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. He (Christ) once said to me, "All that I tell you IS written; but not all that is written is what I will tell you." It was then that I understood that the scriptures, indeed, parts of the entire Bible, had in fact been tampered with (which is why the warning in the Revelation - if it COULDN'T be tampered with... why even issue a warning?

  So, in putting MY faith in the voice of the Holy One of Israel (John 10:27), I HAVE to share with you that while the first slave is indeed him, Christ, the second slave cannot be. Because the "heart" of the second slave... and his subsequent actions... CANNOT be done by Christ... who is the IMAGE of our heavenly Father... love. Love... does NOT look out for its own interests. And the second slave was looking out for his own interest.

  Do not take all that you read as "truth," dear PSacramento. There is only ONE Truth for earthling man... Christ. John 14:6 Everything else is subject to "testing," and so may prove false. That is the case here.

  I hope this helps... and bid you peace!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  PSacramento

  Aguest,

  I have no problem in putting everything to the test, including what you are say too, of course. :)

  It seems to me that, in the case of Mathew, Jesus is make the case of not 2 slaves but the case of what will happen to the slave(s?) that keep faithful and wise as opposed to those that don't.

  I have no problems in seeing that perhaps the translator did not understand what Jesus was saying, but then again, what Jesus was saying at this stage was in line with what had been said before and was said after.
• 

  AGuest

  May you have peace!

  It seems to me that, in the case of Mathew, Jesus is make the case of not 2 slaves but the case of what will happen to the slave(s?) that keep faithful and wise as opposed to those that don't.

  Yes, that because of the way the account was translated. Which was my point. Let me see if I can explain it to you as my Lord has explained it to me, not just for this particular account, but others as well:

  The ORIGINAL writing of Matthew's account was in Aramaic, not Greek. It was when it was translated into the GREEK that the initial error occurred. That is the case with MANY passages: Matthew, Mark, John, the letters to the Hebrews and from James, Peter, John, and Jude, were all originally written in Aramaic. Because more of the NATIONS came in than did JEWS... the writing were then translated into GREEK... and in several instances, pursuant to Greek "culture" and understanding. There were many things that the people of the NATIONS didn't really understand, as THEY acclimation to things "spiritual" started with Christ alone (vs. the Jews, who went back to before Christ was installed as king).

  So, when some of the GREEK writings were translated, those were compared with the Aramaic that was translated to Greek... and were accounts or passages APPEARED similar... the translation of what took place, or what was meant, or the context, was made similar. Even where it was not. Thus, in order to get the account in Matthew and Luke to correspond, they looked at the two, chose which one made sense to THEM (the translators - scribes)... and went with that in both instances.

  Those writings were then translated into other languages, including the Latin Vulgate, from which came the Catholic Douay, from came the King James, from which came all manner of translations including, in part, the NWT.

  It is much as we do today with, say, text messaging. In about 10 years, many people are going to believe that, for example, the word "thanks" is actually spelled "thx." We know better NOW... but folks won't necessarily know that in the future because language... and thus, spelling... evolves. Like the name "Jehovah." That is an erroneous transliteration of the consonants "JHVH." They didn't know what vowels went there, so they GUESSED... and came up with three: e, o, and a. The TRUTH, however, is that there are only two, a and e.

  So, in the case of this account, I can ASSUME that the translators had it right... OR... I can ASK... and then listen to the ANSWER... provided by the Holy Spirit. That One revealed to me who the Faithful and Discreet TRULY is: himself. After I put FAITH in what he TOLD me... he then led me to the account of Joseph, and the account of the Master of vineyard... to SHOW me... so that I could explain it to others who wanted to know.

  I have no problems in seeing that perhaps the translator did not understand what Jesus was saying, but then again, what Jesus was saying at this stage was in line with what had been said before and was said after.

  I can see where it APPEARS that way, but that's my point: they translated it in a way that it WOULD be in line with what was said before and after... to THEIR way of understanding. BUT... as the Sirit said to ME, if you KNEW Christ (not just knew about him, but KNEW him, literally), you would kNOW that it could NOT be him. The parable would never apply. COULD never apply. So, it CAN'T be as it "seems."

  Now, I can put faith in that, dear PSacramento, because the Spirit, my Lord, has NEVER lied to me. Never once. It is only after I PUT faith in it, however, that he leads me to the substantiation. I have NO doubt that it is there... and as soon as I get it, I will share it with you. Until then, I can only ask that YOU put faith in the truth of this matter... that this slave CANNOT be Christ, while the first slave MUST be Christ... and KNOW that the additional proof YOU need... is forthcoming. It IS. Because that is what faith IS: the ASSURED expectation of the thing hoped for... which, in this case, is substantiation OF that truth.

  I hope this helps and, as always, I bid you peace!

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  PSacramento

  Aguest,

  While it is a fine thoery that Matthew may have been written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, we don't knwo that for sure, we can just as easily say that Mark, which Matt and Luke borrow heavily from, was written in Aramaic or we can say that the first writer of Matthew was a hebrew that decided to "add" more hebrew like wording and OT quotes for his prodominante hebrew audience of the time.

  We still would be specualting one way or another.

  If we are to take that road we are going down the road of the WT that says the name of God, YHWH, was removed by the translators and copyists of the nT, even though there is NO PROOF of that whatsoever.

  The road puts ALL of the NT into question, including the opinion that Matthew was originally written in hebrew, you just can't have it both ways.

  And while I do NOT view the OT or NT as the "unalterd and error free word of God", I do view it as inspired writing.

  I am open to the possibility of things geting loss in the translation though, I just need more proof.
• 

  AGuest

  I don't know what to tell you, dear PSacramento (again, may you have peace!). It is what I heard... and I put faith in that. As he always does, my Lord directed me to an account that shows, contrary to what many think and teach, not ALL of the Jews spoke Greek, but that many (including, according to my Lord, Matthew and the other 11)... spoke Aramiac (Hebrew):

  "Now in these days, when the disciples were increasing, a murmuring arose on the part of the GREEK-speaking Jews against the HEBREW-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution." Acts 6:1

  So, okay, you say, that doesn't mean Matthew spoke Hebrew. Well, I have to say that the word I received from my Lord is that Matthew spoke... and wrote... in his (my Lord's) language, which was Hebrew (Aramiac). Indeed, most of the disciples did at that time. He explained that the reason Greek is so widely PRESUMED to have been the language of the disciples is because it was the dominate language at the time the accounts were written. Prior to Rome's rule Greece was the world power... and so most Romans spoke Greek (as well as Latin). Thus, when my Lord was here in the flesh, Rome had occupied Palestine less than 100 years, so Greek was still the primary world language (of the "civilized" world, including Rome - indeed, much of Rome's culture... including some of their gods... came from Greek culture).

  He said that very few JEWS (in comparsion to the entire number in the region), however, spoke Greek (although many did, particularly those involved in trade and other business, because their livelihood depended on it). He said they didn't, not because they couldn't learn the language but because they resented the Roman occupation and so refused to completely assimilate (Greece had pretty much left them alone, to their own culture, religion, and language). My understanding from my Lord, then, is that while manyKNEW Greek, most used Hebrew when communicating with one another. Certainly he did when communicating with his disciples. And those who were really "of the land" (disparagingly called "amhararets"... or "peasants")... spoke only Hebrew. And it was from these (the peasants) that most of the disciples, including many of the widows, came (those who were better off GAVE to the distribution, rather than receiving FROM it).

  He (my Lord) said that the REASON the Greek-speaking widows were being overlooked in the distribution (of food, clothing, etc.)... is because (1) there were so few of them... in comparison to those who spoke Hebrew (Aramaic)... and (2) since the disciples' primary language was Hebrew they "naturally" leaned toward seeing to the needs of the Hebrew-speaking widows first (which often time left nothing for the other widows) because it was easier to do than seeing to those of who spoke Greek. And so the latter were not being properly served. Thus, when the 12 later directed that OVERSEERS be appointed... such appointees were, by direction of the Holy Spirit... of BOTH groups, Hebrew-speaking AND Greek-speaking... to make sure the women's need were understood and they were equally (and thus lovingly) cared for.

  As to Matthew's account specifically, the understanding that I received from my Lord is that it was first written in Aramaic, for the Hebrew-speaking Jews... and then translated to Greek for the Greek-speaking Jews. And that when the translation was done, the words "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" were left intact because translating it FROM Hebrew TO Greek... would have changed the translation (i.e., the literal Greek translations would have made the words mean something different altogether, and so the Hebrew was left with an explanation as to what they WOULD mean were the translation the same in Greek).

  Per my Lord, because Matthew was a tax collector he would have known some Greek simply because of the business he was in: he had to be able communicate with both Greek-speaking AND Hebrew-speaking Jews in order to do his job; however, his job was actually quite limited (assessing and collecting the tax) and HIS primary language was Aramaic... and he wrote his account to and for "his" people (i.e., the Hebrew-speaking Jews).

  The word of my Lord is that John's gospel, the Revelation, and particularly the letter TO the Hebrews (which was written by John, by the way, and NOT Paul) were all written... IN Hebrew (Aramaic)... as were John's letters and those written by Peter, James and Jude.

  The letters written by [or attributed to] Paul (excluding Hebrews) were written in Greek, the language of Rome at that time and so Paul's (who was a Roman) first language. Luke's account of the gospel and the Apostles' acts were also written in Greek as they were commissioned by and written FOR a man whose language was Greek, Theophilus, a Roman diplomat. Mark's gospel account was also written in Greek. Mark, Peter's son, was of the next generation of disciples (as was Timothy) and by this time Roman rule had become ensconced and speaking Greek was almost mandatory, so most of the Jews DID speak it publicly by this time. (NOTE also, Mark received his account from his father, Peter, so that, per my Lord, it is really the gospel according to PETER... as told to... and by... his son, Mark.)

  And that's the only way I can explain it to you, dear PSacramento. And I have shared the truth with you, just as I received it from the Truth. I understand if you cannot put faith in it but it's all I have to offer. Keep in mind: neither you, I... nor any of the scholars who claim to know... were there. My Lord, however, was. So, I have to trust him above all the others.

  Again, I bid you peace!

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  JimmyPage

  Since I was raised as a JW and had that dogma shoved down my throat since birth, arguing about what a Bible verse means doesn't really appeal to me anymore.

  What I do appreciate about this thread, however, and other threads like it, (such as the recent one about the sign of Matthew 24), is that it presents a different view than that of the WT Society.

  And the more of these different takes on the Bible that I see, the more obvious it is to me that JWs have completely distorted the simple message of the Bible account to bolster their own power over their followers.

  So from that point of value, I really, really enjoyed this thread and look forward to more that clear the forest from the trees.
• 

  JimmyPage

  The other thread I was referring to was "Earthquakes, Wars, and Famine are not signs of the End" by Doug Mason.