It's been done to the point of ad nauseam, but I had a thought about the "faithful slave". Note that in Matthew 24:45-47, Jesus asks a question, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave, who his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?" "Appointed" is past tense. The master already made this appointment before he left, right? Right. So if this were literal, and the slave were composite, the apostles would logically have been the slave class of their time.
Assume also that, as the Governing Demi-Gods claim, apostasy took place. This means the "faithful slave" gradually morphed into "that evil slave". So far, I'm along company lines, apart from that jab about demi-gods. The main problem, however, is the timing of the master's arrival. Would that represent some pre-calculated time period, when the master would return (which seems to require a third arrival in order to truly appoint this slave over all his belongings), or would it represent the master's return in the conclusion of the system (ie. when he does the judging)?
The validity of this question is clear because it is impossible for anyone except the master to pronounce any group of men "faithful and discreet". Any such claims--particularly from men who do not claim to be propets or receive any divine revelation--therefore would be no different than me proclaiming myself as Heavyweight Champion of the World. What possible basis can anyone have for being appointed by Christ if Christ himself didn't sign off on it? A self-proclaimed prophet class and its publications have no more merit than me starting my own magazine and demanding that the world take notice and obey.
"The truth" is "progressive", but real truth never changes. That's why it's called truth. Because it's always true. Anything else is a theory, a hypothesis, something you believe to be true today but is uncertain. Truth and uncertainty are going in opposite directions.
Science, for example, updates its knowledge. But science generally provides supporting evidence for new concepts. In the case of the slave class, however, new ideas are presented without such evidence; in fact, the same scriptures that are thrust aside in one moment can be used as "clear scriptural proof" a short time later. In such instances, "truth" is not progressive at all; it is arbitary.
How, then, will the master feel when he inspects this slave? If the master spoke to the domestics, would he conclude that the slave had treated them well, or would he see signs of fear, abuse, and neglect? Let the record speak for itself.
SD-7