Is the Governing Body Really the Faithful Slave?

by wannabe 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PSacramento

    The F&DS are ALL the remaining annointed and the GB is made up of only annointed people, hence they are the F&DS, and since they are the GB that would make them the "creme de la creme" of the annoited.

  • RR

    The Governing Body has never been the FDS. FLA Freytag is.

  • Out at Last!
    Out at Last!

    PS- Jesus must of been a sneeky SOB, Imean he could have just come out and said things right? I mean he was the WORD of God, why mislead? why confuse?

    Maybe he is just like his father in the OT.

  • agonus

    The argument the Dubs make is something along these lines:

    The "faithful and discreet slave" MUST be the Faithful and Discreet Slave, because only the "faithful and discreet slave" has successfully identified the Faithful and Discreet Slave as the "faithful and discreet slave".

    In other words, nobody else is claiming it. Therefore it must be us.

    The problem with this argument is this: Why haven't they identified the personages in countless other parables as having a direct correspondence with a real person or group of people on earth today?

    In other words, ask your JW friends, "OK, then, who is The Sower? The Woman Who Hid The Leaven? The Man Who Found Treasure? The Merchant Seeking Pearls? The Vinedresser With The Two Sons..."

    Do you see where I'm going with this? I can take any scripture that hasn't been "satisfactorily explained" or "identified" by mainline Christians, apply it to myself, and say "There. I'm right by virtue of the fact that nobody else has laid claim to this passage."

    It's the same trick with the blood issue. Why pluck one single scripture from the NT and create an entire theology around it to the point that you need lawyers to help you make head or tail of it? There are countless other injunctions in the NT that the WT conveniently ignores. Why single out this one?

  • JWoods

    Pretty much the same with "only 144,000 literally go to heaven, and only the remnant of the 144,000 can partake of the emblems", Agonus.

    Pick just one or two scriptures and make a whole doctrinal novella out of it - something which the scripture in quester never came close to saying.

  • wannabe

    To All!

    You don't think the whole problem with this lies in the words of Jeremiah the Prophet do you all? Wannabe

    21 "I did not send these prophets,
    yet they have run with their message;
    I did not speak to them,
    yet they have prophesied 22 But if they had stood in my council,
    they would have proclaimed my words to my people
    and would have turned them from their evil ways
    and from their evil deeds." {Jeremaih 23:21,22 NIV}31 "Behold, I am against the prophets, saith Jehovah, that use their tongues, and say, He hath said. 32Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith Jehovah, and that tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies and by their boasting; and I have not sent them, nor commanded them; and they profit not this people at all, saith Jehovah." Jeremiah 23:31,32 DT}

    Could Be! Eh?

  • frankiespeakin

    The Faithful & Discrete Slave interpretation as expounded by the WT publication is clearly a "Narcissistic" interpretation favoured by them because it gives them power over the thinking and lives of their members.

    No need to refute it, as its interpetation is heavily biased and based on a mountain of presumptions and scriptural tweakings that only a preconditioned indoctrinated JW would except.

  • trustsinJah

    I find only one interesting line of reasoning that would cast doubt as to the Slave being Jesus in that after he asks who it is he clarifies with an identifier: Vs 46: Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

    So clearly it could not be Jesus as there is no doubt he would be doing this. As God's Son could anyone imagine him not doing this? The statement would be retorical.

    Also what are the Masters Belongings?

    It is entirely possible that anyone who identifies, responds and tells others about the Ransom is that Slave! Just because Jesus spoke to his first Apostles does not negate others who would respond to his rule. Thus if any respond they could be that discreet slave who recognize Bible truths, and share to those who would listen.

    So What are the Belongings? Cerrtainly not people or property, as Jesus had none on earth and Flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. No the Belongings are what Jesus imparted while on earth. The greatest belongings... treasures in Heaven! What does that mean? It means if we expercise faith and do our best to live as good a life as each individual possibly can, then we will inherit whatever reward comes from that Kingdom which Jesus Rules. And those Belongings of knowledge which sets you free from Men and their Pharasitical rules allows you to be entrusted with the wisdom of God!!

    I am no scholar, but that is my take on it. Certainly no group of men running a publishing empire that it seems evidence is pointing to! It is starting to die.

  • Juli

    Agonus I agree with you. The parable of the faithful and discreet slave is no different than any other parable. To build a religion around it is ludicrous. I think I'll start a mustard seed religion. I am the viable mustard seed!

  • agonus

    In a recent WT, the GB asked (I forget the exact wording), Is it possible that the "faithful slave" is simply a parable meant for all Christians, and not an identity as such?

    Their answer, of course, backed by pretzel logic, is no.

    I've noticed they've been doing this sort of thing more frequently. They'll ask a reasonable question about their doctrine that a reasonable person would ask, essentially acknowledging that your question is totally reasonable. Then they tell you that you're totally wrong, using little or no reason to counter your reasonable question. You're just wrong.

    I've met with the same response when questioning the blood issue. Yes, how you feel is understandable. But, still, you're just plain wrong, and your viewpoint is prideful. No attempt to reason with me or even quote Scripture. Just wrong. Totally reasonable but totally wrong.

Share this