Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery 207 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Yeah, he's engaging in a rhetorical fallacy called "begging the question" (it goes by many other names, but that's the name I learned). He's simply repeating a questionable assertion over and over, as if that somehow will make it become accepted.

    It's pointless to debate with those who only engage on that childish level (no more skilled than when kids say, "I'm not, you are....").

    Jeffro, whenever a Xian is cornered, they shift to supernatural events that take place just beyond the realm that any of us can perceive; in their mind, it's the Insta "get out of jail free" card (sorta like calling on Jehoobahs name when you're scared). To others, it SHOULD be indicative of a weak and/or deceptive mind, someone who appeals to invisible forces to get a leg up on everyone else.

  • Emery

    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

    Those miscellaneous quotes (which are clearly referenced and cited) is THE EXPLANATION of their authority and were it originates from according to the Faithful & Discreet Slave. You came here to debate a subject of authority and you're not doing a very good job of examining all of the facts which revolve around their own publications, not just the bible. You have a prejudice towards the evidence and your logic is riddled with fallacies.

  • mrsjones5

    Hm, it seems that Recovery has gone missing. I wonder why?


    Did he give up?! I was just getting ready to ask why the Holy Spirit appoints recommends and then appoints child molesters.. Oh, well.....

  • Splash

    Hold on, I've found where they say they are prophets... no, hold that a second... wait, yes, I think, um, maybe:

    w72 4/1 p.197 - JW's are prophets - "This 'prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women... Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses."

    Reasoning From the Scriptures (1985 and 1989) - JW's are not prophets - “Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets.”

    Awake 6/8/1986 - JW's are prophets - “You will be interested to learn that God has on earth a people, all of whom are prophets... Jehovah's Witnesses.”

    w94 1/15 p. 16 par. 5 - JW's are not prophets - " Today, that is no longer the case; there are no inspired prophets or apostles."

    w11 3/15 p. 30 par. 10 - JW's are prophets - "Like the prophet of old, the Jeremiah class has been given an assignment from the Sovereign of the universe. God’s anointed servants are thus duly authorized to make pronouncements worldwide..."

  • 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.

  • Splash


    Are you defending the scriptural 'concept' of the FDS, or that the the current GB are the FDS?


  • 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

    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).


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


    @ Splash,

    Excellent question! Perhaps there has been a mis-communication? I have been removed from the discussion by Recovery, so I will just watch from the side lines while the APOSTABUDDIES ASSEMBLE!!!!

    Also, sorry i wrote " appoint " twice. Seriously, RECOVERY... we were taught that everything within the Congregation takes place under the direction of the Holy Spirit. YOU said that Holy Spirit doesn't prevent people from engaging in gross immorality". That is true, but you skirted the issue. The point is that if a person is a child molester or practicing serious sin in secret, WHY would the Holy Spirit move the Elder body to recommend them for appointment? After all every Elder will tell you that every decision they make has the backing of the Holy Spirit, don't believe me, just ask them. The next step as you know is for the C.O to approve it, then it goes to the Branch and is approved. FINALLY, the Elders meet with the Brother and ask 3 very specific questions which I assume you are ignorant of because they are in the Shepherd the Flock of God book, and you would not show disrespect for the channel of truth by reading a book that you are not qualified to read. Here is one of the questions:

    Have you ever been involved at anytime in the past with child sexual molestation? Did God and Christ not know the answer to that question before they sent the Holy Spirit to confirm all those decisions? Surely the C.O, a man even more spiritual than the Elders must have had the Holy Spirit backing HIS decision? Then it slips past the Branch Office??!!!

    So the Holy Spirit appointed all the child molester that have been or will soon be involved in legal cases involving the Society, because the Holy Spirit was backing every step of the process. This is totally different than scriptural examples of persons committing sins. Would God have chosen David to be King if David had serious secret sins? Of course not! Even Saul was a spiritual man when chosen, his sin came later. There are no scriptural examples of the Holy Spirit specifically choosing an individual for appointment who was covering over serious sin. A person can be chosen and THEN commit serious sin, but NEVER the other way around. Off topic, yes, but think about it. I mean reason on it. Everyone thinks, but not everyone reasons.

  • mrsjones5

    That's ok Data, you did well.

Share this