It is obvious that Recovery is summarily dismissing all arguments. I could quote scripture 'till the cows come home but if the listener has stopped up his ears there is not much I can do. When I was taught to do bible study, I was to understand the scripture in context and apply it personally. Matthew 11:19, Matthew 11:15.
Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?
The use of huge fonts suggest a little desperation setting in too...
I challenged the members of the internet’s most popular “Jehovah’s Witness” forum to produce a better scriptural interpretation or just to simply scripturally prove the doctrine to be in error. Surprisingly, after more than 180 comments and more than three thousand views, only 3 users actually used scripture(s) in their argument. By far, the majority of the posts in this thread were nothing more than the same apostate rhetoric than can be easily be found and read on any ex-JW website. They will cite any reason; they will quote a 1920 Watchtower, mention a fictitious tale of child abuse or extreme shunning from their relatives, they will post nonsensical photos depicting a misconception/a joke about JW’s, or sidetrack the issue by asking random doctrinal/unrelated questions.
In Recovery's blog he seems to imply that Candace Conti was never sexually abused by Jonathan Kendrick.
Well in order for him/her/it to dispute it they would have had to have been an eye witness to all the interactions of Conti and the prev. Anything other than that would mean Recoverit is talking out of their collective arse yet again.
Another reason for me not to ever go to that twisted blog.
I know this is stupid, but I'll give it a stab. Ok. Let's assume the interpretation is correct.
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I don't understand how the "faithful and wise servant" can also be the "domestics", according to JW interpretation. Can you explain that to me?
I find it highly unlikely that Jesus would spend 23 verses (vs 21 to 44) talking about something the WT considers to be a future event (armageddon), then drops back to historical 1918 in vs 45 to 47, only to return (according to WT) to future armageddon once again in vs 48 to 51.
Its more plausible that the whole discussion relates to a single future event at armageddon.
This means the "coming" hasnt happened yet, so the FDS have not yet been appointed over all the masters belongings.
"Actually the WT's interpretation makes perfect sense when we consider the context. Surely, Jesus' would provide a spiritual feeding program for his followers during such turbulent and gruesome days. Jesus is Head of the Congregation isn't he?"...
...Tell me, O you whom I love,
Where you feed your flock,
Where you make it rest at noon.
For why should I be as one who veils herself
By the flocks of your companions? sos1:7
Sooooo, let's play the "parable as a prophecy" game. Anybody want to take a stab at these questions, as they are (or could be interpreted) by the GB?
1) Aside from the other slaves that are to be "fed" with "spiritual food" at "the proper time" (the great crowd), what does the GB say the "master's possessions" are that the GB is managing?
2) how could the potential "wicked servant" "beat his fellow servants"? Is that literal, or are we in figurative land? If so, how would the GB "beat" them?
3) Who are these "drunkards" that the "wicked servant" eats and drinks with? What does "eating and drinking" symbolize in this prophetic parable?
4) How would the master "cut him in pieces" (the GB) when he returns, and "assign (them) a place with the hypocrites"?
5) If there is NOT a possibility of the GB in fact being the "wicked servant", then why does Jesus spend so much time in the parable warning about the possibility?
6) Doesn't that possibility collide with OTHER prophecies that has the GB leading everyone into the New System™?
It's interesting that (2) of the verses are positive or neutral about what happens if the "faithful and wise servant" actually IS "faith and wise", but that's not the entirety of the parable: 4 verses are warnings of what will happen if the "faithful and wise" servant ISN'T faithful and wise. In other words, twice as many verses in the parable are warnings to NOT misbehave.
You'd think they'd be able to come up with a better justification to grab the reins of power, but I guess they worked with what they had.....
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.”
First of all, Daniel makes no explicit reference to Nabonidus, though the story in ch. 4 likely pertained to Nabonidus originally as the Prayer of Nabonidus in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests. Second, Hebrew did have a term for "grandson", your quotation of Jeremiah 27:7 in the preceding sentence disproves this claim. There the reference is to Nebuchadnezzar's "son" (b e no) and "grandson" (ben-b e no, i.e. "son of his son"); Jeremiah here envisions a dynasty lasting 70 years over three generations (in reality his son Amel-Marduk was followed by usurpers). It is true that "son" can loosely have reference to descendents just as "father" can mean ancestor, but that is clearly not the case with the usage of the terms in Jeremiah nor is it the preferrable reading in ch. 5 of Daniel which places repeated emphasis on the father-son relationship of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. The story makes clear reference to the incident from ch. 4; since Nabonidus was probably the original protagonist of this story, this would motivate the reference to Belshazzar as his son in ch. 5. The scenario however would still not be historically accurate since Belshazzar was not a successor to Nabonidus but rather ruled at the same time. The truncated view of the Babylonian kingdom in the present text fits well with how the Neo-Babylonian period was remembered by the historians of the Hellenistic era; Herodotus posited Labynetus II (Nabonidus) as the son of Labynetus I (Nebuchadnezzar) via Nitocris and Abydenus had a similar scheme. The claim that Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar via one of his daughters is without any evidentiary basis; it is pure speculation motivated by the desire to harmonize Daniel's problematic references with Neo-Babylonian history (in which Nabonidus was a usurper, and Neriglissar before him was also a usurper from the actual son of Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk).
The 144,000 are twelve thousand judges from each of the tribes of Israel. The number need not be taken literally, but these men will be "saviors" on Mount Zion who will have a high and holy calling to judge Israel and to share a heavenly meal with the Son of God.
They will not be spirits, but will be resurrected beings.