WHY ALAN FRAUDBACKER IS DOOMED!

by You Know 90 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  You Know

  Ah, here you diverge from the scripture. In the parable, it doesn't talk about the "household of God", but merely the
  household of the master in the illustration. You apply it to God, but it doesn't say that in the parable itself.

  What utter foolishness you are capable of spouting. And I suppose the Master doesn't represent Jesus, after all it doesn't say so in the parable. According to your foolish reasoning the master could be any old guy off the street. Of course, any first grade Bible student can readily realize that you don't know what you are talking and could easily prove who the Master is and who the household represents by merely turning to Hebrews 3;6 and reading the passage that says: "Christ was faithful as a Son over the HOUSE of that One. WE ARE THE HOUSE of that one."

  Give it up Sneeker. / You Know
• 

  Tallyman

  Remember this book, Boobie?

  Suuure you do, an ol' Anointed One like yerself!

  Well, let the ol' Tallyman jog your Jughead and throw out something
  your very own J.F.Rutherford wrote about "Self-Defense".

  You DO believe the ol' Judge, now doncha, Boobie?

  DEFENSE

  Do the Scriptures approve of a Christian's defending himself against an unlawful assault and using force to repel such assault? Self-defense is the right of every man to ward off an attack and to use such force as to him appears to be necessary to safeguard himself from personal injury or injury to his property. The same right of self-defense may be exercised by him for the protection of his near relations or close friends, his brethren. Such is the law of the nations or states, but that law does not rest upon tradition, nor upon the conclusions of men alone, but finds complete support in the Word of God.

  Moses saw an Egyptian smiting his Hebrew brother, and Moses, to protect his brother from such assault, slew the Egyptian. (Exodus 2: 11,12) Moses fled from Egypt that the Egyptians might not kill him. Moses did not receive any punishment or even a rebuke from Jehovah God for what he had done. Afterwards God specifically used Moses to do and perform service particularly picturing Christ Jesus the Messiah and his work.

  God also made Moses his prophet and used him to write the first five books of the Bible. Since then every nation has invoked the law of self-defense, extending that right of self-defense to the protection of near-of-kin.

  - - -

  Looks like me and ol' Mose gots sumpin' in common, huh Boobie?

  But now Boobie, in case you're from Missouri,
  and you gots to 'see it to believe it',
  here you go also:

  * http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/Defense.html

  I DO enjoy our little chats, Boobie.

  "Y'all Kome BacK Know, y'hear?!"

  .
• 

  AlanF

  Ah, Booby Baby Old Bean, now you're reverting to your usual self.

  Bluster bluster bullshit bluster bluster bullshit bullshit bluster ....

  Zero content ...

  Next post will be, WHY EVERYONE BUT ME IS DOOMED! That'll learn 'em!

  I love egging you on, Bobo. You're so predictable, I could write your responses myself.

  AlanF
• 

  Seeker

  And I suppose the Master doesn't represent Jesus, after all it doesn't say so in the parable.

  In real life, sure Jesus is the one who looks down on Christians to see if they are being faithful. But in the scripture, it's not pointing to particulars, but giving a parable to make a general point, namely that all Christians should be faithful, just as that slave was faithful to that unnamed master in the illustration. Not Jesus, just a master. Yes, the application goes to all Christians in how they obey Jesus, but that's it.

  According to your foolish reasoning the master could be any old guy off the street.

  No, it isn't any guy off the street, or any other specific person. It is a parable about a generic slave with a generic master to make a general point.

  Of course, any first grade Bible student can readily realize that you don't know what you are talking and could easily prove who the Master is and who the household represents by merely turning to Hebrews 3;6 and reading the passage that says: "Christ was faithful as a Son over the HOUSE of that One. WE ARE THE HOUSE of that one."

  On the contrary, any first grade Bible student would say, "Why are you flipping over to Hebrews to a scripture that has nothing directly to do with the parable when what is said in Matthew is quite clear enough?" They would think you don't know what you are talking about for you keep refusing to accept what the scripture says but keep telling them, "Yes, but what it really means is..."
• 

  You Know

  Fraudbacker says:

  Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about and I know that I can't
  logically answer anything so I'll perform my usual bluster/sidestep routine
  and pretend to myself that no one notices."

  I say your little routine is much like a one-legged guy tap dancing. Sure it can be done, but it aint pretty. Actually, you don't have a leg to stand on at all.

  What you fail to understand is that the features of a parable are not to be taken as literal events.

  LOL. No one said the parable was to be taken literally. We are not talking about literal slaves or literal food. The Master is not literally going to beat his slaves. Of course it's a parable you buffoon.

  Yet you refuse to acknowledge that in Jesus' parable about
  the slaves, the slaves and what happen to them are not to be taken literally.
  They are representative of other things.

  Oh brother. Of course the characters in the parable represent other things.

  Since the apostle Paul makes it clear that only some Christians would
  be apostles, and only some would be prophets, and only some would
  be teachers, and he said this to anointed Christians, he clearly
  indicated that not all "anointed Christians" would be put in charge of the
  spiritual feeding of the Master's household.

  Yes. That's correct. That is the only reasonable statement you have made so far.

  I stated that "the lesson of this particular parable applies only to the slave that is put in charge over the domestics."

  You said: "Prove it."

  Here's where you really reveal your spiritual ineptitude. In can be easily proven because Jesus explained that that was what the parable was all about. After he gave the illustration he gave a principal that pertains to the slave's judgment where he said: "Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him." All Christians are not in charge over God's household of servants. The slave is one who is given charge over all of Christ's other servants. That cannot apply to all Christians but only to those who are actually appointed to that capacity. Obviously you are much in error. / You Know
• 

  Seeker

  You Know, first you say:

  LOL. No one said the parable was to be taken literally. We are not talking about literal slaves or literal food.

  and then you say:

  In can be easily proven because Jesus explained that that was what the parable was all about. After he gave the illustration he gave a principal that pertains to the slave's judgment where he said: "Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him." All Christians are not in charge over God's household of servants. The slave is one who is given charge over all
  of Christ's other servants. That cannot apply to all Christians but only to those who are actually appointed to that capacity.

  So first you say you can't take the parable literally, and then you proceed to take the parable literally! It doesn't mean that there will literally be Christians presiding over other Christians, that's taking the parable literally. It says that all Christians should be faithful, and those who remain faithful will be rewarded. The only way you can get a literal household of God out of that parable is to take it literally, and you said you can't do that.
• 

  You Know

  So first you say you can't take the parable literally, and then you proceed to take the parable literally!

  Not so Sneeker. If I were to take the parable literally I would imagine that there was a plantation somewhere that had a bunch of slaves working in the field and some slaves were in charge of fix'n dinner for the other slaves. I don't take the illustration literally.

  It doesn't mean that there will literally be Christians presiding over other Christians, that's taking the parable literally.

  Sheer nonsense. The parable illustrates the relative positions between 3 different patries, actually 4 counting the "belongings." The master is OVER the slaves. And he appoints some slaves to be over other slaves. So the ILUSTRATION I-L-L-U-S-T-R-A-T-E-S how the slave in charge is called to account as to how he has discharged his responsibility. In your empty-headedness you imagine that merely understanding the reality illustrated is taking the parable literally. Apparently you simply lack the necessary reasoning ability to grasp how the concept of symbolizim works.

  It says that all Christians should be faithful, and those who remain faithful
  will be rewarded.

  You are a liar. The parable doesn't include all Christians. The parable doesn't illustrate the situation of all Christians because the domestics are also part of God's household and yet they are not judged with the same judgment that the master levels against the one left in charge of the household. Clearly you will say anything to twist the truth of God's word. / You Know
• 

  unanswered

  without delving into the arguments on this thread, i just wanted to say that tally adds something to this board that i find interesting, intelligent, and many times hilarious. i wish i could say the same for you, You Don't Know.-nate
• 

  Seeker

  I'm not twisting anything, but taking the parable at its word. Jesus himself, as you pointed out, applied it to all Christians by asking his rhetorical questions after giving the parable.

  All your insults, and name-calling, and ridicule can't erase the fact that you are turning a parable into a literal blueprint, with no evidence (so far, anyway) that this parable should be treating this way while all others are not.

  Are are you still searching for that pearl literally?

  It's amusing, really, to think what the WTS might have said had the illustration been about kids who behave themselves and get dessert as a reward...
• 

  You Know

  I'm not twisting anything, but taking the parable at its word. Jesus himself, as you pointed out, applied it to all Christians by asking his rhetorical questions after giving the parable.

  You are not taking the parable at its word. You are twisting it to mean something that it doesn't. You just keep sinking deeper and deeper into the ooze of your own making. Where did Jesus say that the illustration applied to all Christians? If you take the parable at its word as you claim, over whom are all Christians put in charge? Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? It is obviously way beyond the scope of your grasp, but the very fact that Jesus asked the question "who really is the faithful and discreet slave" indicates that not all Christians would have such an appointment. Instead it would be necessary for them to identify the one whom the Master set over the household by appoitment.

  It's amusing, really, to think what the WTS might have said had the illustration been about kids who behave themselves and get dessert as a reward...

  More stupidity on your part. Is there any end to it? / You Know