Posts by Recovery

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

The verses in question are a parable

Yes we know that. Jesus is known for his great parables, many of which had literal, serious implications for his followers. What is your point?

and are designed to be interpreted for the purposes of epiphany.

Well thanks for your opinion but my question was asking for a better scriptural explanation of the parable.

The Watchtower interprets the parable wrongly by applying it to a single group of men.

The June 15, 2009 Watchtower comments: "It (Spiritual Israel) came into existence with the outpouring of God’s spirit at Pentecost 33 C.E. Thereafter, all spirit-anointed Christians became part of the nation that now served as the slave class appointed by the Master, Jesus Christ. " Doesn't sound like the WT interprets the parable applying to a "single group of men" and even if they did interpret it as such, you still have not proven them scripturally wrong for their interpretation yet you so forthcomingly pronounce it as wrong.

It's the Watchtower that ignores the "entire inspired Bible" when interpreting the parable.

Not at all. There are over 70 scriptural references in just 4 paragraphs of information under the heading "Faithful and Discreet Slave" in the Insight Book, page 805. Yet you have still failed to provide just one scriptural reference for your interpretation and yet the WT is the one ignoring the Bible? Who really is ignoring the Bible sabastious, you or the WTS?

They simply use it to create and enforce power

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm still waiting on that scriptural refutation of JW's interpretation of the FDS.

When they were called out to Victoria Australia for not complying with the "Working With Children Act" they sent a represenative that informed the Victorian court that the Faithful and Discreet slave were not a legal entity and essentially not real. This is because even THEY know that their interpretation of the parable is bunk and a means to control their populace.

Well I would never read in a Watchtower where the anointed claim to be a legal entity. I don't see how thousands of anointed Christians who have various responsibilities all over the world could be considered a 'legal entity'. Just because something isn't considered a 'legal entity' does not mean it doesn't exist. What type of reasoning is that?

Think of a cafeteria, there are servants and then there are guests. The "faithful slaves" are people who have taken it upon themselves to lead and teach in due season. They are not appointed, they are just slaves taken from the domestics who are given food to serve to the people. No single group of people or single man (Charles Taze Russell for instance) can be possitively identified as fulfilment of this parable.

Well that's funny because the Bible clearly says the faithful slave is appointed by the Master, Christ Jesus. So your interpretation definitely could not be correct since 'people take it upon themselves' to feed the children of God and are not actually appointed to do so by the Head of the congregation. I don't know which faithful slaves you're following. You say no single group of people can be positively identified as fulfillment of this parable, yet you earlier stated that the FDS represents all faithful followers of Christ (one group of people). You are contradicting yourself.

This makes sense to me, but like I said there is no identifying the faithful slaves, that's why the question is left open ended.

According to your interpretation the faithful slaves are faithful followers of Christ. Jesus said "All will know that you are disciples if....", "you will recognize those men by their fruits".. and so forth yet you are saying there is no identifying Jesus' faithful followers?

Only when the master returns is the faithful slave successfully identified and rewarded.

The faithful slave is providing proper food at the proper time before the Master arrives. Since Jesus appointed the slave before he arrives (again), then the slave would have to already be identified.

However the given criteria can still be used to ascertain the likely role that preachers of the Gospel would fill if the master returned.

Yes. Why don't we examine some of that criteria? I've yet to see you use or quote a single scripture. Moreover, you've failed to prove that JW's interpretation of the parable is wrong, so I'm not really sure if you can even provide 'criteria' that would be used to ascertain the likely role that preachers of the Gospel would fill.

Well, let me rephrase. The pool that the slaves are taken out of is the entire human population. They are taken FROM the domestics which signify everybody who didn't choose to take a leadership position in regards to the Gospel. The faithful slaves see a need and fill it, but they are not identified by any particular group or sect.

Please provide scriptural references to backup these statements. Otherwise, are you just going to continue throwing out your own private interpretations of how the parable is fulfilled? Again, not a single scripture quoted or referenced.

I didn't push anything, I answered the question you posed

No you did not. To answer the question, one would have had to provide scriptural support for a better interpretation than that of JW's. You didn't quote a single scripture so how could you possibly have answered the question?

The JW's cannot prove that the faithful and discreet slave is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

JW's don't believe the FDS is the Governing Body. You cannot even accurately represent what we teach yet you claim we are wrong. You have done nothing but eject your own private interpretations of what the parable meant and have failed to provide the scriptural presentation/refutation alluded to and asked for in the original post. You cannot prove the faithful and discreet slave interpretation by JW's is incorrect and therefore you did not answer the question satisfactorily. You tried but failed miserably.

and like I said there is written proof that they believe it's all a bunch of crap. They are not interested in Bible truth they are interested in money and power.

Sure, sure, sure! Who am I to argue against the private scriptural interpretations and mighty Biblical arguments of the mighty sabastious?

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Start by reading the passages before and after that one(*).

Have done so numerous times.

They are all about being prepared, about not knowing the day and time.

Well everything in Matthew 24 is in answer to this question in verse 3: "Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”
Now read the "faithful servant" passage, staying mindful of that context.

Okay

What is that passage about? Is it an abrupt change in topic to identify a ruler of the faithful, immediately followed by a return to the previous topic? Or is it consistent with the other passsages in Matthew 24 and 25, a warning to always be ready because you never know when the time--your time--will come?

Well the entire chapter of Matthew 24 is about Jesus' presence and the conclusion of the system of things. There is definitely more involved with Jesus' presence than just being ready because you don't know the day nor the hour. That is a ridiculous line of reasoning and you know it.

The Watchtower interpretation only makes sense in isolation. It does not fit when the passage is read in context.

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?

So again, we have another post that has yet to scripturally provide a better explanation than that provided by JW's.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Their explanation of it is wrong because the verses don't answer the question as to who the faithful slave actually is.

Well that's what we have the entire inspired Bible for. Just because something is not explained directly and completely in the context of the original statement, it does not imply that an explanation not contained in the original statement is false. That's a weak and misleading argument especially when we consider that there are many situations in the Bible where the original context did not explicitly explain the meaning/application of a statement/prophecy.

It leaves the question open ended and is rhetorical by nature. It's that way for a reason.

Okay, no objections here.

What the Faithful Slave Parable is really describing is the dichotomy of people during the presence of the son the "Son of Man." Even though there are always many ways to categorize a population by demographic Jesus is saying that there are essentially only two fundamental classes: the faithful slaves and the evil slaves.

Well I'd have to disagree with you here. Notices verses 46 and 47 "whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 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."

If the faithful slave is describing a group of faithful people why is there a distinction between the faithful slave and the domestics? If there are basically two fundamental classes, why does the parable carry the differentiation between the responsibility of the faithful slave over the domestics? Why is the slave appointed over the belongings and not the domestics? How could all of Jesus' faithful ones be appointed over all his belongings from the time there were first faithful slaves until his arrival (which as you affirm is more than 2,000 years later)?

The "master being away" signifies Jesus leaving the earthly kingdom for an unknown amount of time.

Okay

The "master returning" signifies the second coming of Christ and that time period would be when these two classes would exist.

Since the faithful slave represents all faithful followers of Christ, these two class would exist from the time of Jesus' arrival in the first century, not just during his coming. Verse 48 proves this when it says: "But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My master is delaying'.." So the 'evil slaves' would exist BEFORE the Master returned.

When Jesus comes back (actually, not invisibly) he will simply reward and crown the victor between the two and the criteria is the feeding the children of God "at the proper time" or "in due season."

This is exactly my point. How could the faithful slave represent all faithful followers of Christ and at the same time have the responsibility to feed the children of God at the proper time? Is every so-called Christian feeding the children of God? Your own interpretation debunks itself.

The rest of your statement is just rhetoric and opinion. I can't help but notice you pushed your viewpoints and your interpretation, instead of what the Bible tells us. Isn't it interesting JW's can prove who the faithful slave is from the scriptures yet the opposers can only offer up what they think the interpretation is without using a single scripture?

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

Well, one can always go the figurative 70 years route :-)

Well, after parading around and promoting such a 'scripturally sound' argument supposedly based on God's word proving 609 BCE for months now, it's a little late to throw that explanation in there isn't it? After all, the author of the thread has affirmed that the 70 years are literal, and there's been no biblical evidence presented to show the 70 years to be figurative. I don't see how presenting the WTS view helps your argument or proves your point.

Londo already mentioned that Assyria was totally finished as the dominant empire in 609 BCE with the sack of Harran. So the Assyrians (despite a few revolts in the northern territories that Nabopolaasar had to squash) were already serving the king of Babylon.

Yes, of course. Babylon had already defeated Assyria as a world power in 612 BCE. 609 BCE was just the finishing blow. They were serving the king of Babylon but not Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah 27:6 reads "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.’

Showing us how Babylon demolished Assyria proves nothing. Notice how the scripture says "I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb". Jehovah would not have to give anything into the hand of Neb if these nations were already subject to his father during his rule. They would fall into his hand automatically as successor and king of Babylon. The scripture mentions the nations will serve Neb, his father, and his grandson. Why no mention of a father anywhere in any scripture if the 70 year servitude, figurative or literal, started with Neb's father? Isn't that a very important detail to leave out? Surely Jehovah was so focused on Nebuchadnezzar's future conquests that he forgot about the conquests his father had already made.

The context of Jer. 27 is that "in the beginning of the kingdom of Jehoiakim [if indeed it was him]" Judah and Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon should, at that time, put on Babylon's yoke; anyone who doesn't will get it worse and reap severe punishments, so don't listen to the false prophets who say you don't need to serve Babylon; if you do as God says and serve Babylon (i.e. not rebel), you'll be left in peace, etc. (Compare Babylonian Chronicle, Obv. 18-20.)

So you've just admitted that the servitude of the nations Jeremiah prophesied against had not yet begun by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule, which according to secular chronology began in 608 B.C.E. However, this contradicts the argument that the 70 year servitude had begun with the defeat of Assyria in 609 B.C.E. one year earlier. According to your own words the nations had not been in servitude to the king of Babylon by the beginning of Jehoiakim's rule yet your argument regarding 609 B.C.E. as the beginning of the servitude requires that they were, otherwise the 70 years could not have possibly started in 609 B.C.E. Which is it AnnoMaly?

Similarly with Jer. 28. Hananiah was falsely prophesying (again an incitement to rebellion) that the Babylonian yoke the Jews were already under would be broken, that the exiles already in Babylon would return in a couple of years and the temple utensils restored. Not so, says Jeremiah, break the yoke you are under and you will get a far worse one. Then in ch. 29 Jeremiah does some damage limitation and sends out a letter to those exiles to say they will be there for the duration, until the "70 years for Babylon" are fulfilled. So none of your cited Scriptures, when taken in context, indicate that "the 70 years of the nations serving Babylon do not begin until after the days of Zedekiah."

Well it is only after Zedekiah's death that the temple of Jerusalem is destroyed and that the 70 year servitude of the nations (including Jerusalem) would begin. Jeremiah 25 makes this quite obvious. Verse 27 tells us: "And you must say to them (the nations mentioned in the preceding verses), ‘This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Drink and get drunk and puke and fall so that YOU cannot get up because of the sword that I am sending among YOU.”’ 28 And it must occur that in case they refuse to take the cup out of your hand to drink, you must also say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah of armies has said: “YOU will drink without fail. 29 For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU yourselves in any way go free of punishment?”’

So the calamity of Babylon would be brought upon the nations after Jerusalem's desolation. That was the starting point of everything. But according to what you're saying Jerusalem and thus the nations were already under Babylonian yoke (the 70 year servitude) when the events that happened in the fourth year of Zedekiah (Jeremiah 28), while Zedekiah was still reigning. This is impossible because it is only after Zedekiah was removed as king and killed that Jerusalem was destroyed and thus the calamity was brought upon the nations.

You also have to remember that the nations' 70 years' servitude to Babylon was obligatory, decreed by God. Destruction of Judah's capital city and land was not a foregone conclusion - it was avoidable:

Well of course. I have never denied this. But the scriptures say the calamity started with the desolation of Jerusalem (that we know took place since it's well documented and recorded in the Bible). But I don't see how this substantiates any of your claims? Regardless of whether it was or was not a definite prophecy (being contingent on the response of the inhabitants), it still happened, and thus the 70 year servitude of the nations began with the desolation of Jerusalem.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

If you cannot produce a different, more plausible, and scripturally accurate meaning of Jesus' words, how can you say for sure that JW's explanation of it is wrong?

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Well I'd never consider the words of Jesus Christ himself to be a myth or to have no meaning whatsoever. Regardless of what JW's believe about the FDS, Jesus still used it in a parable and it is a statement found in God's inspired word. So since you so forthcomingly and boldly state it to be nothing more than a JW myth, surely you must have another plausible explanation of what it means/represents since JW's explanation of it is just wrong.

207

Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Recovery in

let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.

if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.

Recovery

Let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed Christians are not the FDS. If the anointed are not the FDS, who are?

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

But I've just shown you how 609 BCE could not possibly be when the 70 year servitude begun since Nebuchadnezzar (according to your chronology) had not begun ruling until 4 years later. I do not see how anything you said debunked or directly address this statement. How can you honestly and seriously reason that Jeremiah 25 and 28 were just statements of events that had already taken place when the scriptures repeatedly use clauses and grammatical expressions that directly affirm a future occurrence.

Jeremiah 25:8-11 "‘For the reason that YOU did not obey my words (past tense), 9 here I am sending(present tense) and I will(future tense) take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will(future tense) bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will(future tense) devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will (future tense) destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become(not has become, signifying it has not yet occurred) a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will (future tense) have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

If if was a mere statement of facts, it would not use the future tense. You cannot describe a past event using verbs of that have a time clause describing a future event.

Simple questions I'd like you to answer honestly:

If 609 B.C.E. really is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem how is that Jerusalem and the other nations had been in servitude to Nebuchadnezzar when he did not begin ruling until four years later?

Since Jeremiah 28 tells us that Jehovah told Jeremiah he would put the yoke upon the nations for 70 years during the fourth year of Zedekiah (594 BCE), how could it, at the very least, fulfilled 70 years when 594 BCE to 539 BCE does not equal 70 years?

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

Thanks AnnoMaly. I just wanted to verify before I posted my argument. So according to the 609 BCE chronology, the prophecy of Jeremiah 25 was given in the year 605 B.C.E., which is the proposed date for Nebuchadnezzar's first year.

Now let's continue with verses 8 thru 11: "“Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

Notice that this is a prophecy of a future event. Jehoiakim's fourth year as king of Jerusalem corresponds with Nebuchadnezzar's first year under your chronology as the year of 605/604 B.C.E. However, the servitude was supposed to have begun in 609 B.C.E., four years earlier. Jerusalem could not have been under the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar in 609 B.C.E. since he had not yet began ruling. This presents a list of problems with the chronology of events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, just one of them being: If 609 B.C.E. was the starting point of the nations' 70-year servitude until 539 B.C.E, then how could they possibly have been serving the king of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar) when he had yet to begin ruling? Jeremiah 27:7 says (concerning Neb): "And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandsonuntil the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’ There is no mention of his father, who would've had been ruling in 609 BCE, everything starts with Neb.

Also, notice Jeremiah 28. Verse 1 tells us the setting and time: "Then it came about in that year, in the beginning of the kingdom of Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month,.." In verse 14 it states: "For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “A yoke of iron I will put upon the neck of all these nations, to serve Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon; and they must serve him. And even the wild beasts of the field I will give him.”’” So the 70 year servitude still had not yet begun in the fourth year of Zedekiah. Both Jeremiah 25 and 28 both show us that these events have not yet taken place.

So the 609 theory has a fatal problem. The Bible says the 70 years of the nations serving Babylon do not begin until after the days of Zedekiah. According to their secular chronology, this is about the year of 594 BCE, but their 70 years of servitude was supposed to have begun years earlier in 609 BCE. If the “yoke” bar of Babylonian servitude is put on immediately in the year of the last prophecy, then 70 years will bring us down to 524 BCE — some 15 years after Babylon’s rule has ended, and 15 years after the iron yoke has been removed. So it is not 70 years but only a mere 55 years.

100

Post 607: Reject 607 BC if You TRULY Trust the Bible!!!

by Londo111 in

therefore, if the 70 years period is for the destruction of jerusalem and exile at babylon:.

if zedekiah had not rebelled against babylon, had he surrendered during the final siege that lasted two and a half years, then the destruction of jerusalem and the deportation need not have happened.

then in the jubilee year, they were set free and their hereditary land was returned to them.

Recovery

Londo would you mind posting for us your timeline of events using the 609 BCE based chronology?

To be more specific:

When was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar under the 609 BCE chronology?

In what year was the prophecy of Jeremiah 25 given under the 609 BCE chronology?

I look forward to your responses.