Jump to content
The World News Media

Who Really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave? And why did Jesus mention "everyone" in the parable?


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
On 12/28/2016 at 8:25 PM, JW Insider said:

And we now have evidence that some of it has been kept toxic on purpose for many years because the servers didn't want to admit that it was bad food, even though the GB knew it was. (For example: The directions given on handing pedophilia cases for many years, corporal punishment of children, how a sister should respond to a physically abusive husband, chronological end-times speculation.)

I do agree with you that the apparent directions regarding handling of pedophilia and the others were not good at all. My mother in-law was subject to an abusive husband for years and was told by elders to stay with him and put up with it. Some even chose not to believe her, despite ample evidence. The question is, was this direction from the Slave, or was it the interpretation of elders, on how they decided to handle the situation? The same with the other problematics. I don't know. And how do you know the GB thought it was "bad food". In the instance of the handling of pedophilia it seems they thought we had the "best policies".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 9.3k
  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The small problem with this statement is easy to detect, and I'm sure you saw it, too. It appears to claim that if "some" direction was given that was not in harmony with God's word, then "all of

Usually when we refer to the "faithful and discreet slave" parable, we are really referring to the parable of 'the faithful and the unfaithful slave' found in Matthew 24:45-51. In fact, the parable of

Something very interesting about the parable is the reference to the term "everyone," here. It's obvious that Jesus often used illustrations (parables, allegories, and analogies) in which a single per

Posted Images

  • Member
1 hour ago, Anna said:

The question is, was this direction from the Slave, or was it the interpretation of elders, on how they decided to handle the situation? The same with the other problematics. I don't know. And how do you know the GB thought it was "bad food".

It's a simple principle. It's based primarily on an idea that Jesus spoke about:

(Luke 8:16, 17) 16 “No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel or puts it underneath a bed, but he puts it on a lampstand so that those who come in may see the light. 17 For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, nor anything carefully concealed that will never become known and not come out in the open.

As a teaching organization with a teaching ministry then we will naturally want everyone to know exactly how we have handled issues both in the past and in the present (now what we have learned from any of our own mistakes from the past). This shows how appreciative we are even where Jehovah's discipline has taught us to do better, and how we are now joyous about the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" that comes from it.

(Hebrews 12:5-11) . . .“My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.” . . .  but he does so for our benefit so that we may partake of his holiness. 11 True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Therefore, whenever the Governing Body is not open and clear and transparent about publishing its directions to all, then the reason for hiding it is necessarily because we know that there was something wrong with the ingredients. Whenever a member of the Governing Body is reluctant to speak out in person to explain what we do and why in every matter, doctrinal, financial, and legal, then they must be aware that there is something toxic to someone, something embarrassing to someone. Otherwise we would embrace every opportunity:

  • (Matthew 10:18-20) 18 And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations. 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you.

We have argued that there is sometimes a trade-off in protecting Jehovah's organization and this sometimes means that the victims, the "little ones" must suffer. Protecting "Jehovah's" reputation instead of protecting victims of abuse is a perfect example. But it doesn't stop there. Protecting traditions in doctrines instead of being open and transparent about the ingredients of that doctrine is not just evidence that the doctrine is too weak to stand up to transparency, but is also proof that the promoters of such doctrine realize the potential danger and toxicity. Any thorough study of the attempts to explain some chronology doctrines in our publications, for example, shows that as much as 95% of the evidence is never mentioned at all, and even the 5% remaining is often dealt with through obfuscating, specious, or fallacious argumentation. When various documented elements of our organizational history are not just hidden but consistently reviewed with a false spin (whitewash) then it is clear that the intent is to hide the fact that past servings have been "toxic," and this makes the current purpose of such review suspect as toxic too.

For me, this is a very small portion of the overall menu, but through personal experience I can have no doubt that a type of dishonesty fueled some of the "food" preparation for such portions. The percentage of the portions might be insignificant, but the principle is serious:

(Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Can you provide an example without having to revert yourself to the Bible Students? The early stages of bible understanding laid out by many reformers, not just the WTS?

I do not go searching for instances where the GB have erred. We all err, we are all imperfect, I am very well aware of that. All I was saying was that GB themselves have reminded people they err (although any thinking person would be able to deduce that from the simple fact that, as I already said, we a ALL make mistakes and sin - Ecclesiastes 7:20 "For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins.") But some people obviously need reminding. Here is a quote from the Feb. 2017 WT Page 26, par 12:  "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870."  

So you can see the examples in "Beliefs Clarified".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s why it would be appropriate to “choose for ourselves” how scripture is presented to us. At what point did you realize, you are Christ Equal?

 It is interesting that the Pharisees accused Christ of declaring himself to be God.  John 10:33

It appears you are making the charge that I “blaspheme” because I say I am a “slave” of Christ. I am Christ’s slave, nothing more.

"To challenge who God anoints".

If you are referring the Governing Body – they are genuine anointed ones.  I don’t challenge this truth.  I challenge their self appointed title of “faithful and discreet slave”.  Do you believe that because one is anointed that he or she does not sin, that one’s heart is immune to deception?    1 John 2:19; Heb 3:12,13; Luke 22:31

“ For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.  But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.  For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!”  2 Cor 11:2-4

“But who can endure the day of His coming?
And who can stand when He appears?
For He is like a refiner’s fire
And like launderers’ soap.
He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver;
He will purify the sons of Levi,
And purge them as gold and silver,
That they may offer to the Lord
An offering in righteousness.  Mal 3:2,3

 "A person commissioned by God’s Holy Spirit doesn’t mislead anyone who wishes to be Christ follower to know, learn, and teach the true purpose of God for this, World."

Each and every one of God’s anointed ones are “commissioned by Holy Spirit” to offer sacrifices of praise coming from a refined heart. Heb 13:15; John 14:15-17; 21:17  I am extremely sorry that you cannot see that the anointed in charge of the organization lead people, not to be Christ’s followers, but to be followers of a supposed "faithful and discreet slave" and an organization.

"How grateful we are for the timely, heartening words we receive through the publications and the meetings arranged by “the faithful and discreet slave”! bt chap. 24 pp. 189-195

How grateful I am to have the words of the bible and the blessing of Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ and the Father.

The true purpose of God is for mankind is to look “into the perfect law of liberty” – Jesus Christ, and to continue in it, “not as a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.”  James 1:25  This takes repentance from sin and the denying of oneself – the giving up of who we are and following Christ, NOT taking up an identity as “one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” which is included as necessary during baptism.  Matt 16:24

You believe these men are commissioned by God based upon their word.  Jesus said we CHOOSE whom we listen to based upon their TEACHINGS.  This requires THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

“For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.  For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.  A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”  Luke 6:43-45

JWs hear the past truth, present truth, revised truth out of the mouths of men, and still call it TRUTH, when in fact it is deceit.

"You don’t seem to understand, that while you are critical of anyone in spiritual authority, by your own actions, you have become that supposed authority. (Role Reversal) Once again, I’ll ask, by whose authority does your understanding of scripture outway (Merit) that of ANY Religion"

You are seeing with your physical eyes only, Allan.  God’s Truth in Christ can be discerned through grace, not through any established religion on earth.  Jesus is the only Way, Truth, and Life – the “religion” we need follow to enter the Kingdom.  For the Kingdom to arrive, God’s anointed ones and all must cleanse their heart and turn completely to God’s Son, Jesus Christ. No man should stand in their way. Gal 1:10 We are to shed the “earthly” draws, the desires of the flesh – which incorporates the earthly activity of building, operations necessary to run an organization, the appeasing of men through titles, the obedience of God’s anointed ones to an elder body; instead freely giving one’s life to God.  This is unity on God’s spiritual terms, not through the physical lens of men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Witness, I am trying to understand what you have said here. I have two major problems understanding it.

I must say, they are very few who try and I appreciate your patience.

Your words are in green, the first being to Anna.

Some of this reasoning contradicts not only Romans 10:18 which I quoted in my previous post to Allen, but also requires further redefinition to avoid contradictions with the "world" Satan dwells in

You might want to read the entirety of Ps 19 which is what Rom 10:18 is derived from.

Do you agree completely with the reasoning in the portion of the blog I quoted above. Is that why you are making the same argument to Anna about the "circuit" of the cities of Israel (and/or Asia Minor if you include the 7 congregations of Revelation)?

Yes. The “seven congregations” refer to the Chosen ones.  (1 Cor 14:33) Since Revelation is symbolic, the seven congregations carry a symbolic meaning today.  I’ll give you this link, since this topic has stretched and continues to stretch far from the main question. 

The Fallen Star - http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/06/i-have-found-typing-mistakes-below-and.html

I couldn’t break down the further meaning of oikoumenes any better than Pearl has done, especially in this article and using Rev 3:10, which also considers how the seed of truth makes its home on “fertile soil” of the heart.

“World/Earth/Home” – http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/search?q=World+Earth+Home

Although, I will say after a little extra research, the following gives me more confidence that the “occupied home” of God is his Temple, complete with Christ and his virgin Bride:

3625 - οἰκουμένην (oikoumenēn) “oikoumenē” - ikouménē (from 3611 /oikéō, "to inhabit, dwell") – the inhabited earth,

οἰκουμένη oikouménē, oy-kou-men'-ay; feminine participle present passive ofG3611 – “to dwell in” (as noun, by implication, of G1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specially, the Roman empire:—earth, world

I decided to separate this into oiko/okeo/oikos (3624) “the inhabited earth”  house (104x),household (3x), home (with G1519) (2x), at home (with G1722) (2x),

oy-keh'-o; from G3624; to occupy a house, i.e. reside (figuratively, inhabit, remain, inhere); by implication, to cohabit:—dwell. See also G3625.

AND

υμένη.  There is no Strong’s number for it, but by putting it into Google translator I came up with the meaning “hymen”. (Also as υμένας) , a word from ancient Greek. And of course the meaning of “hymen” signifies virginity.

Consequently, I see this as the “virgin dwelling/home”.  Isa 62:4,11; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 14:4

Matt 13:23 -  “the seed fell on good soil” (earth, land and the same word for “earth” in Romans 10:18 )

We know this parable signifies how receptive our heart is to truth.

1 Cor 3:9  -  “For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building”. (a cultivated field, husbandry, tillage)

God’s anointed ones face the refinement of the heart, according to the measuring line of truth, (Rev 11:1) and cultivated by God’s standards.  Eze 36:27  Only then, upon sealing are they acceptable members of Christ’s Bride.  John 14:2,23; Rev 3:12

 Why do you believe that the preaching of the "good news" is specifically to the scattered remnant of God's Chosen ones - within the Watchtower congregations? What makes the Watchtower so special in your view?

here is no other “religion” that I know of where God’s true anointed ones reside. Shouldn’t we ask why they are all in one place that has given us bits of truth? 

“Decoy” - lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits. Matt 7:15,16

Why type of spiritual fruit grows on the “trees” of the anointed leaders of the organization, from its inception until now?  John 7:16-18

“Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”  1 Pet 5:8

 Isa 5:13; 2 Cor 11:3; Matt 24;24,25; Luke 21:24; Rev 13:10,16,7; 16:13-15; Dan 11:33

I have made mention of the “fourth beast” of Daniel and Revelation – the last deceptive entity that the “remaining ones of the woman’s seed” faces during the final days.  Satan offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world; would he not do the same to Christ’s brothers? Christ’s potential “kings” are choosing their own “kingdoms” through the organization.  Satan’s final tactics are his last, and must be so deceptive as to “shine” as Truth, pulling in to one place all of the remaining anointed ones, and using Christ’s own brothers as his agents. 1 Tim 4:1   Every caution we read in scripture prepares us for this day and the fulfillment of the two beasts of Revelation. Dan 7:19; Rev 13:2-4; 13:11   You may want to read 2 Thess 2:1-12 on the coming of the “lawless one”.

The Last Harlot and Her Beast - 4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2012/12/here-is-earlier-post-with-updates.html

The anointed are “scattered” within the organization, through their anonymity; not coming together as a Body in any sense outlined in scripture; especially during the Memorial service which is so oppressive.  Paul used the marriage of two people as an example for those in Christ. Eph 5:25-28,31,32 If we take this example seriously, we should see that Christ, as a loving husband would not expect his composite Bride to be scattered, but as one Body in Christ.  Rom 12:4,5; John 17:20,21  How can those in Christ be as one if they are not to “seek out others who claim to have the same calling hoping to bond with them” as the Watchtower claims?  Their bonding as one leads to the promised Kingdom, which is what we all want!  Who would prevent this, but Satan?  Gen 3:15; Rev 12:4

1 Cor 12:25,26 – “so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”

Yet, there is a gathering of these “kings” in the Watchtower, for the location of “Armageddon” – where Christ’s “divisive sword” penetrates each heart of the anointed ones, and all who reside within its walls.  Luke 12:49-51  Armageddon is fought in the “low plain of decision”, but we can be assured Satan will attempt to make a physical display as well.  The scriptures warn us to “walk by faith, not by sight”.   Joel 3:14; Rev 19:19; 2 Cor 5:7; John 3:12

One more question while I think of it. Do you understand the meaning of "world" as God's "inhabited or occupied place/dwelling" to mean something like the opposite of the "wilderness" in Revelation 12?

I see the wilderness of Revelation 12 as a time of further testing, sifting and refinement for those who are God’s “occupied home”.  Jesus was tested by Satan for 40 days and nights in the wilderness in Matt 4:1-11.  Christ’s brothers suffer the same persecutions in a symbolic way, a continuous cleansing and refinement before receiving their inheritance, even after their own personal victory of breaking free of the “wild beast” of Revelation.  The nation of Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years once free from Egypt’s bondage, also a time to humble and test God’s people. Deut 8:2  God’s anointed must also follow a similar path for a symbolic time.  Zech 13:9; 1 Cor 3:13   As God fed his people manna while in the wilderness, for all today during their time in the “wilderness”, the Marriage Feast from Christ becomes abundant nourishment to sustain us. Rev 3:20

Matt 24:28; Rev 12:14  

(Isa 52:2; 61:1-11 ) 

I hope the scriptures are right.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Therefore, whenever the Governing Body is not open and clear and transparent about publishing its directions to all, then the reason for hiding it is necessarily because we know that there was something wrong with the ingredients. Whenever a member of the Governing Body is reluctant to speak out in person to explain what we do and why in every matter, doctrinal, financial, and legal, then they must be aware that there is something toxic to someone, something embarrassing to someone. Otherwise we would embrace every opportunity:

I do not think this is necessarily true. I do believe there is a time and place for confidentiality. And I can understand that it becomes enormously difficult to find the right balance in an organization so vast, and comprised of so many cultures, nations and social backgrounds, and levels of intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I too wish for more transparency, but I also realize that we just do NOT know the whole story on many internal matters, and very often it is impossible for ALL to know the whole story.

We have been able to become privy to the issue of Child sexual abuse to some extend thanks to the ARC, but even there I can see where it was just too complex for a categorical conclusion. I remember in the early 80's when publications dealing with child sexual abuse came out, and I kind of poopoed it thinking the society is getting a little paranoid again. Especially when I was reading about parents not allowed to touch their children. I grew up in Europe, and our view of American culture was that they are a little over the top when it comes to natural nudity etc. (a little ironic since one of the biggest porn industries is in the US) I was used to seeing little children running around with no clothes in the summer. Little did I know that these articles were being published because of a NEED! Now looking back, I wonder how many readers took these articles to heart? And the problem, did those who really NEEDED to read these articles actually do so? Most probably not, because many of those who it was addressing, were on the fringes of the congregations or merely associating with it. And did those who actually read the articles put them into practice? I am assuming that those who were diligent in applying advise and counsel did, but those who were spiritually low and negligent didn't. Or what about those who belonged to a dysfunctional family such as Candace Conti's parents? I do not imagine either of them took any note, or applied the advice in those magazines. This is where the GB have assumed that if they "put it out there in the form of publications" no further action is needed. This was and is their biggest mistake I think. IF they had come straight out  in those days and said that some congregations are having problems with child sexual abuse, so be aware,  I wonder what would have happened. Then again, those who would have really needed to hear it, might not have even been at the meeting, as is often the case! So this is where I see the difficulty, it is just so complex. And I can understand the GB's attitude of "prevention is better than cure", and in an ideal situation that would work great,  but unfortunately you are addressing all kinds of people, the dysfunctional, the mentally unstable and those who are JW's in name only. How can you control what those people do? You can't. And that's the problem. And this is where I think the GB will have to admit that they are going to have to change their policies not just regarding prevention, but helping those who have already become victims.

Even now, the GB seem to be skirting the issue by putting out stories of sexual abuse victims, (video on broadcasting) but the abuser was a worldly person and the sister was abused before she came into the truth. Why not make a video of someone who was abused by an elder or "reputable" brother in the congregation? I can perhaps see why, but they could do so anonymously to protect the identity of both the victim and perpetrator, as is often done in documentaries. Is it perhaps because we would feel "cheesy" having criticized the Catholics for a similar thing? (there is a difference, but many might not discern this)......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

When various documented elements of our organizational history are not just hidden but consistently reviewed with a false spin (whitewash) then it is clear that the intent is to hide the fact that past servings have been "toxic," and this makes the current purpose of such review suspect as toxic too.

Unfortunately we (GB) have always seemed to have this peculiar little problem with speaking directly. It brings to mind the disappointments regarding 1975 and how it took all of 5 years before the WT 80 3/5  clarified a statement made in the 1976 WT:

"In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date".

Of course it was obvious that anyone who had set their sights on 1975 only did so because of "the persons publishing that information" and not because they had somehow come up with it themselves. Duh!  But why couldn't this have been said in a more direct way in the first place? It is evident that until things change, we have to be on our toes, play detectives, and keep on trying to figure out what is actually being said :D:D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Anna said:

"In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date".

The most amazing transformation to someone's thinking that I ever witnessed up-close-and-personally was when my mother read this article and apparently took it to heart immediately. I had been pioneering full-time since May 1973 with 2 to 3 other pioneers and as of February 1976 my mother also began pioneering with us full-time. Most weekdays we would all meet at the Hall in the morning and worked separately with congregation members who showed up for the meeting for service and work with them until about noon, usually, and then the 4 pioneers would meet up again at the Hall around 1pm to pair up in two car groups for RVs until 3pm and Bible studies afterwards. My mother drove a station wagon that held all five of us comfortably, and she always paid for all the gas, so on Fridays at 1pm all the pioneers would pile into the station wagon; I'd drive, and we'd work out the most efficient routes for all of us to get to a bunch of RVs anywhere between the Hall and a 50-mile radius. This led to a lot of long conversations and Kingdom Song marathons.

1975 came up a lot in those months, and we even had to deal with it door-to-door, with RVs and from our Bible study students. But in the car conversations, as of May 1976, my mother was the first to decide that the WTS had absolutely no culpability and that 1975 was completely our own doing -- but that the end would still probably come within a year because Jehovah could have brought all the animals to Adam in the same year in which he created Eve. Her view was obviously based on the Watchtower she had just read. I left for Bethel around the first of August 1976 and this Watchtower was the first one I studied with the entire Bethel family (at the Bethel Monday-night Watchtower Study.) I was amazed that the Bethelite's comments on that paragraph were exactly like my mother's. I also learned that nothing had changed with respect to the actual date of Armageddon being tied to the start of the 7th 1000-year day, and therefore the unknown amount of time between Adam's creation and Eve's creation. This was in the very same issue, and I couldn't believe we were still pushing the speculation on how long Adam would have stayed alone, and then saying that the speculation was on the part of the reader.

A full NINE PARAGRAPHS, more than one-third of the first study article, specifically dealt with speculation on how long Adam might have been in the garden prior to Eve, and that this was the main reason we didn't know the exact time!

The nine paragraphs concluded with this one:

*** w76 7/15 p. 437 par. 25 Keeping a Balanced View of Time ***
What, then, does this mean? Simply this: That these factors, and the possibilities for which they allow, prevent us from saying with any positiveness how much time elapsed between Adam’s creation and that of the first woman. We do not know whether it was a brief time such as a month or a few months, a year or even more. But whatever time elapsed would have to be added to the time that has passed since Adam’s creation in order for us to know how far along we are within God’s seventh “day,” his grand day of rest. So our having advanced six thousand years from the start of human existence is one thing. Advancing six thousand years into God’s seventh creative “day” is quite another. And we do not know just how far along in the stream of time we are in this regard.

Another point that didn't bother me at the time, but one I noticed later, was that the paragraph following the one you quoted goes to a typical type of rationalizing when a mistake is made. It's the one that says that the timing might have been off but it was still the right thing. In other words, "the right thing at the wrong time" as Brother MacMillan put it. Here's the paragraph:

*** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 16 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
16 However, say that you are one who counted heavily on a date, and, commendably, set your attention more strictly on the urgency of the times and the need of the people to hear. And say you now, temporarily, feel somewhat disappointed; are you really the loser? Are you really hurt? We believe you can say that you have gained and profited by taking this conscientious course. Also, you have been enabled to get a really mature, more reasonable viewpoint.—Eph. 5:1-17.

This reminded me of the similar comments made about the correct view of Romans 13 that Russell had in the 1870's, which Rutherford changed to an incorrect view, but which was changed back to the correct view in the 1960's. It was wrong food, but the at the right time, because, as the publications inadvertently indicated, Christians somehow needed incorrect doctrine during the turbulent times of the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's up to the 1960's.

This kind of made it ironic that the very study article in 1976 that you quoted from included a secondary article on the same page that brings us full circle to the subject of this particular topic. Sharing the page with the study article is a small article squeezed onto the bottom of the page, called, you guessed it: "Who is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?"

*** w76 7/15 p. 443 ‘Who Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?’ ***
Jesus’ words revealed that during all this long period of time there would be a “faithful and discreet slave” who would be giving God’s household “their food at the proper time.”—Matt. 24:45.
. . . Their duty while on earth has been to disseminate spiritual food among the members of the household of God, especially seeing that they are equipped spiritually to face the issues confronting them from time to time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The slave class can be as infallible as the apostles. Did God remove them from their commission? once again, by whose authority do you profess to challenge God's anointed?

By the "slave class" I am guessing you mean the GB.  Your reaction is exactly why the anointed in the congregations languish in hesitancy and timidity in standing up for the truth. The only authority you appear to recognize is the GB and the elders.   Ps 142:6; Isa 59:10;  2 Cor 6:17; Ps 66:12; 1 John 2:26

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps+142%3A6%3B+Isa+59%3A10%3B+ 2+Cor+6%3A17%3B+Ps+66%3A12%3B+1+John+2%3A26&version=NKJV

Each anointed one has the obligation and authority to speak truth in Christ.  1 John 2:20,27; 1 Pet 2:5,9  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A20%2C27%3B+1+Pet+2%3A5%2C9 &version=NKJV

“And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.
 If you will not hear,
And if you will not take it to heart,
To give glory to My name,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“I will send a curse upon you,
And I will curse your blessings.
Yes, I have cursed them already,
Because you do not take it to heart.” Mal 2:1,2

“For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge,
And people should seek the law from his mouth;

For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
 But you have departed from the way;
You have caused many to stumble at the law
.
You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base
Before all the people,

Because you have not kept My ways
But have shown partiality in the law.”  Mal 2:7-9

Deliberately, the GB have disregarded their members in Christ, cutting them off by refusing to accept Christ’s arrangement.  1 Cor 12:20,21  Each part of the Body of Christ provides sustenance to the whole.  The knowledge of truth requires it. 

By denying their own members, they essentially have denied Christ.  1 John 2:18,19,22,23,26; 2 John 1:27     https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A18%2C19%2C22%2C23%2C26%3B+2+John+1%3A27&version=NKJV

“ For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.  2 Cor 5:10

Rom 12:5-8, 10,13    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom+12%3A5-8%2C+10%2C13&version=NKJV

Paul dealt with those “puffed up with pride”.  Do you question his authority when he stood up to them? 

1 Cor 4:6-13;2 Cor 11:12-15;19-21   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+4%3A6-13%3B2+Cor+11%3A12-15%3B19-21+++&version=NKJV

Do you question Christ’s warning to beware of the “Kings of the Gentiles” (elder body) “who exercise lordship over them” (“obey the elders”),

and those “who exercise authority over them (that being, the elder body),

 and “who are called “benefactors – a “title of honor” (“faithful and discreet slave”)?    Luke 22:24-27

I am acting on my obligation and authority given by Christ, and as a “good for nothing slave” – to speak truth and expose Watchtower lies about the Christ.  Luke 17:10  Finally, after many years of obeying men.  There are others as well, including Ray Franz.  I pray I strengthen my faith daily in doing so, being found acceptable in the day of our Lord. 1 Cor 10:12,13

Ezek 34:2,8,10; 22:25; Micah 3:11  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezek+34%3A2%2C8%2C10%3B+22%3A25%3B+Micah+3%3A11&version=NKJV

Using exceptionally covert tactics, the GB and the organization has hidden the necessary reality of the Body of Christ from JWs; a prophetic fulfillment for the time of the end.

“Through his cunning
He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule;
And he shall exalt himself in his heart.
He shall destroy many in their prosperity.
He shall even rise against the Prince of princes;
But he shall be broken without human means.” Dan 8:25

“He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.”  Dan 7:25

“I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,  until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.”  Dan 7:22

You say, “Did God remove them from their commission”

God has removed many from their commission, we have the Hebrew and Greek scriptures to prove it. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

my mother was the first to decide that the WTS had absolutely no culpability and that 1975 was completely our own doing -- but that the end would still probably come within a year because Jehovah could have brought all the animals to Adam in the same year in which he created Eve.

I can understand that, sometimes we can get so bogged down that we can't see the trees for the forest. This is why it's good to step back at times and look at things from a fresh angle. Also, we would all love for the end to come in OUR life time, so it's the natural thing to speculate and I believe that what you mom thought was the next best explanation for the "delay" as demonstrated by the comments of the Bethelites as well. But as we know, all of it was just speculation, just like the present Generation explanation is just speculation. And I don't think there is anything wrong with speculation, it's only dangerous when one bases their entire hope and faith on it.....

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 16 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
16 However, say that you are one who counted heavily on a date, and, commendably, set your attention more strictly on the urgency of the times and the need of the people to hear. And say you now, temporarily, feel somewhat disappointed; are you really the loser? Are you really hurt? We believe you can say that you have gained and profited by taking this conscientious course. Also, you have been enabled to get a really mature, more reasonable viewpoint.—Eph. 5:1-17.

I must admit I can see the reasoning here and this is why I chose to "get a really mature, more reasonable viewpoint" regarding the present Generation explanation :D

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This kind of made it ironic that the very study article in 1976 that you quoted from included a secondary article on the same page that brings us full circle to the subject of this particular topic.

And there will be another discussion about the "Slave" in the Feb 2017 study edition of the WT, which I'm sure you've already read. So with regard to that, and going back on topic, what is your understanding of the "Slave" as per the parable? (In one or two sentences :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

An erred perception perpetrated by individuals, NOT the society. However, the WTS did have to reference it in 1976, not to clarify their understanding of 1975, but to clarify the foolishness of some witnesses thinking about 1975.

If you mean "erred perception perpetrated by individuals" to mean certain members of the GB then you are right. But if you mean certain individuals among the congregations then you are wrong. Members of the congregations only had this wrong perception about 1975 because of strong insinuations by the GB. This is a fact which the GB themselves admit. ("Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated"  WT 1980 3/15 p.17) I am sure JWInsider would be able to dig up those specific statements that implied that the realization of hopes were a probability.

However, I do agree that it is erroneous and foolish to accept anything and everything the GB insinuates without first checking if "this is so".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Yes, I’ve heard this argument up to now by ex-witnesses. Once again, misunderstanding what the WTS was attempting to convey with the complication of the 6000 years in 1975. The “Possibility” and “Probability” referenced here is, for the assertion on the timing of that event, NOT a correction, for the benefit of the WTS, but a correction for those that foolishly misunderstood. So, this Statement was made to correct the misconception that some witnesses had toward 1975, that wanted to see a complication in prophecy. A delusional aspect conjured in their minds NOT the WTS.

I know what you are trying to say, but YOU are actually the one who is misunderstanding. The argument is quite easy to settle. If what you said above really was the case, then why would the study edition of the February 2017 WT direct readers to:  " ..... Watch Tower Publications Index  “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding"?  There, under the caption 1975 you will find a reference to "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" book, which subsequently directs you to the WT and the quotes from it we have been discussing (WT 76 & 80). Just check it out for yourself. Go to ONLINE LIBRARY -> Publications Index -> Subject Index -> Beliefs clarified -> dates ->1975

So it is not an argument conjured up by ex-witnesses, it is what the writers of the WT are saying. The writers are the ones who have had to adjust their understanding too, not just the readers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588." I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said: "You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . " No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588."  Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters.  I certainly hope so!
    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
    • It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself. The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.