What blasphemy!

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

And when sir does that happen?

It would come at the time of judgement - such as it will for all of us. Actually it is more of a continual process, because the bible says that “Jehovah wishes none to die, but to attain to repentance”. Thus that attainment takes time - it is a process to ‘attain’ another’s respect for instance, or to fall in love or overcome sinful traits. The more we prove ourselves now, perhaps the more lenient that test will need to be. The test is one of faith, not only in Jehovah, but in our values and, whether we can sustain them and thus be true to our heart, is a critical factor. I do not know why you want specific dates and times - it has always been thus since Adam threw our inheritance away. Cain took time to develop his course of action. We all take time to rid ourselves of it. Robert is a guide, but we all have to walk the ‘same‘ path to get there and for all of us, each of our paths are different. Our aim is to converge on the same point. It is up to us how much we depend on the guide to get us there; we can follow, or we can help read the map, we can walk with him as a companion and discuss the correct way, or search for ourselves. He may suggest a route, but whether we take it - that is the question. We do not have to follow. No one is compelled. Notice that the guide, guides from behind. “And I (Jehovah) shall walk behind, pointing to the left or to the right, saying, walk this way or that…” (I think I quote correctly). This does not imply any greatness of leadership, rather, it is pointing out that the choice is ours to go in the direction indicated. Neither does it imply that the road is easy, simply that the contours and problems it offers can be resolved to our benefit and a refinement. We still have to walk it ourselves. Critically, if the guide walks behind, we are not following, only listening. So really, the responsibility for our actions is entirely our own, thus our compliance is entirely based on our own desires.

 

[goldie]

So does that mean that he didn't appoint Peter when he said "feed my sheep" prior to his departure? To feed them from the time he departed until his return. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion... If that is true, then when was the slave appointed?

edit: I'm aware of the fact that the "second appointment" is after the master's return. But still, how do we know when the first appointment occured?

Excellent point

 

[Watchman]

So does that mean that he didn't appoint Peter when he said "feed my sheep" prior to his departure? To feed them from the time he departed until his return. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion... If that is true, then when was the slave appointed?

edit: I'm aware of the fact that the "second appointment" is after the master's return. But still, how do we know when the first appointment occured?

When Jesus was warning the apostles that they had better be awake and ready when he returned, which was odd since at that point they had no idea he was leaving, nonetheless, Peter asked Jesus if he was speaking the illustration to them or to all. Jesus replied: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him." - Luke 12:42-48

Peter was of course commissioned to feed Christ's lambs, as were all of the apostles and appointed men. And he may have lived his entire life thinking Jesus would return in his lifetime. Obviously, though, Christ did not return in the first century. So, there was no judgment of the slaves then. Nor were any of them appointed over all of the master's possessions then either. Since Jesus foretold that the good news of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the world and then the end will come, it ought to be apparent that the appointed slaves oversee the preaching and disciple-making work under Jesus' direction. And since the Watchtower has been expecting Armageddon for as long as it has existed, it is understandable that at this late date, some would begin to say in their heart "My master delays coming." It is not rocket science but it does require a truthful heart to be receptive to simple truth.

 

[alan ford]

When Jesus was warning the apostles that they had better be awake and ready when he returned, which was odd since at that point they had no idea he was leaving, nonetheless, Peter asked Jesus if he was speaking the illustration to them or to all. Jesus replied: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him." - Luke 12:42-48

Peter was of course commissioned to feed Christ's lambs, as were all of the apostles and appointed men. And he may have lived his entire life thinking Jesus would return in his lifetime. Obviously, though, Christ did not return in the first century. So, there was no judgment of the slaves then. Nor were any of them appointed over all of the master's possessions then either. Since Jesus foretold that the good news of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the world and then the end will come, it ought to be apparent that the appointed slaves oversee the preaching and disciple-making work under Jesus' direction. And since the Watchtower has been expecting Armageddon for as long as it has existed, it is understandable that at this late date, some would begin to say in their heart "My master delays coming." It is not rocket science but it does require a truthful heart to be receptive to simple truth.

I inquired regarding the "when first appointment took place"...
The account in Luke speaks about master going to the marriage feast and leaving the slaves to wait and watch, so they can open when he knocks. To me that says that the slave is appointed at the master's departure. Jesus tasked the apostles and by extension their disciples to watch and provide the food to the domestics until his return, whenever that might be. He gave them the recipe for food, and left them to it. David Splane's claim that there was no slave for 1900 years can not be correct. That would imply that the truth was completely snuffed out as there would be no food dispensed at all during that period. WT have to uphold their interpretation that the appointment took place in 1919 because otherwise they wouldn't have any authority. It seems that the reasoning is that the slave needs to be alive during the return which does make sense, but the caveat is that it's not known when the return will take place, so since the time of the apostles everyone who assumed the role of the slave had to keep watch and provide food.

It is not rocket science but it does require a truthful heart to be receptive to simple truth.

Indeed, it's not rocket science, the illustration is very simple to understand. WT has complicated it and made it sound like it's a prophecy that they are fulfilling when it's only a parable...

 

[Watchman]

I inquired regarding the "when first appointment took place"...
The account in Luke speaks about master going to the marriage feast and leaving the slaves to wait and watch, so they can open when he knocks. To me that says that the slave is appointed at the master's departure. Jesus tasked the apostles and by extension their disciples to watch and provide the food to the domestics until his return, whenever that might be. He gave them the recipe for food, and left them to it. David Splane's claim that there was no slave for 1900 years can not be correct. That would imply that the truth was completely snuffed out as there would be no food dispensed at all during that period. WT have to uphold their interpretation that the appointment took place in 1919 because otherwise they wouldn't have any authority. It seems that the reasoning is that the slave needs to be alive during the return which does make sense, but the caveat is that it's not known when the return will take place, so since the time of the apostles everyone who assumed the role of the slave had to keep watch and provide food.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of it. There were no organized Christians doing the work for centuries. The truth was snuffed out and only gradually began to reappear after the Bible began to be printed in the common languages of Europeans. Even then the errors of Catholicism persisted, even up to this moment in the churches. No real ministry existed until the Watchtower began organizing it. 1919 obviously is connected to 1914 and Christ's supposed return. However, Jesus does not need to be ruling the world in order to appoint men to oversee his work. As stated, the good news is preached in all the world as a preliminary to Christ's return. That means a re-appearance of anointed Christians and a slave appointed to feed them in the run-up to the second coming of Christ.

 

[alan ford]

I don't think you have a very good grasp of it. There were no organized Christians doing the work for centuries. The truth was snuffed out and only gradually began to reappear after the Bible began to be printed in the common languages of Europeans. Even then the errors of Catholicism persisted, even up to this moment in the churches. No real ministry existed until the Watchtower began organizing it. 1919 obviously is connected to 1914 and Christ's supposed return. However, Jesus does not need to be ruling the world in order to appoint men to oversee his work. As stated, the good news is preached in all the world as a preliminary to Christ's return. That means a re-appearance of anointed Christians and a slave appointed to feed them in the run-up to the second coming of Christ.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not much different from what the WT are saying. I think they are misdirecting our focus to "when" and trying to tie it to specific events to confirm the interpretation as if it's a prophecy. I understand the parable to be an advice as to the attitude that needs to be adopted by those who are keeping watch and feeding the domestics. Basically to not go to sleep and persist in watching, always be ready. You don't know when the master is coming. Do not let the house be broken into. During the inspection it would be determined who did the work and who didn't, and they will receive the corresponding award/punishment.
According to what you're saying, that would mean that there was the appointment before Jesus' departure, but it was snuffed out and then there's another appointment prior to his coming, and then there is the final appointment where the slave is called faithful and receives appointment over all the belongings. Tbh it's a bit confusing...

 

[Fallen]

Exodus 4:1 However, Moses answered: But suppose they do not believe me and do not listen to your voice, for they will say, 'Jehovah did not appear to you.'" 2. The Jehovah said to him, "What is in your hand?" He answered: A Watchtower magazine." 3. Open it up and read the part about how they will be disfellowshipped, left behind in Egypt and wish they were dead." 5. ...this is so that they may believe that Jehovah, the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you. Because if they even think about doubting you, they will be shunned, and already dead in heaven! I Jehovah your God has spoken it." 6. Jehovah said to him once more: "Put your hand , please into the upper fold of your garment." So he put his hand into the upper fold of his garment. When he drew it out, why, in his hand was another Watchtower magazine. 7. Then he said, "Return your hand into the upper fold of your garment." So he returned his hand into his garment. When he drew it out of the garment, there was yet another Watchtower magazine. He then commanded him to read from it. Moses then read from it, and it said, "Unity, is more important than God's blessing."
verse, 9... "Still, even if they will not believe these two Watchtower magazines, and refuse to listen to your voice, go down to the Nile River, place your Watchtower magazine into the river, and drop it on dry land, and those two Watchtower magazines will turn into three magazines which justify disfellowshipping the whole assembly of rebels. Because they refused to believe what Watchtower has printed. 10. Moses now said to Jehovah, "Pardon me, Jehovah, but don't you think some miraculous evidence, I don't know, maybe a staff turning into a snake, and back into a staff, a physical illness appearing and then disappearing, turning water into blood, would actually give evidence dare I say even, proof that you sent me?" 12. Jehovah said, "the Watchtower is enough!"

I. AM. DEAD. AND DECEASED!
LMFAOOOOOOOO

 

[Watchman]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not much different from what the WT are saying. I think they are misdirecting our focus to "when" and trying to tie it to specific events to confirm the interpretation as if it's a prophecy. I understand the parable to be an advice as to the attitude that needs to be adopted by those who are keeping watch and feeding the domestics. Basically to not go to sleep and persist in watching, always be ready. You don't know when the master is coming. Do not let the house be broken into. During the inspection it would be determined who did the work and who didn't, and they will receive the corresponding award/punishment.
According to what you're saying, that would mean that there was the appointment before Jesus' departure, but it was snuffed out and then there's another appointment prior to his coming, and then there is the final appointment where the slave is called faithful and receives appointment over all the belongings. Tbh it's a bit confusing...

I think you are confusing yourself. What you are saying is akin to Catholicism's apostolic succession. You claim there has to be an unbroken chain of slaves from the first century because Jesus can't appoint anyone at a later time.

 

[alan ford]

I think you are confusing yourself. What you are saying is akin to Catholicism's apostolic succession. You claim there has to be an unbroken chain of slaves from the first century because Jesus can't appoint anyone at a later time.

No, I don't believe in apostolic succesion. Catholic church is an example of what happens when the servant goes to sleep and allows the thief to break into the house. I believe that there have always been those who kept the truth alive despite the efforts to snuff it out. Even if they had to be hidden for a time.

 

[alan ford]

You claim there has to be an unbroken chain of slaves from the first century because Jesus can't appoint anyone at a later time.

This is not what I claim. I don't claim anything. I'm just discussing the understanding, and I welcome correction. I just think that WT has confused the matter.

 

[Cristo]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not much different from what the WT are saying. I think they are misdirecting our focus to "when" and trying to tie it to specific events to confirm the interpretation as if it's a prophecy. I understand the parable to be an advice as to the attitude that needs to be adopted by those who are keeping watch and feeding the domestics. Basically to not go to sleep and persist in watching, always be ready. You don't know when the master is coming. Do not let the house be broken into. During the inspection it would be determined who did the work and who didn't, and they will receive the corresponding award/punishment.
According to what you're saying, that would mean that there was the appointment before Jesus' departure, but it was snuffed out and then there's another appointment prior to his coming, and then there is the final appointment where the slave is called faithful and receives appointment over all the belongings. Tbh it's a bit confusing...

I believe you are referring to these scriptures.

“. . .“Let YOUR loins be girded and YOUR lamps be burning, 36 and YOU yourselves be like men waiting for their master when he returns from the marriage, so that at his arriving and knocking they may at once open to him. 37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on arriving finds watching! Truly I say to YOU, He will gird himself and make them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. 38 And if he arrives in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them thus, happy are they! 39 But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would have kept watching and not have let his house be broken into. 40 YOU also, keep ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think likely the Son of man is coming.”” Lu 12:35-40

I think you are confusing yourself. What you are saying is akin to Catholicism's apostolic succession. You claim there has to be an unbroken chain of slaves from the first century because Jesus can't appoint anyone at a later time.

I don't see that claim anywhere in what Alan wrote. I think you two need to define exactly what it is you are discussing because it seems as though you are both talking about different things.

 

[Watchman]

This is not what I claim. I don't claim anything. I'm just discussing the understanding, and I welcome correction. I just think that WT has confused the matter.

You have implied that. You have claimed that the first appointment took place after Jesus' departure. And somehow, according to your claim, there must be an appointed slave all down through history, even when there was no recognizable Christianity. That is similar to apostolic succession.

 

[Cristo]

And this is how conversations get so messed up.

You have claimed that the first appointment took place after Jesus' departure.

First, Alan never said the first appointment took place after Jesus' departure. That is not true. Therefore anything said regarding that has no bearing on the original conversation because its premise is false i.e. apostolic succession.

Second, Alan said

I inquired regarding the "when first appointment took place"...
The account in Luke speaks about master going to the marriage feast and leaving the slaves to wait and watch, so they can open when he knocks. To me that says that the slave is appointed at the master's departure.

I believe this is where Robert misread what Alan was saying and took it as 'after' Jesus' departure. However, I don't feel the word 'at' clearly defines when the slave was appointed as it relates to the masters departure, so Alan could have been more clear.

Obviously the master appointed the slaves before he departed. In the illustration he could have done it 'at' his departure, but nonetheless it was prior to it, else how would they know they had been appointed.

As I said prior, this misunderstanding is because, simple words, such as 'at', can have different meanings to different people. Please define your words more clearly in your thoughts to us, so that others don't reach certain conclusions that have no bearing on what the conversation is about. We are all guilty of both to be sure.

 

[alan ford]

And this is how conversations get so messed up.


First, Alan never said the first appointment took place after Jesus' departure. That is not true. Therefore anything said regarding that has no bearing on the original conversation because its premise is false i.e. apostolic succession.

Second, Alan said

I believe this is where Robert misread what Alan was saying and took it as 'after' Jesus' departure. However, I don't feel the word 'at' clearly defines when the slave was appointed as it relates to the masters departure, so Alan could have been more clear.

Obviously the master appointed the slaves before he departed. In the illustration he could have done it 'at' his departure, but nonetheless it was prior to it, else how would they know they had been appointed.

As I said prior, this misunderstanding is because, simple words, such as 'at', can have different meanings to different people. Please define your words more clearly in your thoughts to us, so that others don't reach certain conclusions that have no bearing on what the conversation is about. We are all guilty of both to be sure.

I don't believe in apostolic succession and any similarity is unintended. I'm not sure why Robert insists I did imply that. I guess it's best for me to refrain from commenting further on this topic.

 

[JulioG]

First, Alan never said the first appointment took place after Jesus' departure

I read Alan's post again and I understand it in the same way as Robert King but I must admit that everything I read is translated.

 

[JulioG]

read Alan's post again and I understand it in the same way as Robert King but I must admit that everything I read is translated

Actually I didn't understand it so much as apostolic succession but as if there always had to be true Christians since the departure of Jesus and that is something similar to apostolic succession

 

[Watchman]

And this is how conversations get so messed up. First, Alan never said the first appointment took place after Jesus' departure. That is not true. Therefore anything said regarding that has no bearing on the original conversation because its premise is false i.e. apostolic succession.

You seem to imagine that I need you to clarify what Alan said. I don't know why. You obviously don't know what you are saying. Perhaps you just see an opportunity to create chaos. Strange. Alan did in fact say "the slave is appointed at the master's departure." Maybe you ought to say Alan did not mean what he said, or Alan meant something else.

 

[Cristo]

You seem to imagine that I need you to clarify what Alan said. I don't know why. You obviously don't know what you are saying. Perhaps you just see an opportunity to create chaos. Strange. Alan did in fact say "the slave is appointed at the master's departure." Maybe you ought to say Alan did not mean what he said, or Alan meant something else.

So I ought to say Alan did not mean what he said, or he meant something else? Isn't that clarifying what Alan said?

Ok, fair enough. I was trying to show the misunderstanding you two were having was based on your misperception of what he said. I was trying to bring peace to the matter by showing you two were not in alignment with the discussion. Now you are doing the same thing, jumping to conclusions with me. Strange.

How about this, you show us where Alan claimed the slave was appointed 'after', as you clearly said he did. It didn't need to get to this. Here is your quote for reference:

You have implied that. You have claimed that the first appointment took place after Jesus' departure. And somehow, according to your claim, there must be an appointed slave all down through history, even when there was no recognizable Christianity. That is similar to apostolic succession.

If you can show us where Alan claimed the appointment took place 'after' then I'll kindly refrain from clarifying anything else to you, however if you cannot then I will continue to point out, or clarify, arguments that are not conducive to a profitable outcome because the parties involved misunderstand each other.

 

[Watchman]

So I ought to say Alan did not mean what he said, or he meant something else? Isn't that clarifying what Alan said?

Ok, fair enough. I was trying to show the misunderstanding you two were having was based on your misperception of what he said. I was trying to bring peace to the matter by showing you two were not in alignment with the discussion. Now you are doing the same thing, jumping to conclusions with me. Strange.

How about this, you show us where Alan claimed the slave was appointed 'after', as you clearly said he did. Here is your quote for reference:

If you can show us where Alan claimed the appointment took place 'after' then I'll kindly refrain from clarifying anything else to you, however if you cannot then I will continue to point out, or clarify, arguments that are not conducive to a profitable outcome because the parties involved misunderstand each other.

I cited what he said in my post using italics. Why are you so obtuse?

 

[Cristo]

I cited what he said in my post using italics. Why are you so obtuse?

Does 'at' mean 'after'? Show us where he said the appointment was 'after' as you claimed he did.