Examining the JW teaching of the Faithful and Discreet Slave

[Rotherham]

My partner, in discussion of this important teaching, has asked that I go first.

I am not exactly sure what aspects of the teaching are being challenged but I will simply start off with stating that the understanding of the FDS (Faithful and Discreet Slave) teaching has to do with the understanding of "ecclesiastical authority" and the extent of its influence in the lives of Christians.

I do not know if my partner believes that there is such a thing as an ecclesiatical authority or not but initially, that would seem to be the place to start, besides, our understanding of the FDS is simply our understanding of how that ecclesiastical authority would be manifest in the last days.

I will attempt to show in the course of this discussion that there is indeed an ecclesiastical authority to be found within the Christian congregation, so naturally, in the last days, in that harvest, there would be one manifested as there was in the first century. In the first century, the Apostles at Jerusalem were viewed as that ecclesiatical authority. (Acts 2:42)

42 And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals, and to prayers.

Also, Ephesians 4:11-17 calls for "gifts in men" who would have the responsibility to "perfect" or "adjust" the congregation in matters of teachings so as to maintain the unity of the body until such time as the "full-grown stature" would arrive. Otherwise, there would be the following of every wind of teaching simultaneously, which God does not want. I am sure that no one thinks we have acquired that "full-grown stature" as of yet. Therefore, the "perfecting" process continues.

Naturally, after the Apostles left the scene, there were no more times of inspiration, so any body after that, including any today, that would take on the office of those "gifts in men", would be prone to some error and correction of that error. That is to be expected somewhat among humans who are not infallible. Otherwise, we would be talking about infallibility in the area of ecclesiastical authority, and I don't think that's what my partner would expect, at least not likely.

To us, it seems to be what you could call a no-brainer to believe that there is an ecclesiatical or governing element within Christianity, otherwise, it would be free-for-all of divisive and contradictory ideas, and I am sure that no one would think God to be the author of that. In other words, authority must lie somewhere. Hebrews 13:17 seems pretty clear that we answer to those ones who take the lead among us.

17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.

As I said, I am not sure if my partner would agree with the idea of an authority within Christianity or not so I will await his response to go any further. To us, the FDS mentioned in the prophecy concerning the signs of the last days (Matthew 24:45-47) is seen as a prophetic description of the modern day expression of that authority .

He may, as many do, recognize that there is indeed such a governing element within Christianity, so maybe the discussion will turn to what extent this authority should exercise it's influence. I will await his response to determine the best direction of this discussion.

I would like to thank my partner for taking the time to do this. And as always, keeping the demeanor of peace and respect is always preferable, even when we disagree.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

A special hello to all viewers and a thank you to Rotherham for his willingness to accept the challenge to debate this topic.

My esteemed colleague revealed an uncertainty about what aspects of the Watchtower teaching of the "faithful and discreet slave" I am concerned to address. I specifically asked that he gave the opening statements because everything, as in EVERY THING, as in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT, taught by the organization on this subject has no rhyme, no rreason, no logic, no sense, no practicality, no Scriptural support, no foundation, whatsoever.
I could easily challenge the argument about ecclesiastical authority. Sure the Bible gives a clear precedent for ecclesiastical authority, but not as prescribed as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. But I will not even go there, all that needs to be done is to look at what obtains, by engaging the brain.

My esteemed colleague, Rotherham, laid claim to a flimsy excuse unto which the organization has been cluching for dear life, for more than a hundred years, in response to more than a hundred years of false doctrines and false prophecies, or should I say "false expecctations". He said, and I quote,

"Naturally, after the Apostles left the scene, there were no more times of inspiration, so any body after that, including any today, that would take on the office of those "gifts in men", would be prone to some error and correction of that error. "

Should we take it that the faithful and discreet slave made an error when it said,

"All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. "
Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

The Watchtower has chosen to hide behind a wall of human imperfection while claiming to be Spirit-directed. Humans are prone to error. The Holy-Spirit is not. So, given that all error and lies, from the standpoint of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, are of the devil, which Spirt, then has been directing the faithful and discreet slave with it's track record of over a century of doctrinal errors and false, expectations.

Are we to understand that the faithful and discreet slave has been consistently misunderstanding what the Spirit has been directing it to teach, for more than a century? Or was it faithfl in carrying out the directives of another "spirit"?

The teachings of the Watchtower organization have undergone several changes, since the inception of the organization. The very teaching of the faithful and discreet slave is is Exhibit A.

Let us forgive the past errors on this subject, since the slave is only human, and focus our attention on the current teaching. The current teaching is that Jehovah and Jesus came and did an inspection from 1914 to 1919, revised from the original, that Jehovah sent Jesus to do the inspection from 1918 to 1919. So Jehovah and Jesus came to do an inspection from 1914 -1919.

May I ask my esteemed opponent to explain why Jehovah, who knows everything, and who clearly knows the spiritual condition of the churches, as demonstrated in His letter to the seven churches, in the early chapters in the Book of Revelation, would need all of five years to inspect the churches?

May I ask my esteemend opponent to explain why Rutherford, who according to the CURRENT teaching, is part of the slave appointed in 1919, was opposed to ecclesiastical authority as now obtains in the organization? He was vehemently opposed to the organization being run by a governing body. He wanted to maintain the original position of the organization being led by it's President.

I will further ask my esteemed opponent, Rotherham, to explain for the viewers - the adjudicators of this debate - how come Jesus made an appointment of the slave in 1919, but the slave did not know; teaching all that time that the appointment was made in 33 C.E., at Pentecost, and that Russell, who died 3 years prior, was the slave.

Why did the slave teach particular error, which the slave says is of the devil, for all of 30 years?

Why did the slave believe for 89 years after the appointment, that the appointment was over all the Master's earthly belongings, when indeed, according to the current teaching the appointment was only to serve the food?

There are several other questions, but I will pause with this final question at this stage, allowing my worthy opponent to respond to these initial questions. The fianal question, at this conjecture is, why did it take the slave all of 89 years after the appointment to determine who really, is the faithful and discreet slave?

After these questions have been answered, if they indeed can be, I intend to demonstrate that the claim that Jesus appointed some Jehovah's Witnesses as the faithful and discreet slave is a LIE fro the devil and a "reproach to God".

[Rotherham]

Hello W-E,

Since your response asks many questions, I will probably be busy preparing a rsponse for a day or so, depending on how much time I have available. I will list your questions separately and place an answer below each one.

If I miss something, just let me know and I will address it.

Take care,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Hello Rotherham.

I can hardly wait, but take your time. It is fascinating to ponder what those answers might be. I wish to commend you, though for being the first Jehovah's Witness to attempt an answer. A breath of fresh air.

[Rotherham]

Hello W-E,

My responses will be between the quotation boxes.

I said:

"Naturally, after the Apostles left the scene, there were no more times of inspiration, so any body after that, including any today, that would take on the office of those "gifts in men", would be prone to some error and correction of that error. "

You asked:

Should we take it that the faithful and discreet slave made an error when it said,

"All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. "
Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

Since a good deal of your response uses this WT quote to point out what you find are contradictions to that statement, let us first examine the quote and the context in which it should be taken. That should clear up a lot of the confusion as we progress.

I would hope that my opponent would understand that the above quote was in reference to "deliberate" error and lies. Surely most would know that we are not talking about any error made in any context, but deliberate and sustained errors and lies for the purpose of deception.

Most people, as they progress in their claimed Christianity, will shed certain ideas along the way and adopt new ones because their understanding and perception increases and becomes more clear with time. Sometimes we may even accept a certain adjustment and then realize it may not have been entirely correct and adjust it again. That is the way with human imperfection. It sometimes presumes to know something and it later has to be reeled in or expanded upon to a more correct view. I would venture to say that all Christians have done this in their journey as a Christian to one degree or another.

Those are not the kind of errors that were spoken of in the context of that article and would therefore not apply to admittably fallible teachers of God's word today, unless they, of course, were out to deliberately deceive.


You added:

The Watchtower has chosen to hide behind a wall of human imperfection while claiming to be Spirit-directed. Humans are prone to error. The Holy-Spirit is not. So, given that all error and lies, from the standpoint of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, are of the devil, which Spirt, then has been directing the faithful and discreet slave with it's track record of over a century of doctrinal errors and false, expectations.

Are we to understand that the faithful and discreet slave has been consistently misunderstanding what the Spirit has been directing it to teach, for more than a century? Or was it faithfl in carrying out the directives of another "spirit"?

Being under infallible inspiration is not the same as being directed by God's spirit. It is hoped that my opponent feels that he too allows God's spirit to direct him. Would he therefore consider himself to be infallible or inspired of God and never prone to error? Not likely. What he feels about this is likely the very same thing that we feel. God directs us through his word and through gentle proddings to come to a more accurate understanding of things. The governing element within tries their best to follow the word of God and those proddings. If they err, it is purely unintentional and does not come under the jurisdiction of the above quote that you presented.

You said:

The teachings of the Watchtower organization have undergone several changes, since the inception of the organization. The very teaching of the faithful and discreet slave is is Exhibit A.

Let us forgive the past errors on this subject, since the slave is only human, and focus our attention on the current teaching. The current teaching is that Jehovah and Jesus came and did an inspection from 1914 to 1919, revised from the original, that Jehovah sent Jesus to do the inspection from 1918 to 1919. So Jehovah and Jesus came to do an inspection from 1914 -1919.

May I ask my esteemed opponent to explain why Jehovah, who knows everything, and who clearly knows the spiritual condition of the churches, as demonstrated in His letter to the seven churches, in the early chapters in the Book of Revelation, would need all of five years to inspect the churches?

First, please keep in mind that what we believe happened during this time was not only an inspection but the initiation of a cleansing work. We do not believe that the scriptures support the idea that God desires to know absolutely everything beforehand. For instance, when he went to Sodom and Gomorah via the angels to SEE if it was as bad as the REPORTS that were being made. ASlso, when Abraham attempted to sacrifice isaac, God said to him, "NOW I KNOW that you are God-fearing". He does not foreordain everything, every iota and tiddle of our existence and actions, as many believe. He truly leaves the choices which lead to our salvation and to his employment up to us.

The inspection was to determine who had the right heart condition when it came to the doing of God's will and the recognition of truth. It was not a matter of seeing who had absolute truth at that time, because no one did, but a matter of determining who was willing to respond to the revelation of truth and follow its course no matter what it would mean to do so. That determination could only be met through analyzing the experience of those who would be shown these truths and how they responded to them. Although, no one can say for certain, it appears to us, based upon historical events combined with prophecy, primarily Malachi 3:1-4, that this inspection began circa 1914, or at the bgeinning of PAROUSIA, and lasted a few years. Exact dates are not crucial.

You asked:

May I ask my esteemend opponent to explain why Rutherford, who according to the CURRENT teaching, is part of the slave appointed in 1919, was opposed to ecclesiastical authority as now obtains in the organization? He was vehemently opposed to the organization being run by a governing body. He wanted to maintain the original position of the organization being led by it's President.

Br. Rutherford, if that is the true estimation of his feelings, would have been wrong and in need of correction. I would say the correction was made since we no longer reflect such a view.

You said:

I will further ask my esteemed opponent, Rotherham, to explain for the viewers - the adjudicators of this debate - how come Jesus made an appointment of the slave in 1919, but the slave did not know; teaching all that time that the appointment was made in 33 C.E., at Pentecost, and that Russell, who died 3 years prior, was the slave.

Why did the slave teach particular error, which the slave says is of the devil, for all of 30 years?

Why did the slave believe for 89 years after the appointment, that the appointment was over all the Master's earthly belongings, when indeed, according to the current teaching the appointment was only to serve the food?

All of the above falls under the concept that the undestanding of God's truth is progressive. Such was the case even in the days of inspiration when Paul said that he currently saw by means of a metal mirror a hazy outline of certain things, recognizing that in the future, greater clarity would come into view.

Whereas God's people have always recognized the existence of a governing element within Christianity, they have not always understood with exact clarity, who that may have been at all times in history. Christian understanding is many times better in hindsight.

Also, you need to appreciate that we still believe that a governing element (or governing body as it is most often called) was appointed back in the first century, circa 33 CE, it is simply that we now have a better undertanding of the parable that incorporates the introduction of the FDS, that being Matthew 24:45-47.

True, at one time we thouhgt that the FDS included all those called to be holy ones from 33 CE onward. We later recognized that in reality, the Biblical precedent was that the FEW woud feed the MANY, just as in the first century, so the identity of the FDS was recognized to be a subset of the larger set of all anointed ones. Therefore it was discerned that the FDS would naturally be the FEW who would feed the MANY. They would be the modern day expression of that governing body in the first century, although not working under inspiration. That surely makes better sense in light of Biblical precedent.

Since the parable of the wheat and the weeds would reach fulfillment in the last days, the harvest, which allowed Christianity to become corrupted with weeds for many centuries, naturally, during this time of restoration and separation, a governing element would be necessary. The governing element all but disappeared during those centuries of weed growth. Naturally, in order to parallel as best as possible the first century Christian organization, which it was indeed organized, a governing element would also be needed today. It took time to recognize exactly how that became manifest and who it involved.

You asked:

There are several other questions, but I will pause with this final question at this stage, allowing my worthy opponent to respond to these initial questions. The fianal question, at this conjecture is, why did it take the slave all of 89 years after the appointment to determine who really, is the faithful and discreet slave?

Ambiguous elements within prophecies are subject to being understood in different ways since they are not spelled out explicitly as to their meaning. Through tiume and experience, views are "perfected", which is a process, which takes time. We have consistently identified the FDS as "anointed ones" so this understanding is not a huge shift of any kind. It simply has been narrowed down to a more Biblically precedented view. The amount of time it took is really not significant because individuals were still looking to the anointed, and primarily the governing body all through the time before the current understanding. For instance, can anyone identify a huge shift in the manner that the JW rank and file view the governing element within their Christainity? Has it not always been focused upon the governing body, regardless of whether we thouhgt it included more than them or not?

The current view is more logical and more Biblically precedented, and therefore it was adopted. That is what is to be expected as undestanding increases. Error is weeded out. Maybe not as fast and precise as we would like it to be, but it gets done.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

It is not uncommon for someone caught in a lie to try to wiggle out of the conviction with the claim he was taken out of context, that that was not what he meant, leaning on semantics. I am respectful, but I am frank. The attempt of my opponent to wiggle the Watchtower out of the predicament of its errors from Satan, is found wanting. He said:

I would hope that my opponent would understand that the above quote was in reference to "deliberate" error and lies.

Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible. Do you now also need your own dictionary? There is no such thing as a deliberate error. If it is deliberate, it is NOT an error. The Watchtower was here speaking in context of doctrinal error. Semantics cannot help. It does appear that my opponent is confusing the NOUN (lie) with the verb (lying) by introducng intent. If you say something that is not true, sincerely believing it to be true, you would not be lying deliberately. You could be absolved from the verb (lying) but not from stating, sharing, or telling a lie (noun). Deliberate or not, a lie is a lie, and again, there is no such thing as a deliberate error.

Allow me to concur with the Watchtower. ALL DOCTRINAL ERRORS AND LIES ARE OF SATAN AND CERTAINLY A GREAT REPROACH AND DISHONOR TO GOD.

It sounds all wonderful when my opponent so eloquently states his case, but eloquence is no substitute for that which is practical and that which is real. To try to separate what is inspired from what is directed as it relates to the Holy Spirit, in an attempt to absolve the so-called faithful and discreet slave of its lies from Satan, is but a fleeting illusion to be pursued but never attained. There is no such thing as a person being under the direction of the Holy Spirit who could ever, or would ever state:

Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by million, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of Christianity. (The Finished Mystery, 1917 edition, p. 485)

or

Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection." (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89)

or to state in 1918, making it the topic of a book and a major evangelical campaign, that

Millions Now Living Will Never Die

What is interesting is that the above quotes are but the tip of the iceberg as far as "errors" and "lies" from the slave, the Watchtower teaches, that was appointed by Jesus in 1919. A cursory view of the web page in the link below reveals a massive list of "errors" and "lies" from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society over century, including before and during the time of the supposed inspection by our Heavenly Father and and His Son, Jesus.

http://www.bible.ca/Jw-Prophecy.htm

For my opponent to believe that Jesus could ever appoint such a slave, being pleased with the "spiritual food" the slave was serving before and during the time of inspection, is to betray a lack of knowledge of who Jesus is, and, interestingly, is an indication that he does not believe the TRUE statement from the slave that

All {doctrinal} error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God.

Well, if my opponent is not aware, the Watchtower KNOWS that doctrinal errors and lies are a reproach to God. The "faithful and discreet slave" said of another organization teaching ONE particular error:

Jehovah is against all such pious frauds that teach lies in His name and He will clean them out at Armageddon. - Watchtower - November 15, 1950, page 462

It is indeed a VICIOUS LIE told in His name, that HE came in 1914 and did a 5-year inspection and found the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to be so faithful in providing spiritual food, that Jesus - who valiantly opposes false teachers - appointed Jehovah's Witnesses OVER ALL HIS BELONGINGS. That LIE, was taught to Jehovah's Witnesses for 89 long years after the so called year of appointment. And if my opponent can believe that he can excuse that away, or explain it away, I cannot help but think of God's words, through the apostle Paul.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4, KJV

[Rotherham]

Hello W-E,

I'll be responding soon, either later today or tomorrow sometime. I will be gone for a few days starting tomorrow so I will try and get my response up before I leave.

Take care,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Hello Rotherham:

Pity you will be away for a few days. I have given a lot of thought to your previous response, thinking about the lengths to which Jehovah's Witnesses will go to defend the organization. You paint Jehovah and Jesus in a very light view when it comes to the organization. They are very serious against false teachers in Christendom, but very compromising when it comes on to FALSE TEACHERS in the organization. There are many who are of the view that Jehovah's Witnesses worship the organization over and above God, and one can understand the temptation to hold to such a view.

I elected in my previous response to just zoom in on the main points, because, had I responded to everything you said, it would indeed be a very long post. But I have been thinking that a response to all (or most) of what you said is necessary. So I will here repeat some of your words and respond to them.

You said:

Most people, as they progress in their claimed Christianity, will shed certain ideas along the way and adopt new ones because their understanding and perception increases and becomes more clear with time.

Absolutely. But that represents moving from ERROR - WHICH IS NOT OF GOD - to the truth - which is of God. In other words we move from darkness into light

Sometimes we may even accept a certain adjustment and then realize it may not have been entirely correct and adjust it again. That is the way with human imperfection.

That is to say, sometimes we move from one error, to another error, and maybe even unto yet another error, as in the case of the Watchtower when it set the end of the world to 1914, then to 1915, then to 1918, then to 1925, then to 1942, then to 1975. Similarly it has moved from one wrong definition of "the generation" that would not pass before the world's end to another wrong definition, claiming to be SPIRIT-DIRECTED. In fact, it has attributed all those changes to JEHOVAH.

As the years pass, Jehovah continues to give us further clarification of truth, including a clearer understanding of his prophetic word. (Proverbs 4:18) In recent years, we have been encouraged to look again with deeper understanding at—among other things—the generation that will not pass away before the end comes,
...." Watchtower - January 1, 2000, page 10, paragraph 18

After the many errors and lies of the 1800s, and the many errors and lies over the next century - the 1900s, that was how Jehovah's Witnesses were prepared for even more errors and lies to come in the 21st century. And, with all due respect, it is shameful of my esteemed opponent to try to rationalize this away under the cover of "human imperfection". That, Sir, will not hold for an organization that claims to be SPIRIT-DIRECTED. Again, directed by God's Holy Spirit, or the spirit of errors and lies?

Those are not the kind of errors that were spoken of in the context of that article and would therefore not apply to admittably fallible teachers of God's word today, unless they, of course, were out to deliberately deceive.

Oh, really? You kid yourself if you believe that to teach, AS AN ORGANIZATION CLAIMING JEHOVAH'S NAME, that the world would end in 1914, 1918, 1925, 1942, 1975 is not a reproach and dishonor to God, and I would be left with no choice but to assume you have no idea who God is.

It is hoped that my opponent feels that he too allows God's spirit to direct him. Would he therefore consider himself to be infallible or inspired of God and never prone to error? Not likely. What he feels about this is likely the very same thing that we feel.

I, MOST CERTAINLY, DO NOT feel the same way as Jehovah's Witnesses do on this matter. Not in a million years. I too allow God's Spirit to direct me, but, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, I FULLY APPRECIATE that when I err - if I teach a doctrinal error - I AM BEING DIRECTED BY SATAN. When directed by God's Holy Spirit, I ALWAYS teach the truth. There is ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for a doctrinal error when directed by God's Holy Spirit. That is a concept that eludes my opponent, and all Jehovah's Witnesses who attempt to excuse away the organizations' myriad of errors and lies. The Watchtower's legacy is beyond sanitizing with semantics or eloquence.

God directs us through his word and through gentle proddings to come to a more accurate understanding of things.

MORE ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE???

Which of the following was the more accurate knowledge of when the world would have ended? 1914, 1915, 1918, or 1925. You don't even have to respond to the controversial 1942 and 1975 dates. Do you believe that God gives "gentle proddings" to errors and lies taught in His name? This is what the self-acclaimed faithful and discreet slave said about that matter:

Jehovah is against all such pious frauds that teach lies in His name and He will clean them out at Armageddon." - Watchtower - November 15, 1950, page 462

The inspection was to determine who had the right heart condition when it came to the doing of God's will and the recognition of truth.

You really DO NOT know God if you can believe He needed to "come" for a 5-year inspection to determine anyone's heart condition.

It was not a matter of seeing who had absolute truth at that time, because no one did,

Not once did I suggest that Watchtower taught that Jehovah and Jesus CAME to see who had "absolute truth". The claim is that the organization was teaching the proper food at the proper time. When Christ inspected the “slave” in 1918, he found those anointed ones on earth to be faithful in providing spiritual “food at the proper time.” Hence, Jesus, the Master, was pleased thereafter to appoint them “over all his belongings.” - Watchtower January 15, 2008 page 24 paragraph 1


So, please, do not attempt to subtly shift the focus. The simple truth is that the food that he slave was serving up between 1914 and 1919 was poisonous and rotten. Take a look again at the web page below with QUOTATIONS from the self-acclaimed faithful and discreet slave, and PLEASE, do not even bother to suggest the quotes were taken out of context, that excuse is now pretty lame, and absolutely stale (as the food being served during the inspection).

http://www.bible.ca/Jw-Prophecy.htm

but a matter of determining who was willing to respond to the revelation of truth and follow its course no matter what it would mean to do so. That determination could only be met through analyzing the experience of those who would be shown these truths and how they responded to them.

I have to wonder, seriously wonder, if my opponent really thought through that position. What revealed truth? Doesn't he see that the only practical way for that to have been achieved would be for God to have given ALL the candidates - all Christian religions "the revelation of truth" to determine "how they responded to them"?? What was the response of the Baptists, to that "revelation of truth"? What was the Catholic response? Please.

Although, no one can say for certain, it appears to us, based upon historical events combined with prophecy, primarily Malachi 3:1-4, that this inspection began circa 1914, or at the bgeinning of PAROUSIA, and lasted a few years. Exact dates are not crucial.

When Christ inspected the “slave” in 1918, he found those anointed ones on earth to be faithful in providing spiritual “food at the proper time.” Watchtower - January 15, 2008

Rotherham and the Watchtower need to make up their minds whether the inspection started in 1914 or in 1918.

I am gong to pause here. EVERY SENTENCE from Rotherham in his FUTILE attempt to make sense of nonsense has holes in them. I will respond to the other sentences at a later time.

My brother, may I recommend you start seeking your truth from the Bible and not from Watchtower magazines? Please pay keen attention to the word "fables" in 2 Timothy 4:3-4

FABLES: End of the world in 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1942, 1975, before 2000, jut to peek at the tip of the iceberg.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

(Please forgive any typo or grammatical errors. Time was against me.)

[Rotherham]

Hello W-E

At this juncture, it seems we might be stuck on the phrase "error and lies" and what the intent of that phrase was.

I suppose a case could be made either way, whether you believe that there is such a thing as a deliberate error or not.

I believe a case for deliberate error can be made. You claim there is no such thing as a "deliberate error", yet a quick internet search for the phrase reveals that it is often used in reference to things that were altered deliberately within a text or a map for the purpose of deception or as a copyright trick. It should be noted that the article did not say "MISTAKES and LIES" are from the Devil but rather "ERRORS and LIES". According to the context and in connection with the word LIES, it could clearly be argued that the article was referencing things that were done deliberately for the purpose of deception. If that was the intent, then whether a particular reader prefers the semantics used or not, that would be irrelevant. What we should worry about is not whether there was a perfect use of words, but we should worry about the intent. I think anyone should be able to grasp that the intent could have been to identify deliberate errors and lies for the purpose of deception.

On the other hand, for the sake of argument, let's say that there is no such thing as a deliberate error? However, is it not true that all still, error and lies originate with the Devil? Of course it is. However, does that mean all would be lost if someone at one time believed in something that was in error? Naturally, if someone corrects the error, that is well and good. In so doing they oppose the Devil. So, one could say that all error and lies come from the Devil and certainly not condemn themselves if they were willing to rid themselves of those errors.

Therefore the errors made in judgement by the FDS that my opponent offered do not condemn us in relation to the quote because we have always been willing to rid ourselves of any recognized error or falsehood. All in all, there was no intention of deceipt. As mentioned before, many a Christian has believed something in error that had to be changed, but that is not a condemnatory action but rather a commendable one.

I would encourage my opponent to pick something that we currently believe that can be proven to be false. That would serve his purpose better if it could be done. Picking things that have long ago been abandoned as ERRORS and then later corrected, are surely not what this should be about.

Now, my opponent makes a sweeping judgment that Jesus would never use the men associated with Russell and Rutherford because of all the wrong things that were being taught at that time. Again, if an error was made, a mistake, if those things are rejected as they are recognized, then that is exactly what is to be expected during the separation of the wheat and the weeds, and a continual perfecting process as mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-17. This action is to be commended, not condemned. Mistakes are mistakes that can be corrected and they were and I haven't seen anything yet presented that would fall outside of that category.

It must be rememberd that in the early 1900's, circa 1914, the wheat and the weeds would begin to be separated according to our understanding. Naturally, at first, the weeds would be many and mistakes could be plentiful. As I mentioned, the inspection God made was not for the purpose of finding those with absolute truth, because no one at that time had it. However, he was looking for those who were willing to accept truth and reject error as it was recognized along the way and respond to it accorcdingly. Correction of error was an absolute expectation at that time. Even today, corrections take place and will until such time as that "full-grown stature" mentioned by Paul, is achieved.

Early on, they may have had mistaken expectations and incorrect doctrines, but they were leaps and bounds ahead of the churches of Christendom and their God-dishonoring doctrines of the Trinity, hellfire and eternal torment. They had already displayed a willingness to reject error and accept truth as it was recognized over time.

So as far as the accusations go that what we are teaching even now, about circa 1914-1919, is a lie, I have not seen the evidence, just the strong opinion of such. I have not seen anything that would tell me that Jesus could not have come at the time we think he did and make an inspection in the manner that we believe he did. The only thing offered is that if we think he used these men at this time as his governing element, then we don't know Jesus. Well, I'm sorry, but that just isn't enough to prove one's point, especially when we expect them to be involved in many errors at this time and in need of a cleansing.

But again, miles ahead they were, when it came to truth, than were the churches of Christendom.
The basics of the fundamental teachings, as mentioned at Ephesians 6:1,2 have been intact from the beginning. Naturally, God and Christ would look upon them with a favorable eye at the beginning, regardless of some things that were in need of cleansing, and cleansed they were, and continue to be to this day and to express the proper humility to be corrected and relentlessly pursue the truth, regardless of what we have to change in order to conform to it.

6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God,2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits.

Addendum:
In looking over your second response, I think I have covered the objections there in this post. But if not, please repeat them and i will address them further.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hi W-E,

In the future, I would appreciate if you would let me make a response to your post before you submit another one. It gets confusing for those following along.

I responded to your prior post right above. viewtopic.php?f=48&p=7157#p7156

Thanks,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Didn't want you to not see this, so I posted it again. Sometimes these boards can be confusing.

Hello W-E

At this juncture, it seems we might be stuck on the phrase "error and lies" and what the intent of that phrase was.

I suppose a case could be made either way, whether you believe that there is such a thing as a deliberate error or not.

I believe a case for deliberate error can be made. You claim there is no such thing as a "deliberate error", yet a quick internet search for the phrase reveals that it is often used in reference to things that were altered deliberately within a text or a map for the purpose of deception or as a copyright trick. It should be noted that the article did not say "MISTAKES and LIES" are from the Devil but rather "ERRORS and LIES". According to the context and in connection with the word LIES, it could clearly be argued that the article was referencing things that were done deliberately for the purpose of deception. If that was the intent, then whether a particular reader prefers the semantics used or not, that would be irrelevant. What we should worry about is not whether there was a perfect use of words, but we should worry about the intent. I think anyone should be able to grasp that the intent could have been to identify deliberate errors and lies for the purpose of deception.

On the other hand, for the sake of argument, let's say that there is no such thing as a deliberate error? However, is it not true that all still, error and lies originate with the Devil? Of course it is. However, does that mean all would be lost if someone at one time believed in something that was in error? Naturally, if someone corrects the error, that is well and good. In so doing they oppose the Devil. So, one could say that all error and lies come from the Devil and certainly not condemn themselves if they were willing to rid themselves of those errors.

Therefore the errors made in judgement by the FDS that my opponent offered do not condemn us in relation to the quote because we have always been willing to rid ourselves of any recognized error or falsehood. All in all, there was no intention of deceipt. As mentioned before, many a Christian has believed something in error that had to be changed, but that is not a condemnatory action but rather a commendable one.

I would encourage my opponent to pick something that we currently believe that can be proven to be false. That would serve his purpose better if it could be done. Picking things that have long ago been abandoned as ERRORS and then later corrected, are surely not what this should be about.

Now, my opponent makes a sweeping judgment that Jesus would never use the men associated with Russell and Rutherford because of all the wrong things that were being taught at that time. Again, if an error was made, a mistake, if those things are rejected as they are recognized, then that is exactly what is to be expected during the separation of the wheat and the weeds, and a continual perfecting process as mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-17. This action is to be commended, not condemned. Mistakes are mistakes that can be corrected and they were and I haven't seen anything yet presented that would fall outside of that category.

It must be rememberd that in the early 1900's, circa 1914, the wheat and the weeds would begin to be separated according to our understanding. Naturally, at first, the weeds would be many and mistakes could be plentiful. As I mentioned, the inspection God made was not for the purpose of finding those with absolute truth, because no one at that time had it. However, he was looking for those who were willing to accept truth and reject error as it was recognized along the way and respond to it accorcdingly. Correction of error was an absolute expectation at that time. Even today, corrections take place and will until such time as that "full-grown stature" mentioned by Paul, is achieved.

Early on, they may have had mistaken expectations and incorrect doctrines, but they were leaps and bounds ahead of the churches of Christendom and their God-dishonoring doctrines of the Trinity, hellfire and eternal torment. They had already displayed a willingness to reject error and accept truth as it was recognized over time.

So as far as the accusations go that what we are teaching even now, about circa 1914-1919, is a lie, I have not seen the evidence, just the strong opinion of such. I have not seen anything that would tell me that Jesus could not have come at the time we think he did and make an inspection in the manner that we believe he did. The only thing offered is that if we think he used these men at this time as his governing element, then we don't know Jesus. Well, I'm sorry, but that just isn't enough to prove one's point, especially when we expect them to be involved in many errors at this time and in need of a cleansing.

But again, miles ahead they were, when it came to truth, than were the churches of Christendom.
The basics of the fundamental teachings, as mentioned at Ephesians 6:1,2 have been intact from the beginning. Naturally, God and Christ would look upon them with a favorable eye at the beginning, regardless of some things that were in need of cleansing, and cleansed they were, and continue to be to this day and to express the proper humility to be corrected and relentlessly pursue the truth, regardless of what we have to change in order to conform to it.

6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God,2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits.

Addendum:
In looking over your second response, I think I have covered the objections there in this post. But if not, please repeat them and i will address them further.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Hello Rotherham and viewers:

I must apologize for having not stated that there would be a delay in my response. I was busy preparing some videos for my Youtube channel, and they were "overdue", so I had to concentrate on them, as well as make preparations to be on a program on national television (Jamaica).

Reading my esteemed opponent made me wonder if he was my opponent, or the Watchtower's opponent. He put forward an attitude on the part of Jehovah and Jesus, toward false teachers and false teachings which is diametrically opposed to the Watchtower's position. Also, it does not appear the my esteemed opponent (or the Watchtower's opponent) really looked at the quote in question to put it in its proper perspective, as he initially suggested is to be done.

I would like to offer some assistance in this regard. Let us get back to the initial quotation:

All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. "
Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

Rotherham argued that this is properly applied to DELIBERATE error intended to deceive. He obviously did not look at the article in question, indeed the paragraph in question. The Watchtower was responding the Catholic Church putting up the very same argument that Rotherham is positing. The Cahtolic Church opined that God would be somewhat sympathetic to an error, if expressed, "in perfect good faith", in other words, not with an intention to deceive. Hear the Watchtower's rebuttal of the position of the Catholic Church and of Rotherham.

... the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “no dishonour is done to God by the continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many centuries.” How foreign and strange this doctrine to anything written in the Bible! Jehovah is the God of truth! (John 3:33; Rom. 3:4; Heb. 6:18) All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. (John 8:44; Rom. 1:25) Consequently, Jehovah is against all such pious frauds that teach lies in His name and He will clean them out at Armageddon. - Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

I invite you, Rotherham, to pay very close attention to what the Watchtower calls persons who teach errors "in perfect good faith" - "PIOUS FRAUDS". Pay, also, close attention to the Watchtower's statement that Jehovah is AGAINST them.

EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH in your last rebuttal is packed with very weak arguments - every single one. But here's what I am gong to do, I am going to take them on one at a time.

First of all, do you concede that the Watchtower was speaking of doctrinal error presented "in perfect good faith" - not intended to deceive, when it said all error is of the devil?

[Rotherham]

Hi W-E

Sorry as well for the delay. My wife hit a deer and totaled our car. She's Ok but we have been busy finding another car. I should be able to respond though yet today.

Take care,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham and viewers:

I must apologize for having not stated that there would be a delay in my response. I was busy preparing some videos for my Youtube channel, and they were "overdue", so I had to concentrate on them, as well as make preparations to be on a program on national television (Jamaica).

Reading my esteemed opponent made me wonder if he was my opponent, or the Watchtower's opponent. He put forward an attitude on the part of Jehovah and Jesus, toward false teachers and false teachings which is diametrically opposed to the Watchtower's position. Also, it does not appear the my esteemed opponent (or the Watchtower's opponent) really looked at the quote in question to put it in its proper perspective, as he initially suggested is to be done.

I would like to offer some assistance in this regard. Let us get back to the initial quotation:

All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. "
Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

Rotherham argued that this is properly applied to DELIBERATE error intended to deceive. He obviously did not look at the article in question, indeed the paragraph in question. The Watchtower was responding the Catholic Church putting up the very same argument that Rotherham is positing. The Cahtolic Church opined that God would be somewhat sympathetic to an error, if expressed, "in perfect good faith", in other words, not with an intention to deceive. Hear the Watchtower's rebuttal of the position of the Catholic Church and of Rotherham.

... the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “no dishonour is done to God by the continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many centuries.” How foreign and strange this doctrine to anything written in the Bible! Jehovah is the God of truth! (John 3:33; Rom. 3:4; Heb. 6:18) All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. (John 8:44; Rom. 1:25) Consequently, Jehovah is against all such pious frauds that teach lies in His name and He will clean them out at Armageddon. - Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

I invite you, Rotherham, to pay very close attention to what the Watchtower calls persons who teach errors "in perfect good faith" - "PIOUS FRAUDS". Pay, also, close attention to the Watchtower's statement that Jehovah is AGAINST them.

EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH in your last rebuttal is packed with very weak arguments - every single one. But here's what I am gong to do, I am going to take them on one at a time.

First of all, do you concede that the Watchtower was speaking of doctrinal error presented "in perfect good faith" - not intended to deceive, when it said all error is of the devil?

[Rotherham]

Hello W-E

Your words are in quotation blocks, mine are not.

Reading my esteemed opponent made me wonder if he was my opponent, or the Watchtower's opponent. He put forward an attitude on the part of Jehovah and Jesus, toward false teachers and false teachings which is diametrically opposed to the Watchtower's position.

You will have to be specific as I have no idea what you are in reference to.

Also, it does not appear the my esteemed opponent (or the Watchtower's opponent) really looked at the quote in question to put it in its proper perspective, as he initially suggested is to be done.

On the contrary, I believe the position that I took in my initial response is accurate. They were in reference to deliberate errors and lies. I will explain in full below.

I would like to offer some assistance in this regard. Let us get back to the initial quotation:

All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. "
Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

Rotherham argued that this is properly applied to DELIBERATE error intended to deceive. He obviously did not look at the article in question, indeed the paragraph in question. The Watchtower was responding the Catholic Church putting up the very same argument that Rotherham is positing. The Cahtolic Church opined that God would be somewhat sympathetic to an error, if expressed, "in perfect good faith", in other words, not with an intention to deceive. Hear the Watchtower's rebuttal of the position of the Catholic Church and of Rotherham.

... the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “no dishonour is done to God by the continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many centuries.” How foreign and strange this doctrine to anything written in the Bible! Jehovah is the God of truth! (John 3:33; Rom. 3:4; Heb. 6:18) All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God. (John 8:44; Rom. 1:25) Consequently, Jehovah is against all such pious frauds that teach lies in His name and He will clean them out at Armageddon. - Watchtower - November 15, 1950 p62

My opponent has omitted a few very important words within the quote which are crucial to understand the context of what was presented. The reader will notice that he used an ellipsis ... when he began the quote. The part that was left out was "Supposing it in fact to be spurious"

It's clear that in reality, the Catholic Encyclopedia was addressing the scenario of admitting first that even if they were indeed spurios, (which means NOT GENUINE, FAKE) it would still not be wrong to continue an error presented in good faith. Keep in mind as well that this quote is in reference, not to just individual relics, but to RELIC WORSHIP as a whole. One should really read the Catholic Encyclopedia quote and article if they get a chance.

Presenting something that you would know is a FAKE or NOT GENUINE for the purpose of a "good intention" is still presenting a KNOWN ERROR. True their intent was not to defraud, their intent was to benefit the user of the relic, but the fact remains, they did not care if it was FAKE or not, as long as a some good was accomplished by its use.

This is an entirely different situation than what the WT has practiced. First, they do not practice continuing to present a KNOWN error for some greater good to be accomplished. Secondly, the article was NOT addressing doctrine, it was addressing the use of relics in worship and FAKE ones at that. So the answer to the following question that my opponent asked, is NO.

First of all, do you concede that the Watchtower was speaking of doctrinal error presented "in perfect good faith" - not intended to deceive, when it said all error is of the devil?

What the WT was speaking of was the use of known FAKE relics being presented as if they were REAL to the USER for the sake of a greater good, or in other words "good faith", which in this instance means, with good intention.

Definition of "good faith":

Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others.

In this case they would be using the idea of a good MOTIVE because they were using GOOD FAITH in the context of something known to be SPURIOUS.

So, let's recap, since this "quote" seems to be the basis for my opponents many diatribes against the WT.

1. The Catholic Encyclopedia was speaking of something known to be FAKE but still being used with a good motive.

2. Therefore the phrase "errrors and lies" was speaking to things that were KNOWN to be UNTRUE yet still promoted. This is a DELIBERATE ERROR, as I initially stated. True, their motive may have been genuine, but they were using a KNOWN error to accomplish, according to them, a benefit for the user.

This does not apply to what has been practiced by the WT. If they recognize an error, it is corrected, as it should be. However, there is certainly nothing wrong with presenting something that is BELIEVED to be true even if later it is discovered it was an error. This is a far cry from presenting something as REAL that would be known to be FAKE, especially when it comes to our worship and our faith, no matter what the motive.

Therefore, my opponent has used his seeming foundation quote against us, out of context. I would suggest that those presentations made with that quote as the opening premise, should be changed, in order for him to also avoid a known error.

YB,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

My opponent has omitted a few very important words within the quote which are crucial to understand the context of what was presented. The reader will notice that he used an ellipsis ... when he began the quote. The part that was left out was "Supposing it in fact to be spurious"

THAT IS AN AMAZING STATEMENT - ON TWO COUNTS. My esteemed opponent, Rotherham, is amazing. Must one go to any length to try to sanitize a Watctower mess?

One of the reasons I do not enjoy debates/discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses is that it ALWAYS gets very cloudy. There is A HUGE part of me that is tempted NOT to respond to this, but Rotherham has taken a swipe at my integrity, and it is for that reason I feel obliged to respond.

FIRSTLY -
I did NOT leave out any critical information.

* The Catholic Encyclopedia made a GENERAL statement, in response to a SPECIFIC issue.
* The Watchtower statement in question was a response to the GENERAL statement.
* The GENERAL STATEMENT was the substantive point, so I left out the specific issue, which is insignificant to the SUBSTANTIVE point of THIS DEBATE.
* The substantive point, at this conjecture, is that ALL (DOCTRINAL) ERROR is of the devil and is a reproach to God.

Since this debate is now getting cloudy, let me make a deliberate effort o make it as clear as crystal for Rotherham and readers.

The following is not a quote, but I am putting it in quotations (yellow box) just to highlight it.

In response to his jail time for simple larceny, Jim said, "Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. When God forgives sin, His forgiveness is complete. I will not therefore allow the devil to use guilt as a weapon against me. I am rejoicing in the saving grace of my Lord, Jesus Christ!" To that, Patrick responded: "That's a very refreshing statement. It keeps me from stressing over my past adulterous affair. Thanks for the reminder."

Jim's previous larceny was what prompted the GENERAL statement about God's forgiveness of SINS.
Patrick commented on the GENERAL statement about God's forgiveness of SINS.
There is NO NEED to mention Jim's larceny, in discussing his GENERAL statement about God's forgiveness of SINS.

More on that as I mention the second count on which Rotherham's statement is amazing - alarming.

SECONDLY -
Rotheram is GUILTY of the very thing he accused me of:- He left out a CRITICAL component when he said:

The part that was left out was "Supposing it in fact to be spurious"

Sir, that is inaccurate. The pat left out was

“Supposing it [relic worship] to be in fact spurious,”

Emphasis mine. insertion by the Watchtower.

It was the Watchtower that inserted "relic worship" so that persons like Rotherham would never confuse the issue, that "it" was referring to the relics themselves. No. "it" was a reference to the actual WORSHIP of the relics. The Catholic Church once encouraged relic worship. Now it takes the position that the relics themselves must not be worshiped, but who the relics represent. It now admits the original position was wrong. To save face, the church made the statement that,

no dishonour is done to God by the continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many centuries.

While the Watchtower article was in fact addressing relic worship, and while it did make mention of an issue where some of the relics were not genuine, the particular quote was a direct response to the GENERAL STATEMENT used by the Catholic church in response to a specific issue. In response to THE GENERAL STATEMENT, the Watchtower said,

How foreign and strange this doctrine to anything written in the Bible! Jehovah is the God of truth! (John 3:33; Rom. 3:4; Heb. 6:18) All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God.

We are discussing error taught in good faith, we were not discussing relic worship - so I left out that part of the quote because it is of little bearing on this discussion.

I FULLY UNDERSTAND why YOU brought it into the discussion, because you INACCURATELY argued that the Catholic Church was arguing that relic worship is acceptable EVEN IF the relic is fraudulent. That is not true. They made no such argument. Please be advised that I will not, and I repeat, NOT, respond to any comment you make about relic worship - it is only clouding the issue - in true Jehovah's Witness fashion

Here is the substantive point:

ALL DOCTRINAL ERROR IS OF THE DEVIL, EVEN IF TAUGHT IN GOOD FAITH.

You can rationalize and philosophize all you want, Rotherham. Let's get real.

When Russell and Rutherford taught that Jesus' second presence took place in 1874, was that ERROR of the devil or the Holy Spirit?
When they taught that God was going to destroy Christians by the million in 1918, was that ERROR of the devil or the Holy Spirit?
When they were teaching that Michael the archangel was the Pope, was that ERROR from the devil or the Holy Spirit?
When they taught that

* Abraham and others would have been resurrected in 1925
* Russell is the angel at Revelation 16
* the seven volumes of Scripture Studies were the 7 angels of Revelation 10

and over 50 other ERRORS between 1914 and 1919, were those ERRORS from Satan or the Holy Spirit.

And, why would Jesus, with the Father's blessing, select a slave teaching OVER FIFTY ERRORS AND LIES to be Guardians of Doctrine for all Christians and His ONLY channel of communication to mankind??

Last question - do you have ANY IDEA what God's response to false teachers is??

Consider the Watchtower's words:

Jehovah is against all such pious frauds that teach lies in His name and He will clean them out at Armageddon.

I really have no time to waste with persons who have their heads buried in the sand.

The doctrine of the appointment of Rutherford and company in 1919, who were teaching that Russell was that slave, and who thought the appointment was over all the master's belongings, but took 89 years to finally find out WHO the slave was, and WHAT the job description is, is an error - a FALSE DOCTRINE straight from Satan, the devil.

I rest my case.

[Rotherham]

Hello WE,

I'll be responding soon.

Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello W-E and readers,

I hope that we can be civil as the discussion continues but I felt as I was reading through the response, civility had left the room. I hope it returns.

That being said, let's begin.

I said:

My opponent has omitted a few very important words within the quote which are crucial to understand the context of what was presented. The reader will notice that he used an ellipsis ... when he began the quote. The part that was left out was "Supposing it in fact to be spurious"

WE said:

THAT IS AN AMAZING STATEMENT ON TWO COUNTS. My esteemed apponent, Rotherham, is amazing. Must one go to any length to try to sanitize a Watctower mess?

I think one will see that there is no argument to address within the content of that paragraph.

One of the reasons I do not enjoying debates/discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses is that it ALWAYS gets very cloudy. There is A HUGE part of me that is tempted NOT to respond to this, but Rotherham has taken a swipe at my integrity, and it is for that reason I feel obliged to respond.

Again, nothing here to address.

FIRSTLY -
I did NOT leave out any critical information. The Catholic Encyclopedia made a GENERAL statement, in response to a SPECIFIC issue. The Watchtower statement in question was a response to the GENERAL statement. The GENERAL STATEMENT was the substantive point, so I left out the specific issue, which is insignificant to the SUBSTANTIVE point of THIS DEBATE. The substantive point is that ALL (DOCTRINAL) ERROR is of the devil and is a reproach to God. Since this debate is now getting cloudy, let me make a deliberate effort o make it as clear as crystal for Rotherham and readers.

A number of things here need addressed as I see numerous misstatements on the behalf of my opponent.

Now, it is true that, ultimately speaking, ALL DOCTRINAL errors are from the Devil, but I would hope that my opponent would also know that if one corrects a doctrinal error that they discover, then they are clearly opposing the Devil and refining or perfecting their understanding, something that all Christians would be involved in until the full grown stature of truth would arrive. That should be a given and something the readers could easily agree with.

(see Ephesians 4:11-17 once again)

The following is not a quote, but I am putting it in quotations (yellow box) just to highlight it.

In response to his jail time for simple larceny, Jim said, "Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. When God forgives sin, His forgiveness is complete. I will not therefore allow the devil to use guilt as a weapon against me. I am rejoicing in the saving grace of my Lord, Jesus Christ!" To that, Patrick responded: "That's a very refreshing statement. It keeps me from stressing over my past adulterous affair. Thanks for the reminder."

Jim's previous larceny was what prompted the GENERAL statement about God's forgiveness of SINS.
Patrick commented on the GENERAL statement about God's forgiveness of SINS.
There is NO NEED to mention Jim's larceny, in discussing his GENERAL statement about God's forgiveness of SINS.

More on that as I mention the second count on which Rotherham's statement is amazing - alarming.

I am sorry, but the point of the above section escapes me. Maybe you could elaborate differently.

\SECONDLY -
Rotheram is GUILTY of the very thing he accused me of:- He left out a CRITICAL component when he said:

The part that was left out was "Supposing it in fact to be spurious"

Sir, that is inaccurate. The pat left out was

“Supposing it [relic worship] to be in fact spurious,”

My opponent is confused. He clearly omitted the part of the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia that shows that there was knowledge that relic worship was in fact spurious, which means not genuine or invalid. The part he left out of the Catholic Encyclopedia quote was as I said: "Supposing it to be in fact spurious". I was not quoting the WT article, I was quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Now below he claims he left it out because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Seriously?!

Here we are discussing the intent of the quote, which I claim has to do with "deliberate error", and the very part of the quote that shows relic worship to be a deliberate error is somehow IRRELEVANT??!!

Now, my opponent says that the Catholic Encyclopedia was not admitting that they currently continue to practice a SPURIOUS doctrine, which would be relic worship in this instance. He even goes so far to say below that the proof of this is they say that one MUST NOW NOT venerate/worship relics, just who they represent. In this he is terribly confused. Let's look at the validity of what is stated in his next paragraph.

It was the Watchtower that inserted "relic worship" so that persons like Rotherham would never confuse the issue, that "it" was referring to the relics themselves. No. "it" was a reference to the actual WORSHIP of the relics. The Catholic Church once encouraged relic worship. Now it take the position that the relics themselves must not be worshiped, but who the relics represent. It now admits the original position was wrong. To save face, it made the statement that,

no dishonour is done to God by the continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many centuries.

Where exactly does my opponent see in that encyclopedia article the claim that the church says these relics MUST NOT be worshipped/venerated, just those whom they represent? I could find no statement of that kind whatsoever.

Notice however what the article DID say about the veneration of relics. You will see no command NOT to venerate them. In fact, the article condemns those who would say the practice is useless. Do the following words sound like rejection of this practice to you?

I - DOCTRINE REGARDING RELICS.

—The teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other pastors to instruct their flocks that "the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ—which bodies were the living members of Christ and `the temple of the Holy Ghost' (I Cor., vi, 19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that they who affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honored by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them."

It should be obvious from the above that my opponent has made a tragic mistake. The church, first supposing that relic worship is spurious, states there is no harm in it because it is has been done in good faith for centuries, and we can see by the above quote they still command their followers to venerate them and it condemns those who would malign the practice.

What the article is saying should be clear enough for any to see who take time to read it. According to the Catholic Church then, even if relic worship/veneration is spurious, (Not genuine, invalid, false) its OK to continue to present this error that has been presented in good faith for centuries. And they STILL command their followers to do so. Is it any wonder that the Watchtower authors were outraged at such a crazy statement? Is it any wonder that they would then question how the church could take such a stance as this and remind it readers that God will destroy all false doctrine and ERRORS??(clearly deliberate errors are referenced)

While the Watchtower article was in fact addressing relic worship, and while it did make mention of an issue where some of the relics were not genuine, the particular quote was a direct response to the GENERAL STATEMENT used by the Catholic church in response to a specific issue. Commenting on THE GENERAL STATEMENT, the Watchtower said,

How foreign and strange this doctrine to anything written in the Bible! Jehovah is the God of truth! (John 3:33; Rom. 3:4; Heb. 6:18) All error and lies are of the Devil and are certainly a great reproach and dishonor to God.

This is also a misguided criticism. The WT article was addressing, not just the practice of continuing a known error, but of the entire doctrine as a whole, because relic worship can nowhere be found in the scriptures as an acceptable practice.

We are discussing error taught in good faith, we were not discussing relic worship - so I left out that part of the quote because it is of little bearing on this discussion.

I FULLY UNDERSTAND why YOU brought it into the discussion, because you INACCURATELY argued that the Catholic Church was arguing that relic worship is acceptable EVEN IF the relic is fraudulent. That is not true. They made no such argument. Please be advised that I will not, and I repeat, NOT, respond to any comment you make about relic worship - it is only clouding the issue - in true Jehovah's Witness fashion

That is EXACTLY what the Catholic article in question is saying. It is clearly stating that It is OK to continue an error because it has been acceptable for centuries. And the portion in red clearly shows that they still command the veneration of relics and condemns those who would malign the practice. THAT's why the WT authors were so outraged.

Here is the substantive point:

ALL DOCTRINAL ERROR IS OF THE DEVIL, EVEN IF TAUGHT IN GOOD FAITH.

You can rationalize and philosophize all you want, Rotherham. Let's get real.

Again, once one recognizes a doctrine is false, if they reject it, then they would have fled from the Devil, they have resisted the Devil.

Tell me, my opponent, is anyone who has ever held a wrong teaching STILL "of the Devil", even if they have rejected the doctrine? I sincerely hope you would say no, as it would condemn nearly every religious person who has ever lived.

When Russell and Rutherford taught that Jesus' second presence took place in 1874, was that ERROR of the devil or the Holy Spirit?

An error can come from the mind of man without any Satanic influence. However, once recognized as wrong, if sustained, it is an approach to the Devil, for sure, but that is not what we have done. Once recognized, error is abandoned, as it should be. That is the WT position and always has been.

When they taught that God was going to destroy Christians by the million in 1918, was that ERROR of the devil or the Holy Spirit?

Same answer as above.

When they were teaching that Michael the archangel was the Pope, was that ERROR from the devil or the Holy Spirit?
When they taught that

* Abraham and others would have been resurrected in 1925
* Russell is the angel at Revelation 16
* the seven volumes of Scripture Studies were the 7 angels of Revelation 10

and over 50 other ERRORS between 1914 and 1919, were those ERRORS from Satan or the Holy Spirit.

Same answer as above. Corrected mistakes are not from the Devil. They are in opposition to the Devil.

And, why would Jesus select a slave teaching OVER FIFTY ERRORS AND LIES to be Guardians of Doctrine for all Christians and His ONLY channel of communication to mankind.

The mistakes that were made during this time were peripheral errors. The foundation teachings as iterated in Ephesians 6:1,2 have never been wrong. Peripheral areas are subject to refinement as Ephesians 4:11-17 demonstrates. Most everybody should be able to understand that. God was not looking for perfection but looking for those who would boldly respond to the truth as it became revealed to them, and that is what they did.

Last question - do you have ANY IDEA what Jesus' response to false teachers is??

Consider the Watchtower's words:

Jehovah is against all such pious frauds that teach lies in His name and He will clean them out at Armageddon.

Absolutely true, but again I would like to ask you. If someone corrects a wrong understanding that they were holding onto, are they STILL of the Devil?

I really have no time to waste with persons who have their heads buried in the sand.

The doctrine of the appointment of Rutherford and company in 1919, who were teaching that Russell was that slave, and who thought the appointment was over all the master's belongings, but took 89 years to finally find out WHO the slave was, and WHAT the job description is, is an error - a FALSE DOCTRINE straight from the pit of hell.

I rest my case.

[/quote]

The problem is, you have no case to begin with. The scriptures clearly teach that within Christianity there is a governing element, and Matthew 24:45-47 simply addresses that governing element within the last days of this system of things. What exactly is the problem? Will you deny that Christianity needs a governing element, even within the final days of this system?

And your premise that we condemn MISTAKES as if they are of the Devil is clearly messed up. The article was not addressing a corrected mistake by the church, but rather a sustained deliberate error, one that they continue to this very day.

As it stands , any video that you have used that argument as a premise for your diatribe, should be revised. Otherwise, as I have mentioned, you will be guilty yourself of promoting a false premise for the sake of your agenda.

Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Dear Rotherham and Readers:

I am all for a civil debate, and I am not aware that civility had left the debate. I wonder if one confuses frank, "calling-a-spade-a-spade" statements with a lack of civility. Maybe I need to apologize for the fact that I do have some impatience with dishonesty, and dishonesty is what I see when one engages in circular reasoning to defend the indefensible.

It is WELL DOCUMENTED, the SATANIC LIES and errors taught by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society over the decades, and it is REPULSIVE to tell a LIE on Jesus, that He awarded a CLEAR FALSE PROPHET AND FALSE TEACHER with a job to be THE SOLE SERVER of spiritual food to all Christians.

I have a suspicion that anyone who loves and reveres God as much as I do would be equally repulsed by that ABOMINABLE LIE. And if my calling it what it is, demonstrates a lack of civility, then I plead, guilty as charged.

Now, it is true that, ultimately speaking, ALL DOCTRINAL errors are from the Devil, but I would hope that my opponent would also know that if one corrects a doctrinal error that they discover, then they are clearly opposing the Devil and refining or perfecting their understanding, something that all Christians would be involved in until the full grown stature of truth would arrive. That should be a given and something the readers could easily agree with.

You see, that is EXACTLY how deception works. It mixes a little truth with a load of nonsense.

It is true - absolutely true, Rotherham, that one would oppose the devil by correcting doctrinal error. That is what former Jehovah's Witnesseses are actively doing. But you seem to have forgotten what this debate is about. Look at the topic again. We are discussing THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE, in particular, THE APPOINTMENT of the slave, as taught by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

There are a number of weaknesses in that argument, my brother.

ONE
I wish I could commend the slave for correcting the errors. But, IF I COULD, I would. It is one thing to correct the errors YEARS, OR DECADES after. But, Rotherham, we are discussing THE SPIRITUAL FOOD THE SLAVE WAS SERVING AT THE TIME OF THE APPOINTMENT. The slave was serving LOTS AND LOTS of satanic errors and lies - errors and lies from Satan - AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION.

The question is, how could Jesus reward those Satanic errors and lies, AT THAT TIME??????

Will you ever ponder that question, Rotherham? And will you ever answer?

TWO
There are two reasons I cannot commend the slave for correcting the errors.

(a) You do not oppose the devil by replacing one doctrinal error with another. Case in point, do not expect me to commend the Watchtower for correcting Jesus' second advent in 1874, to Jesus' second advent in 1914. Both are Satanic lies. The second advent of Jesus REMAINS a FUTURE event.

I could not commend the Watchtower for one false definition of "this generation" to another, ending up with a RIDICULOUS overlapping generation nonsense. Forgive me, I am civil, but I am frank, and please don't expect me to use civility to sanitize that - it is NONSENSE. Not to mention that in correcting that one particular error, the process included gong back to a previous erroneous teaching on the subject. It has been the Watchtower's flagship PING-PONG (back and fro) doctrine.

THREE
Lots of the "corrections" of doctrinal errors did not come from careful study that revealed the doctrine was wrong. They came after TIME PROVED THE TEACHING DEAD WRONG. The world coming to an end in 1914 was not corrected before 1914. 1915 was not corrected before 1915. 1925 was not corrected before 1925. It was AFTER the "expectations" proved false, that the "corrections" were made.

What is the correction to the explanation of the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11? The answer, another Satanic lie, that Daniel was pointing to those days ending with the 1922 Ohio convention.

But back to the moot of this debate: I said if before, and I will say it again, the doctrine that Jesus returned in 1914 and did a five-year inspection and appointed a PROVEN false teacher as faithful and discreet slave is a lie from none other than SATAN, and so far, my esteemed opponent has not put forth one sensible argument to BEGIN to prove the Watchtower's position true.

ONLY SATAN WOULD TELL A LIE ON JESUS!

[Rotherham]

Hello W-E

It is WELL DOCUMENTED, the SATANIC LIES and errors taught by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society over the decades, and it is REPULSIVE to tell a LIE on Jesus, that He awarded a CLEAR FALSE PROPHET AND FALSE TEACHER with a job to be THE SOLE SERVER of spiritual food to all Christians.

If we want to pattern ourselves our first century Christianity as well as we possibly can, should we not have spiritual leaders that dispense food at the proper time? Is that not what the Apostles were? Is that not who the first century congregation followed when it came to teachings? Doesn't Acts 2:42 tell us that?

42 And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together,* to the taking of meals,+ and to prayers.+

Also, does not Hebrews 13:17 tells us the following?

17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you+ and be submissive,+ for they are keeping watch over you* as those who will render an account,+ so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.

We are also told that Christian understanding would not be complete for a long time, way past the time of the first century. Notice the ramifications of Ephesians 4:11-16.

11 And he gave some as apostles,+ some as prophets,+ some as evangelizers,*+ some as shepherds and teachers,+ 12 with a view to the readjustment* of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,+ 13 until we all attain to the oneness* of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown* man,+ attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching+ by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ.+ 16 From him all the body+ is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.+

Since we are convinced we are living in the last days, in the SUNTELEIA (conclusion) of the system, according to Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 (the parable of the wheat and the weeds), we would expect to have been be digging out from age-long errors of the weeds that were introduced. Notice what it tells us:

24 He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field. 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. 26 When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’+ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”+
36 Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” 37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world.+ As for the fine seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one,+ 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things,* and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things.*+ 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace.+ There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun+ in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

Now, when you logically combine all of the above, it should tell you that there would be times that Christianity would be existing with errors, and according to Ephesians and Matthew above, those errors would be weeded out as time would pass and perfection of understanding would be approached. But here is the important point. Simultaneously along with the error, there would be those who would be taking the lead and unifying the congregation when it came to teachings.

I would like to know if my opponent agrees with that assessment or not? Frankly, I do not know how one could disagree with that, so if you do, please elaborate as to how Christianity is identified amidst some errors?

So then, if Christianity would suffer from errors clear down until the time that they reach full understanding, what kind of errors would we expect them to be? Certainly not fundamental, foundation errors like we find listed at Hebrews 6:1,2. Such as, who do we worship? Who is God? What is faith? What is the role of Jesus Christ? Hebrews 6:1ff mentions "the resurrection of the dead" and "everlasting judgment" as some of the foundation teachings. When it comes to those foundation doctrines, from the very start, Jehovah's Witnesses have understood and taught those things correctly. And they came to those understandings under the constant pressure of resistance by the churches. They were willing to do whatever they needed to do to follow the truth, which would naturally mean they would correct themsleves as time would go on, whenever they recognized an error, they would fix it. This is to be entirely expected within the history of true Christianity, especially in the last days.

So when the inspection would be made, what would God and Christ be looking for? Perfection of understanding? Absolutely not. In fact, he would find likely many errors that needed fixed. So then, what was he looking for? Clealry he would be looking for those who had demonstrated a history of adhering to the fundamental teachings of Christianity and willing to fix whatever they found to be wrong despite the consequences of doing so, to the best of their ability, and shedding age-old doctrinal errors such as the Trinity, hellfire and eternal torment, and championing the truth about the true nature and purpose of resurrection, something none of the churches recognize. Those things have been consistent from the beginning of our modern day history.

Now, if God was looking for those who were devoted to the pursuit of truth and held fast to the correct foundational doctrines, well, if that inspection would have taken place in the early 20th century, they he would surely have noticed the Bible Students at that time who later became known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

It did not matter that they held to some errors in understanding that needed to be fixed. They held fast to the foundation doctrines and that is what God and Christ would have seen if they were to have done an examination at that time. They were miles apart from the churches when it came to those doctrines.

Both Ephesians and Matthew above make it more than obvious that there would be errors, naturally, more at the start than later, and this is the exact pattern we see established by Jehovah's Witnesses in modern times.

Malachi chapter three makes it quite clear that the reason for the INSPECTION was to CLEANSE the sons of Levi, which would stand for the priestly class of Christians.

2 “But who will endure the day of his coming, and who will be able to stand when he appears? For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye*+ of laundrymen. 3 And he will sit as a refiner and cleanser of silver+ and will cleanse the sons of Le′vi; and he will clarify* them like gold and like silver, and they will certainly become to Jehovah people presenting a gift offering in righteousness. 4 And the gift offering of Judah and of Jerusalem will actually be pleasing* to Jehovah, as in the days of long ago and as in the years of antiquity.

To make it sound like God would have rejected them because they had errors among themselves, is completely wrong headed and fixating on the wrong thing. What shoud be looked at is what shape were they in when it comes to the foundation elementary teachings of Christianity. Also, what was their attitude toward their own errors? Pride? or Humility? The ability to be TAUGHT, or plain stubborness to hold onto error for the sake of some supposed righteous continuity with old traditions?

So I would hope that every one can clearly see the answer to W-E's number one question, which in effect, is how could Jesus use these men when they had errors? In the above presented words, the answer should be easily discerned.

It is not a matter of whether W-E is able to commend them or not, because I would not expect commendation from someone who beliecves they are wrong even when it comes to the foundation teachings. I believe that WE is simply fixating on the wrong thing. God's people have OFTEN been in error and in need of correction. God still used them and blessed them because they were trying their best.

Here are a few of questions my opponent needs to answer as it is important to this conversation:

"Do you believe that Christianity, in the last days, would need an ecclesiastical authority, a governing element of some kind?"

"Would that governing element be without error at all times in the last days?"

"Who, if anyone, do you recognize as servers of God's truth?"

The answer to those should lay a nice framework for discussion.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Rotherham:

I am going to BEG you to read very slowly and very careful my responses to you. I will quote you, then respond, word-for-word, as I had not done previously. Previously I took on what I considered the main points, because the debate would be very broad, had I elected to respond to everything you said, potentially a bore to readers. But there seems to be such a great disconnect, that, this time around I will respond to EVERY sentence you made.

We are also told that Christian understanding would not be complete for a long time, way past the time of the first century.

And where are you told that, Rotherham??

Notice the ramifications of Ephesians 4:11-16.

11 And he gave some as apostles,+ some as prophets,+ some as evangelizers,*+ some as shepherds and teachers,+ 12 with a view to the readjustment* of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,+ 13 until we all attain to the oneness* of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown* man,+ attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching+ by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ.+ 16 From him all the body+ is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.+

Please take some time to read the passage of Scripture again, slowly, Rotherham, and carefully. Note words like "fully-grown man" and "we should not longer be children". Paul is speaking about the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of the church maturing in knowledge of God - not about the church taking decades, up to 19 centuries to understand the things of God. Nothing here about the church shedding errors over 19 centuries, or a slave that would take a century to refine what he is teaching to the Christian congregation.

Since we are convinced we are living in the last days, in the SUNTELEIA (conclusion) of the system, according to Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 (the parable of the wheat and the weeds), we would expect to have been be digging out from age-long errors of the weeds that were introduced. Notice what it tells us:

Rotherham, my brother. The parable of the wheat and the tares is not about errors being weeded out of the church. It is about HYPOCRITES being weeded out of the church, when Jesus returns. You were kind enough to quote the parable, AND THE INTERPRETATION. The question is, did you read it? I will emphasize some words for you, in capital letters, as you quoted:

24 He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field. 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. 26 When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’+ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”+

36 Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” 37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world.+ As for the fine seed, THESE ARE THE SONS of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the SONS of the wicked one,+ 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things,* and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things.*+ 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace.+ There is where their WEEPING AND GNASHING OF THEIR TEETH will be. 43 At that time THE RIGHTEOUS ONES will shine as brightly as the sun+ in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

The wheat and the tares, (or the wheat and the weeds) represent PEOPLE - not teachings. Who is going to weep and have gnasshing of teeth because errors have been destroyed, Rotherham?? It is a Watchtower distortion of the Scriptures in attempt to rationalize or sanitize the fact that the organization is a PROVEN, false prophet and false teacher. The Bible teaches no such thing as a gradual weeding out of errors TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH.

Can you point to ANY TEACHING of the apostles that was an ERROR?? Note the word - TEACHING - what they adopted and TAUGHT as doctrine. I challenge you to name ONE!

Now, when you logically combine all of the above, it should tell you that there would be times that Christianity would be existing with errors, and according to Ephesians and Matthew above, those errors would be weeded out as time would pass and perfection of understanding would be approached. But here is the important point. Simultaneously along with the error, there would be those who would be taking the lead and unifying the congregation when it came to teachings.

I would like to know if my opponent agrees with that assessment or not? Frankly, I do not know how one could disagree with that, so if you do, please elaborate as to how Christianity is identified amidst some errors?

NO, I DO NOT AGREE with that false statement, and the reason is explained above. The passages do not refer to errors being weeded out of the church over any prolonged period. Matthew speaks to hypocrites being destroyed. Ephesians speaks to the maturing of individuals, spiritually.

So then, if Christianity would suffer from errors clear down until the time that they reach full understanding, what kind of errors would we expect them to be? Certainly not fundamental, foundation errors like we find listed at Hebrews 6:1,2. Such as, who do we worship? Who is God? What is faith? What is the role of Jesus Christ? Hebrews 6:1ff mentions "the resurrection of the dead" and "everlasting judgment" as some of the foundation teachings. When it comes to those foundation doctrines, from the very start, Jehovah's Witnesses have understood and taught those things correctly. And they came to those understandings under the constant pressure of resistance by the churches. They were willing to do whatever they needed to do to follow the truth, which would naturally mean they would correct themsleves as time would go on, whenever they recognized an error, they would fix it. This is to be entirely expected within the history of true Christianity, especially in the last days.

Repeating the myth about Christianity suffering error until they reach full understanding. What kind of errors do YOU expect them to be, Rotherham? Errors that Jesus' second advent already took place, first in 1874 and then in 1914? That God would destroy all Christians in 1918? How was that one corrected? That Abraham would have been resurrected in 1925? And AFTER 1925, when it was CLEAR that the teaching was false, the organization PERSISTED in the teaching that they will soon be resurrected, and invested a lot of money to build a house for the princes, Beth Sarim? Is the the kind of errors you expected, Rotherham? Did you expect kind of errors such as Micahel the archangel is Pope? Errors about angels in Revelation being Rutherford?? Errors about prophecies of Daniel and Revelation pointing to Watchtower conventions? Please.

Jehovah's Witnesses were doing all they can to follow the truth? When the rest of Christendom was telling them that Jesus had NOT returned in 1874, were they following the truth? When Christendom was telling them that Christians will NOT be destroyed in 1918, were they following THE TRUTH?? Were they determined to follow the truth when they believed the 1925 lie? Were they following the truth when they sold their homes and property prior to 1975?? Were they following the truth??

I submit to you, my brother than you get your head of out the sand and face reality. Jehovah's Witnesses have the WORST track record of ALL Christian denominations in the world, of following ERROR AFTER ERROR AFTER ERROR. They have no equal, and they have no close competitor.

I promised I would respond to your every sentence. I am going back on that. I really do not have the patience for all this UTTER NONSENSE!

You cannot even be honest with yourself.

I will pray for you, my brother. Only God can help you.

[Rotherham]

It is too bad that my opponent decided not to answer the three important questions that I asked of him at the end of my prior post. They are most relevant to the discussion at hand. It feels to me that my opponent is studiously avoiding getting into the topic of ecclesiastical authority and how it has been expressed historically and how it would be expressed in the last days. I hope that's not the case, but I will revisit these unaddressed crucial points below before concluding.

Merely sweeping away some of your opponents arguments as "rubbish" without explaining why, is not a defense of one's position. In fact, it is usually a tell-tale sign that your defense is lacking.

First, let's take a look at my opponents responses to Matthew 13 (wheat and weeds) and Eph. 4:11-16.

I said:

We are also told that Christian understanding would not be complete for a long time, way past the time of the first century.

W_E replied:

And where are you told that, Rotherham??

Answer:
Scripture, history and applied logic, as will be explained in what follows.

I said:

Notice the ramifications of Ephesians 4:11-16.

11 And he gave some as apostles,+ some as prophets,+ some as evangelizers,*+ some as shepherds and teachers,+ 12 with a view to the readjustment* of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,+ 13 until we all attain to the oneness* of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown* man,+ attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching+ by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ.+ 16 From him all the body+ is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.+

W_E Response:

Please take some time to read the passage of Scripture again, slowly, Rotherham, and carefully. Note words like "fully-grown man" and "we should not longer be children". Paul is speaking about the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of the church maturing in knowledge of God - not about the church taking decades, up to 19 centuries to understand the things of God. Nothing here about the church shedding errors over 19 centuries, or a slave that would take a century to refine what he is teaching to the Christian congregation.

Answer:
My opponent has clearly missed the point of the passage. let's look a little closer. The scriptures says that the "gifts in men" would "perfect the "holy ones", who by the way, are identified as the church, UNTIL full and mature understanding would come about. It says exactly what my opponent denies.

It states that this perfecting process would continue until they ALL attain to the fullness of understanding for the purpose of UNITY in teaching, so different winds of teaching would not simultaneously exist within the congregation. What does that clearly tell u?. It tells us that up until the point where we have complete understanding, individually and/or collectively, a perfecting, which is a correcting process, would take place.

Again, a couple of questions for my opponent that need answered.

Do you believe that the church, any church, has reach its full-grown state of maturity? Is there nothing more to learn or adjust or correct? Is it now ERROR free? If so, please identify it for me.

I said:

Since we are convinced we are living in the last days, in the SUNTELEIA (conclusion) of the system, according to Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 (the parable of the wheat and the weeds), we would expect to have been be digging out from age-long errors of the weeds that were introduced. Notice what it tells us:

W_E:

Rotherham, my brother. The parable of the wheat and the tares is not about errors being weeded out of the church. It is about HYPOCRITES being weeded out of the church, when Jesus returns.

Does one really expect that "the sons of the wicked one", who is the FATHER of the lie, would not introduce falsehoods into the church? Is not hypocrisy often accompanied and sustained by lies and false teachings? How could it not be? Of course it's talking about people. How else would false teachings creep in? Via Dobermans?

The fact that false teachings would creep into the church is nearly everywhere expressed in the scriptures:

Notice:
"However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, with covetousness they will exploit you with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering." (2 Peter 2:1-3)

"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and days with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)

"But relative to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and our gathering together to [meet] Him, we beg you, brethren, not to allow your minds to be quickly unsettled or disturbed or kept excited or alarmed, whether it be by some [pretended] revelation of [the] Spirit or by word or by letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here. Let no one deceive or beguile you in any way, for that day will not come except the apostasy comes first - that is, unless the [predicted] great falling away of those who have professed to be Christians has come - and the man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed, who is the son of doom (of perdition)." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) (Amplified Bible)

"Dear Friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord... These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm -shepherds who feed only themselves... These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. . ."

"But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit." (Jude 3, 4, 12, 16-19) (New International Version)

"The Spirit distinctly says that in later times some will turn away from the faith and will heed deceitful spirits and things taught by demons though plausible liars - men with seared consciences who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by believers who know the truth. Everything God created is good; nothing is to be rejected when it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by God's word and by prayer." (The New American Bible)1 Timothy 4:1-5

So what happened or how did this apostasy within start? Again, notice:

Halley's Bible Handbook2 relates that in the 4th Century C.E.:

"The Church had changed its nature, had entered its Great Apostasy, had become a political organization in the Spirit and pattern of Imperial Rome, and took its nose-dive into the millennium of Papal Abominations.., worship, at first very simple, was developed into elaborate, stately, imposing ceremonies having all the outward splendor that had belonged to heathen temples."

Another volume, Great Religions of the World-3, reports that after the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E.:

"Now church and state were wed... Emperors helped shape theology, prelates dabbled in statecraft. Basilicas dazzled, their coffers bulged - and deserts began to fill with "anchorites", "withdrawers", seeking alone the purer faith of old", Beyond a shadow of doubt, a new brand of "Christianity" had developed. We shall now look at some of the heretical communities that emerged after the Apostolic period."

How any one who knows history and the scriptures, through the application of simple logic, could deny that the weeds would involve false teachings, is beyond me. Would my opponent prefer me to make a list of many of the false teachings that have crept into the church down through the centuries?

And as the parable demonstrates, these weeds would be taken out during the last days of this word, the sunteleia, the conclusion of this world or system as we know it. This is no doubt part of why the prophet Daniel stated about "the time of the end" the following:

4 “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”

Now my opponent cannot find any problem with the fundamental teachings that I spoke of in my last post. He continues to harp on the misunderstanding of prophecies. Jehovah's Witnesses from the beginning have always drawn attention to the fact their prophetic interpretations are NOT dogmatic or INFALLIBLE. They are simply interpretations based upon their best understandings at the time. Which means what? It means that they are subject to correction, which is exactly what has taken place.

Our view of prophetic interpretations is nicely summed up in the following quotes from our literature at different times in history:


Mission statement of the Watchtower during the 1920s.

"This journal...is not dogmatic, but confident;
for we know whereof we affirm, treading with
implicit faith upon the promises of God. It is
held as a trust, to be used only in his service;
hence our decisions relative to what may and
what may not appear in its columns must be
according to our understanding of his good
pleasure, the TEACHING OF HIS WORD, for
the building of his people in grace and
knowledge. And WE NOT ONLY INVITE BUT
URGE OUR READERS TO PROVE ALL ITS
UTTERANCES BY THE INFALLIBLE WORD TO
WHICH REFERENCE IS CONSTANTLY MADE
TO FACILITATE SUCH TESTING."


Watchtower, 1879, page 38
"We do not object to changing our opinions on
any subject, or discarding former applications
of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we
see a good reason for the change, -in fact, it
is important that we should be willing to
unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to
learn truth....It is our duty to "prove all
things"-by the unerring Word,-" and hold fast
to that which is good".

Watchtower, 1896, 2080
"Nor would we have our writings reverenced
or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the
holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have
ever claimed for our teachings is that they are
what we believe to be the interpretations of
the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of
the truth. And we still urge, as in the past,
that each reader study the subjects we
present in the light of the Scriptures, proving
all things by the Scriptures, accepting what
they see to be thus approved, and rejecting
all else. It is to this end, to enable the student
to trace the subject in the divinely inspired
Record, that we so freely intersperse both
quotations and citations of the Scriptures
upon which to build."


Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's
Presence, September 15, 1909, 4473
"Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim
infallibilty and that every sentence appearing
in "Watch Tower" publications is stated with
absolute correctness? Assuredly we make NO
SUCH CLAIM and have NEVER MADE SUCH A
CLAIM. What motive can our opponents have
in so charging against us? Are they not
seeking to set up a falsehood to give
themselves excuse for making attacks and to
endeavor to pervert the judgments of
others?" (emphasis added)

From the book "Prophecy", 1929, pages 61-2
"Many students have made the grievous
mistake of thinking that God has inspired men
to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of
the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah
to write as his power moved upon them. The
writers of the New Testament were clothed
with certain power and authority to write as
the Lord directed them. However, SINCE THE
DAYS OF THE APOSTLES NO MAN ON EARTH
HAS BEEN INSPIRED TO WRITE PROPHECY,
NOR HAS ANY MAN BEEN INSPIRED TO
INTERPRET PROPHECY." (emphasis added)

So once again I would like to ask my opponent those important questions that I asked before. I hope he will answer them, as I hope he will answer the ones asked above as well.

"Do you believe that Christianity, in the last days, would need an ecclesiastical authority, a governing element of some kind?"

"Would that governing element be without error at all times in the last days?"

"Who, if anyone, do you recognize as servers of God's truth?"

Please answer, as surely I have the same right as you to examine my opponents beliefs. You see, it's easy to rail against the beliefs of others if you don't have to present a working model of your own.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Rotherham.

You are AMAZING!

You are so determined to believe a lie, that you will argue strenuously, no matter how weak your arguments are. I will give you high scores for determination, but you are doing horribly awful in reasoning. Of course, I cannot be debater and judge, the audience must be the judge, but I dared say that because, forgive me, this is NOT an official response to your comments, but just a notification that I will respond, hopefully within 72 hours. It's very busy for me right now.

I will be praying for you, and it is FOR YOU, why I will continue a debate I believe is well and truly over, because you have not posited one solid argument to verify

1. How come Jesus appointed a proven false prophet and false teacher as a slave. (Teaching over 50 false doctrines during the inspection.)
2. How come the appointed slave was teaching that someone else was that slave.
3. How come the appointed slave did not know what the appointment was (first believed it was over all the master's belongings, and taught that for some 90 plus years)
4. How the appointment was done in 1919, but the slave taught the now believed appointment took place in 33 C.E., and the then believed appointment took place in 1919.
5. WHY it took the slave some 90 years to FINALLY discover who the appointed slave actually is, and what the job description actually is.

This debate is not about whether there is "ecclesiastical authority" in the church, and how such authority works. I do not question whether the Watchtower organization needs a governing body. How that body operates is questionable, but is not the moot of this debate. The question, in my mind, is, DID JESUS APPOINT THE PROVEN FALSE PROPHET AND FALSE TEACHER AS FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE IN 1919, AS CLAIMED BY THE WATCHTOWER?

Those questions must be solidly responded to in order to make the Watchtower doctrine make sense, but not even Rotherham can make sense out of nonsense.

However, because Rotherham can POSSIBLY be released from his deception, I will ask the Lord to give me the patience to clarify matters for you.

Give me a few days, please.


Winston

[Rotherham]

When you respond, please do not forget to answer fully the questions that I asked you. Also since you provide a list of issues, I will supply a short response to each one to help facilitate your larger response to these things.

Regards

[Rotherham]

You have listed the following issues:

1. How come Jesus appointed a proven false prophet and false teacher as a slave. (Teaching over 50 false doctrines during the inspection.)
2. How come the appointed slave was teaching that someone else was that slave.
3. How come the appointed slave did not know what the appointment was (first believed it was over all the master's belongings, and taught that for some 90 plus years)
4. How the appointment was done in 1919, but the slave taught the now believed appointment took place in 33 C.E., and the then believed appointment took place in 1919.
5. WHY it took the slave some 90 years to FINALLY discover who the appointed slave actually is, and what the job description actually is.

Each and every one of these items are nothing more than peripheral to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity as listed at Hebrews 6:1,2. I wonder if you will ever comment on those.

In fact, none of the items in the list constitutes doctrines, but as we have stated in our literature and I have shown through the quotes that I offered, these things are not considered to be written in stone but simply present our best understanding at the time of writing. Prophetic interpretations are not doctrines. Did you read carefully and consider the quotes that I offered? Everything you mention above falls under that same umbrella.

Think about it, the fact that the FDS represents ecclesiastical authority never changed in all of the adjustments, the only thing that changed was who exactly comprised that slave. That is a mere peripheral issue to the larger and more important overall teaching.

And naturally, as I have explained often, coming out from the wheat and the weeds would logically involve the ridding of false teachings through the sunteleia. The fundamental doctrines though have remained consistent. Rather than the church being error free from the beginning of the sunteleia, it would be expected to contain error and a weeding out process until the end.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Rotherham:

I was kinda hoping you would not have responded to my last comments because it was not an "official" response in the debate. But I guess I should not have commented at all if I hoped that you would not respond. That was unfair.

I was really hoping that my next rebuttal would be of your previous comments, but I am obliged to respond to what you last stated. You said,

Each and every one of these items are nothing more than peripheral to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity as listed at Hebrews 6:1,2. I wonder if you will ever comment on those.

In fact, none of the items in the list constitutes doctrines, but as we have stated in our literature and I have shown through the quotes that I offered, these things are not considered to be written in stone but simply present our best understanding at the time of writing.

There seems to be a disconnect, on your part, of what we are debating. Please read the following - SLOWLY.

Examining the JW teaching of the Faithful and Discreet Slave

We, Rotherham - you and I - are examining what the Watchtower organization teaches about the faithful and discreet slave.

The Watchtower's "best understanding at the time of writing" implies the following:

1. The Father and Jesus came in 1914 and did a five year INSPECTION of all churches to see which was providing PROPER SPIRITUAL FOOD at the proper time.
2. Jesus appointed a proven false prophet and false teacher as a slave. (Teaching over 50 false doctrines during the inspection.)
2. The appointment was a secret one, obviously, because the appointed slave was teaching that someone else was that slave.
3. The appointed slave did not know what the appointment was (first believed it was over all the master's belongings, and taught that for some 90 plus years)
4. The appointment was done in 1919, but the slave taught the now believed appointment took place in 33 C.E., and the then believed appointment took place in 1919.
5. It took the slave some 90 years to FINALLY discover who the appointed slave actually is, and what the job description actually is.

One of the things I like about you, my brother, is that, unlike the typical Jehovah's Witness, you respond directly to questions, so, please, respond to the following questions:

1. Am I wrong in the above assumptions that the "best understanding at the time of writing", on the part of the organization, implies?
2. Given the assumptions are correct, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?

We are not debating whether prophetic understanding constitute doctrines. The substantive point is that those FALSE "TEACHINGS" was the IMPROPER food that the slave was serving AT THAT TIME.

We are not debating whether those "teachings" are fundamental. Fundamental or trivial, that was the food the slave was serving AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION. If you believe that a "teaching" that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874, or an "expectation" that God would destroy Christians by the millions (taught in the name of God) are TRIVIAL matters, you are entitled to that opinion.

The fact is, the doctrine of the appointment of the faithful and discreet slave, as taught by the Watchtower Bible and Tract represents LIES being told on THE FATHER and THE SON. Those errors and lies, as the Watchtower correctly stated, are from none other than SATAN.

[Rotherham]

Please W-E, before I respond, would you please fully address the questions that I asked you?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Although I still want you to answer those questions I have asked of you more than once, I went ahead and prepared a response to your latest submission. That way when you respond the next time, it will all be together.

The problem that I see Winston, is that the list of things that you have against us are inaccurately presented and because of that they are leading you to false conclusions. I will try and break this down for you again. I believe the following will answer all that you have presented. If not, please isolate what I have ignored and I will comment on it

At the time of the inspection, it would seem natural that if God and Christ were going to USE a particular people to spearhead his kingdom proclamation in the last days, (Matthew 24:14) then those who had protected the fundamental, foundation doctrines of Christianity, would certainly catch his attention. Would that not seem natural to you?

This is exactly what we believe happened in the first part of the 20th century for numerous prophetic, historical and logical reasons.

You may not like the fact that we believe those fundamental doctrines are what God was looking for, but it would certainly stand to reason that if they were, they would have found them in the small group of International Bible Students. If he approved of this group, then naturally, from within that group would arise the ecclesiastical authority, also designated as the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matthew 24:45-47.

You claim that because they had many false teachings at the time that this should have disqualified them from gaining God's approval, but let's think about that for a minute. Since NO group on the earth would ever be PERFECT in the things that they were teaching, who then would he choose?

Would he choose a group that had shown themselves protective of those fundamental, foundation doctrines, even though they needed correction on many peripheral teachings, or would he choose those that were full of error from the bottom up, teaching God-dishonoring and confusing doctrines, such as the Trinity, hellfire, immortal soul and the list goes on? THOSE false teachings directly affect the very foundation of Christianity. (See Hebrews 6:1,2)

On the other hand, those things that the Bible Students at that time were teaching incorrectly, all merely peripheral to the fundamental teachings, did in no way affect the foundation teachings of Christianity. If you think so, please demonstrate how the teachings listed there in Hebrews were adversely affected by those things that you have mentioned as false.

You claim that this is not about fundamental teachings and I believe this is where you err greatly. It is most certainly about the fundamental teachings, because clearly and logically, if there was to be an inspection made, that is exactly what God and Christ would begin with.

In the early 20th century there was a group of sincere Bible students who were organized enough to sustain a concerted effort to distribute the truth of those fundamental teachings as far into the world as they could at that time. So, if we correctly understand when the last days began, that being circa 1914, what would have been the most likely choice to spearhead the restoration of truth and the preaching of the kingdom good news? If the Trinity, hellfire, immortal soul, etc are indeed false, and we most certainly believe that they are, exactly who would he choose other then from among those Bible Students at that time?

So you see, the fundamental teachings are indeed intrinsically connected to our understanding of who the faithful and discreet slave would be because at that time, the proper food, the truth about the fundamental teachings of Christianity, were only being zealously promoted by that group. Who else?

Regards
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Please W-E, before I respond, would you please fully address the questions that I asked you?

Dear Rotherham:

The answer is NO. I will NOT answer the questions you asked, and I will tell you why.

Those are EASY questions to address, and I can EASILY ventilate them, but I will NOT because THEY ARE PERIPHERAL to the main topic, and it seems you are hell-bent on focusing on the peripheral issues, instead of the MAIN point. To address those questions is to engage you peripheral issues. What must I do, to get you to focus on the MAIN point?'

The Watchtower teaches that Jesus and His Father CAME in 1914 and did a five year inspection, after which he appointed Rutherford and others taking the lead in the then Watchtower organization, as THE faithful and discreet slave mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47.

THAT, Rotherham, is what this debate is about.

Not WHO the faithful slave is today.
Not IF there is ecclesiastical authority in the Christian church today.
Not HOW such ecclesiastical authority operates.

Rotherham, we are discussing this:

DID JESUS AND THE FATHER COME IN 1914, DID A FIVE YEAR INSPECTION TO SEE WHO WAS PROVIDING PROPER FOOD AT THE PROPER TIME, AND SELECTED RUTHERFORD ET AL AS THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE MENTIONED AT MATTHEW 24:45-47

So forgive me if I don't play along with your attempt to focus on peripheral issues, however related - but PERIPHERAL

That said, I will respond to your comments and PRAY that you will give some thought to what is said.

The problem that I see Winston, is that the list of things that you have against us are inaccurately presented and because of that they are leading you to false conclusions.

PLEASE, I BEG OF YOU, P-L-E-A-S-E, be so kind to demonstrate what I have "inaccurately presented".

At the time of the inspection, it would seem natural that if God and Christ were going to USE a particular people to spearhead his kingdom proclamation in the last days, (Matthew 24:14) then those who had protected the fundamental, foundation doctrines of Christianity, would certainly catch his attention. Would that not seem natural to you?

"Would that not seem natural to you?"

Rotherham, GOD IS ALL-KNOWING. That is what people in Christendom mean when they say He is omniscient. Here is a list of 135 verses that speak to the omniscience of God.

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God,-All-Knowing

"Would that not seem natural to you" that GOD WOULD NEVER NEED TO DO AN INSPECTION, much more a 5-year inspection to see who on earth was providing proper spiritual food at the proper time? Your "at the time of the inspection" argument is irrelevant. The father did not come with Jesus to inspect what He already knows.

This is exactly what we believe happened in the first part of the 20th century for numerous prophetic, historical and logical reasons.

What Jehovah's Witnesses believe does not inspire confidence. How many things that you believed proved false??? In JUST ONE Watchtower article came the following statements about things you believed, and taught for several decades.

WE BELIEVE - YEAH, RIGHT.

For a number of years, WE THOUGHT that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations. (Matt. 24:21, 22) (Emphasis mine)
Watchtower - July 15, 2013, page 3, paragraph 3

Previously, WE THOUGHT Thought that the judging of people as sheep or goats would take place during the entire period of the last days from 1914 onward. (Emphasis mine)
Watchtower - July 15, 2013, page 6, paragraph 10

WE UNDERSTOOD that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (Mal. 3:1) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. (Emphasis mine)
Watchtower - July 15, 2013, page 8, paragraph 17

That is only in ONE magazine, Rotherham. That is just a tip of the iceberg on the hard cold facts about the myriads of things that Jehovah's Witnesses believed that proved false. Note the last of the three I mentioned above. Note the FALSE BELIEF regarding the appointment of the faithful and discreet slave.

Did you ALL not believed that 1925 would have seen Abraham resurrected

Forgive me, Rotherham, if I am not the least bit impressed or moved by what you believe. I am interested in what THE BIBLE TEACHES, not what Jehova's Witnesses, with a sorry track record of errors, believe.

Please be my guest. SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE where the Father and the Son came in 1914 to do an inspection and appointed Rutherford & co. as the FDS.

You may not like the fact that we believe those fundamental doctrines are what God was looking for, but it would certainly stand to reason that if they were, they would have found them in the small group of International Bible Students.

Just as I am not impressed by what you believe, also based on a sorry track record, what you "stand to reason" also does not resonate with me. Do you remember why millions living in the early 1900s would never die? Because Jehovah's Witnesses stood to reason, certain things from the Bible.

Then, based upon the promises set forth in the divine Word, we must reach the positive and indisputable conclusion that millions now living will never die." (Millions Now Living Will Never Die. 1920 p. 97)

Please pay attention to the words, POSITIVE and INDISPUTABLE.

Rotherham, if when the slave directly appoint by Jesus, read the Scriptures and puts out what he stands to reason as POSITIVE AND INDISPUTABLE - the salve directly appointed by Jesus - proved to be DEAD WRONG, why should I trust a follower from the "slave organization", given your PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF FALSE "STANDS TO REASONS"?

ALL of your previous FALSE teachings came from faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions.

You claim that because they had many false teachings at the time that this should have disqualified them from gaining God's approval, but let's think about that for a minute. Since NO group on the earth would ever be PERFECT in the things that they were teaching, who then would he choose?

If you can think that He would have chosen the one with the HIGHEST NUMBER of false teachings at that time, you need to get your head examined. However, let me tell you that is an irrelevant question because God made no such inspection, and made no such choosing. It is just another in the series of Watchtower myths, unless, of course you can provide the CLEAR Biblical evidence - not some verse from the Bible that Jehovah's Witnesses decided, "it would stand to reason that ...".

Would he choose a group that had shown themselves protective of those fundamental, foundation doctrines, even though they needed correction on many peripheral teachings,

PLEASE GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND, ROTHERHAM. It is NOT a "peripheral teaching" that GOD will destroy Christians by the millions in 1918. It is a LIE told on God. It is not peripheral to teach that Jesus' promise return took place in 1874, when the Lord is yet to fulfill that promise. That is a LIE TOLD ON JESUS. You Sir, are in denial, if you believe that Jesus overlooked these LIES.

Secondly, since they needed correction on these "peripheral" teachings, why did Jesus not correct them now. What has the Holy Spirit, who they claim was directing them, never corrected them? Do you see Jesus as some wishy-washy person who appoints clear incompetents who cannot read the Scriptures and form CORRECT conclusions, to serve spiritual food to all Christians. The day you lift your respect and regard for Jesus, is the day you will begin to see how ridiculous this Watchtower teaching is.

It is most certainly about the fundamental teachings, because clearly and logically, if there was to be an inspection made, that is exactly what God and Christ would begin with.

I have already expressed my caution when a Jehovah's Witness speaks about what is clear and logical. Rotherham, do you consider the second return of Jesus as NOT a fundamental teaching? How can you with a straight face speak about the confusion of the doctrine of the Trinity, when at that time the slave was teaching that JESUS BECAME ALMIGHTY GOD on his ascension to Heaven??? Was that a fundamental teaching of two Almighty Gods, or that Jesus was the one Almighty God??

And if when the so-called inspection was done, God BEGAN with the fundamental teachings, but then went on to find well over 50 false "peripheral" teachings or false conclusions, what then? Does it stand to reason that He just ignores those errors and lies and appoint this slave because the "fundamental" teachings were right? Does that seem logical to you, Rotherham - even when they are lying about his second return????

In the early 20th century there was a group of sincere Bible students who were organized enough to sustain a concerted effort to distribute the truth of those fundamental teachings as far into the world as they could at that time.

When, Oh when, will Rotherham get it in his head that their "truth of those fundamental teachings as far into the world as they could at that time" turned out to be LIES.

JESUS SECOND RETURN DID NOT OCCUR IN 1874 - NOT TRUE
JESUS BECAME ALMIGHTY GOD ON HIS RETURN TO HEAVEN - NOT TRUE
HEAVEN DOES NOT HAVE TWO ALMIGHTY GODS - NOT TRUE
JESUS WAS NOT THE ONE ALMIGHTY GOD - NOT TRUE
Not fundamental enough?
Peripheral?

So, if we correctly understand when the last days began, that being circa 1914, what would have been the most likely choice to spearhead the restoration of truth and the preaching of the kingdom good news?

And the "restoration of truth" and the "preaching of the kingdom" was that paradise would be restored in 1925, right??

If the Trinity, hellfire, immortal soul, etc are indeed false, and we most certainly believe that they are, exactly who would he choose other then from among those Bible Students at that time?

Jesus could not approve those doctrines, so he approved his return in 1874, Christians would be slain by the millions in 1918, Michael the archange is the Pope, and a host of damnable fallacies, right??

"So you see, the fundamental teachings are indeed intrinsically connected to our understanding of who the faithful and discreet slave would be because at that time, the proper food, the truth about the fundamental teachings of Christianity, were only being zealously promoted by that group. Who else?"

Yes, and the truth about how Superman is weakened by kryptonite is also true.

Oh, please.

WATCHTOWER FABLES. Prove me wrong my quoting and explaining the BIBLICAL EVIDENCES in your next post.

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

Since my next response will probably be a bit longer than the norm, please allow me a few days to complete it. Thanks.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Sure.

No problem. I understand time constraints.


Winston

[Watchtower Exam]

Dear Rotherham:

Hearing you have a long response TERRIFIES me, because there has been so much dancing around the issues, on your part, in my humble opinion. It is, to me, a classic case of circular reasoning.

Let's go again.

The Watchtower teaches that Jesus and His Father CAME in 1914 and did a five year inspection, after which he appointed Rutherford and others taking the lead in the then Watchtower organization, as THE faithful and discreet slave mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47.

Here's what I want to you address:

1. Does an all-knowing God need to do a FIVE-YEAR inspection to determine which church is providing proper spiritual food?
2. Did Jesus appoint Rutherford and company as the FDS mentioned in Matthew 24?
3. If yes, was it a secret appointment? How were they appointed?
4. How come Rutheford did know they were appointed?
5. How come they were confidently teaching that Russel was the slave. Do you mean to tell me that Jesus did not tell them?
6. How come they believed that the appointment you now teach took place in 1919, actually took place in 33 C.E.?
7. When did they know the appointment took place in 1919, and how come they felt that that appointment was over ALL the Master's belonging.
8. When did a slave, singular, become a body of people? Tell you what, please spare us the answer to Question 8. There is just so much nonsense that I can be bothered with.

Please spare me long, cirular reasoning about peripheral things and answer those questions.

After all, that is the ONLY way you can make sense of the doctrine.

Winston

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

This just keeps happening. I hoped that you would show restraint and allow me to respond before you add more or change the direction of the discussion. But, seeing as how that has happened again, I will incorporate in my response this latest submission as well. Unfortunately its not likely to make it any less short in its presentation. Again, there are some busy days ahead so it will take a while to address everything that I want to address. I will try to keep it as short as I possibly can and still cover the issues that need to be covered.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Please understand, Rotherham, that I do not mind long. You may elect to be as lengthy and and as detailed as you wish to be. It is not length that bothers me, it is IRRELEVANCE.

All I am asking is that you do what I believe you have failed to do so far, zoom in on what the Watchtower teaches and respond to the questions I ask - necessary questions - to back up the teaching - not about ecclesiastical authority, or what is fundamental Christian doctrines - but rahter, address the DIERCT questions asked about the WATCHTOWER TEACHING regarding the 1919 event of Jesus appointing the slave.

And, please, given the Watchtower's track record of faulty Biblical conclusions, please give us more of the BIBLICAL EVIDENCE and less of the organization's take on the matter, if possible.


Winston

[Rotherham]

Well, I'll do my best, but there is no way to separate ecclesiastical authority from the FDS when we believe them to be the same thing. Nor is there a way to ignore the foundation teachings in regard to the inspection that you have asked about. So sorry, but I hope my next submission will clarify more as to why.

But don't worry I will answer the questions, all of them.

Regards,
Rotherham

Please understand, Rotherham, that I do not mind long. You may elect to be as lengthy and and as detailed as you wish to be. It is not length that bothers me, it is IRRELEVANCE.

All I am asking is that you do what I believe you have failed to do so far, zoom in on what the Watchtower teaches and respond to the questions I ask - necessary questions - to back up the teaching - not about ecclesiastical authority, or what is fundamental Christian doctrines - but rahter, address the DIERCT questions asked about the WATCHTOWER TEACHING regarding the 1919 event of Jesus appointing the slave.

And, please, given the Watchtower's track record of faulty Biblical conclusions, please give us more of the BIBLICAL EVIDENCE and less of the organization's take on the matter, if possible.


Winston

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

I will first answer your list of questions and then add inbetween and along the way what I feel are some points that you are missing.

#1

1. Does an all-knowing God need to do a FIVE-YEAR inspection to determine which church is providing proper spiritual food?

Whether he would NEED to do it is really irrelevant, the fact is the scriptures indicate that there would be an inspection by Christ in connection with the last days. Now, before I show you the scriptures for that, let me ask you the following.

Did God NEED to make an inspection of Sodom and Gomorrah to know how bad it was? Yet he did it. For whatever reason he deemed an inspection necessary.

Did God NEED to test Abraham to learn that he was a God-fearing man by asking him to sacrifice his Son. He stated to Abraham after he passed that test, "NOW I do know that you are God-fearing". Would you not claim that he knew that beforehand. So why would he say that?

The point is that scripturally, an inspection in connection with Christ's return would take place. And that inspection would find that there was some cleansing necessary to be done. In other words, Jesus would not find the "church" to be in a perfect state. I think you know this quite well seeing as how you are a Seventh day Adventist and you have admitted that they are prone to apostasy even in this day and age, evidently predicted by Ellen White herself, even lamenting over how some branches of the church have accepted homosexuality into the fold. Yet amidst these errors you remain. I find there to be a double standard going here. Please explain to me why there is none.

Let's look at the scriptures that I alluded to earlier. What would happen when Jesus would again turn his attention toward the earth in connection with his parousia? Notice first what Jesus himself asked:

Luke 18:8 (Speaking first of chosen ones) 8 I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. (Then , he asks) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith* on the earth?”

Now think about the ramification of that question. That indicates an inspection when he returns to SEE if the FAITH would really be found in the earth. That tells us that there was potential for error in regard to the FAITH at that time.

The very question at Matthew 24:45-47 indicates the same thing. "WHO really is the faithful and discreet slave". That indicates an inspection to be done at that time. Otherwise why wonder who it would be and why wonder if the FAITH would really be found?

The prophecy of Babylon the Great indicates clearly that God's people would find themselves in Babylon and God would plead with them to come out. THis bespeaks the very same thing that is depicted by the wheat and weeds parable. During the HARVEST, the last days, the SONS OF THE KINGDOM would be cleanse by separating from among them the people and THINGS that cause stumbling.

Matthew 13:

41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be.

43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

Therefore, at the point when the parousia, the presence of Christ would begin, there would be an investigation to see who really would qualify as the faithful and discreet slave. As the scriptures reveal, at this time there would be a need for cleansing and a separating work to take place.

Now you complain about the 5 year period as if it would be too long. It's not too long when you consider that it was a matter of watching to see who would rise to the top amidst the turmoil that would ensue during these years. Who would take a stand for what was right despite the pressure from Babylon and the world governments to do otherwise? Who would continue to keep a grasp on the foundation teachings and who would show the proper attitude when to came to refinement? Would they follow what they discerned to be true, or would they hold onto falsehood out of mere tradition. There were many things to determine during that time and God allowed those ones the opportunity in their lives to demonstrate who they were interested in, themselves or the will of God.


SO since NO ONE would be perfect, as I am sure you will admit, what would Christ be looking for?

I strongly aver that he would be looking for those foundation doctrines of Christianity, as listed for us at Hebrews 6:1,2. I think the correct application and understanding of a passage about the "faithful and discreet slave" would pale in significance to those things listed at Hebrews 6.

Who exactly would make up the FDS and when they would exist, was and still is a minor point when it comes to the overall structure of foundation teachings. As I have mentioned before, we surely don't even need Matthew 24:45-47 to establish that there is an ecclesiastical authority within Christianity and that surely in the last days, when this cleansing would take place, it would be paramount for it to be functioning. So if you took away Matthew 24:45-47 and how we apply it, do you think anything would be different? We surely don't.

Do you really think that a group of Christians who had the foundation teachings proper, would be rejected because they messed up on the application and understanding of Matthew 24:45-47? Really?

It's not like they didn't understand the idea of ecclesiastical authority. They knew that the sheep needed reliable shepherds and leaders. They simply missed the application of the FDS scripture as to who it applied to. Truly a minor issue that would be sorted out in time, and was.

2. Did Jesus appoint Rutherford and company as the FDS mentioned in Matthew 24?

Jesus established the OFFICE of the FDS, not the particular men. Yes at one time, initially within the harvest, it included Br. Rutherford. Naturally, at the outset of this cleansing and separation work, the office of the FDS would be most important.

3. If yes, was it a secret appointment? How were they appointed?

No it was not a secret. As I mentioned, they were all aware of the need for a teaching authority within the congregation, long before Jesus would have chosen them to spearhead his work. They knew that were in that position regardless of whether they were applying Matthew 24:45-47 appropriately or not. The proper understanding and application of that verse was mostly irrelevant to the greater teaching of an ecclesiastical authority which they were fully aware of.

The SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES establish the OFFICE, the APPOINTMENT. Just because they did not understand Matthew 24:45-47 correctly did not somehow nullify the fact that they knew they were the spiritual leaders and teaching authorities of the group.

4. How come Rutheford did know they were appointed?

He was fully aware that he and others with him were serving as the head shepherds of the movement. Just because he didn't apply Matthew 24:45-47 correctly had nothing to do with it. He no doubt had experienced as well that confirming spirit of God that calls out ABBA to the Father. He was no doubt made aware of his adoption as one of the sons of God. Knowing that, and knowing the position he had come into in relation to the group, he was fully aware of the position he was in. The scriptures make the appointment via the establishment of the office of leadership. A mere reading of the relevant scriptures would have confirmed his responsibility to the sheep, to God's household.

It's like you don't think we had any structure at all when it came to teaching authority until they made a more relevant application of the FDS scripture. That's not the case at all. We are talking about the proper application of a passage, not the greater doctrine of ecclesiastical authority. I'm having a hard time understanding why you can't grasp that concept. The understanding of an ecclesiastical authority has always been there, REGARDLESS of how one interprets Matthew 24:45-47. It appears that you and so many others think that entire belief structure is built upon that verse. Like I said, you could remove it if you want. Nothing would change.

5. How come they were confidently teaching that Russel was the slave. Do you mean to tell me that Jesus did not tell them?

They incorrectly viewed the FDS as a special servant among the shepherds of God. Many did not think that Russell alone was the FDS. He himself expressed doubts about that. Regardless, it did not matter. It didn't change a thing when it was better understood. The structure of our Christianity and its ecclesiastical authority remained relatively the same from the beginning. Don't confuse a single designation of FDS with the whole doctrine of ecclesiastical authority and that's what it feels like you are doing.

6. How come they believed that the appointment you now teach took place in 1919, actually took place in 33 C.E.?

Again, it was simply the misapplication and understanding of one verse. We still believe that there was indeed a governing body in the first century. We erroneously though it applied to more than the governing body and we erroneously thought that it included all of the adopted sons of God. That understanding was refined to realize that the FDS is simply a designation for the restored governing body DURING THE HARVEST. But consistently it centered around the understanding of governance.

As I said, the recognition of a teaching authority within the congregation of God never changed. The only thing that changed was exactly who was being spoken of at Matthew 24:45-47. You act as though there was some major shift in the structure of our Christianity and that's not the case.

7. When did they know the appointment took place in 1919, and how come they felt that that appointment was over ALL the Master's belonging.

I'm not sure exactly when and I'm not sure it's even important. Decades ago I am sure, but would have to find out exactly when it transpired, but in the end, that piece of the puzzle is likely irrelevant.

However, they always felt that the FDS, no matter who it was applied to, was over the earthly congregation when it came to teaching authority, that never changed. Yes, they initially thought that is what was meant by the phrase the "Master's belongings" referred to just earthly belongings. Now we appreciate to refer to the heavenly reward as well.

But again, as far as how we viewed authority and what their assignment, what exactly changed? Nothing. it was the application of a mere phrase, not an entire doctrine being changed. That is what I am referring to as peripheral, the minor issues.

8. When did a slave, singular, become a body of people? Tell you what, please spare us the answer to Question 8. There is just so much nonsense that I can be bothered with.

It's not uncommon within a parable or a prophecy for something singular to stand for a class instead of a single individual.

For instance, who do you say the FDS is. Is it just a person? Or can it refer to a number of people who fit the ticket. Maybe you think it's Ellen White, I don't know.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Rotherham:

I could respond to you, word for word, but I will rather just focus on the foundation of your arguments.

You said it would be irrelevant whether or not God would need to do an inspection because the Scriptures indicate there would be such an inspection. Which Scripture?

You neglected to say.

I am aware that the Watchtower pulls on Malachi 3:1

“Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

Would you care to show me where in that verse you see a promise that THE FATHER AND THE SON would come to do an inspection of the churches to see who is providing proper spiritual food at the proper time? The organization also cites 1 Peter 4:17

For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God. Now if it starts first with us, what will the outcome be for those who are not obedient to the good news of God?

That, Sir, does not speak of an inspection of RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS to see who is teaching truth versus who is teaching error. Rather it is speaking of the judgment of ALL MANKIND - individuals - that will begin with the house of God, i.e. Christians - people who claim to be His followers.

For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.
Ecclesiastes 12:14

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.2 Corinthians 5:10

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. - Revelation 20:13 KJV

Jesus did not promise to return to inspect churches to see who is providing proper spiritual food at the proper time. He is coming back AFTER COMPLETING THE "INSPECTION" or investigative judgment to EXECUTE JUDGMENT (reward and punishment).

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. - Revelaton 22:12

You are operating, my brother, on three false premises.

FALSE PREMISE NUMBER ONE - JESUS SECOND ADVENT IS TO DO AN INSPECTION OF CHURCHES

I just dealt with that one.

FALSE PREMISE NUMBER TWO - THE SECOND ADVENT ALREADY TOOK PLACE

That, my brother is a doctrine from Satan.

After a failed false prophecy about the second advent of Jesus in 1874, Barbour and Russell put forward the false doctrine that the second advent already took place in 1874, based on the Greek word, "parousia", really meaning "presence"; that he second advent took place INVISIBLY. His invisible presence has since been moved from 1874 to 1914. I am yet to find a Jehvoah's Witness who can tell me where Christ is PRESENT on earth. His first advent took place on earth. Now, his RETURN or SECOND ADVENT took place in heaven. Only people bent on believing a lie can believe such utter nonsense. All sorts of semantic shifting has taken place to make sense of this NON SENSE. From the "coming" meaning "presence", now meaning "turn his attention to", all in a futile effort to change a lie into "a truth".

And, through the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Satan continues to twist the Scriptures and deceive people like you, Rotherham - people whose faith is in an organization, rather than in God.

Jesus told me not to believe anyone who says He is here.

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. - Matthew 24:26-27 KJV

The last time I checked, lightning was VISIBLE.

You all claim he is PRESENT, as Jesus predicted false prophets and teachers would claim, but not HERE (to wiggle yourselves out of fulfilling that prophecy of Jesus). How nonsensical can you get?? He is present but nowhere to be found??

It is an UTTERLY NONSENSICAL teaching about us living in the time of His presence. Presence where?

In heaven? He's been there with His Father from the foundation of the world, and had returned there long befoer 1914.

On earth? Don't make me laugh.


FALSE PREMISE NUMBER THREE - PARABLE OF FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE IS PROPHECY REGARDING ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

Ecclesiastical authority existed before Jesus' first advent, during his FIRST AND ONLY PRESENCE, and immediately after His ascension. Not in 1914 or 1918. That Jesus set up ecclesiastical authority in 1919 is a Watchtower fable. And folks who place the Watchtowrer organization above logic and truth, must try to make sense of that, however futile.

PUT ON YOUR THINKING CAP, ROTHERHAM, PLEASE??

How can there be a first century governing body, as you claim, then Jesus came and set it up in 1919? Was the first century Governing Body, then not authentic, not of God? There is so much more than can be said about this, it is amazing. But I will leave it out.

The PARABLE of the faithful and discreet slave is nothing but a lesson, first in in stewardship, and second, in keeping watch; being on the alert for the Master's return, just like the parables of the talents, and the ten virgins.

1. If a steward is ever watchful of the Master's return, he will not relax, he will do his job well. He will be a faithful steward.
2. If a steward is faithful in doing the job he is left to do, his good Master will reward him on His return. That is a consistent theme, taught by Jesus.

BEFORE AND AFTER that particular parable Jesus gave the point of the parableS. (Faithful and discreet slave, 10 virgins, talents)

Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. Matthew 24:42

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. - Matthew 25:13

The other CONSISTENT feature of the parables is that faithful stewards will be rewarded.

His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. - Matthew 25:21

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. - Matthew 25:23

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. - Matthew 24:46-47

I really do not wish to be disrespectful, Rotherham, but if you can believe that Jesus rejected Christendom for a FEW false doctrines, compared to a religious organization with a HISTORY of MULTIPLE false prophecies and false doctrines, and who were PRESENTLY teaching more than 50 false teachings and prophecies, you need to get not just the doctrine, but your head as well, examined.

[Rotherham]

It'll be a couple of days before I respond. No time.

Regards

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

I found some unexpected time.

Well, I am not sure which response you have been reading, but you seemed to have missed a good deal of what I presented so, unfortunately this time around, there will be some repetition.

You said:

I could respond to you, word for word, but I will rather just focus on the foundation of your arguments.

You said it would be irrelevant whether or not God would need to do an inspection because the Scriptures indicate there would be such an inspection. Which Scripture?

You neglected to say.

I found this odd. You proceed to address scriptures that you say the WT uses in support for this inspection but you simply missed all the ones that I did present, so, I will present them again, and then address some of your arguments in regard to the scriptures you mention.

In my last response I presented the following concerning the inspection which was to take place. I am not sure how or why you seem to have missed them. They follow in BLUE:

And I really would prefer a word for word response, or at least close to that. Otherwise, many important things can get skipped.

Let's look at the scriptures that I alluded to earlier. What would happen when Jesus would again turn his attention toward the earth in connection with his parousia? Notice first what Jesus himself asked:

Luke 18:8 (Speaking first of chosen ones) 8 I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. (Then , he asks) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith* on the earth?”

Now think about the ramification of that question. That indicates an inspection when he returns to SEE if the FAITH would really be found in the earth. That tells us that there was potential for error in regard to the FAITH at that time.

The very question at Matthew 24:45-47 indicates the same thing. "WHO really is the faithful and discreet slave". That indicates an inspection to be done at that time. Otherwise why wonder who it would be and why wonder if the FAITH would really be found?

The prophecy of Babylon the Great indicates clearly that God's people would find themselves in Babylon and God would plead with them to come out. THis bespeaks the very same thing that is depicted by the wheat and weeds parable. During the HARVEST, the last days, the SONS OF THE KINGDOM would be cleanse by separating from among them the people and THINGS that cause stumbling.

Matthew 13:

41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be.

43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

Therefore, at the point when the parousia, the presence of Christ would begin, there would be an investigation to see who really would qualify as the faithful and discreet slave. As the scriptures reveal, at this time there would be a need for cleansing and a separating work to take place.

Now you complain about the 5 year period as if it would be too long. It's not too long when you consider that it was a matter of watching to see who would rise to the top amidst the turmoil that would ensue during these years. Who would take a stand for what was right despite the pressure from Babylon and the world governments to do otherwise? Who would continue to keep a grasp on the foundation teachings and who would show the proper attitude when to came to refinement? Would they follow what they discerned to be true, or would they hold onto falsehood out of mere tradition. There were many things to determine during that time and God allowed those ones the opportunity in their lives to demonstrate who they were interested in, themselves or the will of God.


SO since NO ONE would be perfect, as I am sure you will admit, what would Christ be looking for?

I strongly aver that he would be looking for those foundation doctrines of Christianity, as listed for us at Hebrews 6:1,2. I think the correct application and understanding of a passage about the "faithful and discreet slave" would pale in significance to those things listed at Hebrews 6.

Who exactly would make up the FDS and when they would exist, was and still is a minor point when it comes to the overall structure of foundation teachings. As I have mentioned before, we surely don't even need Matthew 24:45-47 to establish that there is an ecclesiastical authority within Christianity and that surely in the last days, when this cleansing would take place, it would be paramount for it to be functioning. So if you took away Matthew 24:45-47 and how we apply it, do you think anything would be different? We surely don't.

Do you really think that a group of Christians who had the foundation teachings proper, would be rejected because they messed up on the application and understanding of Matthew 24:45-47? Really?

It's not like they didn't understand the idea of ecclesiastical authority. They knew that the sheep needed reliable shepherds and leaders. They simply missed the application of the FDS scripture as to who it applied to. Truly a minor issue that would be sorted out in time, and was.

So please look the above over and address the scriptures that I presented. Now, I will address the ones that you brought into the mix yourself.

You said:

know the WT uses

I am aware that the Watchtower pulls on Malachi 3:1

“Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

Would you care to show me where in that verse you see a promise that THE FATHER AND THE SON would come to do an inspection of the churches to see who is providing proper spiritual food at the proper time?

The problem is that first off, you don't quote the most relevant part that we appeal to.

Notice verse 2 thru 4:

2 “But who will endure the day of his coming, and who will be able to stand when he appears? For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye*+ of laundrymen. 3 And he will sit as a refiner and cleanser of silver+ and will cleanse the sons of Le′vi; and he will clarify* them like gold and like silver, and they will certainly become to Jehovah people presenting a gift offering in righteousness. 4 And the gift offering of Judah and of Jerusalem will actually be pleasing* to Jehovah, as in the days of long ago and as in the years of antiquity.+

Since verse one applies to John the Baptist initially, the cleansing of the sons of Levi has to be a reference to the "ecclesia", the priestly class who will rule with Christ, or in other words, the church. This is clear indication that they would be in need of refinement and correction when he would begin his parousia. I don't know how else you can see that passage. If you have a better idea of what it's saying then please share, just don't say it's wrong, show me why.

And please allow me to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding on your part. Jesus was NOT inspecting the CHURCHES, he was inspecting HIS church, those ones who were of the heavenly calling. Surely he knows who they were and he was coming to see who could be appointed as that faithful slave to give food at the proper time. Before the harvest, which is the last days, the true church would be mingled in among the weeds. At the beginning of the parousia or last days, the separation would commence. This would no doubt present a time of sifting for the congregation of God, and Jesus would see who would be worthy of the appointment to oversee his household.
See above as well.


You said:

The organization also cites 1 Peter 4:17

For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God. Now if it starts first with us, what will the outcome be for those who are not obedient to the good news of God?

That, Sir, does not speak of an inspection of RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS to see who is teaching truth versus who is teaching error. Rather it is speaking of the judgment of ALL MANKIND - individuals - that will begin with the house of God, i.e. Christians - people who claim to be His followers.

That's exactly right. AS I said, the churches constituted Babylon the Great, and God's people, spiritual Israel, were still captive in Babylon. That's why Revelation said to "Get out her MY PEOPLE". At the beginning of the parousia, they began to exit Babylon and be refined. And Jesus would be able to answer the question "WHO really is the faithful and discreet slave?, that would be appointed over the household? They needed to be identified and that requires an inspection. How could it not?

You said:

Jesus did not promise to return to inspect churches to see who is providing proper spiritual food at the proper time. He is coming back AFTER COMPLETING THE "INSPECTION" or investigative judgment to EXECUTE JUDGMENT (reward and punishment).

All of the above scriptures that I offered demonstrate just the opposite. Even the ones you presented do to. And again, he is inspecting his OWN people, not the churches of Babylon.

You said:

You are operating, my brother, on three false premises.

FALSE PREMISE NUMBER ONE - JESUS SECOND ADVENT IS TO DO AN INSPECTION OF CHURCHES

I just dealt with that one.

That's certainly not the entire purpose of the parousia of Christ, merely one of them. Again, everything presented above bespeaks the fact that his return includes an inspection, refinement and appointment.

FALSE PREMISE NUMBER TWO - THE SECOND ADVENT ALREADY TOOK PLACE

That, my brother is a doctrine from Satan.

Well you have to do better than just calling it a Satanic doctrine. You have to prove why. The parousia of Christ, according to the signs given in Matthew 24 and compared with Revelation chapter 6, prove that the SIGNS demonstrate his PRESENCE, not his FUTURE PRESENCE ON THE WAY, but his PRESENCE, so, in other words, when you see the signs, then you know he is PRESENT. There is no other way to read the words as they appear on the page.

When the disciples asks for a sign to know when he would be present, if he was going to be physically on the earth, he could have simply stated that they will see him, but he discouraged anyone from claiming that they would physically see him so the signs show that he would be PRESENT yet not physically seen. This is an important point and one well worth discussing. And again, coupled with the four horsemen of Revelation and what they mean historically, there can be no doubt. We should discuss this deeply.

You said:

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. - Matthew 24:26-27 KJV

The last time I checked, lightning was VISIBLE.

Right, but it is seen simultaneously everywhere, just like the signs would be, EARTHWIDE. But did you notice as well that physically seeing him would not be what we would expect. Those who would say that he would appear physically would be wrong.

You said:

You all claim he is PRESENT, as Jesus predicted false prophets and teachers would claim, but not HERE (to wiggle yourselves out of fulfilling that prophecy of Jesus). How nonsensical can you get?? He is present but nowhere to be found??

He can be seen, via the signs, by his followers. They discern his presence. However, at the revelation of Christ, which is yet future, ALL will know he is here.

I aver that the prophecies and history will strongly support the fact that the presence of Christ began invisible to man circa 1914, regardless of how you feel about it. This should be discussed.

You said:

FALSE PREMISE NUMBER THREE - PARABLE OF FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE IS PROPHECY REGARDING ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

Ecclesiastical authority existed before Jesus' first advent, during his FIRST AND ONLY PRESENCE, and immediately after His ascension. Not in 1914 or 1918. That Jesus set up ecclesiastical authority in 1919 is a Watchtower fable. And folks who place the Watchtowrer organization above logic and truth, must try to make sense of that, however futile.

PUT ON YOUR THINKING CAP, ROTHERHAM, PLEASE??

This is not a scriptural refutation at all, Winston, just you strongly espousing your opinion. Matthew 24:45-47 definitely speaks of ecclesiastical authority. Do you not believe that the ecclesiastical authority would give food at the proper time to the household of God? How could that not be a description of ecclesiastical authority?

Coming out of Babylon and entering the time for cleansing was a prime time for that authority to be established during the last days and it would be much needed to maintain the unity in a time of necessary upheaval.

You said:

How can there be a first century governing body, as you claim, then Jesus came and set it up in 1919? Was the first century Governing Body, then not authentic, not of God? There is so much more than can be said about this, it is amazing. But I will leave it out.

Of course it was valid, but as I said, and as the wheat and weeds parable indicates, the true church would become obscured due to the weeds and people and things that cause stumbling would run rampant until the harvest. Common sense just tells you that once this cleansing work would begin, the ecclesiastical authority would need to be clarified during that time.

You said:

The PARABLE of the faithful and discreet slave is nothing but a lesson, first in in stewardship, and second, in keeping watch; being on the alert for the Master's return, just like the parables of the talents, and the ten virgins.

1. If a steward is ever watchful of the Master's return, he will not relax, he will do his job well. He will be a faithful steward.
2. If a steward is faithful in doing the job he is left to do, his good Master will reward him on His return. That is a consistent theme, taught by Jesus.

BEFORE AND AFTER that particular parable Jesus gave the point of the parableS. (Faithful and discreet slave, 10 virgins, talents)

Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. Matthew 24:42

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. - Matthew 25:13

The other CONSISTENT feature of the parables is that faithful stewards will be rewarded.

His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. - Matthew 25:21

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. - Matthew 25:23

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. - Matthew 24:46-47

I don't disagree with anything that scriptures say about stewardship, but why would you say that responsible stewardship does not involve some authority? How could it not?

Notice the Greek and what it actually says about this steward. (from blueletterbible)

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made RULER OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD,(GREEK- kathistēmi(TO APPOINT TO AN OFFICE OF OVERSIGHT) to give them meat in due season?

IN this context and the other parallel contexts in Luke, the KJV consistently renders this kathistēmi as RULER! How can you say this has nothing to do with ecclesiastical authority?!

YOu said:

I really do not wish to be disrespectful, Rotherham, but if you can believe that Jesus rejected Christendom for a FEW false doctrines, compared to a religious organization with a HISTORY of MULTIPLE false prophecies and false doctrines, and who were PRESENTLY teaching more than 50 false teachings and prophecies, you need to get not just the doctrine, but your head as well, examined.

[/quote]

I would simply respond that if you think God would appoint anyone who is rotten to the core, in other words, the core doctrines, the ELEMENTARY teachings, being rotten and dishonoring of God and shipwrecking of faith, I would suggest the same advice you gave me. Let me repeat from earlier post:

You claim that because they had many false teachings at the time that this should have disqualified them from gaining God's approval, but let's think about that for a minute. Since NO group on the earth would ever be PERFECT in the things that they were teaching, who then would he choose?

Would he choose a group that had shown themselves protective of those fundamental, foundation doctrines, even though they needed correction on many peripheral teachings, or would he choose those that were full of error from the bottom up, teaching God-dishonoring and confusing doctrines, such as the Trinity, hellfire, immortal soul and the list goes on? THOSE false teachings directly affect the very foundation of Christianity. (See Hebrews 6:1,2)

On the other hand, those things that the Bible Students at that time were teaching incorrectly, all merely peripheral to the fundamental teachings, did in no way affect the foundation teachings of Christianity. If you think so, please demonstrate how the teachings listed there in Hebrews were adversely affected by those things that you have mentioned as false.

You claim that this is not about fundamental teachings and I believe this is where you err greatly. It is most certainly about the fundamental teachings, because clearly and logically, if there was to be an inspection made, that is exactly what God and Christ would begin with.

In the early 20th century there was a group of sincere Bible students who were organized enough to sustain a concerted effort to distribute the truth of those fundamental teachings as far into the world as they could at that time. So, if we correctly understand when the last days began, that being circa 1914, what would have been the most likely choice to spearhead the restoration of truth and the preaching of the kingdom good news? If the Trinity, hellfire, immortal soul, etc are indeed false, and we most certainly believe that they are, exactly who would he choose other then from among those Bible Students at that time?

So you see, the fundamental teachings are indeed intrinsically connected to our understanding of who the faithful and discreet slave would be because at that time, the proper food, the truth about the fundamental teachings of Christianity, were only being zealously promoted by that group. Who else?

The churches constituted the Babylon of Revelation so they weren't even in the running. They were rotten to the core. God was looking for HIS people who were trying to do the right thing amidst the turmoil of Babylon and amidst the commencement of the refinement that was ta take place.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Ok. Rotherham:

This is enough. It is taking too much time to respond to these comments of yours. The time has come to do some video responses.

Better to focus on a ministry with thousands of viewers than a forum that seldom has two persons online at any given time.

Your thinking is likely to be the thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses globally. It's time to address them in a wider audience.

In the meantime, here are some questions for you to ponder:

Why did the organization wrongly teach that

(a) the return of Christ took place in 1874;
(b) Christians would be destroyed by millions in 1918;
(c) Millions alive in 1920 would never die;
(d) Abraham and others would have been resurrected in 1925;
(e) The last days began in 1799 (or some other year if I got that wrong - but not 1914)
(f) it is a sin to accept vaccines,
(g) Michael the archangel was the pope;
(h) young people cold never complete any career pursuits in the 1960s because the end of this system of things would come before;
(i) Paul was spearheading a work of evangelism that would end in the 20th century
(c) the appointment of the faithful slave to serve food took place in 33 C.E., and the appointment mover all the Master's belongs took place in 1919?

I submit to you ONE ANSWER.

Reading in to the THE SCRIPTURES, things that were never there. Tat is exactly what you are CONTINUING to do, Rotherham. I would have thought that by now you would have learned that the Watchtower interpretations of Scriptures are not a safe way to go.

Stay tuned for the videos, they will explain.



Winston

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

Sorry to hear you are throwing in the towel in this discussion. Answering in videos from here on out I think is rather a cop out. Sorry, that’s how it feels to me. The youtube venue has got to be one of the worst venues out there to accomplishing anything decisive. I guess it’s better for you to be where some praise you for what you are doing rather than having your feet held to the fire over a challenge that you yourself presented. And of course the trouble with commenting on a Youtube video is every hater out there chimes in with some foolish comment. You really get nowhere and just about every body knows that.

But be that as it may, there are a number of things I will leave you with and I hope the readers all take note of these things because frankly, I will declare Jehovah’s Witnesses the victor in regard to your challenge as you have not scripturally, historically or logically refuted what has been presented by myself and you have left many questions and requests by me unanswered. My feeling is that you know if you answer those questions it will weaken your position. I suppose it is a good thing that certain events are on record. This is one of those events.

You complain about our errors so I asked in return a very relevant question that you refuse to answer. It was:

Please elaborate as to how Christianity is identified amidst some errors.

Now again, I know you that you believe it does exist amidst error because of your stance in regard to the Seventh Day Adventists church which you believe is the church God is using today even though you admit that it is prone to apostasy. So please, again, elaborate as to how Christianity is identified amidst some errors. This is an important question. It behooves you to answer it.

And please explain how what you are doing is not a double standard between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists? This is especially confusing because you belong to a church which teaches they are the True Remnant church today, and yet you criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses for the same claim and yet they both exhibit error, and in your case, by your own admission, this true remnant church of yours is prone to apostasy. You have a General Council which acts as what? A governing element. Is that a governing element that is prone to apostasy? This sounds like hypocrisy at its best.

So please explain, exactly what distinction are you making?

You claim there was no inspection of God’s people, yet, isn’t it true that Seventh Day Adventists believe the Investigative Judgment began in 1844, so then I guess an inspection is taking place. So, is it?

And also this very relevant question in harmony with the above:

"Would that governing element be without error at all times in the last days?"

And of course this one as well:

"Who, if anyone, do you recognize as servers of God's truth?"

Plus I asked you about this important scriptural point:

The very question at Matthew 24:45-47 indicates the same thing. "WHO really is the faithful and discreet slave". That indicates an inspection to be done at that time. Otherwise why wonder who it would be and why wonder if the FAITH would really be found?

Plus, I asked you about this important scriptural question as well:

Notice the Greek and what it actually says about this steward. (from blueletterbible)

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made RULER OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD,(GREEK- kathistēmi(TO APPOINT TO AN OFFICE OF OVERSIGHT) to give them meat in due season?

IN this context and the other parallel contexts in Luke, the KJV consistently renders this kathistēmi as RULER! How can you say this has nothing to do with ecclesiastical authority?!

In regard to Matthew 24:45-47 and all the changes in understanding that happened I asked you these two things that I would like answers to.

1.Do you really think that a group of Christians who had the foundation teachings proper, would be rejected because they messed up on the application and understanding of Matthew 24:45-47? Really?

And:

2.As far as how we viewed authority and what their assignment, what exactly changed?

These discussions are supposed to be a two way street are they not? Then why not answer MY questions, or am I just supposed to answer yours, like I have. And I have answered them all and they stand unrefuted by you.

Rather than just trying to tear down Winston, shouldn’t you be interested in my salvation? When asked about which ones you believe are speaking the truth, you don’t answer. Very odd. What's your ultimate goal?

I would like to make a similar challenge to you Winston. It is a challenge that deals with a very fundamental, core belief of Christianity. Who is God? I will join your cause if you show me that the only way to read the scriptures properly is to see the Trinity within its pages. On the other hand, if I demonstrate the exact opposite, that it is impossible to find the Trinity within the Bible and the Bible alone, you should have some serious evaluation to do.

So the challenge is out there and waiting. How could there be anything more important than the proper identity of God himself?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Watchtower Exam]

Rotherham:

I would respond to your last comments, and I will, but before I do, I would VERY STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you take some time off; take a breather, whisper a prayer; humble yourself and spend some valuable time examining the similarities between these two statements:

From the organization you believe in, and serve:

BIBLE PROPHECY SHOWS that the Lord was due to appear FOR THE SECOND TIME in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy SHOWS beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated by the physical FACTS, and these FACTS are INDISPUTABLE.
Watchtower - November 1, 1922
Page 333

Ask yourself this question. Did the second coming of Jesus take place in 1874?

Now, compare this statement from YOU, and see if you pick up on any similarities:

I aver that the PROPHECIES AND HISTORY will strongly SUPPORT the FACT that the PRESENCE OF CHRIST began invisible to man circa 1914, regardless of how you feel about it.

Indisputable, isn't it, in your eyes?

If that does not help you wake up to what is happening to you, you are practically hopeless.

I am praying for you.


Winston

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

You will note that I did not say that it was indisputable or in any way resembling inspiration. I said that it would strongly support that the parousia of Christ began around this time and firmly believe that.

As far as what Rutherford stated, I would have to see the entire article to adequately comment on it. Excerpts don't always give the entire picture. I'll try and find it and post a response.

Regards,
Rotherham

Rotherham:

I would respond to your last comments, and I will, but before I do, I would VERY STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you take some time off; take a breather, whisper a prayer; humble yourself and spend some valuable time examining the similarities between these two statements:

From the organization you believe in, and serve:

BIBLE PROPHECY SHOWS that the Lord was due to appear FOR THE SECOND TIME in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy SHOWS beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated by the physical FACTS, and these FACTS are INDISPUTABLE.
Watchtower - November 1, 1922
Page 333

Ask yourself this question. Did the second coming of Jesus take place in 1874?

Now, compare this statement from YOU, and see if you pick up on any similarities:

I aver that the PROPHECIES AND HISTORY will strongly SUPPORT the FACT that the PRESENCE OF CHRIST began invisible to man circa 1914, regardless of how you feel about it.

Indisputable, isn't it, in your eyes?

If that does not help you wake up to what is happening to you, you are practically hopeless.

I am praying for you.


Winston

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

Well Rutherford certainly misspoke, of that there is no doubt. But again, during all of this time, Rutherford acknowledged that no one had inspired or infallible information so one should weigh the statements together.

He was no doubt confusing the evidence that manifested itself circa 1914 (World War 1, Spanish Influenza, etc.) and mistakenly assigned it to his understanding of 1874 as the start of the parousia, when it was actually later. So, from our understanding, he would have been seeing the right signs identifying the parousia but assigned them to the wrong starting point. Also, keep in mind that he himself corrected the view that 1874 was the beginning of the parousia.

But again I ask you. Why did God use Moses when he constituted himself a false deliverer and killed a man for the wrong reason? What about him did God see salvable and usable as a leader?

Rutherford was far too impetuous and bold in his statements of belief, of that there is no dispute, but, does that mean that God was under compulsion to reject him? Nathan was impetuous too and convinced David that God was with him in building the temple. God did not reject him. He corrected him and continued to use him as a prophet. And certainly Moses suffered from the same premature impetuousness, so much so he was willing to kill a man to prove it.

If someone makes a misstatement or oversteps his bounds as a teacher for God and declares a wrong prophetic interpretation, that doesn't mean that he must be rejected and everyone else in his association much likewise be rejected. If he and they are willing and humble enough to be corrected than God can still use him and those with whom he is associated, especially if he always maintained that what he says is not inspired or infallible. The intentions were always pure, just like the intentions of Moses and Nathan. One could even ask, why would God still use David after his very poor track record? What was the deciding criteria?

Again, I know no other answer to that then those who had separated themselves from Babylon and were safeguarding those elementary teachings. Babylon was therefore out of the picture.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Quick question Winston,

How is the JW history of prophetic interpretations involving the "end times" any different than William Miller, which the 7th Day Adventists(which you are) sprang from? I still say there is a double standard at play here.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

Hello Winston,

Since it appears you are no longer using this account, I will be closing it. Let me know if you want that to change.

Regards,
Rotherham