JW Insider

Sure, it's Acts 15:24, highlighted further below, but you'd probably want to see the context. And keep in mind that I am just interpreting, too. In Galatians, where Paul clearly makes a point that he did not get any apostolic authority or theocratic assignments from the "so-called pillars" at Jerusalem. Paul says in Galatians chapters 1 & 2:
"nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was. . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me .  . . .But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;  we did not yield in submission to them, . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. On the contrary, . . . . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . . However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong.  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek, hypocrisy], . . .
So this is the backdrop of Acts 15. The NWT cross-references "the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy" to Acts 15:1 and 15:24:
(Acts 15:1) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,
It's not as important but "men from James" is cross-referenced to Acts 12:17, evidently to show that "James and the brothers" was a way of referencing the Jerusalem congregation. The WT uses this idea to say that James must have therefore been the "chairman" of a governing body at Jerusalem.
So, putting it all together, the situation is that JAMES, was one of the highly regarded men, who SEEMED to be important. But JAMES had sent spies to see if Paul was really preaching against the need for circumcision. But these spies, were evidently just supposed to spy for James, and report back to him. These men from James evidently did NOT have instructions to begin subverting Paul's preaching by promoting circumcision.
At any rate, you can see from Acts 15:24 that, in the message that went out from Jerusalem, it admits that these men "went out from among us" and "caused trouble" and admits that they were "trying to subvert." James says they did not give them instructions, which is a nicer way than Paul would have said it, of course.

This is err premise. Sorry.
What was built from the start (my start was in 1975) WT publication teaches how generation is 70-80 in length and is literally connected with the year 1914 as start point to be able to count when "signs" will culminate in Armageddon. 
Because of that JW's are/was put in "corner" with this. "Overlapping" invention is just try how to get out of the corner. 
 

Of course. I agree that the Bible says nothing about 1919, NY, or the Governing Body. But it's a belief based on the supposed fulfillment of prophecies as these same persons understand the prophecies. I didn't respond to 4J because he had to turn this into a "lie" instead of an "interpretation." I agree, though, that the interpretation is so ingrained that they weren't careful with the wording at all. Also, as I've said before, just because Matthew 24:45 isn't a source that "prophesies" such a work as is taken on by the GB, it doesn't mean it isn't a "fine work." Or that it should not be appreciated. It's just that we have to be alert to always remember that all of us stumble many times, including the GB, so we should always do our Christian duty and test anything and everything they say, and if our consciences differ, to always obey God as ruler rather than men.

Ah. So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent internet  pages, is 
“Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus”
In writing this headline, I hesitated to use the word ‘proved.’ Had he really done that? But then I deferred to the words of the other scholar on this forum, 4Jah, who said of Rolf’s book (without reading it): “I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I'm making here.”
In fact, it ‘proves’ just the opposite.
In a roundabout way, Rolf brings his gift to the altar. Are legal machinations against the WT on account of how they viewed elders in the 1940s? Or are they about sensationalized investigations of CSA? Put Rolf on the stand as star ‘expert’ witness for the defense—after lauding him as Moses descending with the tablets, opposers can hardly say that he is delusional—and knock the legal ball out of the park.
In view of this service, compromise with Rolf. Appoint a panel to look at the GB’s doings. Get a few of the helpers. And, for balance, an impartial outsider or two like myself or @Arauna (you keep out of it JWI) We’ll have this ship righted again in no time.
 
 

BTW, a couple years ago I was given the power to move posts to other topics to keep topics better organized. But this is also the power to delete. I hate to delete anyone's posts but there are times when someone accidentally posts something twice and asks for one of them to be deleted. Also, even when I move something to another topic, it can be a brand new topic, and that topic can be temporarily hidden, which is pretty much the same as deleting if no one wants it back in the topic.
In this topic, I have moved a repeated topic by 4J to a hidden place because it was nearly an exact repeat of an earlier post, and also the post where he makes a point that it had been 9 hours and no one answered him yet, which caused a couple of responses that were unnecessary. If anyone insists, their posts can come back, but it's not necessary to repeat the same exact content in a discussion forum, nor to "harass" people in general for not responding as soon as one would like. If someone says they didn't see a post and wants to see it, there is a way to put a link to that exact post, or just tell them that it about 5 or so posts further up.
Don't think of this as any kind of warning or punishment, because I have nothing to do with that, but I thought that the repeated content it made it more difficult to read and respond to the topic.

Of course. I agree that the Bible says nothing about 1919, NY, or the Governing Body. But it's a belief based on the supposed fulfillment of prophecies as these same persons understand the prophecies. I didn't respond to 4J because he had to turn this into a "lie" instead of an "interpretation." I agree, though, that the interpretation is so ingrained that they weren't careful with the wording at all. Also, as I've said before, just because Matthew 24:45 isn't a source that "prophesies" such a work as is taken on by the GB, it doesn't mean it isn't a "fine work." Or that it should not be appreciated. It's just that we have to be alert to always remember that all of us stumble many times, including the GB, so we should always do our Christian duty and test anything and everything they say, and if our consciences differ, to always obey God as ruler rather than men.

Furuli's Introduction and Chapter 1 are important as a foundation to the topic, but we can skip them for the purpose of a discussion. We'll go straight to Chapter 2 which starts out with a summary "review" that I have copied below.
Furuli opens up the discussion with the words I put on the left, and I'll add some comments on the right. They are color-coded to match up which paragraphs are being commented upon.
THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE -REVIEW
In Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, the presence (parousia) of Jesus from 1914 to the great tribulation is mentioned four times, and his coming (erkhomai) as the judge in the great tribulation, at the end of his presence, is mentioned eight times.
 
The faithful and discreet slave is mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47. The previous view of the GB was that the coming of the master (v. 46) occurred in 1918, and the slave was appointed over all his belongings in 1919. These belongings included the branch offices, the Kingdom Halls, and the preaching work.
The present view is that the coming (v. 46) is future and will happen in the great tribulation. Then the slave will be appointed over all the belongings by receiving a heavenly resurrection. This new view excludes any connection between the coming (v.46) and the presence of Jesus.
Nevertheless, The Watchtower of 2017 says that the slave was appointed in 1919 to give God's servants spiritual food at the proper time during the presence of Jesus. But no evidence has been given for this claim.
Luke 12:35-44 discusses the faithful steward, the discreet one, which, according to the context, is the same as the faithful and discreet slave in Matt 24:45. One slave was put in charge of a master's household to give the other slaves literal food at the appointed time. Such a slave is mentioned in Luke chapter 12, and when he faithfully is giving the other slaves food when the master returns, thus doing his job, he will be appointed over all the belongings of the master.
The situation is the same in Matthew 24:45-47. That the slave gives literal food to the other slaves is his job. When he is doing this job faithfully when the Lord arrives in the great tribulation, he will be appointed over all the master's belongings. The focus is on literal food and not on spiritual food. Thus, "the slave" refers to individual Christians who are faithful when the master arrives and not to a class of persons.
In Matthew 24:48-51, the wicked slave is mentioned. The GB says that Jesus is not saying that a wicked slave will come, but points to the possibility; this is correct. However, neither in Luke 12:42 nor in Matthew 24:45 is Jesus saying that the faithful and discreet slave will come. But Jesus asks who the faithful and discreet slave will be. In other words: "Who will fill the role of the faithful and discreet  slave in the illustration of Jesus when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation?" The whole setting in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 is:"Who will be on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge"?
Furuli still supports the idea that the "parousia" began in 1914 and goes on  until the "erchomai" (Judgment Day). Most Bible scholars believe that the "parousia/ synteleia/ telos/ erchomai" are all nearly synonymous, which coincidentally results in the same outcome as Furuli sees here. That's because the FDS illustration is specifically tied to the erchomai and there is no specific to to the beginning of the parousia.
Furuli is setting up to show how the doctrine got "confused" over time, and pieces of the interpretation are still based on older versions of the doctrine which are no longer consistent with parts of the new version. That's because the doctrine began when the erchomai was not "Judgment Day" but a judgment based on Jesus "coming in 1918 to inspect the temple." After the FDS passed the test in 1918, they were then appointed over all his belongings in 1919. Those belongings were said to be the properties and purview of the WTS. (I think that Kingdom Halls weren't added to this list until around 2006.)
It's not like the GB hadn't thought if this, because (as Anna pointed out in the other thread) they are now only supposed to be appointed as FDS prior to the "full reward" which allows for an appointment in 1919, it's just that there is no specific scriptural reason any more to place this appointment anywhere between 1914 and the future erchomai (Judgment).
Furuli's logic has started to weaken. He's right, of course, that there are no longer any scriptural reasons here to point to 1919, except to fit the GB's own view of themselves. There is no more reason to pick 1919 than 1915, 1935, 1972, or maybe even 33 CE. But nothing excludes a 1919 date either, even if one doesn't believe an invisible presence and kingship started in 1914. However, if Furuli really still believes in 1914 as he says he does, and he expects a single generation in which a preaching work occurs in the midst of trials and tribulations, then why not provide an FDS specifically or that special generation? If 1914 works for Furuli, then there is some logic to appoint an FDS shortly after that generation begins.
Nothing to see here. This is fairly obvious that Luke 12 gives the same illustration with exact same idea and only a few words added or changed.
I personally agree with this. Jesus was talking about persons who have a responsibility to do a job, that of giving literal food to the rest of the slaves in a household when the master is gone. A slave who is handles such a responsibility faithfully can expect a reward. Especially because it would be so easy to slack off and take advantage while the master is away. It doesn't have to be a prophecy about "spiritual" food  It's not a prophecy. It's an illustration just like others Jesus made about readiness.
Furuli is not giving credence to the WT idea that this must be a prophecy because it's found in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. Also, it starts out with a "who is" which has been taken to be a command of sorts to go out and identify who is meant here. Furuli seems to treat it like any other illustration, as if reminding us that we don't automatically create a type/antitype out of the carcass and the eagles in verse 28. We don't automatically look for a pregnant woman class and the nursing baby class from verse 18.  Who really is a householder that will know in advance when a thief is coming to break into his house? (v44)
At first it appeared that Furuli was agreeing with a linguistic reason from Greek that the WT uses to downplay the possibility of an evil slave coming. But this is really just agreeing that there is nothing definite here about a wicked slave coming. And this is paralleled with his view that this illustration is also not saying anything definite about a faithful slave coming, either. That's a surprising turn, but I suppose it's really like Luke 11:11 saying "Who really is the father who will hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?" It makes a teaching lesson, not a prophecy about when such a situation will prove true. Furuli treats it as if Jesus is saying what he said in Luke 18: 
(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”
 

I already gave my opinion that there is nothing wrong with the structure the Watchtower is using in the attempt to imitate the first century. There was a similar congregational structure in terms of their bodies of elders/overseers. And I don't see a problem with trying to imitate the body of elders at Jerusalem, which does appear to be a respected council of elders. Up to a point, this is a very good thing.
It seems fairly clear from what Paul said to the Galatians that, to them, Jerusalem seemed to have a lot of respect for having some of the most famous "pillars," James, Peter and John. So there was no doubt a tendency to give extra credence to what came from Jerusalem's body of elders. No doubt it would be a great privilege to actually visit the congregation(s) in Jerusalem and hear eyewitnesses of Jesus speak and teach.
But I don't think the letter of Galatians would be included in the Scriptures if there was not also a limit to the respect given to imperfect humans, even apostles. We know that in Galatians Paul accused at least one apostle and other persons of hypocrisy. But he went much further on what he thought of the concept of treating that body of elders at Jerusalem as a "Governing Body." He directly answers your question about whether apostles should feel that they had some obligation to go before them in the sense of a "governing council."
Paul showed that there was no reason for an apostle to feel obligated to go before such a "governing council."
(Galatians 1:16-20 to 2:6) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. . . . But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.
So, apparently, Paul never had to go to the see the council of elders in Jerusalem until some of those elders from there began causing problems. Because some of those elders in Jerusalem needed to be set straight, Paul received a revelation that he should go there. So he went, even though he previously had only one short visit in the last 14 years or more. Paul knew that he needed to help set things straight with them or else they could ruin all the progress he had made, and he would therefore be be running in vain against that body of elders. Paul had to go to great lengths to explain why, if they were pushing a different gospel, then they meant nothing to him even if they were apostles, or even if they had been angels!
I think the point was that, of course there was a body of elders in Jerusalem, it was natural that there would be, and it was natural that people would think of them as highly regarded, and that they would seem to be pillars for all the congregations. But this was dangerous for people to have that kind of respect for humans, because, in reality, that Jerusalem council should not have tried to push its influence on the congregations around Antioch, which teachings had now reached all the way to Galatia. Because of Paul's visit, the body of elders in Jerusalem issued a statement showing that it was their fault, and that they had gone too far in trying to encroach on the consciences of Christians in other places.
Instead, evidently, each congregation should have been more like those 7 congregations in Asia Minor that we find in Revelation 2 & 3. Whatever contact they had with each other was not important to mention here. So they are shown (symbolically) to be held before Christ himself as judge of their actions. Each of them were praised for taking their own action against false teachings and those who called themselves apostles. The counsel from Christ Jesus is never about the idea that they had not listened to this Jerusalem Council, or a group of apostles, or even an elder/overseer like John who may have known those seven congregations of Asia Minor through some kind of shepherding or circuit work for many years.
That said, I don't see anything wrong with having councils of elders in our twenty-first century world, which should include a variety of "gifts in men" including those who claim and show evidence of being anointed. And I think the most "gifted" in teaching, would be appropriate. They would be elders of course with appropriate experience in taking the lead, and as elders they would deserve an extra measure of respect. It appears to me that we have already have the right idea, but if we listen to Paul's letter to the Galatians, we can also see the dangers of giving such a group of men too much credence, respect and authority.
The end result of having the apostles stay in Jerusalem together, for a time after the holy spirit anointed them in 33 CE, was no doubt to help them straighten out necessary scriptural questions and provide that "holy spirit" for us today through the inspiration to produce the Christian Scriptures.
We know there would be a natural human tendency for such a body of elders to want to impose their conscience on others, as they might feel it was more experienced, and a more Christian-trained conscience. With good intentions, they might wish to be the governors of another person's faith. All of these natural tendencies are already counseled against in scripture:
(1 Corinthians 10:29) . . .For why should my freedom be judged by another person’s conscience?
(1 Corinthians 4:3) . . .Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . .
(2 Corinthians 1:24) . . .Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.
 

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed, it just says that Peter should feed the little sheep. it does not logically follow that no one else should imitate the good example that Peter was to give us. It's the job of a shepherd to feed his sheep by guiding them to pastures where they feed.
Look what Paul says:
(Acts 20:26-28) 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, . . .
(1 Peter 5:1-4) 5 Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
(Ephesians 4:11, 12) . . .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,

Barely mentioned. Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words. But he does have one point about it here in one of the footnotes:
I would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and
other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation, the GB
has been accused of having directed elders to hide such crimes from the authorities.
The first time such crimes were known to elders in Norway was around 1990. Since
then, elders have been advised to take particular measures to protect children, and
always to cooperate with the police. So this accusation is wrong!
Much earlier in the book he did mention it in one paragraph, but not anything controversial:
When I preach the good news, I often say that we Jehovah's Witnesses
believe in the Bible and the Bible alone. We do not accept any creed or
dogmas that are made by humans. In a big organization engaged in
worldwide preaching, there must, of course, be rules made by humans, as
also was the case in 1972. For example, elders in the congregations need
advice on how to deal with different issues, such as the molesting of
children and different legal matters. I am not speaking about such matters.
But I am speaking about decisions made by the GB that interfere direcdy
in the lives of individual Witnesses, and which are not based on the Bible.
 
P.S. One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra T. It sounded like a good name for one of those "male supplement" drugs that spammed my email account in the days before spam filters.

Your question can be taken in several different ways, so I can't assume which question you are asking. Are you asking in what sense the 1944 article explained the Elder arrangement, or 1969-1971 until now, or about elders before 1931?
In general, the 1944 article explained that it should be the way we are doing it now. It was just ignored for 25 years until it came up again for serious consideration around 1970. Before 1931 the congregations would have a larger say in who they thought were meeting the qualifications for elder that were found in the Bible, based on the idea that "as you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith." It's not like Russell and the Bible Student congregations had ignored the qualifications found in Titus and Timothy. But this had resulted in some persons who were not loyal to Rutherford's changes. In some cases elders were too stuck on Russell's ways, and in some cases elders were trying to use scriptures to show how Rutherford was abusing his power. And some were mixing both messages, pro-Rutherford in some ways, and anti-Rutherford in other ways. So Rutherford needed better control of the message for the sake of unity, and changed the whole system to be hierarchical from the Society on down. This is a time period when you see a lot of statements in the literature that obedience to Rutherford is the same as obedience to the Lord. It continued through the 1940's and 1950's, which is probably why the Bible counsel printed in 1944 was never implemented until 1971.
If you think I am removing the GB from this structure it is only because the GB did not exist from well before 1919 and continued to not exist until the 1970's.
Yes, I understood that when you compared the Sanhedrin to other "governing bodies." I understood that you were not misusing it. And neither was I. No problem there.
I still don't believe it was Raymond Franz' ideology to bring back the voting rights of the congregation. Nor do I support the view. Where are you getting that from?
From everything I've read in his books, I'm sure he did NOT. If true, that kind of "news" would have been spread everywhere, but I don't see anyone even thinking about claiming this. But I haven't finished all of "ISOCF." Perhaps you have some evidence?
There are many pieces of evidence that are even admitted from Watchtower publications themselves that there was NOTHING at all like a GB under Russell. Even the way in which the term "governing body" was typically used for many years (from the 40's until the 70's) tells us that there was no governing body in the way we now define it. And there is evidence that Rutherford was even MORE like Russell in personally deciding all matters of any importance from a doctrinal perspective. Still, there might have been small areas where others handled responsibilities that Rutherford didn't care to handle. Ray Franz claims it was still like this even after the governing body was expanded to include additional members besides the board of directors in the 1970s.
My understanding, for it's worth, and that's not much, is that every organization does better with something like a governing body. Religious or secular. And it's human nature for some to take the lead, and human nature for others to prefer following the lead of others. And as I've said on the other thread, it makes sense that some elders would be better at presiding, decision-making, organizing, speaking and teaching. Just as some would be better models for others in the way they bring up their families and provide for them, or show hospitality, or encourage the weak, or find opportunities for charity, visiting the sick, etc.
Therefore, for some elders, being part of a decision-making council makes sense. I would expect it in almost every large religious organization. But especially in our own, due to the importance and magnitude of the preaching work, translating work, distribution of literature, managing assemblies, writing for publications, answering issues that arise, handling legal issues, etc. 
Also, because of our desire to match to the first century, we are generally pleased with the idea that, if they had something like a governing council in Jerusalem, and we know that at least 1 of those persons on that council was an apostle, then we should expect spiritual men with a good level of experience and spirituality to be assigned to such a governing body today. And, while we know they are flawed and won't always say and do the right thing, our current 'governing body' is known to have successfully worked at varying levels of responsibility in their assignments and ministry.
So I have no problem with a 'governing body' even though I think that specific 'title' stuck for secular/legal/bureaucratic reasons and is probably not the right name to represent the position these men should hold. Some of these additional opinions of mine are trivial, however.
On the question about a governing body in the first century, I think that's a little more germane to the topic. I'll get into that if time permits.

Of course. I agree that the Bible says nothing about 1919, NY, or the Governing Body. But it's a belief based on the supposed fulfillment of prophecies as these same persons understand the prophecies. I didn't respond to 4J because he had to turn this into a "lie" instead of an "interpretation." I agree, though, that the interpretation is so ingrained that they weren't careful with the wording at all. Also, as I've said before, just because Matthew 24:45 isn't a source that "prophesies" such a work as is taken on by the GB, it doesn't mean it isn't a "fine work." Or that it should not be appreciated. It's just that we have to be alert to always remember that all of us stumble many times, including the GB, so we should always do our Christian duty and test anything and everything they say, and if our consciences differ, to always obey God as ruler rather than men.

Furuli's Introduction and Chapter 1 are important as a foundation to the topic, but we can skip them for the purpose of a discussion. We'll go straight to Chapter 2 which starts out with a summary "review" that I have copied below.
Furuli opens up the discussion with the words I put on the left, and I'll add some comments on the right. They are color-coded to match up which paragraphs are being commented upon.
THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE -REVIEW
In Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, the presence (parousia) of Jesus from 1914 to the great tribulation is mentioned four times, and his coming (erkhomai) as the judge in the great tribulation, at the end of his presence, is mentioned eight times.
 
The faithful and discreet slave is mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47. The previous view of the GB was that the coming of the master (v. 46) occurred in 1918, and the slave was appointed over all his belongings in 1919. These belongings included the branch offices, the Kingdom Halls, and the preaching work.
The present view is that the coming (v. 46) is future and will happen in the great tribulation. Then the slave will be appointed over all the belongings by receiving a heavenly resurrection. This new view excludes any connection between the coming (v.46) and the presence of Jesus.
Nevertheless, The Watchtower of 2017 says that the slave was appointed in 1919 to give God's servants spiritual food at the proper time during the presence of Jesus. But no evidence has been given for this claim.
Luke 12:35-44 discusses the faithful steward, the discreet one, which, according to the context, is the same as the faithful and discreet slave in Matt 24:45. One slave was put in charge of a master's household to give the other slaves literal food at the appointed time. Such a slave is mentioned in Luke chapter 12, and when he faithfully is giving the other slaves food when the master returns, thus doing his job, he will be appointed over all the belongings of the master.
The situation is the same in Matthew 24:45-47. That the slave gives literal food to the other slaves is his job. When he is doing this job faithfully when the Lord arrives in the great tribulation, he will be appointed over all the master's belongings. The focus is on literal food and not on spiritual food. Thus, "the slave" refers to individual Christians who are faithful when the master arrives and not to a class of persons.
In Matthew 24:48-51, the wicked slave is mentioned. The GB says that Jesus is not saying that a wicked slave will come, but points to the possibility; this is correct. However, neither in Luke 12:42 nor in Matthew 24:45 is Jesus saying that the faithful and discreet slave will come. But Jesus asks who the faithful and discreet slave will be. In other words: "Who will fill the role of the faithful and discreet  slave in the illustration of Jesus when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation?" The whole setting in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 is:"Who will be on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge"?
Furuli still supports the idea that the "parousia" began in 1914 and goes on  until the "erchomai" (Judgment Day). Most Bible scholars believe that the "parousia/ synteleia/ telos/ erchomai" are all nearly synonymous, which coincidentally results in the same outcome as Furuli sees here. That's because the FDS illustration is specifically tied to the erchomai and there is no specific to to the beginning of the parousia.
Furuli is setting up to show how the doctrine got "confused" over time, and pieces of the interpretation are still based on older versions of the doctrine which are no longer consistent with parts of the new version. That's because the doctrine began when the erchomai was not "Judgment Day" but a judgment based on Jesus "coming in 1918 to inspect the temple." After the FDS passed the test in 1918, they were then appointed over all his belongings in 1919. Those belongings were said to be the properties and purview of the WTS. (I think that Kingdom Halls weren't added to this list until around 2006.)
It's not like the GB hadn't thought if this, because (as Anna pointed out in the other thread) they are now only supposed to be appointed as FDS prior to the "full reward" which allows for an appointment in 1919, it's just that there is no specific scriptural reason any more to place this appointment anywhere between 1914 and the future erchomai (Judgment).
Furuli's logic has started to weaken. He's right, of course, that there are no longer any scriptural reasons here to point to 1919, except to fit the GB's own view of themselves. There is no more reason to pick 1919 than 1915, 1935, 1972, or maybe even 33 CE. But nothing excludes a 1919 date either, even if one doesn't believe an invisible presence and kingship started in 1914. However, if Furuli really still believes in 1914 as he says he does, and he expects a single generation in which a preaching work occurs in the midst of trials and tribulations, then why not provide an FDS specifically or that special generation? If 1914 works for Furuli, then there is some logic to appoint an FDS shortly after that generation begins.
Nothing to see here. This is fairly obvious that Luke 12 gives the same illustration with exact same idea and only a few words added or changed.
I personally agree with this. Jesus was talking about persons who have a responsibility to do a job, that of giving literal food to the rest of the slaves in a household when the master is gone. A slave who is handles such a responsibility faithfully can expect a reward. Especially because it would be so easy to slack off and take advantage while the master is away. It doesn't have to be a prophecy about "spiritual" food  It's not a prophecy. It's an illustration just like others Jesus made about readiness.
Furuli is not giving credence to the WT idea that this must be a prophecy because it's found in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. Also, it starts out with a "who is" which has been taken to be a command of sorts to go out and identify who is meant here. Furuli seems to treat it like any other illustration, as if reminding us that we don't automatically create a type/antitype out of the carcass and the eagles in verse 28. We don't automatically look for a pregnant woman class and the nursing baby class from verse 18.  Who really is a householder that will know in advance when a thief is coming to break into his house? (v44)
At first it appeared that Furuli was agreeing with a linguistic reason from Greek that the WT uses to downplay the possibility of an evil slave coming. But this is really just agreeing that there is nothing definite here about a wicked slave coming. And this is paralleled with his view that this illustration is also not saying anything definite about a faithful slave coming, either. That's a surprising turn, but I suppose it's really like Luke 11:11 saying "Who really is the father who will hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?" It makes a teaching lesson, not a prophecy about when such a situation will prove true. Furuli treats it as if Jesus is saying what he said in Luke 18: 
(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”
 

That was the point. He followed in the steps of Russell who made no use at all of the board of directors who were only there for legal reasons and possible continuity of the Society if something were to happen to Russell. When people in Rutherford's day compared him to Russell, they said that Rutherford was even more autocratic/dictatorial/monarchial. So I included Russell as a means of comparison.

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 
His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed, it just says that Peter should feed the little sheep. it does not logically follow that no one else should imitate the good example that Peter was to give us. It's the job of a shepherd to feed his sheep by guiding them to pastures where they feed.
Look what Paul says:
(Acts 20:26-28) 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, . . .
(1 Peter 5:1-4) 5 Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
(Ephesians 4:11, 12) . . .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,

Is his post still up where he said my remark was obvious click bait and I said ‘how can that be, you dodo, since there is nothing to click on?‘

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 
His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 
His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 
His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved. The understanding of problems with 1914 were known since well before COJ. And yes, by members of the Bethel family, including several persons on the GB, and several in Writing. Also at least one in the Service Dept, who was later transferred to Writing after 1982. I can guess that there were (and are) many more that I didn't know about at the time
You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975. There never was a body of "governing" elders involved in real decision-making until after the GB vote in December 1975. And it was Ray Franz' proposal that spear-headed a GB that acted like a council. Like a kind of Sanhedrin. In his book he tries to minimize his involvement in pushing for that decision, but at the time I think he knew his 64-page proposal, if approved, would likely result in a real GB like the one today. And it did, even with the same committee structure he had proposed.
I think these are all good points. I think it's almost inevitable that a Governing Body of some sort will develop. And if it is scriptural to have a presbytery, or body of elders, in the congregations, then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)
And as the work becomes more international, the most efficient version of the body of elders, is a body of elders who can make decisions appropriate to the logistics and efforts and distribution requirements of a worldwide congregation.
I think what made both R.Franz and R.Furuli uncomfortable is when they realized it didn't work out to their own expectations.

Far be it from me to discuss something here that belongs in a different topic, 😉 but I was thinking the same thing. Outta Here pointed this out with a reference to something I had never seen before, and which appears to be a true sentiment of translators who let tradition invalidate parts of God's word. In this case, it refers to Zondervan's NIV:
 

This kind of thing often fails because enemies will not let it remain low-key. It has made their day, if not year, and they will pump and pump until it becomes the only story that matters.
But the young man again said, this time emphatically, “My Lord Moses, restrain them!’ Moses mildly replied: “Not a problem. Chill.”
But the young man once again said: My Lord Moses, restrain them!!!!! Moses mildly replied: “Let’s stay low-key about this.”
But the young man once again said: “MY LORD MOSES, RESTRAIN THEM!!!!  (this is going to be good!!!!)“

(Exodus 18:17-23) 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. 20 You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. 21 But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. 22 They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”
A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.
Also, you might have referred to this case:
*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.
This full situation always reminds me of this:
(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.