by Englishman 27 Replies latest jw friends
SJ,
So let me get this right. Paul is actually acknowledging that his admonition to shun was out of order and that he should have been more loving?
If that is so then this is a truly remarkable insight of which many of us have been unaware. Any more info would be much appreciated.
Many Thanks,
Englishman.
Bring on the dancing girls!
lol was wondering how many posts before you OUTLAw ;)
therapys not working huh
round and round we go where it stops no body knows lol@you
i think the board owner knows why im not listed among yoyos persona outlaw lol keep it up cut and paste cut and paste
Dearest EMan... peace to you...
and to answer your question, yes. In fact, both 2 Corinthians and the letter to the Romans completely UNDO Paul's original position. Note, they were both written after the fact.
Why didn't Paul just come right out and say he was in the wrong? LOLOLOLOLOL! I guess the same reason Peter didn't either. But, I have delineated for you what Paul is purported to have said, verse by verse. As you can see, he made a retraction.
Followers of Paul, though (mainly "Protestants" and certainly the WTBTS) for some reason cannot "hear" this. Perhaps it is because they choose to follow Paul, and listen to HIS voice... rather than to the Fine Shepherd's.
John 10:27
(BTW... Catholics "follow" Peter...)
Peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
Thanks eman for starting this post. Everyone has made some very good points as to why shunning is unscriptural. Thanks for the insight into 1 and 2 Corinthians, Shelby! I agree with somebody, it's good to hear from you.
It's funny, but since I was 'handed over to Satan' by daing, I've come to the conclusion that it was actually when I was in the borg that I served my time with him. That's another thing they got mixed up and backwards. lol
In 2nd Cor., the man who was 'reinstated' (welcomed back) was removed by Paul's recommendation in 1st Cor. Paul said that the reproof by the "majority" is sufficient. This is clear that not 100% reproved, marked, shunned, or reduced association with this man ... a man who was having a sexual affair with his stepmother.
Amazing,
Are you sure about this? I know some Bible commentators believe that they are identical and the WTS claims it as FACT but is there any proof that they are one and the same person?
BTW glad you pointed out that there were at least three epistles to the Corinthians. I've never heard it mentioned at the KH.
Cheers,
Ozzie
Thank You E-Man for this post.
The shunning and d-fping thing has always been the thorn in my side with regard to the society.
I could never find anything scripturally that could validate this practice. The scriptural reference's that have been used to base
the reasoning for this practice to me always seemed to be more in the eyes of the beholder simply because I could not interpret the same meaning in them as the society. I would occasionally offer my own interpretation but it was always quickly dismissed as nothing more then an immature interpretation at the time and I would eventually see differently as my understanding became clearer.
SJ
Enjoyed your response
plmkrzy
"The fellow that agrees with everything you say is either a fool or he is getting ready to skin you."
- Kin Hubbard
I guess the WT should now be shunned or DF'd for their fornication with the Scarlet-colored Wild Beast. They showed no repentance, but continue to cover up their fornication as if it didn't happen.
The bigger the lie the more that will believe it.
(Adolph Hitler)
I found this site very useful in understanding what Pauls agenda was all about. http://www.paulonpaul.org/
Englishman.
Bring on the dancing girls!
