The BS Two Witness Rule - John 8

by berrygerry 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  berrygerry

  Many posts have been made regarding the total BS 2 witness rule in order to protect molesters.

  Did not Jesus dispense with this BS rule in John 8:17,18?

  I.e., the Father witnesses all, therefore, only one human witness is required?
• 

  hardtobeme

  I don't know why they haven't changed that. They always change Jesus's words.

  Jesus said after his resurrection: " All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth" (Matthew 28:18) But the Watchtower says that it was until 1914.

  Jesus also said that all his followers have to eat his flesh and drink his blood: " Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him" (John 6:56) But the Watchower says that only 144,000 have the right to do it.

  After all the law suits coming their way and all the millions they will lose, the GB will get new light: " Two witnesses are not required Jesus' words don't mean a damn s**t to us".
• 

  Vidiot

  berrygerry - "Did not Jesus dispense with this BS rule...?"

  Probably irrelevent, considering that it's - arguably - a misapplication of the very portions of the OT it has its origins in...

  ...from what I can tell, those scriptures apply to accusations of fraud; the passages that touch on sexual assault don't even mention anything about witnesses, from what I recall.
• 

  berrygerry

  Gustav:
  Glad to have you back.

  This is for you.

  WT Aug 15, 1987 p. 27 blithely says: "At least two witnesses are required to establish a charge of wrongdoing. "

  And yet then, it totally ignores the very next verse: "I am one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” "

  Jesus had said in verse 12 that he was the light of the world.

  In verse 13, the Pharisees challenged him, as he had no witness - " So the Pharisees said to him: “You bear witness about yourself; your witness is not true.” "

  And yet Jesus' response was that because his Father bore witness, that that amounted to 2 witnesses.

  So, if none other than Jesus proffered that his Father was able to bear witness in such an affair, then for heaven's sake, why is that enough for all of the child abuse taking place, and having taken place?
• 

  MagicHat

  I had an experience regarding the two-witness rule a few weeks ago. I haven't been to a meeting in about six months (trying hard as I can to fade) and I finally said yes to the elders coming over because I'm sick of them asking. Well, to make a long story short I told them I am very disturbed about the child molesting that is coming out in the papers every single day. They actually sat there and told me they knew nothing about any litigation against the society regarding child molesting. YES, they looked me straight in the eye and said they knew NOTHING about any child molesting cases. I just stared at them because I honestly didn't know what to say to that. I guess I should have just called them liars to their face!!!!

  Then I asked them if there was still a two-witness rule when a child comes to them and says they were molested. They danced around the question for about an hour and and never answered the question. What a surprise. I finally asked them to leave. Unbelievable.
• 

  Phizzy

  Most JW's, Elders or not, live in the JW.Org Bubble, and know nothing of the extent of the paedophile problem, or the number of present and upcoming cases.

  Needless to say, they are equally ignorant as to the huge payouts of the past, due to the gagging orders imposed at the time.

  I have got into the habit lately with Elders of saying that they can come back if they are prepared to answer my question (s), I usually only leave them with one, but sometimes more.

  I am awaiting several Elders return, from three different Congregations. Insist on this, that they answer, it seems a recipe for being left alone.