The WT. of 10-1-77 asks if an unbelieving husband admitted that he had another woman, is his admission sufficient ground for a scriptural divorce.The response was"though for the sake of his reputation he might not be willing to own up to it in a court of law or before other persons.What can the wife do? Since she is part of the clean Christian congregation, she should realize the importance of handling the matter properly. To that end she could give the elders representing the congregation a letter outlining her situation. And she could state that in accord with Mt.19:19 she wishes to put him away,obtaining a legal divorce and thus ending the marriage Scripturally and legally.The elders would consider whether there is any known reason to conclude other than that the unbelieving mate had been immoral. If not, they could accept her signed statement. So if there is no reason to doubt the wife's statement, the congregation elders can leave the matter between her and Jehovah.".....If 2 witnesses is NOT NEEDED for a Scriptural and legal divorce and remarriage would be acceptable, then why is it NECESSARY to say 2 witnesses is needed for molestation? Many people have never had documented proof of adultery or 2 impartial witnesses but they were believed just by their own word.........So to suggest that this 2 witness rule is a Scriptural requirement, it's simply not true!
PROOF 2 WITNESS RULE IS NOT NEEDED
by minimus 8 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Lady Lee
By that argument I should never have been DFed
Hey guess what folks My DFing was invalid. I'm still a JW
Excellent
I quit!!!
Think anyone will buy it
edited because I can't type
Edited by - Lady Lee on 14 July 2002 23:0:3
-
YoursChelbie
When speaking of himself as the true Christ, Jesus did not need to follow the Old Covenant Law of "two witnesses" to prove his identity.
To reason with the Pharisees he refered to it as their Law.
"...the Pharisees said to him: "You bear witness about yourself; your witness is not true. In answer Jesus said to them: "even if I do bear witness about myself, my witness is true...because I know where I came from.... Also, in your own Law it is written, 'The witness of two men is true.' I am the one who bears witness about myself and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." (John 18: 13,14,17)
The apostle Paul in writing to the Corinthians said...
"And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, that I might gain those under law." (1 Cor. 9:20)
So, it seems IMO that Watchtower Society is applying a law to Christians that Christ never intented to have applied to Christians--it is part of the Law of Moses essentially.
"Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ,.....now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor." (Galatians 3:24,25)
Any thoughts?
Edited by - YoursChelbie on 15 July 2002 0:12:4
Edited by - YoursChelbie on 15 July 2002 0:13:45
Edited by - YoursChelbie on 15 July 2002 0:42:54
-
Siddhashunyata
Yes, it is true that th WTBTS allows such contradictions which stand as evidence that they have an agenda that supersedes the protection of it membership. A child"s testmony is superior to that of a wife or that of an adult based on the remarks of Jesus that adults should become "like" little children, naturally guileless. The agenda that supersedes this bible principle is "IMAGE". Like Madison Avenue advertising merchants the WTBTS protects its image at any cost. Ruthless! The indignation of the world is rightous!
-
Amazing
Hi Minimus: The reason that two witnesses are not required is that in the situation you quote a "worldly" mate was involved ... and the "world" is not to be believed or trusted. If a JW child says that they were molested by a "worldly" man, then they would be believed ... but when it involves a JW man, then two witnesses are requiured ... and if the JW woman wanted a divorce from a JW man, then she would need two witnesses.
-
abbagail
LadyLee... crack me up!
YoursChelbie... I like your reasoning re: the Law of Moses/Deut. 19:15... It makes sense to me, but did you see in the letter read to the congs Sunday:
Later, this requirement to consider testimony of two or three witnesses was confirmed by Jesus. (Matthew 18:16)
Of course I think they have it warped, because when you apply the Matt. scriptures to child molesting it makes no sense whatsoever. Can you see Jesus applying his words at Matthew to a child who might have come to him about being molested? It smacks of absurdity.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=32092&page=2&site=3#423556And, Amazing... love your lightning-speed fingers on that keyboard... and leave it to your analytical brain (which I do love and admire) to spoil the fun of minimus' seemingly right-on argument from the WT article. :)
GRITS
-
minimus
AH, but the point is that JW's do not always use the 2 witness rule.The Watchtower excuse is wordly vs. a JW but the reality is to any reasonable outsider, that JW's do not always use this Scriptural rule.If the "worldly media" ever got wind that ALL the comments coming from the P.R. dept. are not equally applied then their issue becomes moot.
-
blondie
This situation did not need 2 witnesses and could result in the man being put to death. An engaged girl was raped, screamed, but no one heard her. The man was put to death on her testimony that she was raped and screamed alone.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 (NWT)
25 "If, however, it is in the field that the man found the girl who was engaged, and the man grabbed hold of her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her must also die by himself, 26 and to the girl you must do nothing. The girl has no sin deserving of death, because just as when a man rises up against his fellowman and indeed murders him, even a soul, so it is with this case. 27 For it was in the field that he found her. The girl who was engaged screamed, but there was no one to rescue her
Edited by - Blondie on 15 July 2002 11:21:44
-
Mary
Well my understanding is that the WTS says that if the pedophile admits that he's been molesting little kids, then you don't need two witnesses (no one's going to admit they're a pedophile unless they really are one). This is in theory. The reality, from what I saw on the Panorama documentary yesterday, is that it doesn't seem to matter one bit if the guy admits it or not: NOTHING'S DONE!!
It's like Bill Bowen said when interviewed: They don't want to admit they've got a problem like this within the Organization. If they admit it, then they have to deal with it and that's something that they're not willing to do.
Assholes.