Two witnesses.
Theres much talk in the JW camp of the need for two witnesses to establish a matter, or prove an event is true or false.
Two points.One, this principle is found in the old testemant and in the Jewish law.If this point is still to be held exactly then why not the many other laws of the isrealites?
Why are trials (judical matters) held in privite when in Isreal they were to be public?
Two, if this is the case the the testomony of say the apostale john can be discounted as he had no witnesses to his visions, as did hardly any of the bible writers.Also Charles Russell we need someone to prove he was chosen by God as his word was not enough, it is not enought to agree with him but they would have to witness the event of his being chosen.
Basically if they are going to apply this principle in matters of child abuse then they must use it else where.No one can make a claim as a witness and expect it to be believed."I placed two mags today" "got any witnesses?" sorry I dont believe you.
Why arent they?Because it obviously flawed to use this universally.When then is it used in matters were the accusation could bring reproach to the church?
Edited by - sleepy on 15 July 2002 17:31:56