Was disfellowshipping really sanctioned by God? Please share your honest views according to your Bible views (page 2)

ThinkerBelle

OP = Original Post(er)

PIMI = Physically In, Mentally In (Meaning a full on unquestioning believer)

jhine

My take on this is very different to that of the WT ( no surprise there ) .

The original church had no specific buildings so meetings were held in homes . When the Bible talks about going from home to home preaching l think that what is meant is going to already established house groups teaching and preaching , not the door knocking that the WT has turned it into .

Originally Christians met for meals to celebrate the Eucharist , hence the instruction not to turn up hungry and start without your brothers , and sisters . What we call Communion was taken as part of a social occasion .

So l think that the teaching to "Not to even eat with people like that " may mean to not have such people in your homes to eat the Eucharist meal . l don't think that this was meant to be the total , blackmail like , shunning that the WT has turned it into .

Jan

stillin

It seems clear that in ancient aisreal people were stoned to death for wrongs which were outlined in Moses' writings. (Weird that some "got away" with their sins, like King David.) Shunning is a cakewalk compared to stoning. Or is it???

It seems clear that God wanted his little people to judge each other.

snugglebunny

Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”

Note the words idolat-er, revil-er, drunk-ard and extortion-er. Clearly this is referring to habitual practisers of these things. Certainly not one-off sins or even those prone to occasional lapses. I would suggest that most folk with any common sense would probably choose not to associate with such persons anyway, let alone stick their fingers into the same communal eating bowl. Also note the admonition to avoid keeping company with such people. Nothing there about pretending that they don't exist as happens in disfellowshipping.

breakfast of champions

Even if the person has taken some stand based on a conscience matter. They are treated the same as an adulterer or pedophile. - BOBCAT

If they were treated the same as a pedophile, they would get off scot free!

dubstepped

Jesus ate with the sinners and tax collectors. Jehovah was buddies with David. Paul was a dick. Of course, Jehovah killed people for steadying the ark of the covenant. Jesus condemned people for even looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her.

So what am I saying? The bible is a contradictory mess and you can pick and choose just about anything to bend to your will and the interpretation shows more about the interpreter than anything.

blondie

The best thing to do is examine what the policies were used by the Bible Students of Russell's and Rutherford's time and when that ended and why. Current Bible Students tell me that it was only regarding spiritual things that they no longer talk about with the individual but they do about other things. The situation was presented to the whole congregation for a vote, some said it was by secret ballot in their congregation and hand raised in others. I think a search of JWN might have previous comments on this. I agree with dubstepped that the bible is a contradictory mess. My experience, why was Joseph praised for fleeing adultery but his brother Judah had sex with a temple prostitute and was excused? Worth seeing what the WTS has to say. Will check back and see if someone comes it with their explanation.

john.prestor

Strugglingrsa, I think your interpretation of the verses is valid, Paul and "[John] the Elder" are certainly warning Christians about those who may present a threat to them, take extortioners for instance, you probably don't want to be around people like that like snugglebunny said. This was a common problem in the early church (early Christians were pretty gullible, no surprise there), the Didache, a late 1st to early 2nd century kinda instruction manual for (maybe) Syrian churches, warns about "prophets" who would show up, prophecy "in the spirit" that people should feed them or clothe them or give them money, and then leave; they were charlatans in other words who preyed on people's good intentions and took advantage of them.

Paul and "[John] the Elder" had specific circumstances in mind, contemporary to the time they were writing. Neither one had any idea a religious group called Jehovah's Witnesses nearly two millennia later would be using their writings as justification for carte blanche shunning ex-members or those who question the Governing Body.

Finkelstein

One could take the instruction of not associating with a immoral one as a kind of social guideline to be aware of people who behave in a harmful irresponsible way.

Good advise perhaps, but to make a public announcement to an entire congregation to the members to not associate of certain individuals is not supported in the bible.

An apostate against the high priests to their set laws of secular behavior or worship practice could invoke the death of that person.

The JWS elders cant do that.

Disfellowshiping built into the JWS religion really got started by the top leaders of the organization such as J Rutherford trying protecting the organization from disrupting dissidents and since he(they) knew the organization was built upon fraudulent doctrines (1914) that made more of an strategic importance.

Was disfellowshipping really sanctioned by God? Please share your honest views according to your Bible views

Share this