"If anyone calls himself a BROTHER ,"................... (page 4)

gumby

yeah.......and????

Hey bud...I'm off to work and will return this evening. See if you can find a bit more on this if you have time.

ta ta.....Gumby

After I "left voluntarily", I was at a gathering for my B-I-L's (nonJW) after-the-funeral service, where everone was sitting and eating, etc. The ONLY JW there made a big deal of going to everyone else at the table and hugging/shakinghands before leaving, and made everyone there wonder why *I* had been snubbed like this (of course WE had been the" only JWs" at one time so we were "close) so he brought the "questions" that came after he had gone home, on himself!

I went and got my S-I-L's bible to show others the "reasoning" for his rude behavior, and I was quite surprised myself when I came across a series of thoughts that I hadn't noticed when I was a JW...here goes;

At 2John:1: 6&7, it says, "And this is what love means, that we go on walking according to his commandments. This is the commandment, just as you people have heard from the beginning that you should go on walking in it For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceivers and the antichrist."

Then further down we see; (2 John 1:9-11) "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. (Now notice the scripture the WTS pulls up and uses out of context)----If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive them into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer with him in his wicked works."

So in addition to NOT being a fornicator, extortioner, a greedy person, a drunkard OR a reviler...I also have never "confessed Jesus Christ as not coming in the flesh" either! HOW does the WTS arrive at these "bible-based" (tm) conclusions??? SEE what happens when we actually read the bible WITHOUT those twisted WTS aids?

"However the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man" (1 Cor 2:15) "Keep testing whether you are in the faith, keep proving what you yourselves are" (2 Cor 13:5)

hugs,

Annie

(BTW, that B-I-L that was a JW, died a year ago, and a memorial service was held at his KH in MA. We didn't go, figuring 1) I won't GO into another KH ever again and I explained that to his wife-a nonJW, and 2) Hubby said B-I-L didn't want me around in Life, WHY would he want me there in death? Since we didn't make the trip to MA for this event, NOW the rest of the family is pissed off at me and have barely spoken to us. Even when I had my stroke and all the complications that went with it last summer.....things are a tiny bit more civil but definetly strained.......)

Three cheers for the WTS-----they REALLY know how to screw up a family, even affacting those who were never JWs!!!!! GRRR!

xjw_b12

Cicatrix you said:

quote from the 1865 Watchtower, pg. 216: "Beware of "organisation." It is wholly un-necessay. The Bible will be the only rules you need. Do not seek to bind others consciences and do not permit others to bind yours. Believe and obey so far as you can understand God's Word today, andy so continue to grow in grace and knowledge day by day."

Did you mean 1965? I didn't think the Watchtower was published that early?

peacefulpete

The Jesus story has him socializing with tax collectors, it was the supposedly "Evil" Pharisees that thought less of him for it. Matthew was a tax collector. Lets face it folks the Bible sends mixed messages.

Earlier it was shown that 1 Cor 5 (possibly Pauline) and 2 Thess (not Pauline) use the same Greek word which is differently translated to support the Df and Marking punitive actions. And this is a classic example of using Bible "proof texts" to legitamize Church politics. However it is good to remember that these two passages were written by different authors and motivated by changing cult issues.

peacefulpete

Another thought about Matt 18:17, it's racist. The very idea of using the expression, "Let him be to you as a tax collector and a Gentile" is repugnant. Some argue and say Jesus was not endorsing the Jewish contempt for Gentiles but merely using their predjudices as a metaphor. That is ridiculous. If I told my son to avoid drug dealers as if they were Jews, I'd be reinforcing hatred for Jews. If the author of the words at Matt 18 was not racist he would have chosen another metaphor. Aside from this, the context of Matt 18 is not one of doctrinal disagreement or "immorality" but rather one individual is wronged by another, and therefore has no bearing upon disfellowshipping. This advice to avoid someone who has wronged you directly contradicts the other passages (Luke 6:32-36) that directs a wronged person to continue "to do good" to those wronging them. More mixed messages.

ozziepost

these two passages were written by different authors and motivated by changing cult issues

It would be better to preface that remark with the words "Some believe that.."

gumby

Sunspot,

So in addition to NOT being a fornicator, extortioner, a greedy person, a drunkard OR a reviler...I also have never "confessed Jesus Christ as not coming in the flesh" either! HOW does the WTS arrive at these "bible-based" (tm) conclusions??? SEE what happens when we actually read the bible WITHOUT those twisted WTS aids?

Spot on!

As Farkel and others pointed out......the watchtower doesn't use scriptural reasoning, but rather "organisational reasoning". It doesn't matter to them what the bible says.....it MUST AT ALL COSTS, meet their own agenda.

Pete,

As for partiality.......the jews NEVER had close dealings with non-jews all through their history as a group. When Peter was given the vision regarding gentiles.......the "racism" was dropped. From a biblical perspective......Jesus stuck to the law in this regard as he was supposed to. He never said to hate gentiles.......just don't hang with them.

Gumby

Black Sheep

So how do we go about explaining that, tactfully, to great hordes of parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends??

Not to mention my wife

gumby

So how do we go about explaining that, tactfully, to great hordes of parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends

Hi Black sheep. Explain what? I"m not sure what you are asking. If you are asking if excommunicating or disfellowshipping(same thing) is scriptural.......it is. It isn't however in the way the dubs practice it. The case in Corinthians was an EXTREEM case that is rather rare in the way that sin was carried out. Most Christians who know of a fellow believer who carries on in a boastful, prideful, sinful manner.....and still brags he's a sinfree model believer.......do not pal around with this type anyway. The Corinthians saw NO HARM in condoning what he was doing with no reservations. That was a rare case.

If I or others missed your point.....please speak up.

Gumby

Farkel

: Farkel, do you think that terms such as fornication, loose conduct, etc. are vague? I think that when we look into the actual definition of Greek or Hebrew words, we get the flavor as well as the real meaning of words. Certainly, when those words were originally used and the readers or hearers understood them, they knew exactly what was meant. And I don't think they would have understood them according to Watchtower definitions.

Of course they are! "Fornication" is nowhere defined in the Bible, and I challenge anyone to show us a clear definition of that word from the Bible. "Loose conduct" is even more vague, but I'll stick with the fornication challenge. And don't any of you try that old WT trick of saying that fornication is sex between unmarried persons, either. Unless you can prove it. From the Bible. You can't.

: Actually Fark.....Jesus himself alluded to it. Matt.18;15-19

No he didn't.

: Jesus said if your BROTHER sins against you and he doesn't listen to you when you confront him, or the one you bring along with you, or the congregation.......then let him be as a tax collector(or as a "man of the nations")

: The NIV footnote says concerning Matt.18;15-19 "this establishes one basis for......EXCOMMUNICATION".

The last statement means nothing other than to say that some morons used those verses to establish the ritual of excommunication. It doesn't show any evidence that those verses require or ordain excommunication.

This "NIV" conclusions falls on both counts, and I'll show you why. Remember that Jesus said someone who sins and won't account for it should "BE as a tax collector (or as a man of the nations)"

Note what he did NOT say, he should be "TREATED" as such. There is a big difference.

If the Jews who were obliged to pay taxes were visited by a tax collector and wouldn't even speak to that person, then all such Jews would end up in prison.

That argument falls.

How does one treat a "man of the nations," then?

Read the Good Samaritan story and you'll know. Was the Good Samaritan later shunned by the Jew he helped? Was that the message Jesus was trying to convey? "Let a Good Samaritan save your life and help you on the way to recovery, and then selfishly shun his ass after he's done so?"

NO! That was NOT the message of Jesus! His message was about love of fellow souls.

I see NO evidence for INSTITUTIONALIZED ENFORCING of shunning in Jesus' words in Matthew 18. I see some evidence for personal shunning for the wronged one. Perhaps.

Shunning is fine with me. It's always been with us. But it should be a personal thing, not an INSTITUTIONALIZED and INSTITUTIONALLY ENFORCED thing. Only a Pharisee could come up with such a stupid idea as that. Matt 23.

Farkel

"If anyone calls himself a BROTHER ,"...................

Share this