Neverknew: What question did you ask your friend?
After months of my presenting historical WTS inconsistencies (that probably felt more like "gotcha's"), I'm now noticing very measured responses that are, most likely, heavily researched. I've been presenting very innocuous information that has nothing to do with WT doctrine just to re-start communication.
Broadly, I have been talking about the necessity of understanding, not only the scriptural Mitzvot found in the Old Testament, but the significance of learning about the Judaic lifestyle under Mosaic Law. I believe you can more fully appreciate the New Testament with this foundational knowlege. The evening prior, I had sent an e-mail about Mosaic law with respect to how the primary accusor of an offense where the punishment was stoning was required to throw the first stone. In John 8, the Pharisees dragged a woman into the temple and made an accusation of adultery. In verse 7, Christ challenged the one without sin to throw the first stone. I was attempting to demonstrate the opportunity for a deeper connection to the message with a broader understanding of Jewish culture in that era.
After his "research" (which wasn't necessary - it was just supposed to be observational) he concluded that he was unable to make a comment on my observations of that scriptural passage because the Watchtower had deemed the passage "spurious." I wanted to ask if the WT was suggesting that the Bible was fallible but given his disoriented behavior, I felt it'd be too much.