Judgement

davidmitchell

https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2015-ewhc-1722-qb.pdf

Just had a look at this 2015 legal judgement. One of a number of things that caught my eye was the statement in (11) that
"The organisational structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses is modelled on first century Christianity as described in the bible".

Er, hardly. Try Acts 2: 44-45
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need".

Also in Luke 14:33, Jesus is reported to have said:
"Therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions".

And just one more example. In Matt 5:42, Jesus is reported to have instructed:
"Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you".

Do JWs do any of these as a regular feature of their faith?

The Searcher

Not a good translation - especially by the NWT/RNWT.

The Greek word - and very likely Jesus' usage of it - seems to refer to a person's attachment/love of possessions as being stronger than their love of spiritual things.

to set apart, separate

to separate one's self, withdraw one's self from anyone
1. to take leave of, bid farewell to
to renounce, forsake (Blue Letter Bible)
Christians were never instructed to take on a life of poverty, only to get their priorities in life right.

DesirousOfChange

Acts 2: 44-45
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need".

Also in Luke 14:33, Jesus is reported to have said:
"Therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions".

Do JWs do any of these as a regular feature of their faith?

I suspect that is the next step the GB will take.

They've already asked the R&F to give up all their KHalls and bank accounts, next will be to give up ALL their own personal possessions.

Doc

Half banana

That's the next step Doc, they share their valuables with the GB but not among themselves. Yuck.

Even the writings in Acts (mostly spurious) are probably in praise of a mythical time when they all shared things in common. Since the Bible is a fourth century compilation, they were already fictionalising a sublime past which did not happen. Most of the various Christ cults in the early centuries were drawn from the poorest of society and the few wealthier members could show charity notably by sharing in the form of supplying food and meals for all associates of their particular cult (and hence the ready connection of loyalty to a particular cult and its food supply as played upon in the illustration of a faithful and discreet slave).

Vidiot

"The organisational structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses is modelled on first century Christianity as described in the Bible".

Please.

The First Century Christians were nothing like the WTS.

davidmitchell

To: The Searcher.

How on earth can you argue that 'Christians were never instructed to take on a life of poverty, only to get their priorities in life right', when, as stated, Luke 14:33 says:

"Therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions".

You claim 'The Greek word - and very likely Jesus' usage of it - seems to refer to a person's attachment/love of possessions'.

Check your facts. Jesus would have spoken ARAMAIC not Koine Greek! Furthermore, you, in just this one sentence, say 'very likely' and 'seems'. You appear to be wonderfully vague.

And finally, while claiming Jesus (speaking Greek according to you!) would not have asked his followers to take on a life of poverty (in fact Luke 14:33 does not say that, but rather, they should abandon their possessions, e.g., homes), you actually admit the Greek word used means to forsake or separate from, which means to abandon!

Sheeesh!

jwleaks

Interestingly is that the final judgment, as written by the judge, was based on the testimony of the leaders of the Watchtower Society. The paragraphs can now be quoted as established facts under law.

EdenOne

On point 4, there's a most interesting statement from the judge:

The first defendants are the over-arching body of the second and third defendants. It is common ground that, if the second and/or third defendants are liable, then the first defendants will satisfy the judgment on behalf of the other defendants.

The first defendants are the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The second defendants are the local congregation where the abuse took place. As it can be seen, it is established that the Watch Tower Society IS LIABLE for whatever happens within the congregations as a result of their directives and policies being followed.

Eden

CalebInFloroda

Acts 2.44-45 is speaking of Jewish Christians who still lived as part of the world of Jewry.

These Christians lived in Jerusalem and unlike Gentile Christians observed the Mosaic Law as stated in Acts 21.17-26. In a Torah-observant world these Christians were able to and even encouraged by Mosaic Law to share what they owned with the less-fortunate among them. Read in this context the verses in Acts 2 are stating that these Jews helped fellow believers in Jesus of Nazareth among them as a priority. It does not mean they ignored other non-Christian Jews who under Torah they were obliged to help assist, nor is there any indications that Gentile Christians ever did the exact same thing in their communities or were even capable of doing something similar. JWs are not capable of imitating first-century Christianity as they had no New Testament at the time and were governed by an apostolic college that was composed mainly of Jewish Christians that still saw themselves obliged to observe Torah.

Luke 14.25-33 are a series of hyperboles. Jesus is not demanding a literal application of verse 33 otherwise he would be asking to literally hate their parents and undergo literal crucifixion. It would not be fair to judge JWs by failing to apply this text literally.

It would also be illogical to demand a literal application of Matthew 5.42. This section of the Sermon the Mount, Matthew 5.38-42, also employs hyperbole. The text is speaking about avoiding retaliation, not actually telling people how to give in charitable ways. If people applied this literally they could go bankrupt themselves. The "giving" is not the primary point of verse 42, it imeans not refusing anyone who is asking. In other words be as cooperative as you can, even going that extra mile, to avoid situations that might tempt you to retaliate, and do this with anyone who may push you in this direction.

While I have no love for the JWs, it does no good to misapply Scripture as they do and judge them according to failed and untested exegesis.

Half banana

A key point you make Eden on liability. Had they not become an "organised religion" or technically a "hierarchical" religion in 1985, (which was for the purpose of total control over both its membership and the KH ownership); perhaps they could have passed the blame on to the individual congregations where the abuse took place.

If this is really so then their greed for property and control has come back to bite them in the bum. The complete lack of care for the abused and by prioritising their selfish concern for protecting their name is their downfall. I hope the victims in this case get compensation.

Whatever, the WTBTS does not resemble anything like the conventional view of primitive Christianity.

Judgement

Share this