2 John 10

by What Now? 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  StarTrekAngel

  The gospels never really make a huge deal out of the belief in the apostles or God himself. Most of the congregational issues that the early Christian confronted were related to, first and foremost, wether Jesus was the promised Messiah or not, second, issues over allowed foods, third but not less, issues of immorality and loose conduct.

  By far, the Christ was the biggest concern as it seems like they kept arguing with one another over what proof they had for or against him. This threatened the very basis of their faith, so the apostles had very little patient towards arguing over this matter. Wether you believe or not, there is a big parallel between that and the modern day GB, except that the GB today is not arguing wether Jesus was the Messiah. They argue their own authority and appointment, for as if you could convince anyone that 1914 is a hoax. among other things, they loose all authority.
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  Sorry for the double posting. Something up with my browser today
• 

  Crazyguy

  Galations chapter 1 and 1corithians chapter 15 make it plain that the teaching or good news is all about Christ, they are the apostates
• 

  tim3l0rd

  Look back at vs 9: (from the rNWT)

  Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son.

  Who is guilty of pushing ahead? How many times have JWs pushed ahead of the teaching of the Christ? When they taught that the end might come in 1975 did they "push ahead"? When they taught that those who saw the events of 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon came did they "push ahead"? What did Jesus say at Matt 24:36, 42-44 about the end?
• 

  poopie

  No they are icorect i will write a complete answer in future.
• 

  Ignoranceisbliss

  The problem with the bible is that you can interpret it however you want. Dubs take this one scripture and enforce it to an extreme. What about the scripture where Paul said to let the women in the congregation be silenced? Why isn't that enforced with the same vigor? Its all bullshit and should be treated as such. I have thought about how I will argue this when my shunning occurs. I don't think that I will. THe truth of the matter is that I don't believe in the bible so why should I argue about what it really teaches?
• 

  berrygerry

  Do you have the WT Library?

  Aug 1, 1974 p. 465 par 24

  Then, article: Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones
  

  page 466
  
• 

  Mephis

  There is some evidence that some early Christians had a form of shunning. The Didache is typically dated to c.150 AD. It could be a few decades earlier, or a few decades later. A couple of centuries on, most Christian writers seemed to view it alongside other works we'd now call apocrypha. But for what it's worth:

  
  

  14:2 However, let no one who is at odds with his brother come together with you, until he has reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be profaned.
  

  15:3 And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the gospel. But to anyone who acts amiss against another, let no one speak to him, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the gospel of our Lord.

  
  

  One thing to take away from that is that this community did it when personal relationships within the community itself were ruptured by unChristian behaviour. There's nothing about doctrine or 'sin' more generally to it. Most different interpretation between the early Christians who used The Didache and JWs supposedly imitating early Christianity.
  
• 

  problemaddict 2

  All human communities practice shunning in some form. Society imprisons criminals for example. If a group is very specific, such as an "Iphone rules" meetup group, and one guy starts showing up talking about how great Samsung is and how everyone should switch.....he may not be welcome in the group.

  But a structured communal shunning program based on private meetings and proceedures hidden from view, presided over by three or more men, and meant to extend to everyone that associates with that group worldwide......is not even close to the type of "shunning" done by early Christians even as a best guess.

  the idea that someone thinking and feeling different than you, is not add odds whith normal Christianity. The individual groups make a decision on who to not support based on the persons behavior. It is not a decision handed down to them, that they must then in turn obey under threat of being ostracized themselves. there is no support for such a thing, even in vague principle.