Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?
Matthew 18:16 - There needs to be two or three witnesses so that an accusation against someone in the congregation is firmly established. No death penalty involved here.
And, by the way - Matthew 18:17 - "If he [the accused] doesn't listen, speak to the congregation.". Let me ask you, Fisherman: is the Governing Body following this direct order from Jesus? When a case of serious sin, serious enough to have disfellowshipping as consequence, is being dealt with, is the congregation EVER told what is going on, and called to make a judgement, AS JESUS SAID IT SHOULD BE?
In Russell's day, that's how matters were handled. Rutherford changed it so that only Elders could handle it in secrecy. Where do you stand on this?
Fisherman - WT only uses the "2 witness rule" to adjudicate church matters, but they comply secular law.
1. Is there any Bible principle that prohibits somebody in modern day from just "calling the police"?
If you think someone is in your house, going to rob you, does the WT say "You need two witnesses, call Legal Desk, and we'll tell you what to do"?
If you came home, and found your family member murdered, you would call the police.
If someone breaks into a Kingdom Hall, "the first thing you should do is call the police."
There is no rule in the Bible that says you cannot or should not call the police.
There is no rule in the Bible that says elders should disfellowship or shun someone for calling the police.
Robbery is a crime, call the police.
Murder is a crime, call the police.
Child abuse is a crime, call the police.
After that..... after "the superior authorities that you are in subjection to" are notified...... do whatever else you want to do. Want two witness? go for it. Want four? go for it. Do whatever you want to do in your stupid little 'committees' "that God has assigned to you."
Just report the crime...... call the police.
this could well have been the case if you were able to look at every example worldwide through the last 100+ years.
That is only your opinion. For example:1. "It could well be the case that drinking a lot of coffee could be bad for you." 2. Also consider: Drinking coffee is not necessarily wrong.
Thank you, for all the replies!
I apologize for not being more concise. I was unable to edit the title of my post. I should have asked,"Why do you think the WTBTS's use of, or interpretation of the "two witness" rule is wrong?"
Also, Fisherman is a pseudo-intellectual, wannabe lawyer/watchtard. Pray to whatever God you believe in, that Fishy-face isn't in charge of caring for children... What an idiot.
Pray to whatever God you believe in, that Fishy-face isn't in charge of caring for children... What an idiot......Data-Dog
Fisherman and Richard Oliver are Watchtower Apologists..
Protectors of WBT$/JW Pedophiles..
Should be treated the same as WBT$/JW Pedophiles..
Also, Fisherman is a pseudo-intellectual, wannabe lawyer/watchtard.
What does that have to do with the topic of discussion?
I do not want to have a name calling match with you. If that is what you want, that is not what you stated your topic is about,
"Why do you think the WTBTS's use of, or interpretation of the "two witness" rule is wrong?"
That's another topic.
Outlaw, that is not a nice thing to say to me. I enjoy your cartoons and when you express your views on something, but I don't deserve this coming from you.
OC, I still think that it is only an opinion.
I don't deserve this coming from you......Fisherman
Yes you do..Watchtower Protects WBT$/JW Pedophiles,you`re a Watchtower Apologist..
You should be ashamed of yourself..