Really, nothing?
This is a good start, mostly the first half of the page. A reading of the New Testament should mostly disabuse of your notions unless you ignore the offending bits.
My all time favorites:
The above means we can still follow the Old Testament. Watch out gays and lustful women, my right arm is feeling strong today!
And so on and so on. Ah Jesus, the Prince of Peace, as they say…
Or the blissed out hippie on a meth binge…tomayto, tomahto.
I am no biblical scholar (being atheist or agnostic, depending on my mood), but I thought there was a much better passage in the bible justifying shunning. Something about trying to persuade your neighbour of his faults, if you can’t then get the elders to do it, and if they can’t then have nothing to do with him any more. Or, am I totally mis-remembering?
You’re not.
Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV) says:
Interpretations, as always, vary, but I think that’s the passage you’re looking for.
Gee! Maybe I’m not as forgetful as I thought! Yes, that’s what I was thinking of.
Quick note RE a cross or a stake- The Way International, possibly the Armstrongist Worldwide Church of God (different articles on the Crucifixion
in WCG publications presented it different ways), and hyper-dispensationalist
Ethelbert Bullinger’s THE COMPANION BIBLE have all made the Stake argument. It’s not just a JW thing. Interestingly, JW founder Charles Taze Russell thought it was indeed a cross & used the Cross & Crown emblem for his Bible Students organization.
If I was inclined towards an Arian Christian group, I would seek out a Bible Students fellowship, rather than JW’s. The Students also put more emphasis on the future Restoration of those presently unsaved, tho the JW organization still teaches it.
Interesting that a couple of other groups out there also support the stake vs. cross, but those also must ignore the historical and secondary information out there wrt to the manner of his death.
You are also correct wrt to Russell’s beliefs, I believe it was Rutherford (the second president of the WT) that made the changes to the cross teachings, as he sought to seperate the JW from both the teachings of Russell* and the rest of “Christendom”.
Interestingly enough, many folks still hold to the idea that the JW/Bible Students had ties to the Masons, due to the use of the Cross and Crown symbology… none of those ties have ever been proven, however.
*There had been a major split when Russell died, there is some controversy over how Rutherford came to be president, and the “Bible Students” as an org still exist today, still following much of what Russell taught with the “Studies In Scripture” series.
Sarcasm, I reckon. But the verses you quoted were all exactly for that purpose — bringing and keeping the peace. If gang violence and rampant crime completely overtakes a city, do you mock the cops for swatting the whole place and throwing the bums in jail? Don’t the good citizens want the peace restored?
You weren’t asking me, but would you mind re-phrasing that? Are you endorsing punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?
That sounds eminently reasonable, although to be fair I don’t see anything in mstay’s excerpts that connotes your gang violence/rampant crime scenario in the slightest. The penultimate one appears to advocate death for those with the temerity to prefer not to be reigned over, and the final one prescribes the “lake of fire” treatment for “all things that offend, and them which do iniquity”—two rather fluid and subjective categories, to say the least, even among the pious.
I’m not trying to be controverisal, but would he really have dissaproved? As abhorant as we find spousal abuse, it really is more of a social issue than a moral one. Jesus apparently felt (if his disciples’ teachings are any indication) that corporal punishment was acceptable for children and for much of history women were legally and socially considered to be “children.”
Of course he’s not. He’s a civilized man living in the 21st century, not Jesus.
Further examples in my post #62. My only point was to help intention who seemed confused how one could interpret Jesus in such a way. It’s actually rather easy in my view since the Biblical Jesus and the sanitized, popular notion of Jesus only overlap when he was having a good day.
As far as this passage is concerned, it must be pointed out that in the Greek there is no indefinite article (no word for “a” or “an”). The word-for-word translation from the Greek for these verses is: “In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god.” (From an Interlinear translation)
Leo Tolstoy commented about this:
“If in this version it says that the Word, or comprehension, was with God, or to God, or toward God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.” --Tolstoy, The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated; italics Tolstoy’s.
The identical construction was used in Acts 28:6, and in the Douay and King James Version “a god” is used.
For the record, I myself have several translations, including the Red-letter KJV, the Living Bible, and even Bibles in Spanish, Russian and Esperanto!
Which Interlinear translation did you use?
And Act 28:6, is not speaking about the “Word”, but is instead reffering to Paul… it would be expected that “others” could possibly see Paul as “a god” (they would never confuse him with God), but that is irrelivant to the case of John 1, where it is clear they are talking about “God”.
So, context alone negates the comparison to Acts 28.
Since there is no “a” or “an” in greek, inserting it changes the meaning to something that was not intended.
For a comparison of translations and greek, see :
I’m hoping this will work, in the “Westcott-Hort” in greek:
The transliterated Greek of this verse looks like this:
There are numerous cites out there with regard to why even attempting to insert an “a” in the translation would be incorrect, here is one quote from http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD1105W4.htm
Yeah, that’s why he socialized with the much-married Samaritan woman & appeared first as risen to Mary Magdalene- because he regarded them as “children” to be beaten when necessary.
Rolleyes do not suffice at times.
Please don’t get hostile. Again, I was not trying to be controversial.
Socializing with women and regarding them as intelligent people has nothing to do with it. After all, Paul, who was undoubtably present at some of these interractions, still stressed that women were to be subject to their husbands’ authority. Paul gets a lot of flack for these teachings in the modern era when we cherish equality, but he was a man of his times. It’s my position that so was Jesus.
For nearly two thousand years, the teachings of Jesus were thought to mesh just fine with the idea of beating* one’s wife. No, I’m not talking about that “rule of thumb” gibberish, but the Catholic Church certainly didn’t see much of an issue with it.
Again, I see it as a social contstruct rather than a moral one. We’re coming to the point in our society where corporal punishment of children is seen by some as being just as abhorrent as wife beating. I’ve seen some interpret the scriptures of "Spare the rod . . .’’ and the “Rod of correction shall drive it from him” as referring not to corporal punishment, but to other forms of discipline.
And if you think about it, the Bible contains many allowable practices that today we would find appalling, such as instructions on how to kidnap a woman from a neighboring tribe and force her into being your wife. We put those into their proper social contstruct, so why should corporal punishment (be it of a child or a wife) be any different?
*I don’t know if “beating” is the right word because it has serious connotations of intentional cruelty.
intention, I have been speaking with my JW friend at work. After 5 years of working together, he doesn’t seem to mind my sometimes invasive questions and he gave me some information. **the raindog ** may have simply tired of this conversation or had better things to do, and I certainly cannot speak for him, but my friend explained that witnesses are encouraged to introduce the word of the One True God to the world, but if any questions appear to be designed to trick or force a JW to defend a position of the church, they are instructed to leave the conversation. The topic of defensive posture is addressed frequently, as many JWs feel as though the rest of the Christian world is set to question and disparage their faith. And that may be true- to me many of the teachings appear designed to stunt the emotional growth of members and micro manage their daily lives, and I find that alarming. So, yes, I may have run him off, as my comments to raindog would qualify as “keeping company with someone who will do me (raindog) no good spiritually” (This is supported by verse “Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers." Corinthians) I am not sure that raindog and other witnesses are purposefully evading the questions posed here, or by their absence from the conversation, protecting their relationship with Jehovah and keeping their proverbial hands clean.
The Watchtower website has many of the topics online that are printed in the magazine, and it appears that the witnesses in charge have provided an answer for nearly every current topic, and back it up with verse. For instance, in an article about chat rooms, it is suggested that those who are attempting to introduce doubt are in fact “rocks hidden below water” and will " speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves". The Watchtower advises witnesses to leave conversations when the topic turns from informational to controvertible. I have been referring to this website for years, whenever my friend and I have conversations about his faith and practice, and it is fascinating. There is an answer for everything imaginable, and every answer is supported by verse adapted to fit. Some of the topics include chatrooms, the benefits of daily aspirin, cutting, fashion, and yes, help for battered women. Nothing is left to chance or the individual to decide- all everywitness needs to know is set down neatly in print and backed up with verse.
Sorry, I got into this a little late (I haven’t read the whole thread yet). The problem with that translation is that the infinitive “a” is used in special cases; and from what I see in the Gospel of John we’re talking about a definitive(?) based on my boneheaded understanding of Koine Greek. I’m sure DtC will be more than happy to correct my ignorance 
. A rough transliteration:
“In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and God was the Word”
So extrapolating the JW logic we have “God was a Word.”
I’ve brought this up with a couple of JWs who argue the above translation was incorrect. I’ve asked them for the original cites (like is it the Codex Sinia?). It was clear they had no idea what I was talking about and quickly changed the subject.
**[Hijack]**One other thing: In high school, I had an acquaintance who was a prodigy in electronics and a JW. He could have done anything in the field; in fact I spent hours saying that he was the kind of guy that people would have killed for–absolutely brilliant; and at one point he seemed to be interested. And yet his faith and peer pressure from the local congregation warned him of becoming corrupt if he went to college. I went into electrical engineering and have been mildly successful. He, on the other hand, is just a very bored technician at some computer store who never travels and seems increasingly embittered about life 
.
My impression of JW’s is that they like everything spelled out by a central authority to assure certainty in life and death. To each their own, I guess. I’ll take the ambiguity any day. [/Hijack]