Should JW's punish, disfellowship, or shun members who disagree with certain teachings?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

Okay, well, re that:  typos - means breath, wind, blowing-as in glassblowing?, or whatever force the causer would use to form something or express his "express image", for instance[?]

And "anti"-typos would be something striking "against" a typos.  "Anti-Christ" might be to "Christ" as "anti-matter" would be to "matter".  if So, it seems to me, that "anti-type" has been not an accurate word to use when referring to  a "prophetic pattern".

The OED has the following as the very first definitions of the noun "type." Nothing to do with breath, wind or glassblowing. The word type is probably more closely related to the word beat or strike.
 

Quote

type, n.1            (taɪp)              Also 6–7 tipe.

[ad. F. type (16th c. in Littré) or L. typus, a. Gr. τύπος impression, figure, type, f. the root of τύπτειν to beat, strike.]

1. a. That by which something is symbolized or figured; anything having a symbolical signification; a symbol, emblem; spec. in Theol. a person, object, or event of Old Testament history, prefiguring some person or thing revealed in the new dispensation; correl. to antitype. in (the) type, in symbolic representation.

   c 1470 Henryson Mor. Fab. (S.T.S.) 579 Suppose this be ane Fabill, And ouerheillit with typis figurall.    1590 ‘Hobynoll’ To Learned Sheph. v. in Spenser's F.Q. (Pref. Verses), That fare Ilands right, Which thou dost vayle in Type of Faery land, Elizas blessed field, that Albion hight.    1607 Hieron Wks. I. 104 The people of Israel were a tipe of Gods people: Canaan a tipe of heauen.    1654 Jer. Taylor Real Pres. v. 103 He offered wine not water in the type‥of his bloud.    1706 Prior Ode to Queen xxxiv, The British Rose, Type of sweet Rule, and gentle Majesty.    1781 Fletcher Lett. Wks. 1795 VII. 236 [Marriage] the most perfect type of our Lords union with his church.    1829 The Bengallee 182 The Hookah's monstrous snake.‥ That type of eastern Luxury's excess.    1851 Kingsley in Life (1878) I. 255 It is only in proportion as we appreciate and understand the types that we can understand the anti-types.    1863 M. Howitt F. Bremer's Greece II. xii. 29 A river is always the type of human life.    1875 Manning Mission H. Ghost i. 15 Ceremonial actions, and washings, and purifications, which were the types and shadows of things to come.

b.1.b An imperfect symbol or anticipation of something. nonce-use.

   1754 Foote Knights i. Wks. 1799 I. 62 The very abstract of penury! Sir John Cutler, with his transmigrated stockings, was but a type of him.

†2.2 a.2.a A figure or picture of something; a representation; an image or imitation. Obs. rare.

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

In 33 he was given authority over those who voluntarily submit themselves to his rulership, over his congregation.

So you do not believe Jesus when he said he had just been given "ALL authority in heaven and on earth"?

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Okay.  So You're right and I was wrong, this once.  So what???  I *told* you it wasn't a disproof necessarily.

Just kidding .  it's embarrassing-yes.

Origin and Etymology of antitype

I've been trying to answer you for the longest time but I keep making types - um, typos.   

Between the Supremes and Led Zeppelin, you are starting to reveal the arena in which you are a prophetess.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Yes, of course.  Given authority to command in the name of [authority of] Father,son, and holy spirit,   over those who voluntarily submit to him as their head, his congregation, body, bride [eventually numbering 144,000] that he bought from the earth: command them to go and make disciples and baptize in the name of [authority of] Father,son, and holy spirit.  like ,"Stop! in the name of love, before you break my heart!"

You are saying that Jesus was mistaken then, because he said that "ALL authority had already been given to him in heaven and on earth." You seem to be confusing his authority with the first things that Jesus did with that authority. The first thing that Jesus did was transfer subjects from all walks of life into the Kingdom.

It's as if the King of England back in, let's say, the year 1033 CE, just gets into power and says "I am now the King of England, and I now have all authority over the land: both over peasants and land-owners alike." Then he goes on to say that the first thing he will do is accept delegates from all the peasant populations who will voluntary come to London to "bend the knee" in respect to their new king.

Based on that King-of-England scenario, you might now have a bunch of peasants saying: "Guess what? Even though the new king claims to have all authority, it's not not really true, he really only has authority over those of us peasants who voluntarily 'bend the knee' to him. We should make sure that all the land-owners are aware that it's OK not to accept him as a real king over them yet. We don't even have to call him 'king.' It's more like a mini-king over a mini-peasant-kingdom. And he really only has authority over us if we voluntarily offer it. Maybe some time near the end of his kingship over the land will we need to accept the idea that he was truly given ALL authority."
 

[TrueTomHarley]

 

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It's as if the King of England back in, let's say, the year 1033 CE, just gets into power and says "I am now the King of England, and I now have all authority over the land: both over peasants and land-owners alike.

'There's a new king in town'

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

Ah! Yes, the Walsh trial. A Brother (JW) suing the government over National (Armed) Service in 1954. And since the government didn’t believe the sect JW was actually a religion? They tried their best to discredit the Watchtower by attempting to show the “Lords in Common” (court Judges) this sect were just fanatics, and lairs.

If anyone wishes to “read” the “TRUE” transcript of the case, it’s available online. Just be careful, since “apostates” have rewritten some pages of the transcript to bolster their ignorant claims. One, that has been submitted here already is a good example since it was gathered by an apostate book.

I believe, it has become a theme for some here to gather untruthful propaganda to engage in a conversation, from a false premise. But that’s what happens when people believe an ex-witness (Bethelite) kicked out from Bethel and is now bent on discrediting the Watchtower in every possible way by insinuating the 1914 doctrine is “false”, when NOT, any ex-witness can “disprove” it.

And this heretical thought that itÂ’s up to us to prove it, is subjectable since theyÂ’re the ones that bring it up. So, itÂ’s for them to prove it wrong. Now, on the other hand, Pastor Russell, proved to the world, his calculations he started 40 years earlier came to a completion. That event was confirmed by worldly conditions.

It’s ironic, that people make every attempt to discredit “time prophecy” when they can’t, and they only choose the Watchtower when there are literally hundreds of predictions on file, with the last one done for this year (2017). That means, Satan must “really” hate the Watchtower for some reason, that people just can’t wrap their head around, this simple unforgotten FACT!

 

Example of Apostate Manipulation: Lying in Court

The Watchtower has a long history of using the theocratic warfare doctrine in court–from the first president, C.T. Russell, in his divorce testimony and elsewhere, to Fred Franz, a previous Watchtower president. A now half-century-old example in which less than full honesty is self-evident is the following exchange between Franz and the prosecutor:

Prosecutor:	Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
Franz:	Yes Â…
Prosecutor:	So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
Franz:	Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Prosecutor:	I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, German, French.
Franz:	Yes. . .   Prosecutor: Can you, yourself translate that into Hebrew? Franz: Which? Prosecutor: That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis? Franz: No. (Cross Examination of Fred Franz. Pursuer’s Proof of Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham, Clyde, Scottish Court of Sessions, Wednesday, November 24, 1954, p.7, pars. A-B. and p. 102, par. F.) Just like when it comes to the word” shun”. A word exaggerated by disgruntle ex-witnesses. A word synonymous with a wide range of human condition, and emotions. 1.      Can anyone obligate a “family” that has strong cultural ideologies with, let’s say, a family member that becomes “GAY” or LESBIAN”? This condition of “shunning” has nothing to do with being a witness. Since worldly people do it every day!!!! 2.      Can anyone obligate a “family” that has strong cultural ideologies with, let’s say, a family member that becomes addicted to drugs? This condition of “shunning” has nothing to do with being a witness. Since worldly people do it every day!!! 3.      Can anyone obligate a “family” that has strong cultural ideologies with, let’s say, a family member that becomes an alcoholic? This condition of “shunning” has nothing to do with being a witness. Since worldly people do it every day!!! Now, disfellowship. Show, in scripture, that an unrepentant heart should remain in God’s grace. If scripture itself implies in 2 Timothy 4:1-5 the conditions of preaching God’s word.       Now, Punish. That’s a subjective word that needs more clarity.

[Albert Michelson]

9 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

That's horrible. I can assure you that many JWs would not do something that insensitive. 

I moderate an ex JW support group, it's the rule not the exeption. 

[TrueTomHarley]

5 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

If anyone wishes to “read” the “TRUE” transcript of the case, it’s available online. Just be careful, since “apostates” have rewritten some pages of the transcript to bolster their ignorant claims. One, that has been submitted here already is a good example since it was gathered by an apostate book.

Or you could just say 'it was 70 years ago. Who cares? Even if it was 100% faithfully reported, they've had plenty of time to shape up.' Everyone knows the world 70 years ago bears little resemblance to today.

If someone insists on acting as a 10-year old, there's no need to go there with him.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Or you could just say 'it was 70 years ago. Who cares? Even if it was 100% faithfully reported, they've had plenty of time to shape up.' Everyone knows the world 70 years ago bears little resemblance to today.

If someone insists on acting as a 10-year old, there's no need to go there with him.

That’s an odd statement coming from a supposed liberal, TTH. Are you trying your hand at censorship now?

I would think, that direction would fit first with JTR, then others! or am I hurting the bottom financial line.

[Noble Berean]

29 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I moderate an ex JW support group, it's the rule not the exeption. 

I wouldn't 

[TrueTomHarley]

46 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

That’s an odd statement coming from a supposed liberal, TTH. Are you trying your hand at censorship now?

 

 

I would think, that direction would fit first with JTR, then others! or am I hurting the bottom financial line.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain this one for me. I don't know what you mean.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

That’s an odd statement coming from a supposed liberal, TTH. Are you trying your hand at censorship now?

 

 

I would think, that direction would fit first with JTR, then others! or am I hurting the bottom financial line.

I just woke up, so perhaps I have neurons still sleeping, but could you please explain that statement as if I was a three year old?  I do NOT believe in censorship of ANY kind, anywhere, any time. I believe in people making themselves smarter so they can see what is true, and what is not.  I do draw the line at fighting for an idiots right to free speech, but I would not censor him (or her). 

I may ignore them completely, AND/OR separate myself from them .... and if they threaten my safety or life,  I may kill them,  but everyone should have the right to speak freely without censorship and repercussions ... BUT NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE LISTENED TO.

.