Sam Herd Compares Shunning your own Children to Casting out Demons.

[Anna]

1 minute ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I was referring to the GB, not the folks at the bottom.  They have absolutely no say or valued opinions whatsoever, and therefore not the same reprehensibility.  Think about the backgrounds of the GB .... they are all old men who if they were not doing what thay do now ... what else COULD they do to survive in the "real" world, outside of free money, and LOTS of it?

I know who you were referring to. And I was saying there are easier ways to achieve the same. I mean would you really want to live your life knowing you are responsible for 8 million people? I certainly wouldn't. Not even for a Rolex watch.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

You assume much about altruism , grasshopper!

[Anna]

6 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Think about the backgrounds of the GB .... they are all old men who if they were not doing what thay do now ... what else COULD they do to survive in the "real" world

Come on, use your imagination, they weren't always old. They could have done anything, but they chose to do full time pioneering, and not always under the best circumstances. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

You assume much about how choices and the job market really works, grasshopper!

[Anna]

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You assume much about how choices and the job market really works, grasshopper!

I guess you  are assuming they had no other choice but to do full time service when they were young.

And don't call me grasshopper or I will set my spider on you! ?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Surely you jest ... and I will stop calling you Shirley.

[JW Insider]

51 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Just wondering if this is the right slant here. It would seem your suggestion is that there is a majority, not unanimous. view in the congregation that this man was deserving of exclusion.

Paul's letters to the Corinthians provide many real-congregation examples of ideas that did not have full agreement behind them. The factions for Cephas, Paul, Apollos, superfine apostles, and concern for who baptized whom, for example. The disorder amongst congregants regarding taking turns when speaking, teaching, interpreting etc. The talk of Paul's advice sometimes being rejected. Paul's words about sects coming in so that the approved will be more easily made known. etc.

Even here in the context, Paul had just compared ALL [in the congregation] in a way that showed a sensitivity to the potential for exaggeration. As Holman translates the previous verse:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If anyone has caused pain, he has caused pain not so much to me but to some degree  — not to exaggerate  — to all of you.

And in the next verse, the wording is just as careful with a word telling us that it was "many, but not all"--more specfically, a majority.

The possibility for your suggestion is there, but it's not the most straightforward or most likely reading. It requires the creation of an ambiguity which is not necessary as there are clearer ways of stating what you suggest. These kinds of ambiguities are always possible --and I don't think anything in the original Greek would forbid that understanding-- but when we rely on the least likely meaning too often, it smacks of "special pleading."

There are some online commentaries available for this verse, and I've never seen one that that attaches the meaning you suggest. Although I don't doubt that one might exist. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/2-6.htm

Another way to look at it is that even if this particular verse means "all the rest of the congregation who were not involved in the immorality," or something like that, the basic point about individual shunning (as opposed to full congregational shunning) is still very likely even without the support of this verse. The quotes from Matthew 18 (and in some cases, even 2 Thess 3) can show that even just one individual may be involved in the shunning of one other individual. No reason to try to get others to join as it could be a matter between the two of them.

[Evacuated]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

not the most straightforward or most likely reading

Nevertheless, possible. I've never been one for what seems the straight(forward) path always, as it can often be the opposite, with an undesirable outcome. However I will acept that there could  be some in Corinth who did not share Paul's censure of that man's wrongdoing  in view of the  earlier tolerance.  

[Space Merchant]

@Jack Ryan Unfortunately Expelling and Shunning Commands do exist and it is based on what has been entrusted to the church by means of the Christ, of which is later practices by those who had authority over the church, examples being Apostle Paul. Such goes by other names being Herem Censure and or the Takfir, excommunication, etc. Only ONE form out of the Three practices of Expel/Shun command is correct, and only a FEW Christians are aware of this and practice such while others use the TWO other incorrect forms.

This is why you have people today calling Paul a lair, not knowing the origin of such practices of which the early church taught, and we have those ignorant of this small bit of information, as if Armstrong and or anyone who knows this information well makes it any clearer.

 

Even outside of religion, such is in practice.

[JOHN BUTLER]

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

@Jack Ryan Unfortunately Expelling and Shunning Commands do exist and it is based on what has been entrusted to the church by means of the Christ, of which is later practices by those who had authority over the church, examples being Apostle Paul. Such goes by other names being Herem Censure and or the Takfir, excommunication, etc. Only ONE form out of the Three practices of Expel/Shun command is correct, and only a FEW Christians are aware of this and practice such while others use the TWO other incorrect forms.

This is why you have people today calling Paul a lair, not knowing the origin of such practices of which the early church taught, and we have those ignorant of this small bit of information, as if Armstrong and or anyone who knows this information well makes it any clearer.

 

Even outside of religion, such is in practice.

No disrespect but i do wish you would keep the topic on the Jehovah's Witnesses only when the topic is such. 

There is no point telling what other 'religions' do, or what the outside world does. Surely you would know that the JW's are supposed to be 'no part of this word' and should not be influenced by anyone other than God and Jesus Christ, and the Bible.  

[Space Merchant]

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

No disrespect but i do wish you would keep the topic on the Jehovah's Witnesses only when the topic is such. 

There is no point telling what other 'religions' do, or what the outside world does. Surely you would know that the JW's are supposed to be 'no part of this word' and should not be influenced by anyone other than God and Jesus Christ, and the Bible.  

I have been keeping on topic, anything in regards to excommunication is of expelling/shunning command, to which I ask you of what it is I am off topic about.

When one studies religion it is easy to point out their Christology, their beliefs, practices and so forth, mainly when it comes to the Abrahamic Religions and so forth, understanding the mindset and or views of others, on the other side of the spectrum, actually practices as that are not Christian  like.

I know who they are, even challenged one and understand where they are coming from, granted I have been studying religions, as I had informed to you before.

When one is no part of the world, they do not adhere to traditions of men and or bad made holidays spoken of to be of Christ when it is not. You do not align yourself with any side expect God's, you are to respect authority but never allow authority to overrule God's Rule, and if civil disobedience has to be done, it has to be in the Christian way, not the other ways it is done by false ones.

Above all else, God is above all and everyone, we take his command seriously, as well as the command of his son, Jesus, to which he had entrusted his command to those who take up the church, for it is all connected.

That being said, when Jesus commanded and or given ability to bind and loosen, you should know what that entails regarding the church. Therefore, it should not be unknown to anyone what expelling aka excommunication and shun command means, and which out of the 3 forms is correct, whereas in reality only 1 form is correct and practiced by FEW Christians. 

When Jesus gives command of something, and or that of his Father, we do not follow it half way or accept half, we take it up in full and be committed to it, as done by those before us and those to come after us.

 

And yes, the Bible, Matthew 16 is a good chapter to read.

[Space Merchant]

19 hours ago, Anna said:

I know who you were referring to. And I was saying there are easier ways to achieve the same. I mean would you really want to live your life knowing you are responsible for 8 million people? I certainly wouldn't. Not even for a Rolex watch.

Well on religious statistics side of things, I think you lot are around the 8.45 million mark, possibly 8.5 million.

For me I prefer solar powered watches over any watch. At least no one would be trying to take it from you like a fresh pair of new Jordans.