Jump to content
The World News Media

Can we talk sensibly about Disfellowshipping and shunning.

Patiently waiting for Truth

Recommended Posts

  • Member

https://jw.support/disfellowshipping/    This is interesting reading. 

Lets start from those early Christians in the 1st century.  When did they become known as Christians ?  Was it whilst Jesus was still alive or was it after his resurrection ?

Who was it that called those early 'disciples' Christians ?  Did they call themselves by that name ? 

And now an important question. Did any human have the authority to tell another human, "You are no longer a Christian". 

Was being a 1st century Christian, being a part of a human Organisation ?  So was it possible to turn a person out from it ?  

Did a 1st century person need permission to preach the word of God ? 

At this point we should remember the account whereby the disciples complained to Jesus that some 'outsiders' were preaching and healing in the name of Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 2k
  • Replies 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://jw.support/disfellowshipping/    This is interesting reading.  Lets start from those early Christians in the 1st century.  When did they become known as Christians ?  Was it whilst Jesus

There are some good historical quotes on jwfacts from past Watchtower mags and books,  on the act of disfellowshipping.   Such as.. "Down in Goa the papers have carried notices that anyone h

That is a LOT OF QUESTIONS. why anyone would go through the trouble of answering them is beyond me…… Because nobody ever changes their mind here…… Ever.  

Posted Images

  • Member

There are some good historical quotes on jwfacts from past Watchtower mags and books,  on the act of disfellowshipping.  

Such as..

"Down in Goa the papers have carried notices that anyone having various books by Judge Rutherford would be excommunicated. What a bunch of mean and unmanly scallywags! Remember the blind man who was healed at the pool of Siloam, that when the man told the religious fellows where to get off they excommunicated him (John 9; 34, margin), and his parents before that had feared being put out of the synagogue by the "Jews". Isn't that the same cowardly action of the clergy in these days towards those who desire to have their eyes open and to "see"? "We'll excommunicate you!"" Consolation 1937 Nov 17 p.5

"Satan's organization sails under the high-sounding name of "Christendom". It boasts of a membership of over 500,000,000 persons. Its members are in bondage to creeds, customs, rites and ceremonies; they dare not disown these or criticize or expose them. To do so would bring down on their heads taunts, reproaches, disfellowship and persecution. Many thousands of the Lords people are held in these denominations as prisoners, afraid to express their disapproval of the creeds, methods and customs of the organization. Watchtower 1930 Oct 1 p.301"

Interesting that they say this  is a practice of "Satan's organization".  (Rev 13:1,2,4-7,10,11,12,15)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 9/14/2021 at 12:41 PM, Pudgy said:


why anyone would go through the trouble of answering them is beyond me…… Because nobody ever changes their mind here…… Ever.


But it's food for thought for JWs and non JWs. Sometimes people do not answer questions outwardly, but they do question themselves about things.  As for people changing their mind, how would you know ? Extra knowledge can sometimes make a difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 hours ago, Pudgy said:

Please give me one real example, of that ever happening, here on the Archive.

Well i for one have learnt a lot in the time I've been on here. 

I've learnt how totally 'unChristian' some JWs can be. That includes the GB and their lawyers. (With proof from court cases)

I've learnt how people will deliberately twist the things i write.  I've learnt that some so called 'JW' people will deliberately tell lies about me to get me d/fed from this forum. 

And more importantly I've learnt some things about GB members past and present, and about things the Watchtower have put in writing. 

So extra knowledge has helped me to make a decision not to return to the JW Org. 

But you don't really want to know this. You just want to side track from the main point of this topic.

Can we talk sensibly about Disfellowshipping and shunning.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 9/14/2021 at 2:11 PM, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

So does the GB / leaders / Elders et al, think that the congregant that has left, is automatically 'no longer a Christian' ? 


Usually the disfellowshipped one is said to be "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".  If these people are the ONLY ones in the world that will receive salvation, as it is basically taught, then everyone else couldn't be considered a Christian right?  They perceive that any who leave, have no life with God,  no possibility to be redeemed unless they return.  

 w15 4/15 p. 30-31 puts it like this:   "Likewise, disfellowshipped ones who are no longer members of the Christian congregation—their spiritual family—may come to realize what they have lost. The bitter fruits of their sinful course, together with the memories of happier days when they enjoyed a good relationship with Jehovah and his people, could bring them to their senses."



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

That is a silly assumption that has no validity in reality, that  I  want to sidetrack the conversation.

Interjection of a point, salient or not, or an attempt at humor, funny or not, is usually NOT an attempt to sidetrack a conversation.

Perhaps it’s just a reaction to a conversation that’s based on false premises, or erroneous assumptions. Or perhaps any other number of reasons.

Just plain silly.

But even more than that, it’s just plain wrong.

……  this is a common problem when people extensively say that they want to discuss facts but then they avoid discussing facts, and start discussing motive…… Which is assumed.

And, in any discussion there comes a time to shut the hell up and listen to what the other person is saying, including where the conversation is going that you don’t want it to go.

Often times we don’t really listen, because while the other person is speaking, we’re thinking about what we’re going to say next.

(… as an aside this quite often happens amongst married folks, where the three second rule becomes very very important.

The three second rule states that after the other person speaks, count for three full seconds before you give a reply.

If you wait five seconds while intoning  “….hmmmm“ while scratching your chin, it also helps you to appear wise.)

The only way you can accurately discuss motive is to determine from the other person what their motive is by actually asking them what is their motive.


You can make all the assumptions in the world and by accident you might stumble across it, or if you were a very good detective you might be able to discern it but the probabilities are not good.

May I make a suggestion…… Instead of asking five or six questions at a time, ask one question and see if anybody wants to answer it

(I have ADD, and frequently will walk up to someone, or worse, several people already involved in a conversation of their choosing, and out of the blue start talking about what I want to talk about, usually quantum physics or scuba diving or optics and light propagation. That almost always NEVER works as intended.)

…. but I digress …..

Perhaps people do and perhaps people don’t, and perhaps it’s a trick question like “do you still beat your wife?”, Which for most people it’s too much trouble to answer because it’s most times not a yes or a no answer.

….. then of course there are the questions that everybody in the group knows the answer and not really questions to be answered for new information, just to be beat into a purée like the traditional “beating the dead horse“.

…… Not really worth the effort.

A lot of conversations with agenda driven people are just too much work especially when nothing useful is to be gained by it.

I am a firm believer in the freedom of speech, and you have the right to ask any question you want, to anybody you want…… But you do not have the right to be entertained if the other person does not want to entertain you.

They have a perfect right, at their discretion, to completely ignore you and walk away, leaving you there to wave your hands and flap your lips in full expectation that they are going to entertain you with their answers …… And they have a perfect right to not do so.

They do not need a reason at all.

As a practical matter, singing to a pig  is a waste of time, just ruins a person’s voice, and irritates the pig.

Sometimes we are the singer…… And sometimes we are the pig.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

In 1962 two notable things happened, the WTB&TS Came out with the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures  in one volume (the green Bible), and Natalie Wood in the movie “Gypsy”established what it takes to enthusiastically entertain other people. 

Of course, in 1963 John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Mr Rook, you prove yourself to be mentally imbalanced so i suppoe I should forgive you, and of couse it would be the Christain thing to do. But here you are being a total coward, hiding behind the dog thing and deliberately trying to distract from the FACTS that the GB / Watchtower / JW org are WRONG in their actions on many counts. 

So getting back on track :-


I suppose an important question here would be. Do JWs here honestly think that every person that leaves the JW Org, is 'no longer a Christian' ?
If that is so then it would seem that JWs believe that only the people in the JW Org are able to serve God.  So then JWs become anti-'non-JWs'. 
That would be in line with the Jews being anti-Samaritan, whereas Jesus was not. 
Mr Rook aka @Pudgy prefers to distract from the issue. So a question to you James, Did Jesus try to hide the truth about the Jewish religious leaders ? 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • @JW Insider Your summary is irrelevant, as I do not make any assertions regarding BC/AD other than their usage by scholars and in history, as you yourself have also acknowledged on numerous occasions, thus rendering your point invalid and evasive. The Watchtower leverages external viewpoints, including secular evidence, to substantiate the accuracy of their chronological interpretations. There are numerous approaches to dating events. Personally, I explore various alternative methods that lead to the same conclusion as the Watchtower. However, the most captivating approach is to utilize secular chronology to arrive at the same outcome. By relying solely on secular chronology, the pattern still aligns, albeit with a distinct interpretation of the available data. Nevertheless, the ultimate result remains unchanged. This is why when you get upset, when you are proven wrong, you, Tom, and those with the authority to ban take action, because you like others cannot handle the truth. In this case, your infamous tablet VAT 4956 has become useless in this situation. I do agree with you on one thing: you are not an expert, just like COJ. However, I must admit that this foolish individual was not the first to debate the chronology with the Watchtower and abandon it based on personal beliefs. He simply happened to be the most recent one that's on record.
    • This person will never give you a direct answer. He's beyond reasoning and only seeks to dodge the truth. The information about the tablet has been available for decades, but I chose to bring it up now to refute previous and current criticisms about the limitations of this tablet. The real issue is that he can no longer rely on this insignificant tablet. It's frustrating how much time has been wasted on accepting falsehoods from others.
    • Maybe I too should write a book called George vs Apostates but actually mean it. 
    • This will be my last point on this topic here, unless you continue to make further references to me, as you have done so many times already.  After what you have said above, this is a good place to summarize the most important points again. You say that the organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible. This is true, because the Bible offers a fairly complete relative chronology with very few places where one must resort to interpretation to complete a relative chronology from Adam to Zedekiah, or even Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile, or at the very latest, 70 years after the destruction of the Temple, referenced in Zechariah 1:8 landing on the . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus. . .).  So there is a long stretch of relative dates. But there are no BC/BCE dates in the Bible. There is no Bible-based way to connect any BCE dates to our day, or even to the time of Jesus. There are no indications in the Bible that would give us the BC/BCE dates. Even the WTS relies both directly and indirectly on records from Babylonian/Persian/Greek ASTRONOMY to link the Bible accounts to any BCE date. If we claim they are from unreliable records, then that means that our own claims about any BCE dates are just as unreliable. So it is wrong to say that the WTS stance is grounded in divine guidance. The Watchtower's BCE dates are grounded in Babylonian astronomy. However, the dates used by the WTS are cherry-picked so that astronomy-based BCE dates are accepted only as long they are AFTER about 560 BCE, and all dates PRIOR to 560 BCE only presented after adding 20 years to them. Personally, I have no problem with the claim that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon ran from 607 to 587. That seems to be the right time period supported by astronomy. [And I have no problem with the astronomy evidence that says Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587, and the astronomical evidence that Darius' 2nd year was about 518, which would explain the other 70-year period mentioned in Zechariah 1:7-12] And if someone wants to start a 2520 year period from 607, that's just an interpretation. No harm done. But the astronomy evidence the WTS relies on to get 539 also shows that 607 was NOT the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's as we claim, but points to a year in which there was no such thing as a King Nebuchadnezzar. He didn't become king for another two years.  The claim that the astronomy evidence might be wrong or unreliable is one thing. But it's problematic to claim that only a tiny percentage of that data is correct. Especially because the part we accept is the part that is MOST prone to the errors the WTS makes use of to dismiss the much larger set of excellent evidence. We dismiss literally ALL the evidence which is not as prone to those same errors. We even say we can make "pivotal" dates from the more error-prone evidence, but that we must also ignore the better parts of that same "pivotal" evidence in places where we don't like what it tells us. If we merely claimed that the WTS has divine guidance and that's what it completely relies on, then that might be a difficult concept for some, but it would not be so problematic. It only becomes problematic when we try to impeach the very evidence we make use of. The WTS uses WT articles that try to show that the same evidence might mean two different things. That shows that we somehow "need" the Babylonian evidence to support us. And we have even followed Furuli's folly in order to make a FALSE claim about VAT 4956. This was really disingenuous, not just because  the claims were 100% FALSE, but because VAT 4956 is only one of a dozen different completely independent sources for the entire set of astronomical dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign.  Of course, I can't fault any of us for not understanding this. Very few of us will try to look into it for ourselves. And I'm no expert, and I fell for the same bits of false reasoning that made me think we were right and the rest of the world was wrong. But it's those false claims that we are right because "the Bible tells us so" or that "divine guidance tells us so" that will continue to embarrass us for anyone who goes to the trouble to check out the evidence. As I said, I'm no expert, but it doesn't take one. It's a very straightforward thing to look up the astronomical evidence for ourselves and tell others what we found. Any junior high school student could do it. You don't need that much education. You don't need to be an expert. So there is obviously a reason that almost no Witnesses will ever go to the trouble of looking up any of the Babylonian observations we pretend to rely on. You haven't done it, or if you have you won't admit what you found. Scholar JW won't do it. The GB won't do it. The GB Helpers won't do it. JWs are intelligent. And yet almost none of them dare to do it. If they do, they don't dare admit publicly what they found out. There are just a couple of exceptions to that rule. And we see what happens to them. As for me, I don't think it's right to learn something and not be able to share it. I think that if we love the organization, if we love the brotherhood, and if we love Jehovah who is a lover of truth, we would share our concerns. We shouldn't want the organization to be embarrassed by having made a man-made obsession about something so trivial and unnecessary. The WTS should never have made such a big deal out of a secular, man-made set of dates.  As for me, I will follow Psalm 26: 26 Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity, And in Jehovah I have trusted, that I may not wobble.  2  Examine me, O Jehovah, and put me to the test; Refine my kidneys and my heart.  3  For your loving-kindness is in front of my eyes, And I have walked in your truth.  4  I have not sat with men of untruth; And with those who hide what they are I do not come in. ...  8  Jehovah, I have loved the dwelling of your house And the place of the residing of your glory. ... 11  As for me, in my integrity I shall walk. O redeem me and show me favor. 12  My own foot will certainly stand on a level place; Among the congregated throngs I shall bless Jehovah.
    • Can you explain why you consistently misinterpret his words? What's your purpose for doing so? Why are you distorting this ghost's 20-year presence with false representations? What is the reason for a runner 20 years earlier given your stipulation is 568 to 587 for VAT 4956 wouldn't mean to have a runner for a distance of 617 miles, considering that the tablet in question is believed to have been written or dated in 568? Are you saying you believe in magic like the Pagan Babylonians and somehow Nebuchadnezzar used telepathy to convey an order? So, if anything significant occurred in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar that is linked to 587 by this tablet that apostates and opposers use, Borsippa should also be taken into account for the year 587, except for the fact that you are referring to a distance of 617 miles and transportation back then was with either a chariot or horse and the mention of a king giving an order for Borsippa which is 617 away from Jerusalem as apostates state Nebuchadnezzar was in 587 can't be easily explained unless a runner is used or the King was home in Babylon. Those are the choices.
  • Members

    • misette

      misette 213

      Last active:
    • chan

      chan 0

      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.