₦airaland Forum

Jesus taught his disciples that if one of them insists on his or her own opinion as against the whole group they should SHUN such a person and treat him the same way Jews do treat tax collectors and sinners! Matthew 18:15-17
The Jews won't greet nor eat with such a person so first century Christians follow this way of punishment for apostates. Romans 16:17; 2John 1:10-11

Apostates are former members of faith who turned against their own religion for one reason or another so Jesus taught his disciples to shun such ones in their midst.

Muhammad on the other hand taught his disciples to behead apostates in their midst.

Please which one is better?

Let us discuss.

Over to you Honesttalk21.

If all the inhabitants of planet earth are Muslims what will be the result of Muhammad's instruction to behead an apostate?

It is noteworthy that when Muslims have issues among themselves regarding land disputes or rulership they are always divided into fractions just as it happened immediately after the death of their leader (Muhammad) the group started fighting themselves over who will take the lead because Muhammad never gave them instructions on how they should handle matters after his death so because he died suddenly they needed to choose someone who will replace him which led to a bloodbath among Muslims and that has continued till today. So Muslims can't settle their disparities peacefully among themselves yet this religion will hypothetically join hands in fighting against any state where Muslims are mistreated.

What of Jesus?
Jesus chose twelve Apostles out of many disciples {Luke 6:13} and told them that this men will oversee the activities of his group after he's gone then he chose one out of the twelve to act as spokesman among them {Matthew 16:18} that is why Apostle Peter always stand as their spokesman {Act 2:14; 3:12; 4:8; 5:8, 29} Jesus said whatever Peter and the twelve bind on earth has been bound in heaven and whatever they loosen on earth has been loosened in heaven {Matthew 16:19} that is why all Christians in the first century were unitedly obedient to the Apostles. Act 2:42
So whenever any matter arises that could lead to division among Christians it's the duty of the Apostles to settle such a case. Act 15:1-2
Whatever the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem concludes is binding upon all members of Christianity globally. Act 15:23-29
This makes PEACE reign among the first century disciples even though Jesus is no longer visibly present among them as they are all obedient to Peter and the Apostles so Jesus' prayer to God that all his disciples should become one family was granted! John 17:22 compare to 1Corinthans 1:10; 1Peter 3:8

So there is fear even though they never used weapons against anyone because if anyone turns against the teachings of the Apostles such a person is about to create division therefore what Jesus commanded them will be applied which is SHUNNING such a person just as Jews does to tax collectors and sinners! Matthew 18:15-17

Please let us compare.
If the whole world happens to become Muslims can the religion bring peace among adherents?
If the whole world happens to become Christians can the religion bring peace among adherents?🙂

Shunning unrepentant wrongdoers helps others in the group to know that such a person needs to be quarantined spiritually speaking. Romans 16:17; Titus 3:9; 2John 1:10-11; Jude 1:19

But if such a person repented after a while what happens?

Apostle Paul said:

If all the inhabitants of planet earth are Muslims what will be the result of Muhammad's instruction to behead an apostate?

It is noteworthy that when Muslims have issues among themselves regarding land disputes or rulership they are always divided into fractions just as it happened immediately after the death of their leader (Muhammad) the group started fighting themselves over who will take the lead because Muhammad never gave them instructions on how they should handle matters after his death so because he died suddenly they needed to choose someone who will replace him which led to a bloodbath among Muslims and that has continued till today. So Muslims can't settle their disparities peacefully among themselves yet this religion will hypothetically join hands in fighting against any state where Muslims are mistreated.

What about Jesus?

Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say.  This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness. I therefore exhort you to confirm your love for him. 2Corinthians 2:5-8

So after been shunned by all members of the group for some times if the person come back to his or her senses he or she will be reinstated as one of the Christian family because he has repented.

But what about Islam?
The apostate is to be killed instead of giving him or her the opportunity to feel the need to return to the group and there is no thought of repentance after the erring one has been beheaded.

I'm expecting Honesttalk21 to respond to this because he's been arguing saying the shunning Jesus taught his disciples and the beheading Muhammad taught are the same thing!🙂

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus taught his disciples that if one of them insists on his or her own opinion as against the whole group they should SHUN such a person and treat him the same way Jews do treat tax collectors and sinners! Matthew 18:15-17
The Jews won't greet nor eat with such a person so first century Christians follow this way of punishment for apostates. Romans 16:17; 2John 1:10-11

Apostates are former members of faith who turned against their own religion for one reason or another so Jesus taught his disciples to shun such ones in their midst.

Muhammad on the other hand taught his disciples to behead apostates in their midst.

Please which one is better?

Let us discuss.

Over to you Honesttalk21.

You've misrepresented Scripture, Christian history, and Islamic theology. Here's a more accurate understanding:

You've misread Matthew 18:15-17. The passage actually says, "If your brother sins against you..." and suggests treating him "as a Gentile and tax collector." This refers to resolving personal conflicts (sins against you), not addressing apostasy or doctrinal differences.

What does treating someone "as a Gentile and tax collector" really mean? Look at how Jesus interacted with them. He shared meals (Matthew 9:10-11), conversed (Matthew 15:22-28, John 4), chose one as an apostle (Matthew), and actively sought them out (Luke 19:1-10, Zacchaeus).

Following Jesus' example means maintaining relationships, continuing to share the Gospel, and seeking restoration, *not* total shunning. JW shunning, which forbids eating together, speaking (even to family), all social contact, and basic greetings, directly contradicts Jesus' approach.

You've also misapplied Romans 16:17 and 2 John 10-11. These passages address itinerant false teachers actively spreading heresy within early churches, *not* family members who leave the faith. Romans 16:17 urges us to "keep away" (Greek: *ekklínō*) from divisive teachers.

2 John 10-11 advises against hosting traveling false teachers who promote heresy. It doesn't command never speaking to former members, severing family ties, refusing meals, or imposing total social ostracism.

JWs apply this to individuals who quietly leave, those disfellowshipped for things like smoking, celebrating birthdays, or questioning doctrine, and family members with differing views. This is a distortion of the text.

Historically, your understanding of first-century Christian practice is flawed.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 clarifies this by stating, "not at all meaning the people of this world... otherwise you would have to leave the world. But... you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother but is sexually immoral..." Paul distinguishes between unbelievers and former believers, suggesting normal daily contact is maintained with the former.

For professing Christians living in unrepentant sin, church fellowship (Lord's Supper, gatherings) is withheld. Church discipline affected *ecclesial* fellowship, not total social isolation.

2 Corinthians 2:5-8 speaks about the disciplined person, urging forgiveness, comfort, and reaffirmation of love. The goal is restoration, not permanent exile. How can you comfort someone you're forbidden to speak to?

Your claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught beheading is a gross distortion and a false comparison. Islamic apostasy laws historically addressed treason, not simply a change in belief. Leaving Islam in the early Islamic state often meant joining enemy tribes actively at war with the Muslims.

Treason within a religious-political state is distinct from a simple change of belief. The Qur'an (2:256) clearly states, "There is no compulsion in religion."

In classical Islamic jurisprudence, many scholars ruled that private disbelief carries no earthly punishment. Public apostasy coupled with active warfare, however, was treated as rebellion/treason.

In today's world, most Muslim-majority countries do not execute apostates (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia). Where harsh laws exist (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan), these represent extremist interpretations, not standard universal Islamic practice. There's a growing scholarly consensus that such punishments were contextual (early state self-defense) and not universal commands.

Historically, Christianity executed apostates for over 1,000 years. After 380 CE, heresy became a capital crime. During the Inquisition (1200s-1800s), thousands were tortured and executed.

Calvin burned Servetus for denying the Trinity in 1553. Anabaptists were drowned and burned by both Catholics and Protestants.

During the witch trials, tens of thousands were killed. Biblical texts like Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ("kill him" and Deuteronomy 17:2-5 ("stoned to death" were used to justify these actions. You're condemning Muslims for something Christians themselves did on a massive scale.

JW shunning also leads to deaths. While you claim shunning is better than execution, JW shunning has been linked to suicides, with documented cases following total family rejection. Furthermore, the blood transfusion policy, even with some modifications, has caused and continues to cause unnecessary deaths.

Research demonstrates the psychological trauma resulting from depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Social ostracism activates the same brain regions as physical pain. Family rejection is a major suicide risk factor. Total isolation is psychologically devastating.

JW shunning means parents are forbidden from speaking to adult children (even those dying of cancer), siblings are permanently cut off (unable to acknowledge each other at funerals), grandparents are denied access to grandchildren, and individuals experience total loss of family, friends, job, housing, and identity. It's emotional blackmail, expressed as "leave and lose everyone you love." This isn't loving discipline; it's psychological torture.

You ask, "Which is better?" Neither execution nor psychological torture aligns with Jesus' teachings. Jesus' actual pattern was to eat with tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 9:10-13), maintain relationships to encourage repentance (John 8:1-11, Luke 19:1-10), pursue the lost, and welcome outcasts. JWs, however, immediately cut all contact, refuse basic greetings, and destroy families, claiming this is Christian love.

The honest comparison reveals that Islam, in certain interpretations and supported by some classical rulings (which are contextual and increasingly rejected), prescribed death for apostasy as treason. Growing reform emphasizes Qur'an 2:256 ("no compulsion".

Christianity, on the other hand, actually executed thousands for centuries, using Old Testament law to justify their actions.

JWs practice a universal, mandatory shunning policy that causes documented suicides, family destruction, and psychological harm, enforced globally.

Both execution and total shunning are wrong. You're defending cruelty while condemning others for engaging in similar behavior.

Your false premises are exposed by:

1. Matthew 18:15-17 being about personal conflicts, not apostasy; Jesus engaged Gentiles and tax collectors, not shunned them.

2. Romans 16:17 and 2 John 10-11 being about traveling false teachers, not family members.

3. First-century practice showing that Church discipline was restorative and maintained daily contact with former believers.

4.Your. Christian history reveals a long period - over a thousand years - where those deemed apostates faced execution. It seems inconsistent to condemn similar actions by Muslims when Christians engaged in comparable behavior.

Furthermore, the practice of shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses has been documented to cause significant harm, including psychological distress, and in some cases, even death. This raises questions about whether such practices are morally superior.

In essence, your interpretation of scripture appears flawed, your understanding of history distorted, and your defense of cruelty troubling. This deviates from genuine Christianity and instead resembles a cult, manipulating Bible verses to rationalize the destruction of families.

Jesus taught his disciples to treat anyone who disagree with the unanimous decision of the church as Jews do treat tax collectors and sinners. Matthew 18:15-17
And his disciples did just so! Romans 16:17; 2John 1:10-11
Please do you understand how Jews in the first century treat tax collectors?
Is that not the same way Jesus taught his disciples to treat apostates?🙂

honesttalk21:
You've misrepresented Scripture, Christian history, and Islamic theology. Here's a more accurate understanding:

You've misread Matthew 18:15-17. The passage actually says, "If your brother sins against you..." and suggests treating him "as a Gentile and tax collector." This refers to resolving personal conflicts (sins against you), not addressing apostasy or doctrinal differences.

What does treating someone "as a Gentile and tax collector" really mean? Look at how Jesus interacted with them. He shared meals (Matthew 9:10-11), conversed (Matthew 15:22-28, John 4), chose one as an apostle (Matthew), and actively sought them out (Luke 19:1-10, Zacchaeus).

Following Jesus' example means maintaining relationships, continuing to share the Gospel, and seeking restoration, *not* total shunning. JW shunning, which forbids eating together, speaking (even to family), all social contact, and basic greetings, directly contradicts Jesus' approach.

You've also misapplied Romans 16:17 and 2 John 10-11. These passages address itinerant false teachers actively spreading heresy within early churches, *not* family members who leave the faith. Romans 16:17 urges us to "keep away" (Greek: *ekklínō*) from divisive teachers.

2 John 10-11 advises against hosting traveling false teachers who promote heresy. It doesn't command never speaking to former members, severing family ties, refusing meals, or imposing total social ostracism.

JWs apply this to individuals who quietly leave, those disfellowshipped for things like smoking, celebrating birthdays, or questioning doctrine, and family members with differing views. This is a distortion of the text.

Historically, your understanding of first-century Christian practice is flawed.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 clarifies this by stating, "not at all meaning the people of this world... otherwise you would have to leave the world. But... you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother but is sexually immoral..." Paul distinguishes between unbelievers and former believers, suggesting normal daily contact is maintained with the former.

For professing Christians living in unrepentant sin, church fellowship (Lord's Supper, gatherings) is withheld. Church discipline affected *ecclesial* fellowship, not total social isolation.

2 Corinthians 2:5-8 speaks about the disciplined person, urging forgiveness, comfort, and reaffirmation of love. The goal is restoration, not permanent exile. How can you comfort someone you're forbidden to speak to?

Your claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught beheading is a gross distortion and a false comparison. Islamic apostasy laws historically addressed treason, not simply a change in belief. Leaving Islam in the early Islamic state often meant joining enemy tribes actively at war with the Muslims.

Treason within a religious-political state is distinct from a simple change of belief. The Qur'an (2:256) clearly states, "There is no compulsion in religion."

In classical Islamic jurisprudence, many scholars ruled that private disbelief carries no earthly punishment. Public apostasy coupled with active warfare, however, was treated as rebellion/treason.

In today's world, most Muslim-majority countries do not execute apostates (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia). Where harsh laws exist (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan), these represent extremist interpretations, not standard universal Islamic practice. There's a growing scholarly consensus that such punishments were contextual (early state self-defense) and not universal commands.

Historically, Christianity executed apostates for over 1,000 years. After 380 CE, heresy became a capital crime. During the Inquisition (1200s-1800s), thousands were tortured and executed.

Calvin burned Servetus for denying the Trinity in 1553. Anabaptists were drowned and burned by both Catholics and Protestants.

During the witch trials, tens of thousands were killed. Biblical texts like Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ("kill him" and Deuteronomy 17:2-5 ("stoned to death" were used to justify these actions. You're condemning Muslims for something Christians themselves did on a massive scale.

JW shunning also leads to deaths. While you claim shunning is better than execution, JW shunning has been linked to suicides, with documented cases following total family rejection. Furthermore, the blood transfusion policy, even with some modifications, has caused and continues to cause unnecessary deaths.

Research demonstrates the psychological trauma resulting from depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Social ostracism activates the same brain regions as physical pain. Family rejection is a major suicide risk factor. Total isolation is psychologically devastating.

JW shunning means parents are forbidden from speaking to adult children (even those dying of cancer), siblings are permanently cut off (unable to acknowledge each other at funerals), grandparents are denied access to grandchildren, and individuals experience total loss of family, friends, job, housing, and identity. It's emotional blackmail, expressed as "leave and lose everyone you love." This isn't loving discipline; it's psychological torture.

You ask, "Which is better?" Neither execution nor psychological torture aligns with Jesus' teachings. Jesus' actual pattern was to eat with tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 9:10-13), maintain relationships to encourage repentance (John 8:1-11, Luke 19:1-10), pursue the lost, and welcome outcasts. JWs, however, immediately cut all contact, refuse basic greetings, and destroy families, claiming this is Christian love.

The honest comparison reveals that Islam, in certain interpretations and supported by some classical rulings (which are contextual and increasingly rejected), prescribed death for apostasy as treason. Growing reform emphasizes Qur'an 2:256 ("no compulsion".

Christianity, on the other hand, actually executed thousands for centuries, using Old Testament law to justify their actions.

JWs practice a universal, mandatory shunning policy that causes documented suicides, family destruction, and psychological harm, enforced globally.

Both execution and total shunning are wrong. You're defending cruelty while condemning others for engaging in similar behavior.

Your false premises are exposed by:

1. Matthew 18:15-17 being about personal conflicts, not apostasy; Jesus engaged Gentiles and tax collectors, not shunned them.

2. Romans 16:17 and 2 John 10-11 being about traveling false teachers, not family members.

3. First-century practice showing that Church discipline was restorative and maintained daily contact with former believers.

4.Your. Christian history reveals a long period - over a thousand years - where those deemed apostates faced execution. It seems inconsistent to condemn similar actions by Muslims when Christians engaged in comparable behavior.

Furthermore, the practice of shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses has been documented to cause significant harm, including psychological distress, and in some cases, even death. This raises questions about whether such practices are morally superior.

In essence, your interpretation of scripture appears flawed, your understanding of history distorted, and your defense of cruelty troubling. This deviates from genuine Christianity and instead resembles a cult, manipulating Bible verses to rationalize the destruction of families.

honesttalk21:
What does treating someone "as a Gentile and tax collector" really mean? Look at how Jesus interacted with them. He shared meals (Matthew 9:10-11), conversed (Matthew 15:22-28, John 4), chose one as an apostle (Matthew), and actively sought them out (Luke 19:1-10, Zacchaeus).

You are dubiously misconstruing matters!
Zacchaeus accepted he is not worthy to be one of Jesus' friends because he was working for the Roman authorities as a tax collector but when Jesus called him he was willing to make reinstitution not arguing with Jesus over his wrongdoing.

The case here is someone who refuses to accept his wrongdoing but arguing with the church of Christ even when one, two , three brothers have tried to speak with him.

It's like two Muslims have a serious issue but instead of you people to follow Jesus' directions on how to settle matters Muslims will pick up weapons and take sides. What Jesus is saying is that we settle matters amicably among ourselves using the scriptures not what you Muslims do fighting and killing one another yet claiming you believe the same God!

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus taught his disciples to treat anyone who disagree with the unanimous decision of the church as Jews do treat tax collectors and sinners. Matthew 18:15-17
And his disciples did just so! Romans 16:17; 2John 1:10-11
Please do you understand how Jews in the first century treat tax collectors?
Is that not the same way Jesus taught his disciples to treat apostates?🙂

MaxInDHouse:
You are dubiously misconstruing matters!
Zacchaeus accepted he is not worthy to be one of Jesus' friends because he was working for the Roman authorities as a tax collector but when Jesus called him he was willing to make reinstitution not arguing with Jesus over his wrongdoing.

The case here is someone who refuses to accept his wrongdoing but arguing with the church of Christ even when one, two , three brothers have tried to speak with him.

It's like two Muslims have a serious issue but instead of you people to follow Jesus' directions on how to settle matters Muslims will pick up weapons and take sides. What Jesus is saying is that we settle matters amicably among ourselves using the scriptures not what you Muslims do fighting and killing one another yet claiming you believing you believe the same God!

You're still missing the point of the text and ignoring what Jesus actually did I don't know if this is misreading or misunderstanding or both. Let's break this down precisely:

1. Zacchaeus.You've Just Proven My Point
You say: Zacchaeus acknowledged his unworthiness but was willing to make amends, not argue.

Exactly! So what did Jesus do? Luke 19:5-10:
Before Zacchaeus felt sorry, Jesus said I must stay at your house today. Jesus ate with him while he was still a tax collector.The crowd complained He's gone to be the guest of a sinner! Then Zacchaeus felt remorseful and offered restitution.

Jesus responded Today salvation has come to this house. The order of events is key.

1. Jesus started a relationship with Zacchaeus (a sinner/tax collector).

2. Jesus ate with him (stayed connected).

3. Through that relationship, Zacchaeus repented.

4. Restoration happened.

Jesus didn't avoid Zacchaeus until he repented. He connected with him, and that led to repentance.This is the opposite of what JWs do. JW immediately cut off all contact, refuse to engage, completely isolate.

You've inadvertently shown that Jesus' approach was relationship-first, leading to repentance not shunning-first, hoping for compliance.

2. Matthew 18:15-17 - Still Misusing It!
You claisomeone refuses to admit wrongdoing and argues with the church even after one, two, three brothers have tried.
First, the text says if your brother sins against you…This is about personal offenses (one member wronging another). Interpersonal conflict needing a resolution.

JWs apply this to:

Questioning why the 1975 prophecy failed.

- Celebrating birthdays.

- Accepting blood transfusions.

- Reporting abuse to the authorities.

- Reading "apostate" material.

None of these are sinning against you, they're matters of conscience or disagreements over doctrine.

Second, even when the process ends with let him be as a Gentile and tax collector, this means treat them AS JESUS TREATED Gentiles and tax collectors:
Matthew 9:10-11: He ate with them.
Matthew 15:22-28: He talked with them (the Canaanite woman).
John 4: He had a long conversation with the Samaritan woman.
Luke 7:36-50: He let the "sinful woman" wash his feet.
Luke 19:1-10:He ate at Zacchaeus' house before he repented.

If as a Gentile and tax collector meant completely shunning them, Jesus broke his own rule every time he ate with them, talked to them, or chose Matthew as an apostle.

Your interpretation makes Jesus a hypocrite. The correct understanding: Remove them from church leadership, continue the relationship and sharing the Gospel, seek restoration.

3. Muslims Pick Up Weapons Instead of Following Jesus' Directions
This is an irrelevant distraction.
First, most Muslims don't pick up weapons when they disagree. 1.8 billion Muslims have their issues resolved through family counseling, community leaders, legal systems just like everyone else.

Second, violence in conflict isn't unique to Muslims:
Christian history had Crusades, Inquisition, Protestant-Catholic wars, witch trials, colonial genocides. Modern Christianity has the Rwandan genocide (Christians killing Christians - 500,000-1,000,000 dead), Lord's Resistance Army (Joseph Kony), Central African Republic militias.

Third, you're making a false comparison. You ask why don't Muslims follow Jesus' Matthew 18 process? Because Muslims aren't Christian. They follow Islamic conflict resolution methods (Qur'an 49:9-10, hadith on mediation, sulh/reconciliation processes).
It's like asking why don't Christians follow Islamic Sharia dispute resolution? Because they're not Muslim.

You're criticizing Muslims for not following Christian scripture that's not an argument; it's mixing categories.

4. How Did First-Century Jews Treat Tax Collectors?

Your question do you understand how Jews in the first century treated tax collectors? Isn't that how Jesus taught his followers to treat apostates? But how did first-century Jews treat tax collectors really?
Social distance in religious settings: They wouldn't include them in synagogue leadership. They considered them ritually unclean because of contact with Gentiles/Romans.

They excluded them from certain religious practices but and this is crucial, they still had daily contact,business dealings, tax collectors worked publicly; Jews paid taxes. Social interactions in public places markets, streets, events.

Family relationships weren't broken if a family member became a tax collector, they didn't completely cut them off. The exclusion was from religious leadership and certain ritual practices not total social isolation.

More importantly Jesus REDEFINED how to treat tax collectors. In Matthew 9:10-13, the Pharisees criticized Jesus saying why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?
Jesus responded I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Jesus explicitly REJECTED the Pharisees' approach to tax collectors. So when Jesus says, treat them as tax collectors,he means treat them as I treat them (eat with them, connect with them, pursue them, seek their restoration). Not as the Pharisees treat them (ritualistic exclusion).

If Jesus meant, shun them completely, his own actions eating with tax collectors would make no sense.

5. Romans 16:17 and 2 John 1:10-11 - Still Misinterpreted.
Romans 16:17: Watch out for those who cause divisions… keep away from them."

2 John 10-11: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

What these verses address are traveling false teachers going from church to church to spread false teachings. Context in the early church didn't have a New Testament canon yet. False teachers went from city to city, spreading Gnostic and Judaizing heresies.
Paul and John warned against hosting them or giving them a platform to spread their errors. This means don't give traveling heretics lodging that they can use as a base of operations.

Don't provide a platform for false teaching within the church. Protect the community from doctrinal corruption.

This does NOT mean completely shunning family members, refusing to speak to former members, cutting off all social contact.

JWs apply this to people who quietly left due to conscience issues,those disfellowshipped for minor infractions (like smoking or celebrating birthdays),family members who hold different beliefs.Applying warnings about traveling false teachers to family members who've left the organization is a clear abuse of scripture.

The Honest Comparison You're Avoiding
You ask isn't this how Jesus taught his disciples to treat apostates?

We have discussed what Jesus did so will you say this is what JWs actually practice? If so show me where I missed this reformation.

Did Jesus disciples do just so?

You claim Jesus' disciples followed this shunning practice (citing Romans 16:17, 2 John 10-11. However what the disciples actually did was Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11:I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people not at all meaning the people of this world. In that case you would have to leave this world.

Paul explicitly clarifies don't cut off contact with unbelievers or former believers in daily life you'd have to leave the world.

Church discipline affected church fellowship, not total social isolation.

Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8 regarding the man disciplined in 1 Corinthians 5: Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.

Paul commands forgiveness, comfort (which requires contact), reaffirmation of love (which requires a relationship)

How can you comfort and reaffirm your love for someone you refuse to even speak to?

The disciples practiced restorative discipline, not total shunning.

The Facts You Can't Escape are
1. Jesus ate and interacted with tax collectors and sinners BEFORE they repented (Zacchaeus, Matthew, the woman at the well, the sinful woman).

2. Treat as a Gentile or tax collector means treat them as JESUS TREATED THEM (engagement, not shunning).

3. Matthew 18:15-17 addresses personal conflicts (sins against you), not apostasy or doctrinal disagreement.

4. Early Christians maintained daily contact with unbelievers/former believers(1 Corinthians 5:9-11: otherwise you would have to leave the world).

5. Church discipline was temporary and restorative (2 Corinthians 2:5-8: forgive and comfort... reaffirm your love).

6. Romans 16:17 and 2 John 10-11 address traveling false teachers, not family members.

7. JW shunning is total, often permanent, and causes documented harm (suicides, psychological trauma, family destruction).

You're defending a practice that:

- Contradicts Jesus' own example.

- Misapplies Scripture.

- Distorts early Christian practice.

- Causes real psychological harm and even deaths.

Your deflection with the Muslims pick up weapons" argument isn't wholly the truth and doesn't change any of these facts.

Jesus pursued sinners through relationship, ate with them, maintained contact, and called them to repentance through love.

JWs cut off all contact, refuse basic greetings, destroy families, and claim that this is following Jesus.

One of these reflects the Gospels. The other reflects cult control, using Scripture as a justification.

The text is clear. Your interpretation is wrong. Your practice is cruel.

That's the factual reality.

honesttalk21:
1. Zacchaeus.You've Just Proven My Point
You say: Zacchaeus acknowledged his unworthiness but was willing to make amends, not argue.

I don't know whether you are trying to hide the truth or you misunderstood the main point.

Zacchaeus ACKNOWLEDGED he is wrong that is why Jesus could become his friend but there were contemporary Jews like Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and other Jewish clerics who continued to argue against Jesus.
The question is did Jesus relate with them the same way he did with Zacchaeus?
The answer is NO!
In fact Jesus told his disciples not to have anything to do with the teachings of the Pharisees {Matthew 16:6, 12} yet this group were claiming worshipers of the same God with Jesus and using the same scriptures.
So if anyone who formerly accepted the same teaching with us now turns his back on the teachings and start kicking against it Jesus said we should shun them the same way he did to Pharisees and don't forget that John the baptist who came before Jesus also shunned the Pharisees because this group turned against what the scriptures teaches!

Make you write up short and pick one point at a time we are talking about SHUNNING apostates so stick to that point but if you want us to talk about something else then wait until we are through with this that's how to be truly honest!🙂

I turned against my religion so i should be shunned by all other members of my religion~ Christianity
I turned against my religion so i should be killed by beheading~ Islam
Which of these two gave me the chance to repent and return to my faith alive?😃

MaxInDHouse:
I don't know whether you are trying to hide the truth or you misunderstood the main point.

Zacchaeus ACKNOWLEDGED he is wrong that is why Jesus could become his friend but there were contemporary Jews like Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and other Jewish clerics who continued to argue against Jesus.
The question is did Jesus relate with them the same way he did with Zacchaeus?
The answer is NO!
In fact Jesus told his disciples not to have anything to do with the teachings of the Pharisees {Matthew 16:6, 12} yet this group were claiming worshipers of the same God with Jesus and using the same scriptures.
So if anyone who formerly accepted the same teaching with us now turns his back on the teachings and start kicking against it Jesus said we should shun them the same way he did to Pharisees and don't forget that John the baptist who came before Jesus also shunned the Pharisees because this group turned against what the scriptures teaches!

Make you write up short and pick one point at a time we are talking about SHUNNING apostates so stick to that point but if you want us to talk about something else then wait until we are through with this that's how to be truly honest!🙂

So, you're changing your argument now that your first one didn't hold up? Alright, let's get right into this.

1. Regarding Zacchaeus and the Pharisees - You've Actually Proved My Point

You're saying Jesus befriended Zacchaeus because he admitted his wrongdoing, but He didn't treat arguing Pharisees the same way.

The key question you're dodging is when did Zacchaeus actually acknowledge he was wrong?

Let's look at Luke 19:5-9:

1. Jesus approached Zacchaeus first (v. 5: I must stay at your house today)

2. Jesus ate with him while he was still a tax collector (v. 7: the crowd grumbled He has gone to be the guest of a sinner)

3. Then Zacchaeus repented (v. 8: I give half my possessions to the poor...)

4. Then Jesus declared salvation (v. 9: "Today salvation has come to this house"

The order matters here!

Jesus started a relationship before repentance, and it was through that relationship that Zacchaeus was led to repent.

Restoration followed engagement, not shunning.

This is the opposite of what JWs do. You immediately shun, refuse all contact, and demand repentance while someone is completely isolated.

Jesus' way is to engage, maintain the relationship, and lead to repentance through love.

2. On Jesus and the Pharisees, You're Still Mistaken

You're arguing that Jesus shunned the Pharisees.

But what did Jesus actually do?

Matthew 23:1-3:

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'"

Jesus told His disciples to obey the Pharisees' teaching when it lined up with Scripture, but not to imitate their hypocritical behavior. That's not "shunning," it's discernment.

Jesus engaged with Pharisees repeatedly:

* Luke 7:36-50: He ate dinner at a Pharisee's house.

* Luke 11:37: He accepted another Pharisee's dinner invitation.

* Luke 14:1: He ate with Pharisees on the Sabbath.

* John 3: He had a long, private conversation with Nicodemus (a Pharisee).

Jesus publicly criticized their hypocrisy, but He maintained relationships and dialogue.

Matthew 16:6, 12 (Beware the yeast of the Pharisees) warns against their teaching/hypocrisy, not ordering complete social isolation.

JW shunning means zero contact, even with family.

Jesus, with the Pharisees, ate with them, engaged with them, taught them, while also warning against their errors.

These are not the same thing.

3. On Stick to Shunning Apostates

You insist: "Make it short, pick one point, stick to shunning apostates."

Fine. Here's that one point: Jesus' pattern with apostates (those who rejected Him).

Luke 9:51-56:

* A Samaritan village rejected Jesus.

* James and John asked: "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"

* Jesus rebuked them for this attitude.

Jesus didn't shun those who rejected Him; He rebuked the disciples who wanted to punish them harshly.

Matthew 18:15-17's phrase "as a Gentile and tax collector" means:

Treat them as Jesus treated Gentiles and tax collectors:

* Ate with them (Matthew 9:10-11)

* Engaged with them (John 4, Canaanite woman)

* Pursued them (Luke 19, Zacchaeus)

JW shunning:

* Refuse all meals together

* Cut off all conversation (even with family)

* Total social ostracism

These are opposites, not the same practice.

4. On Christianity = Shunning, Islam = Beheading

You're turning the question around, saying, "Christianity shuns me, Islam beheads me. Which gives me a chance to repent?"

The honest answer is early Christian practice (1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 2:5-:

* Church discipline (no Lord's Supper, no church fellowship)

* Maintained daily contact (1 Cor 5:9-11: "otherwise you would have to leave the world"

The goal is restoration (2 Cor 2:5-8: "forgive and comfort him... reaffirm your love".

This isn't total shunning; it's restorative discipline with continued relationship.

JW practice:

* Total shunning (no contact, even family)

* Often permanent (reinstatement takes months/years)

* Causes documented suicides, psychological trauma

Islamic apostasy laws in the classical context were addressed as treason as it involved joining enemy tribes at war, not mere belief change; Qur'an 2:256: "No compulsion in religion".

The modern reality is that most Muslim-majority countries don't execute apostates (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.).

Harsh laws exist amongst extremist interpretations, but it is increasingly rejected by scholars. Going by your claims of previously being a meeting, tell me have you been working around headless or have to hold your head in place to keep it from falling haven previously been severed.

Christian history reveals they executed thousands of apostates/heretics for centuries through the Inquisition, Protestant reformers, witch trials and

* Used Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (kill him) to justify

The comparison you're avoiding is asking which is worse?

* Some Muslim countries' extremist executions (condemned by a growing number of scholars, not universal)

* JW mandatory global shunning (causing documented suicides, universally enforced)

Both are terrible. You're defending yours while condemning theirs!

5. The point you keep dodging is that Jesus initiated relationships with sinners before they repented. He ate with tax collectors and apostates. Through those relationships, He led them to repentance. He commanded us to "forgive and comfort... reaffirm your love" (2 Cor 2:5-.

JWs immediately cut all contact, refuse basic greetings (even to family), isolate completely, hoping that isolation coerces compliance.

One reflects Jesus' actual practice. The other is cult control using Scripture as justification. That's the one point. Stick to it.

honesttalk21:
When did Zacchaeus actually acknowledge he was wrong?

Note that Zacchaeus was never one of Jesus' disciples before then so the man was feeling guilty over what Jews believe regarding a tax collector not based on what Jesus taught.

So the case totally differs because Jesus' followers have a new set of rules that is different from the laws of the Jewish community. Zacchaeus acknowledged his guilt based on what the Jews believed while the Pharisees taught they are better off than Zacchaeus and other Jews.

So when Jesus was talking to his disciples about sin between brothers he wasn't talking to Jews who don't believe in his teachings rather he was addressing his own followers.
Therefore the instruction to SHUN an apostate only applies among the Jews and Jesus is telling his own disciples that the same treatment should be given to a Christian who turn against the group's teachings that's why apostle Paul and Peter emphasized on shunning such ones among Christians! Romans 16:17; 2John 1:10-11

You can't know better than his disciples who applied his rules by shunning those who turned against their teachings nah!😃

honesttalk21:
JW mandatory global shunning (causing documented suicides, universally enforced)

One thing is certain.
Jehovah's Witnesses are less than 9m people in a world of over 9b people so if you are equating the shunning of 9m out of 9b who are still out there to your own religion that says you should be killed for the same offense then you are not honest at all.

Can you choose to be beheaded by your Muslim people than to be shunned by the same people?😂

honesttalk21:
On Christianity = Shunning, Islam = Beheading

You're turning the question around, saying, "Christianity shuns me, Islam beheads me. Which gives me a chance to repent?"

The honest answer is early Christian practice (1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 2:5-:

* Church discipline (no Lord's Supper, no church fellowship)

* Maintained daily contact (1 Cor 5:9-11: "otherwise you would have to leave the world"

The first century Christians wouldn't eat nor greet such a person:

Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them. Romans 16:17

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. 2John 10-11

So stop deceiving yourself the Christians in the first century do practice SHUNNING of apostates just as Jesus taught them. Matthew 18:15-17

But trying to paint it as equal to your own religion that says the person should be beheaded is totally dishonest.

Many Muslims are running away to other places where your killer Muslims can't reach them so what stops exjws from leaving the organization and living their lives when nobody is after them to kill them?😂

Jesus said:

"Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with God.” John 3:19-21

Surely majority on this forum hated the truth with a deadly passion.

Just imagine comparing shunning by one religion to beheading by another when the shunned person still have thousands, millions even billions to make his friends but you people choose to be silent because you hate the truth.

But later you will come complaining about Muslims beheading people for leaving their religion.

So if Muslims are to practice shunning is it not a billion times better?😂

MaxInDHouse:
Note that Zacchaeus was never one of Jesus' disciples before then so the man was feeling guilty over what Jews believe regarding a tax collector not based on what Jesus taught.

So the case totally differs because Jesus' followers have a new set of rules that is different from the laws of the Jewish community. Zacchaeus acknowledged his guilt based on what the Jews believed while the Pharisees taught they are better off than Zacchaeus and other Jews.

So when Jesus was talking to his disciples about sin between brothers he wasn't talking to Jews who don't believe in his teachings rather he was addressing his own followers.
Therefore the instruction to SHUN an apostate only applies among the Jews and Jesus is telling his own disciples that the same treatment should be given to a Christian who turn against the group's teachings that's why apostle Paul and Peter emphasized on shunning such ones among Christians! Romans 16:17; 2John 1:10-11

You can't know better than his disciples who applied his rules by shunning those who turned against their teachings nah!😃

Ah! your distinction doesn't rescue your argument; it highlights a fundamental inconsistency.

Zacchaeus wasn't a disciple, so it doesn't count is a bogus distinction.

Jesus directly used Zacchaeus as an example of how God treats the lost.

The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost." (Luke 19:10)

That includes tax collectors, sinners, outcasts and yes, even those who've abandoned the faith.

Jesus consistently engaged with, built relationships with, and sought to restore the lost, not isolate them. You're inventing a category Jesus never did - people too far gone to be reached.

Jesus gave disciples stricter rules than Jewish law is the opposite of what the text says.

Jesus' rules were more inclusive, not more exclusive.

Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? (Matt 9:11)

I desire mercy, not sacrifice. (Matt 9:13)

The Pharisees were already experts at exclusion. Jesus was criticized because He wouldn't participate in it.

If Jesus had advocated for stricter shunning than Judaism, the Pharisees would have applauded Him, not attacked Him.



Matthew 18:17 actually argues against shunning.

Jesus says to treat the unrepentant person as a Gentile and tax collector.

How did Jesus treat Gentiles and tax collectors?

He ate with them.He spoke with them.He healed them.He called them to repentance through relationship.

If Gentile/tax collector means complete shunning, Jesus repeatedly violated His own instructions.

The phrase signifies removal from church authority, not social destruction.


Paul and John aren't commanding family shunning here.

Romans 16:17 and 2 John 10-11 address traveling false teachers seeking influence, not family members who've changed their beliefs.

Paul explicitly limits the scope of discipline:

I did not mean the people of this world… otherwise you would have to leave the world." (1 Cor 5:9-11)

Church discipline isn't complete social isolation.

The apostles practiced restoration, not abandonment. After discipline, Paul commands:
Forgive and comfort him… reaffirm your love." (2 Cor 2:5-8 )

Comfort and love require connection. A policy of silence makes obeying Paul impossible.

Jesus' new rule forbids shunning.
Love your enemies… if you love only those who love you, what are you doing more than others? (Matt 5:44-47)

If those who've left the faith are considered enemies, Jesus commands love, not avoidance. Refusing even greetings goes against Christ's teaching.

Your practice contradicts Jesus' example. Violates Paul's clear commands. Redefines love as punishment. Makes restoration impossible.

This isn't apostolic Christianity, it's control enforced and justified after the fact. Scripture doesn't support complete shunning. It condemns it.

honesttalk21:
Jesus directly used Zacchaeus as an example of how God treats the lost.

So how come Jesus didn't become friends to Pharisees?

You misconstrued a repentant sinner to hardened evildoers who have chosen to separate themselves from the truth.

Please answer this simple question:

Choose one either to behead your son for leaving Islam or Muslims (including you) should shun him?😂

honesttalk21:
Church discipline isn't complete social isolation.
The apostles practiced restoration, not abandonment. After discipline, Paul commands:
Forgive and comfort him… reaffirm your love." (2 Cor 2:5-8 )

So why aren't Muslims practicing this one if you so much believe it is better?

Meanwhile a disfellowshiped person is quarantined from among us until he or she becomes remorseful and afterwards we will welcome him back if he or she is truly repentant that's what Paul is saying but at first he must be shunned! 1Corinthans 5:13🙂

I just love the way you are advocating for Christianity yet you are practicing a religion that says you should be killed for changing your mind against their religion!😂

MaxInDHouse:
One thing is certain.
Jehovah's Witnesses are less than 9m people in a world of over 9b people so if you are equating the shunning of 9m out of 9b who are still out there to your own religion that says you should be killed for the same offense then you are not honest at all.

Can you choose to be beheaded by your Muslim people than to be shunned by the same people?😂

MaxInDHouse:
The first century Christians wouldn't eat nor greet such a person:

Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them. Romans 16:17

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. 2John 10-11

So stop deceiving yourself the Christians in the first century do practice SHUNNING of apostates just as Jesus taught them. Matthew 18:15-17

But trying to paint it as equal to your own religion that says the person should be beheaded is totally dishonest.

Many Muslims are running away to other places where your killer Muslims can't reach them so what stops exjws from leaving the organization and living their lives when nobody is after them to kill them?😂

You're only twisting scripture and dodging the real issue. Let's be clear and direct, no more games.

1. Romans 16:17 and 2 John 10-11 do NOT give you a free pass to shun people completely.

Those verses are about traveling false teachers actively spreading lies - not family members or former believers.

Even Paul himself puts limits on this in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11:I did not mean the people of this world… otherwise you would have to leave the world.

Discipline affects church fellowship, it doesn't mean you can't even say hello.

Paul then gives the key instruction:Forgive and comfort him… reaffirm your love." (2 Cor 2:5-8 )

How can you possibly obey this if you refuse to have any contact whatsoever?

JW shunning makes it impossible to follow Paul's instructions.

The early Christians didn't practice shunning like JWs do.Biblical discipline involved exclusion from leadership roles in the church

* Continued social interaction

* Temporary measures meant to bring people back

* Followed by clear forgiveness and comfort

JW shunning is Total isolation from family and friends

* Often permanent

* Makes it impossible for someone to return

These are two very different things.


Saying shunning is better than beheading is a weak, and frankly, immoral argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Historically, Islamic laws about apostasy dealt with treason, not just a change in belief (Qur'an 2:256: no one should be forced to believe). And most Muslim countries don't execute people for leaving the faith today.

Christians used to execute apostates for centuries so by your logic, Christianity would also be wrong.

JW shunning is a worldwide requirement, causes real psychological damage, and has led to suicides because of the isolation it creates.

Execution is worse but systematically destroying someone's mental health is still wrong.

4. Saying they can just make new friends shows a complete lack of understanding.
For someone raised as a JW, being shunned means:

* Losing their entire family

* Losing all their friends

* Often losing their home and job

* Having absolutely no support from the outside world

* Lifelong conditioning that anyone outside the faith is Satan's tool

Ignoring this reality is cruel, not Christian love.

Your appeal to John 3:19-21 actually works against you.

"Coming to the light" exposes:
Failed prophecies (1914, 1925, 1975 see Deut 18:21-22)

Doctrinal flip-flops (blood, organ transplants, the "generation teaching" )

Cover-ups of abuse (documented by the Australian Royal Commission)

Many former JWs leave because they uncover these very facts. They didn't run from the light they ran towards it.

The question you still refuse to answer is how can you obey the command to:
Forgive and comfort him… reaffirm your love" (2 Cor 2:7-8 ) when you are:

* Refusing to speak to them

* Cutting off family members

* Treating them as if they're dead?

You simply can't.


Jesus ate with sinners to help them find their way back. Paul commanded to comfort and show love.

JWs enforce total isolation and call it "love."
That's not biblical discipline. It's a way to control people, disguised as something holy after the fact. Less harmful than beheading" is not a defense a Christian should ever use.

honesttalk21:
no more games.

The guy you are discussing with lacks the ability to comprehend. save your energy.

MaxInDHouse:
So how come Jesus didn't become friends to Pharisees?

You misconstrued a repentant sinner to hardened evildoers who have chosen to separate themselves from the truth.

Please answer this simple question:

Choose one either to behead your son for leaving Islam or Muslims (including you) should shun him?😂

MaxInDHouse:
So why aren't Muslims practicing this one if you so much believe it is better?

Meanwhile a disfellowshiped person is quarantined from among us until he or she becomes remorseful and afterwards we will welcome him back if he or she is truly repentant that's what Paul is saying but at first he must be shunned! 1Corinthans 5:13🙂

I just love the way you are advocating for Christianity yet you are practicing a religion that says you should be killed for changing your mind against their religion!😂

Your argument crumbles when faced with Scripture and Jesus' own actions. I don't know why you keep repeating that.

Jesus never shunned anyone. He actively engaged with people, even his most staunch adversaries.

He shared meals with Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1), had discussions with Nicodemus (John 3), and advised others to listen to the Pharisees' teachings when they were accurate (Matt 23:1-3). He called out hypocrisy, but he didn't cut people off.

Zacchaeus perfectly illustrates the point you're avoiding: Jesus ate with him before Zacchaeus repented (Luke 19:5-9). That interaction led to Zacchaeus's change of heart.

Shunning would have made that repentance impossible.

You seem to be saying, Only engage after someone repents.

Jesus showed engage in order to bring about repentance.


Paul directly contradicts the JW practice of shunning.

1 Cor 5:9-11: Keep up normal contact with those who don't believe - otherwise, you would have to leave the world.

2 Cor 2:5-8: Forgive, comfort, and reaffirm your love for him.

Complete shunning makes it impossible to follow these instructions.

How can you comfort or reaffirm love when you refuse all contact, even with family?

Comparing beheading to shunning is a misleading oversimplification. Both use coercion and are wrong.

The early Christians practiced measured discipline while maintaining relationships, with the goal of restoring individuals, not isolating them.

Jesus reached out first; he didn't start by shunning. Paul instructed believers to restore others through contact and interaction.

JW shunning goes against both of these principles and has been shown to cause real damage.

Calling psychological isolation Christian love doesn't make it biblical it makes it a form of control.

Note that many Muslims follow restorative approaches. As Qur’an 2:256 confirms no compulsion in religion. Most Muslim-majority countries do not execute apostates (e.g., Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Albania, Bosnia).
Apostasy penalties were context-specific (early-state treason), with freedom of conscience taking precedence today. You are living proof if this.

honesttalk21:
Comparing beheading to shunning is a misleading oversimplification. Both use coercion and are wrong.

Ọmọ if your son is shunned he still have the opportunity to continue living and to repent but if he was beheaded there is no chance for repentance.

All these your epistle can't undo the damage of beheading people for leaving your religion!😂

Meanwhile Jesus and his disciples actually practiced SHUNNING that's the punishment for apostasy!

honesttalk21:
➜You've misrepresented Scripture, Christian history, and Islamic theology. Here's a more accurate understanding:
You've misread Matthew 18:15-17. The passage actually says, "If your brother sins against you..." and suggests treating him "as a Gentile and tax collector." This refers to resolving personal conflicts (sins against you), not addressing apostasy or doctrinal differences.
➜ What does treating someone "as a Gentile and tax collector" really mean? Look at how Jesus interacted with them. He shared meals (Matthew 9:10-11), conversed (Matthew 15:22-28, John 4), chose one as an apostle (Matthew), and actively sought them out (Luke 19:1-10, Zacchaeus).

First of all, the statement is that you treat him like a pagan —someone who does not believe in YHWH, God of Israel — or a tax collector. Pagans are not Gentiles. Rather, the pagans were foreigners who lived in the land alongside the Israelites(Note that not all Israelites are Jews, however, all Jews are Israelites). 🥱🥱🥱

15 “If your brother or sister in God’s family does something wrong, go and tell them what they did wrong. Do this when you are alone with them. If they listen to you, then you have helped them to be your brother or sister again.
16 But if they refuse to listen, go to them again and take one or two people with you. Then there will be two or three people who will be able to tell all that happened.
17 If they refuse to listen to them, tell the church. And if they refuse to listen to the church, treat them as you would treat someone who does not know God or who is a tax collector. - Matthew 18 vs 15-17

Second, in the land of Israel and Judea, those who did not believe in God were treated not as brothers and sisters but as foreigners in the land. This is important to note because those whom Jesus Christ of Israel suggested should be treated as pagans were those who no longer belonged to the brotherhood or sisterhood that he is head of (foreigners or pagans to Jesus Christ of Israel). 🥱🥱

Non-Israelites under the Law of Moses were generally to be treated with justice, kindness, and legal equality if they were resident aliens (gēr), but they faced restrictions regarding religious rituals, land ownership, and, in some cases, social standing. While they were to be loved as "native-born" and protected from oppression, they could not participate in the Passover unless circumcised
https://biblehub.com/topical/naves/s/strangers--mosaic_law_relating_to_their_approaching_the_tabernacle.htm

MaxInDHouse:
Ọmọ if your son is shunned he still have the opportunity to continue living and to repent but if he was beheaded there is no chance for repentance.

All these your epistle can't undo the damage of beheading people for leaving your religion!😂

Meanwhile Jesus and his disciples actually practiced SHUNNING that's the punishment for apostasy!

Shunning and beheading are both forms of coercion, differing only in their approach rather than their ethical implications. Jehovah's Witnesses' practice of shunning goes against the teachings of 2 Corinthians 2:5–8, which emphasizes the importance of offering comfort and reaffirming love during disciplinary actions. Complete isolation makes it impossible for individuals to comply. Jesus interacted with sinners, and Paul discouraged total social withdrawal (1 Corinthians 5:9–11). Jehovah's Witnesses impose isolation that has been linked to documented cases of suicide and trauma, yet they label it as love. The argument that it is better than beheading is irrelevant; Christianity has historically executed apostates, and many Muslim countries do not do so today. Just because harm is not lethal does not make it acceptable according to biblical standards. Obviously, the practice of shunning by Jehovah's Witnesses contradicts the teachings of Jesus, disobeys Paul, and inflicts real harm. This is not discipline; it is a form of control.

honesttalk21:
2 Corinthians 2:5–8, which emphasizes the importance of offering comfort and reaffirming love during disciplinary actions.

You keep going in circus just to prove how dishonest you are.
Disciplinary action is shunning which Jesus taught and his disciples practiced. i
Reaffirming love during such times will come due to the remorseful attitude of the wrongdoer but beheading people for leaving your religion totally negates all human reasoning because you gave such a person no chance to repent!😂

MaxInDHouse:
You keep going in circus just to prove how dishonest you are.
Disciplinary action is shunning which Jesus taught and his disciples practiced. i
Reaffirming love during such times will come due to the remorseful attitude of the wrongdoer but beheading people for leaving your religion totally negates all human reasoning because you gave such a person no chance to repent!😂

It seems like you're dodging the real issue here, so let's just stop.

2 Corinthians 2:5-8 tells us to do two things:

First, comfort someone when they're being disciplined, so they don't get too upset.

Second, show them love again once they've turned away from what they did wrong.

You only seem to be focusing on the second part and ignoring the first.

Here's my question:
How can you comfort him so he is not overwhelmed by excessive sorrow during discipline if you're also cutting him off completely, refusing to talk to him, and acting like he doesn't even exist?

You can't. Completely shutting someone out makes it impossible to follow that instruction.

honesttalk21:
How can you comfort him so he is not overwhelmed by excessive sorrow during discipline if you're also cutting him off completely, refusing to talk to him, and acting like he doesn't even exist?

Good question!

First of all it's not sin that led to someone being disfellowshiped rather it is unrepentant attitude. After the sin his fellow Christian will call him to order and if he agreed that he's wrong the next thing is to meet the elders for help but when he disagree then one or two more Christians will go to him so that he could see to it that he's turning against what we all agreed upon but if he still disagree then all the elders will speak to him that is the time he will be shunned by all members if he still disagree with the elders of the church! Matthew 18:15-17

Now back to your question.

Since we don't deprive disfellowshiped ones from entering the Kingdom Hall he or she could attend our meeting but no one will say a greeting to him this means no talking or eating with such a person {2John 10-11} that is how Jews do treat tax collectors and sinners among them! Matthew 18:17

But if he doesn't stop coming to our meetings then two of the elders will speak with him to know if he has been feeling remorseful due to the shunning.
Of course he should be otherwise there are many religions out there for him to join if they are better than Christianity it's unlike your Islam that gives the apostate no further chance to live nah.😀

There are many who have come back to the organization after they have found out that there is no better religion than Jehovah's Witnesses after all if there is why can't they just join another?

Your own religion gives no room for them to try another religion instead you people will behead him knowing fully well that there are thousands of better religions out there that will embrace him.

Let a disfellowshiped Jehovah's Witness go and find himself or herself a better religion if there could ever be and stop crying for unrepentant wrongdoers who just wants the organization to change our teaching simply because they have relatives in the organization!😂

MaxInDHouse:
Good question!

First of all it's not sin that led to someone being disfellowshiped rather it is unrepentant attitude. After the sin his fellow Christian will call him to order and if he agreed that he's wrong the next thing is to meet the elders for help but when he disagree then one or two more Christians will go to him so that he could see to it that he's turning against what we all agreed upon but if he still disagree then all the elders will speak to him that is the time he will be shunned by all members if he still disagree with the elders of the church! Matthew 18:15-17

Now back to your question.

Since we don't deprive disfellowshiped ones from entering the Kingdom Hall he or she could attend our meeting but no one will say a greeting to him this means no talking or eating with such a person {2John 10-11} that is how Jews do treat tax collectors and sinners among them! Matthew 18:17

But if he doesn't stop coming to our meetings then two of the elders will speak with him to know if he has been feeling remorseful due to the shunning.
Of course he should be otherwise there are many religions out there for him to join if they are better than Christianity it's unlike your Islam that gives the apostate no further chance to live nah.😀

There are many who have come back to the organization after they have found out that there is no better religion than Jehovah's Witnesses after all if there is why can't they just join another?

Your own religion gives no room for them to try another religion instead you people will behead him knowing fully well that there are thousands of better religions out there that will embrace him.

Let a disfellowshiped Jehovah's Witness go and find himself or herself a better religion if there could ever be and stop crying for unrepentant wrongdoers who just wants the organization to change our teaching simply because they have relatives in the organization!😂

You just acknowledged that while you allow them in the building, you make sure no one interacts with them. That’s not providing comfort during discipline; it’s a form of psychological isolation. When you say, if he keeps coming, elders check if he's remorseful,' it shows that the aim of shunning is to inflict enough pain to force someone to comply. What you’ve described is emotional coercion, not love. The fact that 'many come back' supports my argument they return because you’ve made it socially unbearable to leave by cutting off all ties with family and friends, not because they truly believe. That’s manipulation, not honesty. And please stop deflecting to Islam. I’m not defending execution; I’m criticizing your practices. Saying we're better than beheading is weak moral reasoning for a religion that claims to follow Christ.

If you don't understand the logic behind scriptural instructions all you need to do is ask not arguing aimlessly.

Christ doesn't condone indiscipline stop alluding indiscipline to our King. God's word says he will rule the nations with IRON HAND! Revelation 19:15

Christ taught his disciples that we are all one family of brothers and sisters {Matthew 12:46-50} so there is no reason for anyone to isolate himself from rules binding on the family. But if a member of the family now decides to do that those who are closest to him must first speak to him and if he refuses to change then all the elders of the family will seat him and talk sense into him but if he still disagree with all the elders of the family then he must be punished that is what Jesus taught us! Matthew 18:15-17

Illogical is your religion's approach when your people believe in beheading the person because those who are closest to him won't accept Islam as one family so instead of agreeing to punish him as one family you people are divided that is why you people pick up weapons against yourselves but Jesus' disciples agree that we are ONE global family that is why we are able to discipline wrongdoers in our midst without the use of weapons!🙂

honesttalk21:
You just acknowledged that while you allow them in the building, you make sure no one interacts with them. That’s not providing comfort during discipline; it’s a form of psychological isolation. When you say, if he keeps coming, elders check if he's remorseful,' it shows that the aim of shunning is to inflict enough pain to force someone to comply. What you’ve described is emotional coercion, not love. The fact that 'many come back' supports my argument they return because you’ve made it socially unbearable to leave by cutting off all ties with family and friends, not because they truly believe. That’s manipulation, not honesty. And please stop deflecting to Islam. I’m not defending execution; I’m criticizing your practices. Saying we're better than beheading is weak moral reasoning for a religion that claims to follow Christ.

MaxInDHouse:
If you don't understand the logic behind scriptural instructions all you need to do is ask not arguing aimlessly.

Christ doesn't condone indiscipline stop alluding indiscipline to our King. God's word says he will rule the nations with IRON HAND! Revelation 19:15

Christ taught his disciples that we are all one family of brothers and sisters {Matthew 12:46-50} so there is no reason for anyone to isolate himself from rules binding on the family. But if a member of the family now decides to do that those who are closest to him must first speak to him and if he refuses to change then all the elders of the family will seat him and talk sense into him but if he still disagree with all the elders of the family then he must be punished that is what Jesus taught us! Matthew 18:15-17

Illogical is your religion's approach when your people believe in beheading the person because those who are closest to him won't accept Islam as one family so instead of agreeing to punish him as one family you people are divided that is why you people pick up weapons against yourselves but Jesus' disciples agree that we are ONE global family that is why we are able to discipline wrongdoers in our midst without the use of weapons!🙂

Your argument has several major logical and factual issues. Let’s break them down:

1. On family and coercion, you assert that Jesus promoted the idea of one family in Matthew 12:46-50, but this interpretation is incorrect. Jesus actually stated, whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. This means inclusion is based on following God's will, not on unconditional family ties. You seem to be using the concept of family to justify distancing from relatives, which is ironic. The passage emphasizes spiritual connections through shared beliefs rather than enforcing conformity through isolation.

2. On Matthew 18:15-17 and your interpretation you argue that this passage requires complete social shunning, but when Jesus said to treat them as a Gentile and tax collector,he actually engaged with these groups, eating and ministering to them (see Matthew 9:10-11, Luke 19:1-10). The text does not advocate for total severance of contact, including with family. You are imposing additional organizational rules like the involvement of elders and formal procedures that are not present in the scripture.

3. On without the use of weapons, this comparison is misleading. Psychological and emotional harm is still significant, even if it isn't physical violence. Studies indicate that social isolation and estrangement can lead to serious psychological issues, including increased suicide risk and trauma. Claiming we don't kill people is a very minimal standard for asserting moral superiority.

4. On Islam and violence, your portrayal is inaccurate. The majority of Muslim communities do not support or practice execution for apostasy. This is a broad generalization that overlooks the vast diversity among over 1.8 billion Muslims with varying beliefs across many countries. Additionally, pointing to worse practices elsewhere does not justify your own. You know based by your claims to previously being a Muslim and what you say it means you wouldn't be living so accept your being deceptive.

5. The main logical inconsistency is you claim that Jehovah's Witnesses represent one global family, yet you defend the practice of forcing members to shun their own family members;children, parents, or siblings, if they disagree with the organization's teachings. This is not a true family dynamic; it’s conditional membership with severe consequences for dissent.

Real families do not demand ideological uniformity, do not require parents to act as if their children do not exist, do not threaten complete social isolation for questioning or changing beliefs.

Your system however requires total agreement with doctrine (tell me categorically this is a lie), mandates the shunning of family members, utilizes the fear of isolation as a means of control.

The question you haven’t addressed is how does forcing a mother to shun her disfellowshipped child, refusing to communicate, share meals, or acknowledge their existence align with Jesus' teaching to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), let alone your own family? You cannot claim to be one family while systematically dismantling actual families through enforced estrangement. The logic behind scriptural instructions you want me to grasp seems to be: conform completely or lose everyone you love. That is not family; it is coercive control.

What Jesus said is clear.
Only his disciples are his families and that is what true Christians believe.

Now in that spiritual family whoever turns against the rules binding on that family should be SHUNNED! Matthew 18:15-17

honesttalk21:
On family and coercion, you assert that Jesus promoted the idea of one family in Matthew 12:46-50, but this interpretation is incorrect. Jesus actually stated, whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. This means inclusion is based on following God's will, not on unconditional family ties.

MaxInDHouse:
What Jesus said is clear.
Only his disciples are his families and that is what true Christians believe.

Now in that spiritual family whoever turns against the rules binding on that family should be SHUNNED! Matthew 18:15-17

Your inability to understand so the same things are repeatedly said to you is incomprehensible.

Your argument falls apart when you actually look at the text.

1. Matthew 18 actually argues against shunning, not for it.

Jesus says to treat the unrepentant person as a Gentile and a tax collector.

But remember, Jesus healed Gentiles, shared meals with tax collectors, and actively sought to bring them back into the fold.

So, treat as means continuing to engage with them, not cutting them off. Your interpretation sounds more like the Pharisees than Jesus.

2. The word shun isn't even in there.

Matthew 18 doesn't say anything about refusing to say hello, cutting off family ties, or completely avoiding someone.

That's a policy of the Jehovah's Witnesses being read into the Scripture, not a natural understanding of it.

3. The verses right around it disprove your point.

Immediately after (Matthew 18:21-22), Jesus tells us to forgive without limit.

Completely shunning someone doesn't exactly line up with unlimited forgiveness.

4. Jesus' teachings on how to treat outsiders go against you.

If someone is now considered outside, Jesus tells us to love our enemies, forgive them, and try to bring them back not treat them like they're dead to us.

5. Your defense of spiritual family vs. blood family doesn't hold water.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' policy requires shunning even biological family members.

You can't claim it's only about spiritual family when you're enforcing separation within families.

6. Paul puts clear limits on discipline.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11: Normal interaction with those outside the faith continues.

2 Thessalonians 3:15: "Do not regard them as an enemy."

2 Corinthians 2:7-8: "Forgive and comfort them, reaffirm your love for them" - which is impossible if you're completely shunning them.

7. Your logic makes it look like control, not Christianity, is the goal.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't shun people who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses - only those who leave the group.

That looks more like punishment for disagreeing than genuine biblical discipline.


Matthew 18 teaches us to reach out and help people get back on track, not to treat them like they're socially dead.

Completely shunning someone goes against Jesus' actions, the surrounding verses, Paul's instructions, and basic Christian ethics.

It's not a clear reading of the text. It's a rule of the organization being forced onto the text.

If you still disagree pick each point and specifically address with scripture backing.

honesttalk21:
How does forcing a mother to shun her disfellowshipped child, refusing to communicate, share meals, or acknowledge their existence align with Jesus' teaching to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44)

You misconstrued the whole thing!

According to Jesus true Christian are one family so there is no mother, father, brother, sister or any family ties above what we share as Christ's disciples that is why Jesus told the person who felt Jesus should attend to his mother first instead of leaving her to wait while attending to his disciples! Matthew 12:46-50
So if anyone wants to continue being a member of the group he or she should not allow any other ties to supercede what we have as Christians.

You need to see how this makes Islam vulnerable to internal conflicts because if that is how your religion is structured there can't be any war among believers but since you people hold your worldly families above your brothers in Islam it's easy for Satan to instigate you people into killing yourselves yet claiming brothers in the same faith!🙂