Paul and attributed Bible authors make note of these cultural acts of hospitality throughout the NT. This is still a cornerstone of middle eastern culture today. In addressing middle eastern culture it was customary for a traveler or visitor to be welcomed as a honored guest invited inside and served refreshments. I can appreciate the points made above however that is supposing that they want or rather that there is a self serving need for them to discontinue the door to door ministry. I now study the bible using exegesis, read what's there, meditate and draw a conclusion based on the context and actual words. Maybe 18 months preparation dropping in how the Apostles preached in market places with success and how when the Cart work restarted it was evident that it was blessed will pave the way. I happen to think the above can be strongly argued but unlikely to happen because of the great sea change needed. Now, all I'm demonstrating is HOW things can change if they want. There is a great "Oh yes of course" from the R&F and a "Now we look at it in context" from the GB and we can all move on like nothing happened. Now that times have changed and no one is home like they were in the 30's to recent times, 'present truth' says that we can interpret Acts 20:20 in a different way. It was right for its time, it was in its time 'present truth' and right to do it. Therefore the meaning in Acts 20:20 is more akin to going and having a meal at a house, (a bit like RV's studies or 1st century religious meeting places) rather than canvassing door to door.ĭoes this mean that what Rutherford started was wrong? WT can fix that too. Now it's reasonable that a gossiper would go from one house to another as opposed to someone eating meals from one house to another. They reason that there is a word for "House to house" in 1 Tim 5:13 'ho oikias' or going about the houses. Now they see that 'kat oikon' is also used in Acts 2:46 where they enjoy meals "at each house", they show that eating at one house followed by another and another is not reasonable so maybe it doesn't mean a methodical method after all. Formally this would mean methodically preaching going from one house followed by another and another to preach. They study and realise that Acts 20:20 uses the expression 'Kat Oikon' which means "at each house". So now let's assume they want to stop D2D: What they should be doing is exegesis, read the text and teach what is there, in context, as it was written. Paul however WAS inspired and directly asked by Jesus to preach. These evidence based changes are claimed to be the same as when Paul was endeavouring to preach and realised he needed to go to Macedonia, he tried elsewhere but to no avail. (The generation doctrine is an example, backed into a corner they change the teaching)
They see what has changed and make changes to suit. Now, this would be all well and good, however they are reactionary. They admit to not being inspired which means they don't receive 'messages', they have to study the Bible to gain understanding. The WT decides on doctrine using eisegesis, they have a view and find reason to teach it from scripture. Now I'm not suggesting this will happen but knowing how it all works, it's possible. In another post I suggested it was possible for 'new light' to change the understanding. I didn't elaborate at the time and made the joke that the Mormons stopped a while back. I suggested that we may never return and he was convinced it wouldn't happen because of the 'proof' texts of Acts 20:20. I was having a conversation with a reliable friend about the return to public witnessing but not the D2D work.
0 kommentar(er)
