Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member
33 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But the 'wicked' in this context was specifically about a kind of Gnostic Christian who taught Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood person which went against the fundamentals of the Gospel. It wasn't a generic 'any who an ecclesiastical authority deems wicked, for any number of reasons, do not speak to them at all.' If we were to shun all 'basically wicked' people we wouldn't speak to anybody at all. Cp. Luke. 11:13 (Matt. 7:11). ;)

So, you are saying that as long as you believe Christ came in the flesh and was resurrected, but that you had to adhere to circumcision to be saved, that was *not* John's intent? Or that you believed that Jesus was flesh and blood but forbade Jews from being Christians, that was OK?  You want to say that John *only* had *1* specific target for his warning?

Really?O.o

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 2.2k
  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?  Asking for forgiveness is not the only criteria as John the Baptist made clear at Matt 3:8. "Thank you Eoin, But I am sure you have an opinion of your own" you said. Well here is my opinion: If a person is sick, they need medical attention. If their sickness is contagious, additional precaution must be taken to avoid infecting others and this may include isolation until the sickness is no lo

You have used James 5:14 to answer your own question

I can't make sense of your objection here, AnonymousBrother . John does not allude to the issue of circumcision in his 2nd letter. Surely we are agreed on that? I also said that John talks about staying in the teaching of Christ. So we are agreed on that. I made no interpretation regarding 'the teaching of Christ' but I did ask a question about what actually was the 'teaching of Christ.'

  • Member
1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

So, you are saying that as long as you believe Christ came in the flesh and was resurrected, but that you had to adhere to circumcision to be saved, that was *not* John's intent?

I can't remember Jesus teaching anything about circumcision, the question was long resolved by the time John wrote his letter, and he didn't allude to the circumcision issue here, so no, warning against the pro-circumcision lobby was not John's intent

 

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

Or that you believed that Jesus was flesh and blood but forbade Jews from being Christians, that was OK?

Again, banning Jews from Christianity is not the issue that John alludes to. 

The doctrinal threat to Christianity was more fundamental: if Jesus didn't really die, then there was no resurrection. If Jesus wasn't resurrected, Christian faith has no basis (as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15).

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

You want to say that John *only* had *1* specific target for his warning?

John talks about love, warns about those who teach that Jesus didn't come in the flesh and urges Christians to remain in Christ's teaching (and what exactly was Christ's teaching?). Any other perceived target is eisegesis, pure speculation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
10 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I can't remember Jesus teaching anything about circumcision, the question was long resolved by the time John wrote his letter, and he didn't allude to the circumcision issue here, so no, warning against the pro-circumcision lobby was not John's intent

Again, banning Jews from Christianity is not the issue that John alludes to. 

The doctrinal threat to Christianity was more fundamental: if Jesus didn't really die, then there was no resurrection. If Jesus wasn't resurrected, Christian faith has no basis (as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15).

John talks about love, warns about those who teach that Jesus didn't come in the flesh and urges Christians to remain in Christ's teaching (and what exactly was Christ's teaching?). Any other perceived target is eisegesis, pure speculation. 

You, yourself, say "alludes to". That is a *subjective* statement, whose meaning, is up to the interpretation of the listener. That you might only want to see one particular issue and ignore all other possibilities, which rely on the actual tense of how you interpret "of Christ", which, in itself, in this case, is subjective (and which the majority of scholars interpret as "Christ's teachings" not "teaching that Christ was", which lends itself open to the heresies I mentioned--and more--which you "assume" John did not mean, based on---?)

You mentioned 

On 2/27/2016 at 1:46 AM, Ann O'Maly said:

as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

yet, in your own perceptions, you make the statement

10 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 was not John's intent

based on your personal interpretation of "teaching of Christ" which, once again, goes against the majority of opinions in Biblical scholarship. And I would have to agree with them (which, of course, I do not always do), since it makes *much* more sense for John to be warning against those not following "the things Christ taught" (which, among other things, BTW, *was* that he came down *in the flesh* and *died* so that we may achieve salvation) as a totality and is not just a specific redundancy to what he already said in verse 7, where he condemns such, not just as sinners, but "antichrists." Not to mention, 1 John 4 already covers this particular heresy. So, saying that 2 John 9 only covers the heresy of Jesus not coming in the flesh actually seems out of place, when 1 John 4 essentially covers it already, making the level of rehash particularly insensible if that is *all* 2 John 9 is meant to cover.

Especially when the actual wording "teaching of Christ" translates more properly as "doctrine Christ taught" (search via tufts or even biblehub).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

I can't make sense of your objection here, AnonymousBrother . John does not allude to the issue of circumcision in his 2nd letter. Surely we are agreed on that? I also said that John talks about staying in the teaching of Christ. So we are agreed on that. I made no interpretation regarding 'the teaching of Christ' but I did ask a question about what actually was the 'teaching of Christ.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I can't make sense of your objection here, AnonymousBrother . John does not allude to the issue of circumcision in his 2nd letter. Surely we are agreed on that? I also said that John talks about staying in the teaching of Christ. So we are agreed on that. I made no interpretation regarding 'the teaching of Christ' but I did ask a question about what actually was the 'teaching of Christ.'

Love.....love was the teaching of Christ. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
17 hours ago, gfnslave said:

Love.....love was the teaching of Christ. 

... Among a few other things, including that he would be killed (Mark 10:32-34). And he was killed. That's why John found the Docetists' teaching so offensive.

Returning to the wider thread theme, AnonymousBrother stated:

On 2/27/2016 at 11:58 AM, AnonymousBrother said:

In those case where an expulsion has not taken place, but just discipline has been carried out, Paul advises us:

2 Cor 2:5~11 (ASV) 

Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

But this Scripture is talking about after an expulsion has taken place and welcoming the man back.

*** w10 6/15 p. 13 Keep Building Up the Congregation ***


“Kindly Forgive and Comfort Him”
13 The first-century Corinthian congregation faced the situation of a man who unrepentantly practiced fornication. His conduct threatened the purity of the congregation and was a scandal even among nonbelievers. Hence, Paul rightly directed that the man be removed from the congregation.—1 Cor. 5:1, 7, 11-13.


14 That discipline had a good effect. The congregation was protected from a corrupting influence, and the sinner was brought to his senses and to sincere repentance. On the basis of the man’s works befitting repentance, Paul indicated in his second letter to that congregation that the man should be reinstated. This was not all that was required, however. Paul also directed that the congregation “kindly forgive and comfort [the repentant sinner], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad.”—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8.
 

Again, there is no hint that the congregation's policy was (to adapt Giannis' words): "Neither we nor your family will speak to you until you prove you are remorseful and attend every congregation meeting for at least a year." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
14 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

... Among a few other things, including that he would be killed (Mark 10:32-34). And he was killed. That's why John found the Docetists' teaching so offensive.

Returning to the wider thread theme, AnonymousBrother stated:

But this Scripture is talking about after an expulsion has taken place and welcoming the man back.

*** w10 6/15 p. 13 Keep Building Up the Congregation ***


“Kindly Forgive and Comfort Him”
13 The first-century Corinthian congregation faced the situation of a man who unrepentantly practiced fornication. His conduct threatened the purity of the congregation and was a scandal even among nonbelievers. Hence, Paul rightly directed that the man be removed from the congregation.—1 Cor. 5:1, 7, 11-13.


14 That discipline had a good effect. The congregation was protected from a corrupting influence, and the sinner was brought to his senses and to sincere repentance. On the basis of the man’s works befitting repentance, Paul indicated in his second letter to that congregation that the man should be reinstated. This was not all that was required, however. Paul also directed that the congregation “kindly forgive and comfort [the repentant sinner], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad.”—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8.
 

Again, there is no hint that the congregation's policy was (to adapt Giannis' words): "Neither we nor your family will speak to you until you prove you are remorseful and attend every congregation meeting for at least a year." 

There were *many* others in addition to the Docetists, so I still think you want to be too specific, when most scholars also disagree.

But, back to them main, the "hint" was there for *sincere repentance". How did they figure "sincere?"

I know you want to find every single fault, but what it comes down to is how you interpret those scriptures. You see "tomeito" and I see "tomahto."

I see the need to be sure someone is repentant, which the scriptures indicate takes place. You just want to take their word for it, which the scriptures do not indicate is adequate. 

"6 For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, 7 so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow."

How do you know it was "enough" if you cannot observe change? Take your eyes off the publications you seem to find so much fault in and tell me: How do you know? Wait for another abuse case to be reported? Then DF again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
13 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

There were *many* others in addition to the Docetists, so I still think you want to be too specific, when most scholars also disagree.

Many other what? Groups/people who believed Jesus was an apparition? Who?

Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?

14 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

I see the need to be sure someone is repentant, which the scriptures indicate takes place. You just want to take their word for it, which the scriptures do not indicate is adequate. 

Where is there scriptural precedent for a congregational policy that has the person attending every meeting for a year or more, and all the while family and friends not conversing with him until the elders finally deem him repentant and reinstate him?

14 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

How do you know it was "enough" if you cannot observe change? Take your eyes off the publications you seem to find so much fault in and tell me: How do you know? Wait for another abuse case to be reported? Then DF again?

How do you know that the person seeking reinstatement is not putting on an elaborate act of repentance? Maybe the person just wants to be able to talk to/associate with their family again. Maybe it's part of the plan to have a new (adulterous) marriage accepted, given enough time (I know two cases where that happened). How can an elder body really know either way before making a decision?

We've been talking generally but you bring up abuse cases - crimes rather than sins. The way you framed the question suggests to me that you may not be aware of how an abuse case would be handled as a matter of course. As JW policy stands now, an alleged abuser can only be dealt with if there are two witnesses to the crime. If there aren't two witnesses to the crime, another child or young person would have to have been abused and come forward before the elders would do anything - like e.g. disfellowship the abuser.

If the abuser is disfellowshipped for child abuse, one would hope that he has also faced justice in the courts. If he has faced the courts and been convicted, he would then be put on the sex offenders' registry and monitored by the authorities. If he was then reinstated into the congregation, whether he was genuinely repentant or not, the elders and congregation members would be alerted to the fact that there is a convicted sexual predator in their midst and take precautions to protect their children from becoming another victim.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
18 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Many other what? Groups/people who believed Jesus was an apparition? Who?

Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?

Let's see for a short list: Barnes, 
Alford,
AE Brooks, 
the team at Intervarsity Press, 
W Hall Harris, 
Pulpit commentaries, 
FB Hole, 
William Kelley, 
J R Dummelow,
Leon Morris,
James Macknight,
Coffman's commentaries has a slew of others, need more?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
8 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

Let's see for a short list: ... ...

OK.

I notice that you do not give specific references or quotes to support your point. This makes it harder to verify your claim. Perhaps you just threw out names hoping some might stick. It's appears you didn't bother to actually check what they said.

Barnes refers the reader of 2 John 7 to his notes on 1 John 4:2 where he says,

"It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the 'Docetae;' and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God."

Alford neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists in his commentary.

A.E. Brooks - The Johannine Epistles, I presume. While he questions whether John was specifically pinning down Docetism as the 'false teaching,' he does say that the "connection of the [first] Epistle with Gnostic ideas is quite apparent" (p. xliii). He also acknowledges that the recognized connection between John's First and Second Epistles with Docetism has had a long history and, while he finds it unfortunate that the term 'Docetism' has both a "wider and narrower signification," he says it can be applied in a more popular sense,

"to characterize all teaching which denied the reality of the Incarnation, and therefore the reality and completeness of the Lord's humanity." (p. xliv) 

This application is still pretty specific and again is not meant to be a catch-all for any infraction of an ecclesiastical authority's policies and teaching.

"The team at Intervarsity Press" - too vague. 

W Hall Harris - Are you referring to his book, 1, 2, 3 John - Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis? P.211 - "There is no indisputable evidence for docetism in the Johannine letters." Well, that's one scholar so far.

The Pulpit Commentary:


"These seducers deny 'Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,' or they deny 'Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.' The present participle ἐρχόμενον seems to indicate exactly the position of some of the Gnostic teachers. ... The Gnostic denied that the Incarnation could take place: no such Person as the Christ coming in the flesh was possible; that the Infinite should become finite, that the Divine Word should become flesh, was inconceivable. The teacher who brings such doctrine as this 'is the deceiver and the antichrist' about whom the elder's children had been so frequently warned."

Docetism was a form of Gnosticism.
 
FB Hole neither agrees nor disagrees with the idea that John was targeting Docetists because he doesn't mention them. He applies John's words to 'Modernism.'

William Kelly -  neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists but talks in generalities.

J R Dummelow - his introduction to 2 John discusses the historical context of the letter and how the Docetist view, which denied Jesus' true nature, was a threat to the Christianity that John held dear. No disagreement from Drummelow.

Leon Morris - did he do a discussion of John's letters? I cannot find one among his listed works.

James Macknight -  A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles, with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical. To which is added, A History of the Life of the Apostle Paul, Vol VI - an old 18th century commentary. MacKnight says that the purpose of the 2nd epistle to John was 

"to confute the error of Basilides and his followers, who affirmed that Christ was not a real man, but only a man in appearance; consequently, that he neither did nor suffered what he appeared to do and suffer." (P. 134)

MacKnight was mistaken in attributing the heresy to Basilides as he lived after John's letter was supposed to have been written, but it's clear that MacKnight thought John was targeting Gnostic heresy.

Coffman's commentaries:

"The heresy of the false deceivers was that of denying the Incarnation. Various scholars have identified such teachers as Docetists, Cerinthians, and Gnostics."

Quote

need more?

Nah. Your "most scholars" that "disagree" John was targeting the Docetic heresy amount to ... let me get my calculator ... a grand total of ... one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...




×
×
  • 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.