AnonymousBrother

And the beat goes on . . .

Not here. In Asia things are more dedicated. How the "next phase" is calculated is not that important. They can mostly talk about it, but pay less attention to the details than the result: "Wait. Not time yet." I'm moving back to the US in a couple of weeks (been in Asia 24 years). But even then, the congregation I will be attending aren't that fixated on "how" just "when" (sorta speak).

It wasn't. It was an assignment to show biblical references for proper planning. Supposed to last 6 minutes. Took about 10 (my wife is not native speaker). No one complained and the elders just said "I never thought of it that way." Amazing what you can do with Scriptures and a little math . . .

No. But, you do not have to try, either. People should have better things to do than chase cats. I gave a talk about the "overlapping generations" when it was "new". Pointed out not to ignore things like retirement plans, etc., because this overlapping stuff could easily drag on another 100 years--likely longer as medical tech advances. Jehovah has his own time frame. We were told to be ready at any time for the fan to be hit. We weren't told to jump the gun. As many seemed want to do. Of course, not having been a witness back then, I cannot say about general moods and such. But I have seen many nowadays starting down the "before next decade" path. I tell them not to plan their lives around a date, and just be ready to run for the hills at any time, because the fan could be hit *tomorrow* or *one hundred years* from now.

The only problem with speculation is people's tendency to treat it as FACT. Early Adopter Syndrome, that wanting to be "one of the first", plays a huge role in that, fueled by one's ego. Not always, mind you. But, many times, sure enough.

Guess the horse ain't dead yet.

Lol. Been to China. They *don't* drive in neat, straight lines, or even follow lines at all. . Maybe this will be an incentive to. . What's a few pancakes in the long run?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. This, to you, should be equivalent to: 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, "Jehovah." Jehovah...what? Created the world? Called light? Carried away Enoch? What? Or, more likely, 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I exist.

John 15:25 However, the word that is written in their law had to be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ John 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” So, then. Did the Jews *really have cause*? Was Jesus *rightfully* killed for blasphemy? You are saying Jesus was a sinner after all and was put to a just death? Ex 20:3 ( AMPC ) You shall have no other gods before or besides Me. If Jesus *had* really *ever* called himself God, he *would* have *broken* the Law. And the scriptures tell us Jesus *never* broke the Law.

Perhaps I should have better stated "do not support your opinion". Pretty much the same thing, just stated differently. Or just "do not seem to echo your opinion," or "have not stated agreement with your opinions" since they did not mention your opinion, which you seem to believe is paramount to scriptural interpretations. Or do you have a larger list that do "actively" support your opinion? Not to mention what I said was disagreeing with the view of exclusively dealing with Docetism to the exclusion of all else. You wrote: 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). And that view of specificity is not supported with that list I showed you. And one of them *specifically* denied your point altogether. And that is on verse 7. But the point still remains, not about 2 John 7, but about 2 John 9~11 (which my initial comments was made from), which I have shown you from the commentaries is not exclusive to 2 John 7, which is just *one example* of false teachings/teachers John was warning about, and that you cannot seem to agree with. Remember: When I started, I did not even mention 2 John 7 at all. Just 2 John 9~11. You came back with 2 John 7: So, while verse 7 might perhaps maybe by some odd minuscule chance, yet which is not actively supported by that list of scholars I gave you, be targeting exclusively Docetism, verses 9~11 do not.

I have done what I said I would. Showed you many references do not support your assertions of exclusivity (BTW, "not mentioning" is *not* the same as "supporting" your position, as much as you would like otherwise). And since many of those on that list you care to ignore definitely state verses 9-11 are not exclusive to the one specific example of verse 7, it casts even greater doubt that their "no comment" were an assertion of your position. PS. What I do believe are grounds for DFing or policies thereof have no bearing on what is being discussed, unless you choose to cast them in that light (you obviously are). It is quite simple: Heretics are (ideally) DFd. Can't really help that the articles don't specify the cause of DF.

Still a DEAD LANGUAGE. Sort of like ancient English, but *older*. OR *every single Greek* person would claim biblical infallibility. But if you care to make a FULL TRANSLATION of the ENTIRE NT TEXTS and get them past translation reviews, I might change my opinion. Until then, I hold my position.

You keep jumping around, so I will pin it down once more: You replied: You keep harping some point about 2 John 7, which I have demonstrated, is not an exclusive verse for Docetism as by that list I showed you, but could take time to find more. But the point still remains, not about 2 John 7, but about 2 John 9~11, which I have also shown you from the commentaries is not exclusive to 2 John 7, which is just one example of false teachings/teachers John was warning about, and that you cannot seem to agree with. As to your "hints" I disagree with this particular doctrine: w85 7/15 "Did 2 John 10, which says not to receive into one’s home or to greet certain ones, refer only to those who had promoted false doctrine? In context this counsel concerned the “many deceivers” who had gone forth, “persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7) The apostle John offered directions on how Christians back there should treat one who denied that Jesus had existed or that he was the Christ and Ransomer. John directed: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 10, 11) But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application." w85 7/15 31 "John says: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” (2 John 9, 10) Those words certainly would have applied to a person who became an brother by joining a false religion or by spreading false doctrine. (2 Timothy 2:17-19) But what about those who John said “went out from us”? While Christians in the first century would know that they should not associate with an expelled wrongdoer or with an active brother, did they act similarly toward someone who was not expelled but who willfully renounced the Christian way?" w85 8/15 31 "How did Christians in the first century act toward someone who was not an expelled wrongdoer, but who willfully renounced the Christian way? The apostle John gave counsel about persons who had ‘gone out from among us’ and about those who brought false teaching. (1 John 2:19) At 2 John 10 he advised that Christians were not to ‘receive such persons into their home’ or greet them. The word “apostasy” is from a Greek word that has the sense of ‘desertion, abandonment, or rebellion,’ and a person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the Christian congregation would have matched such a description. Loyal Christians would not have wanted to fellowship with such an brother.—7/15, page 31." W62 6/15 380 "These repeated warnings were not amiss. Already in Timothy’s day Hymenaeus and Philetus led some away from the true faith by teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. (2 Tim. 2:17, 18) In the second and third centuries Gnostics who professed Christianity boasted that they alone had sounded the depths of knowledge. By a process of speculation they claimed to have discovered “deep things” unknown to the ordinary Christian. Unwilling to limit themselves to divinely revealed truth and asserting that it was impossible to arrive at the true teachings of Christ, they proceeded to introduce Oriental and Grecian philosophies, under the label of superior knowledge. Crude, man-made doctrines resulted, and many were turned aside to false stories. The apostle John’s statement proved correct: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.”—2 John 9." And I can keep posting more WT articles, as well.

Verse 10: If there come any unto you - Any professed teacher of religion. There can be no doubt that she to whom this Epistle was written was accustomed to entertain such teachers. And bring not this doctrine - This doctrine which Christ taught, or the true doctrine respecting him and his religion. Exactly. I guess you care to ignore all the preceding and succeeding pages? Thus, if we may consider first the passages in which doctrinal errors are denounced apart from those which deal with moral § 5.] THE FALSE TEACHERS xli dangers, the general impression left by these passages and by many individual expressions which occur in them, leads to the conclusion that the Epistle is directed against various forms of teaching. The writer sums up the different tendencies in them which seem to him most dangerous, and most characteristic of the times. He sets out clearly the corresponding truths which in his opinion will prove to be their safest antidote. At the same time his writing may have been occasioned by one special type of false teaching, or one special incident in the history of his Church in connection with it. We have seen, if the suggested interpretation of the Christo- logical passages is in the main correct, that the author is trying to strengthen his readers' defences against dangers which threaten from more than one quarter. As the Epistle proceeds, however, one particular danger becomes more prominent, and the passage in ch. v. contains clearer reference to one definite form of error than is probably to be found in the earlier chapters. Since the days when Polycarp told the story of John, the disciple of the Lord, and Cerinthus in the Baths of Ephesus, the view has been commonly held that the Johannine Epistles, if not the Gospel as well (cf. Jerome, In Joann.), were directed, at any rate in part, again the heresy of Cerinthus. This view has been seriously challenged by many writers. >>>>>>>>>>>> But, again, not "particularly" Docetism, as you claim. So basically, your statement was And I've gone and shown you *how* many that disagree on that "particularly"? I would say I did just exactly as I said: Show you no such "particularly" exists. John was addressing more than a single heresy, covering multiple issues. We can keep this up, but it leads all to the same thing: You don't agree with JW doctrine.

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?

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?

The point I am trying to make is *only* about the *waiting* period after a DF. That's why I gave you those scriptures. I cannot judge on the validity of a DF or on the reinstatement of one. You asked: And thus, I showed you scriptures that indicate a waiting period *is* reasonable in order for the elders to attempt to ascertain the DF person's repentance. If you are attempting to get a roll-back of the DF, that is something different altogether than a reinstatement. PS. I pretty much never quote the NWT because of argumentative feedback. I use BibleHub or Biblegateway. Didn't you notice I mentioned (ASV)?

Hopefully we can stay on topic. . .Some re-posting: Paul *does* mention certain aspects of repentance: Acts 26:19-21 (ASV) “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. "performing deeds in keeping with their repentance." Repentance has to be more than just words. We do not have the gifts the Apostles had, nor are we Jesus. We cannot look into people's hearts to see if they are truly repentant or not. But Paul's words indicate a "waiting" period for full re-instatement is *not* unreasonable. 2 Cor 7:11-12 (ASV) For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the one who did the wrong, nor for the sake of the one who suffered the wrong, but in order that your earnestness for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God. So, Paul did not just take anyone's word about repentance. He watched for signs of it. While the actual time might be arbitrary, the requirement for a "waiting period" is not unreasonable. How would *you* personally determine if the person is *actually* repentant?

Enroll them in the TMS?

As in....?

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 yet, in your own perceptions, you make the statement 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).

Think they have peanuts on the flight?

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?

Mat 8:12 refers to the fleshly Israelites--once upon a time, God's Kingdom. The door was being closed to them because they were not placing faith in Jesus, while a Roman centurion was. Jesus was sounding the warning that the Gentiles were coming! 13:38 refers to Spiritual Israel, whose seeds Jesus was planting.

Well, that was why I pointed it out, since the OP said: And this time I want you to prove it from the scriptures -2 John 1:10 The particular scripture is definitely not about DF and reinstatement. It is about not associating with those who are basically wicked.