Jump to content

Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης

REINSTATEMENT No2

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

HollyW -
37
2148

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Since nobody understood my previous question ( because everybody says his/hers opinion, I will make it more general. And this time I want you to prove it from the scriptures -2 John 1:10) : Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?


When the Prodigal Son in the parable of our Lord Jesus came back home the father accepted him. His brother didn't want him back but the father corrected the second son: “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found". -Luke 15:31.
Imagine the father question his first son's motives for coming back... imagine - instead of making a party - telling him "I will not speak to you till you will show proof of remorse" ... "you must come here every Wednesday and Sunday for at list a year, no body will talk to you but you must come here to prove you are not proud".

"Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him". - James 5:14.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 longer contagious. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best medical attention.

In the case of patients who respond to medical attention, those with the appropriate training and experience will manage the recovery of afflicted ones and their rehabilitation to the community. Although the process may be lengthy and procedures unpleasant, a successful outcome will outweigh temporary difficulties. Interestingly, although the  process has become sophisticated in modern times, something similar is well outlined in Leviticus 13. 

Spiritual sickness needs spiritual attention. In the case of unrepentance over serious sin, this is a symptom of serious spiritual sickness. This spiritual sickness needs the additional precaution of isolation from others to avoid infecting them, hence the disfellowshipping arrangement. Although a severe measure, this has the aim of restoration to spiritual health. James 5:14 applies in principal to the recovery process, with the latter part of Jude 23 indicating the need for caution in handling such matters. Managing the spiritual recovery and rehabilitation of spiritually sick ones is the responsibility of those with "spiritual qualifications" (Gal 6:1) and is best left to them. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best spiritual attention (Ph 3:18).

However, for those who are restored to spiritual health and are reinstated, then Ecc 7:8 applies to their experience, or for more detail, Heb 12:11.

I am sure you will understand in the case of physical sickness as described above, well intentioned, but inappropriate, contact and action on the part of untrained friends and relatives outside of the medical parameters would only serve to put the afflicted one and themselves at risk. However, once recovery has been confirmed, then there is no limitation. No less so in a spiritual context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear John, you have confused me (and possibly some other friends too).  When friends responded previously, you accused them of expressing their opinions and decided that you needed to ask the question again.  When someone answered your second post, you asked him to give his personal opinion.

I am sure that the local elders know how to handle the matter scripturally; if there are any doubts, your friend could have used the appeal process and of course he is always free to write to the Branch.  You might be surprised to know that all over the world, in all Christian congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, we have the habit of examining the Scriptures first.  Using insight and wisdom, we then have to discern how to apply the relevant Bible principles to the situation at hand.  I do not think that having an 'open' judicial hearing, as you seemed to suggest in the other post, is a wise application of Bible principles or shows respect for the wrongdoer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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 longer contagious. Sadly, some do not recover despite the best medical attention.

 

Why are you avoiding on referring to the bible verse (Matthew 3:8)? And to whom this words were addresses to? to the Pharisees maybe? so in today's parallel that would be the Elders maybe? so when John says "bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" he talks to the leaders of the people of God ! Because he said this words the moment he saw them (the Pharisees) and continue to talk about them after this verse also.

so only from this verse that talks about works of Pharisees meet for repentance you understand that someone must be disfellowshipped at list for one year? (Watchtower 1963 Aug 1 p.473).

About the example you bring about lepers in Leviticus , I hate to say it but this was about Israel only. In new testament we find no such example, because these commandments were very harsh, even the Apostles admitted that they could not carry them.

In your 3rd paragraph you say: "Spiritual sickness needs spiritual attention. In the case of unrepentance over serious sin, this is a symptom of serious spiritual sickness. This spiritual sickness needs the additional precaution of isolation from others to avoid infecting them, hence the disfellowshipping arrangement." 
I dont know why you stepping far away from my question maybe because you want to justify disfellowshipping arrangement.... but my question is for those who repent and they come back. Those who want to be with God's people. my question to you now is why like the second brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son you have a problem on accepting your brother who repent and wants to come back, why you want to punish him for what he did in the past? you forgive him or you dont forgive him.... the rest is words and words of people who want to demolish and not to build. Dear Eoin do you want to trip-up your brothers ? Why are you insisting on rules and teachings beyond of the words and spirit of Cristianity? Why so suspicious when we talk about sheep who want to come back? do you think they will want to come back if you treat them unscripturally? if the master says take them back ! who are you to question the master? (they murmured against the landlord - Matthew 20:11)

the verse Galatians 6:1 says ((αδελφοι εαν και προλημφθη ανθρωπος εν τινι παραπτωματι υμεις οι πνευματικοι καταρτιζετε τον τοιουτον)). Firstly the apostle adresses the whole congregation of gallatians, secondly to those who are spiritual (this is the meaning "pneumatikoi" and not "spiritual qualifications"  like if the belong to a corporation with titles and degrees). And again here the apostle talks about people who dont repent. And I am wondering why so much persistence with brothers who dont want to repent. My question is for those who repent and want to come back to God?

I would love to hear from you some bible verses that will not be out of topic. I mean a verse about those who repent and not those who dont repent. Look the matter is very serious, It has to deal with human lives. That is why I persist on getting to the very core of the subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Santo Mengoli said:

Dear John, you have confused me (and possibly some other friends too).  When friends responded previously, you accused them of expressing their opinions and decided that you needed to ask the question again.  When someone answered your second post, you asked him to give his personal opinion.

I am sure that the local elders know how to handle the matter scripturally; if there are any doubts, your friend could have used the appeal process and of course he is always free to write to the Branch.  You might be surprised to know that all over the world, in all Christian congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, we have the habit of examining the Scriptures first.  Using insight and wisdom, we then have to discern how to apply the relevant Bible principles to the situation at hand.  I do not think that having an 'open' judicial hearing, as you seemed to suggest in the other post, is a wise application of Bible principles or shows respect for the wrongdoer.

 Dear Santo, forgive me for my English, I am sure I am making many mistakes and some times I am confused as well just like you say. But the zeal for my God will eat me alive if I don't speak the truth about all matters. If I asked Eoin for his opinion is because he answered with my own verse and I was offended on his behalf. Are we so poor spiritually so we cannot find even a bible verse to support our beliefs? then what we believe so many years?

you say :
"I do not think that having an 'open' judicial hearing, as you seemed to suggest in the other post, is a wise application of Bible principles or shows respect for the wrongdoer."
is not about what I think or what you think or about how the wrongdoer feels. Is about how God wants us to handle things and how we will bring justice and glorify His Name by the way we handle things.
what do you think is more good for the wrongdoer, to hide his sin from his brothers in the congregation or to meet real justice according to God's will ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have misunderstood my reference to Leviticus 13 which means you may not have read the paragraph which refers to physical sickness and medical procedures. I am concerned about your comprehension of the rest of my response on that basis.

You  talk about me having a  a problem accepting my repentant brother, punishing him, wanting to trip up my brothers, being suspicious??? I frankly do not understand you or what you are talking about, or how you can make assumptions about what I feel about anything.

If you are not able to discern the answer to your original question from Matt 3:8, then I feel a need to conclude my participation in this discussion.

Goodbye  Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 John 9~11 (ESV)
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked.

In the case of the prodigal son, there are also some things you need to remember. Luke 15:11~13:

"And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living."

And, of course, Luke 15:20-24:

"And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate."

What do we see in these verses?

1. The son had not been kicked out by his father. 

2. The first words from the son's mouth were contrition.

3. (In verses 14~19) Jesus tells us the *undisputed true* state of the son's feelings.

With these in minds, how would the father have reacted if the son had just said: "Give me more money?"
How would Jesus have re-worded the parable if the son had not *truly* been repentant?

Scriptures also leave out certain details. For example:

2 Corinthians 7:8-10 (ASV)
For though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it: though I did regret it (for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though but for a season), I now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Paul says "for I see that that epistle made you sorry" but never mentions how, and also "I now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance", but, once again, not how he knows that to the *certainty* he is writing about. Paul *knew* they were repentant, but we are not told *how* he knew. He does give hints, however:

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.

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.

And, in that case, the scriptures of James applies. 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.

Paul was quite adamant that expulsion was quite a different manner than casual sinning.

1 Cor 5:1-7 (ESV)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

2 John 9~11 (ESV)
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked.

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists. Christians considered them heretics because they believed Jesus only appeared to have a human body but wasn't actually a physical being: therefore, Jesus didn't really suffer and die as a human but just gave the illusion that he did. The context of John's words makes it clear who he was warning about:

2 John 7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

Share this post


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

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

The particular scripture is definitely not about DF and reinstatement. It is about not associating with those who are basically wicked.

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). ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I rephrase your question as the many answers seem to getting further from what you originally asked.

Are you asking: would Jesus Christ  'NOT accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Eoin Joyce, I had to make a new account to reply on this question. No I am not asking this. I believe Jesus forgives. I am asking why the congregation cannot forgive someone who repent. And I think your answer is the best...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2016 at 8:14 AM, Ann O'Maly said:

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."

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.

Quote

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

Exactly.

Quote

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.

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. 
Quote

"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.

>>>>>>>> So were many other things: Conclusion Docetism not "particular" target.
 
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.'

>>>>>>>>> Again, my point. Docetism was a major issue, yet does not get mentioned: Colcusion: Docetism not "particular" target.

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

>>>>> Again, my point. Docetism was a major issue, yet does not get mentioned: Colcusion: Docetism not "particular" target.

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.

Yet, his comments:


6. In it] ' better to make ' it ' refer not to 
the nearest noun, ' commandment,' but to 
' love.' 7. Are entered into the world] rather, 
' are gone out into the world': cp. RV; i.e. 
they were formerly members of the Church, 
but have apostatised: cp. 1 Jn2i9. To con- 
fess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is 
with St. John the central fact of Christian 
belief. Not to recognise in Jesus the authentic 

1061 

2 JOHN— 3 JOHN 

14 

revelation of the infinite God and the highest 
ideal of humanity, can, in his opinion, imply 
only moral depravity. 

9. Whosoever, not transgresseth, but ' has 
erroneous ideas.' No claim of superior know- 
ledge can be allowed which sets aside what 
Christ taught. Doctrine in the NT. is never 
synonymous with ' dogma,' but means ' teaching.' 

10. ' This verse reminds us that the Gospel 
has its intolerance as well as tolerance ' (Bp. 
Alexander). Ordinary courtesy is not for- 
bidden, but to extend the right hand of fellow- 
ship would be to condone and further false 
doctrine and to share the guilt of disloyalty. 

Do not seem to support your "particularly" notion.

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.

>>>>>>>>>>>> But, again, not "particularly" Docetism, as you claim.

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."

>>>>>>>>>>>> But, again, not "particularly" Docetism, as you claim.

Quote

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

So basically, your statement was

Quote

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AnonymousBrother, I asked you, "Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?"

You answered with a list of names. Only one of those names expressed a disagreement that John was targeting Docetic heresies. Your new post doesn't add to the tally.

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Re Alford's silence on Docetism] Exactly.

Huh?

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Ann re Brooke] 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.

[AB]  I guess you care to ignore all the preceding and succeeding pages?

Again, not clearly referenced. The second Brooke quote ("We have seen ...") comes from p. xlv. I had already taken the preceding and succeeding pages into account before I summarized Brooke's argument. Both your reproduced excerpts, as is plain from the the references to 'ch.v' and 'earlier chapters' are talking about 'the Epistle,' namely, 1 John. We, however, are focusing on 2 John. Brooke supports more my argument than yours.

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Ann] Docetism was a form of Gnosticism.

[AB] So were many other things: Conclusion Docetism not "particular" target.

So I ask again, other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Re Hole's and Kelley's silence on Docetism] Again, my point. Docetism was a major issue, yet does not get mentioned: Colcusion: Docetism not "particular" target.

How in your head do you make a non-mention a 'disagreement'? Talk about 'knight-jump' reasoning!

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

Yet, his comments:

[..]

Do not seem to support your "particularly" notion.

He already supported them in his introductory comments to 2 John, as I already pointed out. You think he changed his mind between pages?

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Re MacKnight and Coffman] But, again, not "particularly" Docetism, as you claim.

Other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

Anyway, the tally of 'disagreeing scholars' from your list still comes to ...

One.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

We can keep this up, but it leads all to the same thing: You don't agree with JW doctrine.

I agree with their comment here:

*** w06 12/1 pp. 5-6 The Antichrist Exposed ***


"Ideas of a purely symbolic resurrection were later developed by a group called Gnostics. Believing that knowledge (gnoʹsis in Greek) could be derived in a mystical way, Gnostics combined brother Christianity with Greek philosophy and Oriental mysticism. For instance, they held that all physical matter is evil, and for that reason, Jesus did not come in the flesh but only seemed to have a human body—a belief called Docetism. As we have seen, this is precisely what the apostle John had warned against.—1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 7."
 

Perhaps you don't, AB

Share this post


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

AnonymousBrother, I asked you, "Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?"

You answered with a list of names. Only one of those names expressed a disagreement that John was targeting Docetic heresies. Your new post doesn't add to the tally.

Huh?

Again, not clearly referenced. The second Brooke quote ("We have seen ...") comes from p. xlv. I had already taken the preceding and succeeding pages into account before I summarized Brooke's argument. Both your reproduced excerpts, as is plain from the the references to 'ch.v' and 'earlier chapters' are talking about 'the Epistle,' namely, 1 John. We, however, are focusing on 2 John. Brooke supports more my argument than yours.

So I ask again, other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

How in your head do you make a non-mention a 'disagreement'? Talk about 'knight-jump' reasoning!

He already supported them in his introductory comments to 2 John, as I already pointed out. You think he changed his mind between pages?

Other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

Anyway, the tally of 'disagreeing scholars' from your list still comes to ...

One.

 

You keep jumping around, so I will pin it down once more:

Quote

On 2/27/2016 at 8:58 PM, AnonymousBrother said:


2 John 9~11 (ESV)
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked.

 

You replied:

Quote

 

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists. Christians considered them heretics because they believed Jesus only appeared to have a human body but wasn't actually a physical being: therefore, Jesus didn't really suffer and die as a human but just gave the illusion that he did. The context of John's words makes it clear who he was warning about:

2 John 7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

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

Huh?

It was demonstrated to you in great detail (as you had only provided names but no references) that the list showed your assertion to be false. 

10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

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

But 2 John 9-11 follows on from 2 John 7's warning about Docetic heresy, doesn't it?

10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

As to your "hints" I disagree with this particular doctrine:

[AB quotes Watchtowers applying 2 John 9-11 to anybody who leaves or is expelled from the congregation.]

Um ... so why are you defending it?

10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

And I can keep posting more WT articles, as well.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2016 at 9:52 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Huh?

It was demonstrated to you in great detail (as you had only provided names but no references) that the list showed your assertion to be false. 

But 2 John 9-11 follows on from 2 John 7's warning about Docetic heresy, doesn't it?

Um ... so why are you defending it?

Why?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

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).

Stop trying to bend this around. You made the claim that 'most scholars disagreed' with the idea that John was targeting the Docetic heresies in 2 John. I asked you to support your claim. You could not. 'Not mentioning' does not support your assertion about disagreement either. Only one on your list expressed a disagreement. Shall we move on from this dead horse now?

And regarding heretics in the ever-changing JW organization: today's heresy can be tomorrow's truth. Besides, the majority of those disfellowshipped are guilty of some sexual sin. Where does this fit with 2 John's warning about not greeting false teachers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2016 at 7:21 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Stop trying to bend this around. You made the claim that 'most scholars disagreed' with the idea that John was targeting the Docetic heresies in 2 John. I asked you to support your claim. You could not. 'Not mentioning' does not support your assertion about disagreement either. Only one on your list expressed a disagreement. Shall we move on from this dead horse now?

And regarding heretics in the ever-changing JW organization: today's heresy can be tomorrow's truth. Besides, the majority of those disfellowshipped are guilty of some sexual sin. Where does this fit with 2 John's warning about not greeting false teachers?

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:

 

Quote

 

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists. Christians considered them heretics because they believed Jesus only appeared to have a human body but wasn't actually a physical being: therefore, Jesus didn't really suffer and die as a human but just gave the illusion that he did. The context of John's words makes it clear who he was warning about:

2 John 7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

On 3/24/2016 at 2:56 PM, AnonymousBrother said:

flogging%2520dead%2520horse.jpg

 

 

On 3/24/2016 at 2:56 PM, AnonymousBrother said:

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, ...

Please review this post: 

http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/916-reinstatement-no2/?do=findComment&comment=2120

Out of the 11 scholars you named,

  • 6 supported my view; 
  • 1 did not support my view;
  • the rest are invalid as they didn't offer comment one way or the other.
On 3/24/2016 at 2:56 PM, AnonymousBrother said:

 ... verses 9~11 do not.

On 3/13/2016 at 0:52 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

But 2 John 9-11 follows on from 2 John 7's warning about Docetic heresy, doesn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2016 at 4:03 AM, Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης said:

When the Prodigal Son in the parable of our Lord Jesus came back home the father accepted him. His brother didn't want him back but the father corrected the second son: “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found". -Luke 15:31.
Imagine the father question his first son's motives for coming back... imagine - instead of making a party - telling him "I will not speak to you till you will show proof of remorse" ... "you must come here every Wednesday and Sunday for at list a year, no body will talk to you but you must come here to prove you are not proud".

 

A person is disfellowshipped for NOT repenting his sins.  Ergo, anybody who REPENTS will be accepted back.  But how sure are the elders that this person has truly repented? The person needs to show "works that befit repentance." (Acts 26:20)  And these include, but are not limited to meeting attendance....  

In the case of the prodigal son, he acted by leaving his life of debauchery and walked back to his father, asking for forgiveness.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/5/2016 at 6:38 ΠΜ, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

A person is disfellowshipped for NOT repenting his sins.  Ergo, anybody who REPENTS will be accepted back.  But how sure are the elders that this person has truly repented? The person needs to show "works that befit repentance." (Acts 26:20)  And these include, but are not limited to meeting attendance....  

In the case of the prodigal son, he acted by leaving his life of debauchery and walked back to his father, asking for forgiveness.

if you dont like the exaple of the case of prodigal son out of the mouth our Lord Jesus ... then you can read James 5:14:

"Is any one of you sick? He should call theelders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in thename of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.…"

Let us read your scripture ...  Acts 26:20
"but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance".

The bible here talks generally about people of the world (Gentiles) who "should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance".
This verse of the bible gives no excuse for the unscriptural use of disfellowship in the congregations of Jehovah's witnesses.
You say:
"A person is disfellowshipped for NOT repenting his sins".
You are wrong here... The penalty of disfellowshiping is applied also to those who don't agree with the uscriptural modern laws of the watchtower who are constantly changing ..  I will give the example of the organ transplant ... In 1967 according to watchtower was cannibalism ... In 1980 it was all OK without even a sorry. Vangelis a Greek brother who needed a kidney transplant in 1977 left the organization in order to do it and live and when he wanted to come back around 1985 they didn't accepted him back. They told him that he deeded to show "works that befit repentance".

WOE to YOU Jehovahs Witnesses  ... Children of Pharisees ... "You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load".

The wrath of God will be heavy on YOU JWORG on his day of vengeance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...how would you keep the congregations spiritually and morally clean Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης?  Taking into consideration how Jesus viewed congregations who were lacking in this regard: " ‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, who taught Baʹlak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit sexual immorality. In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth".

How do you imagine the Congregations of our time would look if  "those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers,  men who practice homosexuality,thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners" were tolerated??

P.S. No one was ever disfellowshipped for organ transplants. The Greek brother who left to have an organ transplant, was he disfellowshipped?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2016 at 0:03 PM, Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης said:

Since nobody understood my previous question ( because everybody says his/hers opinion, I will make it more general. And this time I want you to prove it from the scriptures -2 John 1:10) : Is it Christian NOT to accept someone who comes to the congregation and asks for forgiveness ?


When the Prodigal Son in the parable of our Lord Jesus came back home the father accepted him. His brother didn't want him back but the father corrected the second son: “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found". -Luke 15:31.
Imagine the father question his first son's motives for coming back... imagine - instead of making a party - telling him "I will not speak to you till you will show proof of remorse" ... "you must come here every Wednesday and Sunday for at list a year, no body will talk to you but you must come here to prove you are not proud".

"Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him". - James 5:14.

 

In the 2015 brochure, "Return to Jehovah", the parable about the Prodigal Son is referred to and seems to indicate that inactive ones who return, even after 40 years, and confess sins such as having celebrated holidays, gone to other churches, been involved in politics, and probably much more, will be forgiven and welcomed back in the same way as the prodigal son:

From page 10 of the brochure:

 

Jehovah does not abandon repentant sinners. In fact, he reaches out to them! In the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus compared Jehovah to a loving father whose son abandoned his family and pursued a debauched life. In time, the son decided to return home. “While [the son] was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him and was moved with pity, and he ran and embraced him and tenderly kissed him.” (Luke 15:11-20) Do you wish to draw closer to Jehovah but feel that you are “still a long way off” from him? Like the father in Jesus’ illustration, Jehovah is moved with tender compassion for you. He is eager to welcome you back.

 

 

This even might indicate that they should be welcomed back right there in the parking lot when someone sees them drive up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





  • Recent Status Updates

    • Michael Krewson

      Did you all see Jared Kushner tell the states that the stockpile was "our"?  As in the Federal governments. Incredible.
      · 0 replies
    • admin

      Day X of quarantine

      · 0 replies
    • Eric Ouellet

      Ne dormons pas comme les autres, demeurons éveiller et restons confiant en Jéhovah, le Dieu de Toute BÉNÉDICTION 
       
      Voici une petite histoire qui va nous faire réfléchir, sur nos qualités, que nous devons manifester en notre être, nous serviteur de Dieu. Comment et qu'elles sont les qualitées que nous devons manifester en actions, envers notre prochain, envers nos ennemis, envers Dieu, envers Jésus, pour Être porté, par le Maître du temps, Au jour de Dieu?
      Quelle est la priorité principale d'un serviteur de Dieu et que devons nous principalement mettre en pratique dans notre vie, pour Être sauvez par celui qui a préparé le chemin de nos pas, pour notre Salut?
      Le titre de cette courte histoire, nous dévoile ce qui adviendra aux serviteurs de Dieu remplis d'amour, Au Grand, jour de Dieu.

      Le Titre est:
      QUI VEUT BIEN DE L’AMOUR ?

      Voici cette petite histoire:
      Un jour, plusieurs différents sentiments cohabitaient tous ensemble sûr une Ile: le Bonheur, la Tristesse, le Savoir ; ainsi que tous les autres, l’Amour y compris. Un jour, on annonça aux sentiments de la région , que l’île où tous vivaient, allait couler. Ils préparèrent donc tous leurs bateaux et partirent. Seul l’Amour resta. L’Amour voulait rester jusqu’au dernier moment. Quand l’île fût près à sombrer, l’Amour décida d’appeler à l’aide à ces concitoyens. Le premier fut "La Richesse" qui passa à côté de l’Amour, dans un luxueux bateau. L’Amour lui dit : « Richesse, peux-tu m’emmener ? »Alors la Richesse lui dit : Non! mon ami l'Amour, " je ne peux t'aider, car il y a beaucoup d’argent et d’or sur mon bateau et je n’ai pas assez de place pour toi." Bonne chance Amour.
      La richesse laissa Amour dans les eaux profondes qui l'entourait et continua son chemin. L’Amour décida alors de demander à l’Orgueil, qui passait aussi dans un magnifique bateau. Alors l'Amour s'exclama « Orgueil, aide-moi, je t’en prie ! » l'Orgueil répondit à l'Amour« je ne puis t’aider, Amour. Tu es tout mouillé et tu pourrais endommager mon bâteau. L'Orgueil, n'aida en aucune manière l'Amour et continua à voguer sur les eaux immense. Plus tard »La Tristesse passa à côté, de l’Amour. L'Amour lui demanda :«"Tristesse, laisses-moi venir avec toi. » la tristesse le regarda et dit: « Ooh… Amour, je suis tellement triste que j’ai besoin d’être seule ! Bonne chance Amour". L'Amour ne se découragea pas et se laissa porter sur les eaux. Quelle minutes plus tard » Le Bonheur passa aussi à côté de l’Amour , mais il était si heureux, qu’il n’entendit même pas l’Amour l’appeler! Soudain, une voix dit sur un bateau de lumière immaculée comme ressemblant à des nuages matérialisés " Viens Amour," je te prends avec moi." L'Amour distingua que celui qui le prit sur son bateau blanc immaculé, était un vieillard, de lui venait les paroles de son sauveur des eaux tulmultueuses. L’Amour se senti si reconnaissant et plein de joie, qu’il en oublia de demander le nom au vieillard. Lorsqu’ils arrivèrent sur la terre ferme, le vieillard s’en alla. L’Amour réalisa combien, il lui devait pour l'avoir sauvé, et aussitôt un Être apparut à l'Amour, Cette personne qui apparut devant lui était "Le Savoir" de toutes choses, alors l'Amour qui était devant Lui, demanda au Savoir :« Qui m’a aidé ? »Le Savoir Dit« C’était "le Temps" » répondit le Savoir.« Le Temps ? » s’interrogea l’Amour.« Mais pourquoi le Temps m’a –t-il aidé ? » Le Savoir sourit, plein de sagesse, et répondit :« C’est parce que seul le Temps est capable de comprendre combien l’Amour est important dans la vie. »
      Que veux dire cette histoire que je vous aie raconté?
      Je vais laisser votre pensée réfléchir en cette histoire et je vais donner l'explication de cette histoire à la fin de ce discours.





      Restons vivifiant d'un Amour sincère.


      DANS de nombreux pays, nous avons recourt de plus en plus aux caméras de surveillance pour observer la circulation routière et filmer les accidents. En cas de délit de fuite, ces enregistrements peuvent permettre à la police de retrouver et d’arrêter le chauffard. À vrai dire, avec ces yeux électroniques un peu partout, il est de plus en plus difficile d’échapper aux conséquences de ses actes.
      Cet abondant recours à la vidéosurveillance, devrait-il, nous rappeler un tant soit peu notre Père bienveillant, Jéhovah ? La Bible dit en effet que ses yeux « sont en tout lieu » (Prov. 15:3). Mais cela veut-il dire qu’il examine constamment à la loupe nos faits et gestes ? Nous observe-t-il avec la seule intention de faire respecter ses lois et de nous punir ? (Jér. 16:17 ; Héb. 4:13). Pas du tout ! Il nous observe en premier lieu parce qu’il nous aime et se soucie de notre bonheur (1 Pierre 3:12).
      Jéhovah nous surveille par amour.

      Qu’est-ce qui nous aidera à comprendre que Jéhovah nous surveille parce qu’il nous aime ? Nous examinerons ensemble cinq façons dont cet intérêt se manifeste : 1) Il nous met en garde lorsque nous montrons de mauvaises inclinations, 2) il nous corrige lorsque nous faisons un faux pas, 3) il nous guide grâce aux principes que renferme sa Parole, 4) il nous soutient lorsque nous traversons diverses épreuves et 5) il nous récompense lorsqu’il remarque le bon qui est en nous.

      LE DIEU ATTENTIF NOUS MET EN GARDE

      Premièrement, examinons comment Dieu nous met en garde lorsque nous montrons de mauvaises inclinations (1 Chron. 28:9). Pour bien saisir cet aspect de son observation attentive, voyons comment il a traité Caïn, qui « s’enflamma d’une grande colère » parce qu’il n’avait pas obtenu l’approbation divine (lire Genèse 4:3-7). Nous voyons ici que Jéhovah lui a vivement conseillé de « [se mettre] à bien agir ». Il l’a prévenu que s'il ne changeait de comportement, le péché était « tapis à l’entrée ». Puis il lui a demandé : « Te rendras-tu maître de lui ? » Dieu voulait que Caïn tienne compte de l’avertissement et qu’« [il y ait] élévation », que Caïn retrouve sa faveur. Il conserverait alors une bonne relation avec Dieu.

      Les yeux de Jéhovah voient clair dans notre cœur ; nous ne pouvons pas lui cacher nos inclinations et nos motivations. Notre Père bienveillant veut que nous marchions dans les voies de la justice ; pourtant, il ne nous force pas à changer de route. Lorsque nous allons dans la mauvaise direction, il nous met en garde par sa Parole, la Bible. Comment ? Dans notre lecture biblique quotidienne, nous tombons souvent sur des passages qui nous aident à surmonter de mauvaises tendances ou des inclinations malsaines. De plus, nos publications chrétiennes traitent parfois d’une difficulté contre laquelle nous luttons et nous montrent comment la surmonter. Enfin, aux réunions de la congrégation, chacun de nous reçoit au bon moment les conseils dont nous avons besoin !

      Toutes ces mises en garde, écrite dans la parole, la bible, qu'elles sont vraiment la preuve que Jéhovah surveille chacun de nous individuellement et cela avec amour. Il est vrai que les paroles consignées dans la Bible existent depuis des siècles, que les publications préparées par l’organisation de Jéhovah sont écrites pour des millions de personnes et que les conseils donnés lors des réunions s’adressent à toute la congrégation. Mais dans tous ces cas, Jéhovah dirige l’attention de chacun, individuellement, vers sa Parole, afin que chacun puisse modifier ses inclinations. Ainsi, on peut dire que toutes ces dispositions sont la preuve que Jéhovah te surveille personnellement avec amour.

      Pour tirer profit des avertissements de Dieu, nous devons d’abord comprendre en profondeur sa parole? Quelle aide notre Père aimant nous fournit-il ?


      Lorsque que nous méditons sur la Parole et nous faisons des recherches profondes sur ces principes biblique, nous apprenons à nous corriger intérieurement et ainsi nous nous rendons particulièrement compte que Jéhovah veille sur nous.

      Bien sûr, il n’est pas spécialement agréable de se faire conseiller ou corriger, mais Jéhovah demande à chaque serviteur, de suivre la discipline enseigné dans sa paroles, de part nos yeux, par la méditation, la lecture attentive et en manifester les rappels constant (Héb. 12:11). Réfléchissons à ce que Jéhovah examine en nous. Nous devons être conscient que chaques actions de notre part pourraient nuire à notre relation avec Dieu. Nous devons se soucier de nos sentiments que nous véhiculons envers les autres. Enfin, nous devons être prêt à donner de son temps et de son énergie pour manifester les changements primordiales, à l’aide de la Bible, manifester les actions requises qui mène à plaire à Jéhovah .


      En psaumes 73:24 Le psalmiste a chanté à Jéhovah : « Par ton conseil tu me conduiras » (Ps. 73:24). Quand nous avons besoin d’une direction, nous pouvons « [tenir] compte de » Jéhovah en cherchant dans sa Parole la vrai direction de penser.

      Oui, par sa Parole, Jéhovah nous guide pour nous aider à surmonter les difficultés de la vie si nous demondons à Jehovah de nous guider personnellement.
      Psaume chapitre 37 à lire en entier.

      Pour quel genre de raisons Jéhovah n’intervient-il pas toujour dans nos difficultés personnelles ?

      Jéhovah a peut-être de bonnes raisons de ne pas intervenir dans certaines situations. Imaginons qu’à nos yeux, notre être intérieur fut blessé mais que Jéhovah ait un autre point de vue, que, selon lui, tu as plus de torts, que tu ne le penses. La remarque que tu as trouvée si vexante peut, en fait, être un conseil justifié, auquel tu ferais bien de réfléchir. Dans sa biographie, frère Karl Klein, qui a été membre du Collège central, a raconté qu’un jour, que frère Rutherford l’avait repris avec franchise. Par la suite, frère Rutherford lui a adressé un joyeux « Bonjour, Karl ! » Mais, vexé par la réprimande, frère Klein lui a répondu du bout des lèvres. Comprenant qu’il lui en voulait, frère Rutherford l’a prévenu qu’il risquait de devenir la proie du Diable. Frère Klein écrira : « Quand nous avons de la rancœur contre un de nos frères, surtout si c’est parce qu’il nous a dit quelque chose qu’il était en droit de nous dire dans l’exercice de ses fonctions, alors nous prêtons le flanc aux attaques du Diable. »

      Quand une épreuve semble s’éterniser, nous pourrions nous impatienter. Que faire alors ? Supposons, que nous roulons sur une autoroute et que nous nous trouvons pris dans un embouteillage. Nous ne savons pas combien de temps cette situation va durer. Si nous nous irritons et que nous essayons de prendre un autre chemin, nous risquons de se perdre et, au bout du compte, d’arriver à destination plus tard que si nous avions patiemment suivi le premier itinéraire. Pareillement, si nous restons sur les voies tracées par la Parole de Dieu, en temps voulu, nous arriverons, à la destination prévu.
      Il se peut également que, lorsque nous sommes éprouvés, Jéhovah n’intervienne pas tout de suite parce qu’il veut que nous recevions une précieuse formation (lire 1 Pierre 5:6-10). Dieu n’inflige aucune épreuve (Jacq. 1:13). La plupart des malheurs viennent de « [notre] adversaire, le Diable ». Par contre, Dieu peut se servir d’une situation éprouvante pour nous aider à croître spirituellement. Il voit notre souffrance et, « parce qu’il se soucie » de nous, il veillera à ce qu’elle ne dure qu’« un peu de temps ». Quand nous sommes
      éprouvé, sommes-nous heureux que Jéhovah nous surveille, convaincu qu’il nous ménagera une issue ? (2 Cor. 4:7-9).

      LA JOIE D’ÊTRE APPROUVÉ PAR DIEU

      En fait, Jéhovah examine notre vie pour une raison des plus rassurantes. Par l’intermédiaire de Hanani le voyant, il a dit au roi Asa : « Car, en ce qui concerne Jéhovah, ses yeux rôdent par toute la terre, afin de montrer sa force en faveur de ceux dont le cœur est complet à son égard » (2 Chron. 16:9). Chez Asa, Dieu n’a pas trouvé un cœur complet. Mais si nous, nous continuons à faire ce qui est droit, Jéhovah « montrer[a] sa force » en notre faveur.

      Dieu veut que nous « recherch[ions] ce qui est bon », que nous « aim[ions] ce qui est bon » et que nous « fass[ions] ce qui est bon » afin qu’il puisse nous « témoign[er] de la faveur » (Amos 5:14, 15 ; 1 Pierre 3:11, 12). Il remarque les justes et il les bénit (Ps. 34:15). Songeons, par exemple, aux accoucheuses hébreues, Shiphra et Poua. Alors qu’Israël était en esclavage en Égypte, ces femmes ont craint Dieu plus que Pharaon, qui leur avait ordonné de tuer à la naissance tous les garçons hébreux. Manifestement, leur conscience les a poussées à garder les bébés en vie. Par la suite, Jéhovah « leur fit don de familles » (Ex. 1:15-17, 20, 21). Leurs belles actions n’avaient pas échappé à Jéhovah, dont les yeux « rôdent». Parfois, nous avons peut-être l’impression que personne ne remarque nos belles actions. Mais notre Père céleste y est attentif. Il remarque toute bonne action et il nous récompensera en temps voulu(Mat. 6:4, 6 ; 1 Tim. 5:25 ; Héb 6:10.
      Jéhovah voit tout ce que nous faisons, tôt ou tard, il nous récompensera. En prenant conscience qu’il a l’œil sur nous alors n’ayons pas l’impression d’être sous le regard froid et scrutateur d’une caméra de surveillance. Au contraire, sentons-nous encore plus proche du Dieu bienveillant qui se soucie réellement de nous!


      Revenons à la petite histoire du personnage Amour.
      Avant de vous expliquer le rappels de cette histoire allons lire les paroles de notre Guide JÉSUS Christ.
      Allons en Mathieu 22 :37 à 39
      Alors Jesus lui dit : “ Tu dois aimer Jéhovah ton Dieu de tout ton cœur, et de toute ton âme, et de toute ta pensée. 38 C’est là le plus grand et le premier commandement. 39 Le deuxième, qui lui est semblable, est celui-ci : Tu dois aimer ton prochain comme toi-même
      Mathieu 5:44 à 45a
      Continuez d’aimer vos ennemis et de prier pour ceux qui vous persécutent ; 45 afin de vous montrer fils de votre Père qui est dans les cieux.
      Alors revenons à cet histoire que je transcript au début.
      Nous avions plusieurs personnages, il eut Amour , Richesse, l'orgueil, la tristesse, le bonheur, Le Temps et Le Savoir. Chacun étaient différents en manière de penser, en comportement, pourtant ils parraissent tous ensembles, qu'ils ont réussit leur monde, ils ont ammasé des richesses, leur valeurs en leurs coeur, certains étaient très heureux de leur réussites. Les personnages de cet histoire, aucun personnages ne se montrèrent d'aucune arrogance envers Amour. Richesse, orgueil, tristesse et bonheur ont tous ignoré Amour.
      Amour paraissait être le seul à n'avoir pris aucune précaution au chaos qui venait. Amour avait passé sa vie à comprendre l'Amour de cette vie.
      Il n'avait pas de bateau., il n'avait rien ammassé de cette vie.
      Amour se souvenait que Dieu viendrait le chercher par les nuages matérialisés pour rencontrer le Savoir dans un lieu unique où tout les juste vont.psaime 37'10,11

      Le temps dans cet histoire, qui est le vieillard, est Jésus, Jésus à attendu le signal du Savoir avant de sauver sa brebis, Amour.
      Amour avait transmit à chaque personnages son attention de l'amour, son amour pour son prochain était réel, tous le connaissaient par son Nom "Amour".
      Le temps qui est(Jésus, le viellard) même lui l'a appelé Amour par son Nom.
      Qu'à fait Amour pour rencontrer Le Savoir qui est Jéhovah, comme Jésus il a pardonné les actions de tout ses ennemis, incluant dans sa vie relaté en Galantes 5 :22, 23 par sa maîtrise de soi il a conservé ses 7 qualités, les plus importantes de sa vie et cela jusqu'à presque perde sa vie dans les eaux tumulteuses et il reçu du Savoir, le fruit de L'amour de Jéhovah le Dieu de toutes connaissances, de toutes sagesses et des bénédictions, Amour à reçu  la Récompense  de la promesse qu'il avait attendu toute sa vie.

      Pour finir ce petit discours je vous laisse sur une belle citation de Paul sur le thème de l'Amour.

      L’amour est patient et bon. L’amour n’est pas jaloux, il ne se vante pas, ne se gonfle pas [d’orgueil], 5 n’agit pas de façon inconvenante, ne cherche pas ses propres intérêts, ne s’irrite pas. Il ne tient pas compte du mal subi. 6 Il ne se réjouit pas de l’injustice, mais se réjouit avec la vérité. 7 Il supporte tout, croit tout, espère tout, endure tout. 8 L’amour ne disparaît Jamais, car c'est celui qui aura enduré jusqu'à la fin et les yeux sur fixer sur L'ESPÉRANCE DE LA PROMESSE DE JÉHOVAH LE DIEU DE TOUTES BÉNÉDICTIONS.
      Comme notre petit personnage Amour Notre persévérance nous donnera la chance de recevoir le Prix des juste et des humbles de la terre.
      Cher Serviteurs de Jehovah, annoncons La GLOIRE EN NOTRE DIEU Jéhovah le Dieu de L'Amour, de toutes connaissances et sagesses profondes.
      YHWH ELEON.

      · 1 reply
    • jwdudleyusa  »  Deaf Hear USA

      Good News From God This 32 page booklet will answer many of your Bible questions.
      · 0 replies
    • jwdudleyusa  »  Deaf Hear USA

      Covid-19 - WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Matthew 24:1-14
      Satan the evil one controls the earth and mankind.  1 John 5:19.  John 8:44
      Logical explanations for the world’s problems.—Revelation 12:12.
      Reason to believe that our world will change for the better.—1 John 2:17.
       
       CAN WE REALLY BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS?
      Yes, for at least three reasons:
      Satan’s rulership is doomed. Jehovah is determined to bring Satan’s control over mankind to an end. He promises to “bring to nothing . . . the Devil” and undo all the damage that Satan has caused.—Hebrews 2:14,
      God has chosen Jesus Christ to rule the world. Jesus is the complete opposite of this world’s present cruel, selfish ruler. Concerning Jesus’ kingship, God promises: “He will have pity on the lowly and the poor . . . From oppression and from violence he will rescue them.”—Psalm 72:13, 14.
      God cannot lie. The Bible plainly states: “It is impossible for God to lie.” (Hebrews 6:18) When Jehovah promises to do something, it is as good as done! (Isaiah 55:10, 11) “The ruler of this world will be cast out.”—John 12:31.
      TO THINK ABOUT
      What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?
      The Bible answers that question at PSALM 37:10, 11, 29, and REVELATION 21:3, 4.
      Jehovah God truly loves the earth and mankind.  John 3:16
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

  • Posts

×
×
  • 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.