What do you normally do when a Jehovah Witness knocks on your door?

[gb93433]

You argue just like the RCC. It goes like this--Infant baptism is demonstrated by the jailor's household in Acts 16:31. Because there was a household, there must have been infants.
Your argument is the same: Because there was a house, there must have been a church. You are reading into the Scripture something that is not there, just as the RCC does. There is no Scriptural basis for it.
Do you believe in purgatory also?

So out of frustration and being unable to prove your point with clear documented evidence and intelligent discussion you try to slam someone by attributing things to them that are not true? That is a very common pracrice in debate and among politicians on TV today. Do you really want to stoop that low? Is that the same way you approach non-believers?

What reason do I have to believe your opinion? I have read many documents that give no support to your position of a home only. Even in seminary at the largest seminary in the US they told us the same thing. And you have more knowledge than those who spend their life studying those things? Have I ever been wrong? Absolutely. I am quite confident that you have been wrong too. Quite honestly I see no merit in your opinion and am less and less convinced as I read more and more of what you have written.

Before you get so frustrated try and remember the differences in how Jesus dealt with the Sadducees and Pharisees.

I will say that it was good for me to get challenged by you because it did force me to take a better look at something I have not dealt with in along time. When I did though I became more convinced that your opinion is wrong.

 

[DHK]

Are you a dispensationalist?

Why would anyone care about the size of a home in our culture today? The size of a home in the U.S. is irrelevant to the size of a home in the east. Homes in the U.S. vary from about 600 square feet to over 30,000 square feet. So how does that help one to interpret 2 Jn 10. Why would you dismiss the correct interpretation on the basis on the size of a home?

To try and establish a theology on the basis of the size of a home is junk theology at its best. That is like establishing the size of a home at this time last century on the basis of the homes of today. If your estimates were right there would be no need for a tentmaker.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Did you not read what I wrote in post #197, “I believe that 2 Jn is written to a church that meets in a house partly because the letter is written to the elect lady and her children. Children in John’s writings are those who are members of a church. The same author uses the word children in 3 Jn 4 as not his family but those who follow the truth. John uses a lot of metaphorical language in his writings.”[/FONT]

The letter has no need to be allegorized. Why do you insist on doing that? That is what the J.W.'s do with the resurrection of Christ. You are doing the same thing here. There is no need to allegorize this book. It is a letter to a prominent lady in the community. She is an elderly lady, who no doubt entertains traveling evangelists such as the Apostle John and some others. John warns her about entertaining false teachers. He commends her for her hospitality.

Though he writes to her and her children:

2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

The truth is, that her children, at least some or many of them, are not even with her:

2 John 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

John has met with her children or some of them and both they and he send her their greetings. He hopes to talk with her (not the church) face to face.

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
--This is indicative of a personal letter, not one written to a church. There is no indication of a church here at all.

If you have never been outside of America, and in an eastern country you will never understand the point I am making about houses, so just forget it. No one in that age had a house like the one you or I live in. You cannot force your culture into the first century.

John uses little metaphorical language in his epistles.
This is not the Book of Revelation. It is not difficult to understand. There is little, for example, that is metaphorical in all five chapters of 1John, and little that is difficult to understand. But you make this small book of one chapter very difficult to understand for one and only one reason--you buckle under the simple teaching of verse 10. You don't want to obey it.
Simple isn't it.

 

[gb93433]

The letter has no need to be allegorized. Why do you insist on doing that? It is a letter to a prominent lady in the community. She is an elderly lady, who no doubt entertains traveling evangelists such as the Apostle John and some others. John warns her about entertaining false teachers. He commends her for her hospitality.

I agree with most of that except the church met in her place.

Though he writes to her and her children:

2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

The truth is, that her children, at least some or many of them, are not even with her:

2 John 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

John has met with her children or some of them and both they and he send her their greetings. He hopes to talk with her (not the church) face to face.

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
--This is indicative of a personal letter, not one written to a church. There is no indication of a church here at all.

Your assumption by ommission is not always true. You are assuming that everything is told when that is seldom the case. You do not know the other side of the story unless you study what the issues and conditions were.

John uses little metaphorical language in his epistles.
This is not the Book of Revelation. It is not difficult to understand. There is little, for example, that is metaphorical in all five chapters of 1John, and little that is difficult to understand. But you make this small book of one chapter very difficult to understand for one and only one reason--you buckle under the simple teaching of verse 10. You don't want to obey it.
Simple isn't it.

Again accusatory language out of frustation does nothing to convice me of your opinion. It just convinces me of your attitude. The more you write, the more I am quite confident that you are wrong.

It is not allegory to see how John uses the word children in his writings. Is he not consistent? In 1,2, and 3 John his usage is that of a church.

In 1, 2 &3 John many times when he says, "children . . . " do you really think he is addressing little kids?

I am very confident that I am following the command in 2 Jn 10. I do not receive false teachers nor give them a greeting as I would a believer. In fact I give them quite the opposite. They are clear where I stand and what the Bible teaches. They are told in a number of words that they are not followers of Christ but rather are deceived. Be assured that if you were with me you would have no trouble knowing. They walk away knowing too. Sometimes they want to leave and I ask them why so quickly. I ask them why would they not want to know what the Bible teaches. I am quite sure I am in their computer. I seldom get any knocks on my door. Most of the time they actually go down the street and walk past my house to knock on the next one. So I seldom have an opportunity to invite them in.

If that letter is addressed for the sole instruction of one person then why is the word for "receive" in verse 2 Jn 10 a plural? Translated "you (plural) are not to receive them."

 

[DHK]

I agree with most of that except the church met in her place.

And yet the context gives no evidence of a church.

Your assumption by ommission is not always true. You are assuming that everything is told when that is seldom the case. You do not know the other side of the story unless you study what the issues and conditions were.

Again, that is the RCC logic. I am not telling the other side of the story in Acts 16. There were infants present being baptized. You are just not seeing the other side of the story. This is the logic you are using. You must keep to the context and not read into the epistle that which is not there. You assume that which is not there, and that is not rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot make arguments from silence. If I don't know the other side of the story, then you certainly don't. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Again accusatory language out of frustation does nothing to convice me of your opinion. It just convinces me of your attitude. The more you write, the more I am quite confident that you are wrong.

Don't take things so personally. There are some commands in the Bible that no matter how clear the teaching may be, most Christians will refuse to obey it. I will give you a couple of examples.
1. In 1Cor.11:1-15, there is no possible way that you can escape the expositon of the clear command for a woman to wear a head covering in the church service. Yet women don't, and will rationalize a way not to.
2. Many women will find a way to disobey the command "to keep silent in the church and not to have authority over a man." Especially as it relates to pastors and teachers.
--A couple of examples. The only reason, when these passages are clearly expounded and clearly taught, and then disobeyed, is that they don't want to obey them. It is not arrogance to say that the same reason is what I see here when the Scripture is so clear. Your accusations remind me of the old saying that when you point a finger at someone remember that there are four pointing back at yourself.

It is not allegory to see how John uses the word children in his writings. Is he not consistent? In 1,2, and 3 John his usage is that of a church.

In 1, 2 &3 John many times when he says, "children . . . " do you really think he is addressing little kids?

When used with a lady it is allegory. A mother and her children; a lady and her children. That is not allegory. John was using children in a spiritual sense in 1John, I agree, but there is no reason to believe that here in 2John. The context gives us no reason at all to believe that. He was writing to her and her family. There is not one iota of evidence that a church is being written to. The word is not once mentioned in the entire book. You must give evidence or proof for your statements.

I am very confident that I am following the command in 2 Jn 10. I do not receive false teachers nor give them a greeting as I would a believer. In fact I give them quite the opposite. They are clear where I stand and what the Bible teaches. They are told in a number of words that they are not followers of Christ but rather are deceived. Be assured that if you were with me you would have no trouble knowing.

I am glad to know that, and that should be the case.

They walk away knowing too. Sometimes they want to leave and I ask them why so quickly. I ask them why would they not want to know what the Bible teaches. I am quite sure I am in their computer. I seldom get any knocks on my door. Most of the time they actually go down the street and walk past my house to knock on the next one. So I seldom have an opportunity to invite them in.

That is a good situation to be in.

If that letter is addressed for the sole instruction of one person then why is the word for "receive" in verse 2 Jn 10 a plural? Translated "you (plural) are not to receive them."

It is the same in Greek as it is in English. Every command of the English language has an understood subject--"you"
"Shut the door." "YOU" is understood. It is the subject of the command. It is the same here. All of the verbs are left in the infinitive. All of the pronouns are singular. The you is not therefore plural it is singular. "If any (singular) come to you (singular) receive "him" (singular) not into your house. The rest of the pronouns likewise are singular.

If any come unto you. Here you is in the accusative case and is the object of a prepositon. Thus the plurality of it is of no consequence.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I believe verse 7 has a clue as well.

John is warning about many false teachers already in the world and then carries the instruction in verse 10 to not allow them in the lady's home.

it is evident from the Greek it is a residence. oikia is only translated as house(hold), home, residence and family place. Church is not a definition at all.

 

[gb93433]

The you is not therefore plural it is singular. "If any (singular) come to you (singular) receive "him" (singular) not into your house. The rest of the pronouns likewise are singular.

If any come unto you. Here you is in the accusative case and is the object of a prepositon. Thus the plurality of it is of no consequence.

Receive is plural, him is singular

Read the text and note that both the TR, NA26 and UBS texts use the word (lambanete) which translated means you receive. Because of the negative in front it means you do not receive. The word is a second person, plural, present, active, indicative. I have no idea how you can get around that. Can you explain?

 

[DHK]

Receive is plural, him is singular

Read the text and note that both the TR, NA26 and UBS texts use the word (lambanete) which translated means you receive. Because of the negative in front it means you do not receive. The word is a second person, plural, present, active, indicative. I have no idea how you can get around that. Can you explain?

2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

The subject is plural. He is being consistent with the grammar of the epistle. "You" agrees with the subject. It also agrees with the plural "you" of verse 3: "grace be to you."
John is consistent throughout.

 

[gb93433]

2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

The subject is plural. He is being consistent with the grammar of the epistle. "You" agrees with the subject. It also agrees with the plural "you" of verse 3: "grace be to you."
John is consistent throughout.

The lady is singular and children is a plural. The letter is to the called out lady--the local church in that area where it was sent to. The lady is a church and the children are its believers. Over and over John addresses children. He refers to the children who are believers. John is consistent in his address of children.

2 Jn 3 is a greeting using the standard form of a letter during that time. The first three verses follow the standard form of a letter 9 who it is from, who it is to followed by a greeting. (In this case the greeting is a Greek and Jewish/Hebrew Greeting).

The subject in 2 Jn 10 is tis and it is singular. The sentence is a first class conditional sentence too.

The third word in 2 Jn 12 is a plural dative. John has much to write to (you, plural, vs.12) who is the the elect lady (from vs.1, singular)

You is the believers--children (plural) who make up the church--elect lady (singular).

Thanks for challenging and forcing me to look at my Greek text and confirming my belief by what the text says.

 

[DHK]

In summary, your theology:

Lady = church
children = congregation
house = church building

This is your little allegory. The allegorical method of interpreting the Bible was unknown among Christianity until Origen who lived in the middle of the third century. Origen was the first one to use allegorization such as you are doing. Origen was a heretic. Even the Catholic Church declared him a heretic. Many consider Origen the father of Arianism (as Arius was highly influenced by him).

Augustine, however, was the one who popularized the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation. so there you have it: Augustine and Origen--the two champions of the allegorical method of interpretation, and this is what you follow.

Basic Bible hermeneutics teaches that one interprets the Bible literally unless the Bible itself gives reason to interpret it otherwise. And the Bible has given no reason to allegorize this book. I dismiss your interpretation as pure folly after the manner of two heretics.

 

[gb93433]

Basic Bible hermeneutics teaches that one interprets the Bible literally unless the Bible itself gives reason to interpret it otherwise. And the Bible has given no reason to allegorize this book. I dismiss your interpretation as pure folly after the manner of two heretics.

What Greek text do you read?

 

[gb93433]

In summary, your theology:

Lady = church
children = congregation
house = church building

This is your little allegory. The allegorical method of interpreting the Bible was unknown among Christianity until Origen who lived in the middle of the third century. Origen was the first one to use allegorization such as you are doing. Origen was a heretic. Even the Catholic Church declared him a heretic. Many consider Origen the father of Arianism (as Arius was highly influenced by him).

Augustine, however, was the one who popularized the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation. so there you have it: Augustine and Origen--the two champions of the allegorical method of interpretation, and this is what you follow.

Basic Bible hermeneutics teaches that one interprets the Bible literally unless the Bible itself gives reason to interpret it otherwise. And the Bible has given no reason to allegorize this book. I dismiss your interpretation as pure folly after the manner of two heretics.

How does this address the issues I raised in post #208?

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

You posted...

"Basic Bible hermeneutics teaches that one interprets the Bible literally unless the Bible itself gives reason to interpret it otherwise."

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

I'm thrilled to see you post that. And YOU are one who needs to *fine tune* your ability to employ that important principle.

Let me repeat this from an earlier post of mine....

"You take this scripture...

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"

...and just rip it from the rest of scripture and interpret it in isolation....IN SPITE OF the fact that your view of it causes it to COMPLETLY and VIOLENTLY fly in the face of reams and reams and reams of scriptures that speak of contending earnestly for the truth with those you are in error, and preaching the true gospel to every person, and blessing those who persecute you, rather than curse them, and being able to use the scriptures for "reproof", "correction" and "instruction in rightiousness" regarding those who are in opposition.

Your "literal" interpretation of the passage about not letting a non christian religionist into your home to discuss spiritual things is rendered to be a false view because, in your words..."the Bible itself gives reason to interpret it otherwise.".

In light of our clear instruction to share the good news of the gospel at every oppotunity, it becomes crystal clear that the proper view of the "do not let them enter your home" passage is referring to the home in that culture when it was being used for a christian service and the false teachers wanted to teach their false doctrines in Gods church house.

The "children" would be the congregation at that church, and the woman would be the overseer, teacher or pastor of that house fellowship.



I sincerely hope this helps,

Mike

 

[saturneptune]

What do you normally do when a Jehovah Witness knocks on your door?

I honestly used to just not open the door really. However lately I have been opening the door and explaining to them how I dont agree with their Doctrine and that Jesus was just a good man and prophet but not God's Son.

Like the other day, me and my wife were at the Grocery store and these gentleman came to me and offered the Watchtower Magazine which talked about he love that Jesus has for man.

I told him: "Well, I want to be honest. I dont want to take your magazine because I dont agree with it and I will just throw it in the garbage can.

He stated lol :laugh:

He said: "Well, you know all we use is Bible quotes provided to us by our elders and thats what we have in this book so I am sure you will enjoy it"

I told him: "Well, I like to go to the source directly. I like to read the word myself and allow God to reveal to me his truths and not just take some one elses word for it, doesnt that make sence? I mean if I get a piece of paper and quote you a verse that says, sell what you have and give it to Tali, would you do it? Of course you wouldnt, you would verify it and make sure its accurate right?

He said: "Yes"

I told him: "Well, then why are you taking other men's word regarding your salvation instead of looking up the word of God and reading what God actualy says. I tell you this because I believe that Jesus died on that cross and paid the price for my sins and he would love to do it for yours too and I can prove it even with your watchtower bible which was altered by men, can you prove what you are saying that Jesus was Michael the Angel with your Bible?

He Just Smiled and shook my hand and said thanks have a great day.

Was I wrong in this???? My wife who is a baby Christian said I was being mean, but I was trying to be nice!! I didnt mean to but I mean its easy just to brush them off but they are men and woman who God woudl love to save.

Was I wrong?? :tonofbricks:

To compare your situation with what I did last summer, you are a saint. I work a midnight shift. I had gone to bed about 10AM and the doorbell rang. I staggered to the door, and JWs were walking down the street. I went back to bed, about to doze off, and the bell rang again. Here I go staggering again to the door. The same thing, they were walking the other way. The third time, I caught them at the door, opened the front door in my underwear, and said "Can I help you?" I have not seen them since.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I have told my wife one day I am going to peek around the door at them and tell them "Look, in the Old Testament it is said that Isaiah walked naked for three years. If you don't get off my porch I am going to open this door the rest of the way and you are going to witness me walking around in the same manner.

 

[gb93433]

I have told my wife one day I am going to peek around the door at them and tell them "Look, in the Old Testament it is said that Isaiah walked naked for three years. If you don't get off my porch I am going to open this door the rest of the way and you are going to witness me walking around in the same manner.

I can just imagine the picture of their surprise.

 

[gb93433]

The "children" would be the congregation at that church, and the woman would be the overseer, teacher or pastor of that house fellowship.

I do not think a female overseer would have been likely in a patriarchal society.

 

[D28guy]

gb,

There is scriptural evidence of women leaders in the early church.


Mike

 

[gb93433]

2 John 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

John has met with her children or some of them and both they and he send her their greetings. He hopes to talk with her (not the church) face to face.

The literal translation is, "The children of your elect sister greets you."

2 Jn is written to the chosen lady and then in verse 13 it talks about the children of the chosen lady's sister greet her.

It is not uncommon for a church to refer to another church as "our sister church." When I was involved in church planting we referred to the nurturing church as the mother church. Another church involved in the effort as a supporting church as a sister church.

In 1, 2, & 3 Jn the word for children is used as the believers. You seem to disopute those used in 2 Jn. Why woukd the author or the letters of 1, 2, & 3 Jn use children as referring to believrs and then only in 2 Jn as biological children?

1Joh 3:1 [FONT=&quot]i[dete potaphVn ajgavphn devdwken hJmi'n oJ pathVr, i{na tevkna qeou' klhqw'men, kaiV ejsmevn. diaV tou'to oJ kovsmo" ouj ginwvskei hJma'", o{ti oujk e[gnw aujtovn. [/FONT]
2 [FONT=&quot]ajgaphtoiv, nu'n tevkna qeou' ejsmen, kaiV ou[pw ejfanerwvqh tiv ejsovmeqa. oi[damen o{ti ejaVn fanerwqh'/, o{moioi aujtw'/ ejsovmeqa, o{ti ojyovmeqa aujtoVn kaqwv" ejstin. [/FONT]
1Joh 3:10 [FONT=&quot]ejn touvtw/ fanerav ejstin taV tevkna tou' qeou' kaiV taV tevkna tou' diabovlou: pa'" oJ mhV poiw'n dikaiosuvnhn oujk e[stin ejk tou' qeou', kaiV oJ mhV ajgapw'n toVn ajdelfoVn aujtou'. [/FONT]
1Joh 5:2 [FONT=&quot]ejn touvtw/ ginwvskomen o{ti ajgapw'men taV tevkna tou' qeou', o{tan toVn qeoVn ajgapw'men kaiV taV" ejntolaV" aujtou' poiw'men. [/FONT]
2Joh 1:1 [FONT=&quot] JO presbuvtero" ejklekth'/ kuriva/ kaiV toi'" tevknoi" aujth'", ou}" ejgwV ajgapw' ejn ajlhqeiva/, kaiV oujk ejgwV movno" ajllaV kaiV pavnte" oiJ ejgnwkovte" thVn ajlhvqeian, [/FONT]
2Joh 1:4 [FONT=&quot] jEcavrhn livan o{ti eu{rhka ejk tw'n tevknwn sou peripatou'nta" ejn ajlhqeiva/, kaqwV" ejntolhVn ejlavbomen paraV tou' patrov". [/FONT]
2Joh 1:13 [FONT=&quot] jAspavzetaiv se taV tevkna th'" ajdelfh'" sou th'" ejklekth'". [/FONT]
3Joh 1:4 [FONT=&quot]meizotevran touvtwn oujk e[cw caravn, i{na ajkouvw taV ejmaV tevkna ejn th'/ ajlhqeiva/ peripatou'nta.[/FONT]



I cannot imagine that John would have changed the meaning of the word children on the basis of several things.

1. It was not customary in that culture during that time that a man or pastor would have sent a letter to a married woman.

2. If that woman had children in that house and not married then her husband died or she had illegitimate children. If there were children in that home then must not have been very old (about 24 -30 years).

3. If the woman is married she would have been referred to as the woman of a man or the woman of a man's name as was the custom in the Hebrew language and culture.

4. If 2 Jn was to a literal lady then why did John use the word for children in 1 & 3 John as a reference to believers?




John's use of children in 1 & 3 John is consistent with the reference to believers and I believe consistent in 2 John as well. He did not change the meaning of the word children in 2 Jn.

 

[gb93433]

gb,

There is scriptural evidence of women leaders in the early church.


Mike

I agree, but I do not see any evidence of women as overseers/pastors.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Actually there were not women leaders in the early Church according the the Word of God.

There were women who ministered, but they certainly were not leaders.

Deborah? She was a judge, yes. But she was not a leader in the Church.