-5

My answer to this question was deleted by Caleb 2 John 1:7 - Jesus Coming in the Flesh? and there appears to be no reason for doing so. So why was this deleted?

7
  • 1
    Biblical Hermeneutics is geared more towards textual analysis and "what does the text actually say?" type of questions. Christianity.SE is focused more on the doctrinal side, where the questions are more like "what do others say this text means?". Your answer definitely did not fit in the former category, so it is not an answer by this site's standards. – El'endia Starman Mar 13 '15 at 13:14
  • @El'endiaStarman My question was migrated from Christianity stack and was not asked on this site, so I'm not surprised that it does not fit here. Please read before passing legislation so you will know what is in the bill. – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 13:51
  • ...your question? It wasn't your question! It was someone else's question, and they wanted answers more along the lines of textual analysis. Their question fit into the scope of this site (BH) better than the scope of that site (C). So it was moved over to where it belongs. – El'endia Starman Mar 13 '15 at 13:55
  • @El'endiaStarman Please read the question you are answering. You are commenting on my question of why was my answer deleted and NOT THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 14:01
  • I wasn't talking about your Meta question. I was answering it (albeit with a comment). 1Up's question fit better on BH, so it was migrated here. Your answer came along, but was deleted as it was not an answer. Then you complained about this on Meta.Christianity...about a deleted answer on BH. So THAT Meta question was migrated over here to Meta.BH. I comment-answered your now-BH Meta question about your deleted answer on 1Up's now-BH question, and gave you a good reason why it was deleted. I see no error on my part. – El'endia Starman Mar 13 '15 at 14:06
  • @El'endiaStarman The error on your part is that the answer was deleted on the Christianity site before it was moved to Hermeneutics. My question was specifically to Caleb since he was the one who deleted it to begin with. The Christianity site has become a place were it seems that questions and answers are perused for reasons to close them rather than reasons to answer them. People for the most part ask questions because they are seeking an answer to something that is of consequence to them. The site should be geared toward helping them not rejecting their concerns. – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 14:21
  • @BYE Your answer was NOT deleted on C.SE before migration. If I had done that it would not have showed up on BH (even in it's deleted state). As for the other aspects of your complaint, that would be something to bring up on C.SE but the site does not make it its purpose to address people's spiritual concerns. In fact it rather avoids that, and limits itself to a specific subset of all possible questions that can be dealt with in a specific fassion. – Caleb Mar 13 '15 at 15:04
5

I deleted your answer as part of the migration from Christianity to Biblical Hermeneutics. I realize the target moved on you as the question was originally on a site where you answer might have been appropriate. However the question was not appropriate on that site (it should not have even been answered there).

Your answer would have been fine in the context of C.SE (if the question had called for it) but it is not appropriate for this site. You make a doctrinal case for a theological position reasoning from other Scriptures. That is all great stuff, but does not fit this site. The question specifically asks about the original meaning of one specific passage, a passage your answer does not even mention. In the context of this site, only an analysis of that specific text would be on topic.

If you'd like to answer the question here, please edit your answer to be appropriate for this site. That means removing the commentary at the top and presenting a textual rather than a a doctrinal case for your answer.

3
  • 1
    I must disagree with your statement that it does not address the poster's question, it specifically asks: Some commentaries I have read concerning this verse states that "coming" refers not only to his past but future presence, returning in the flesh. Can this be clarified by someone who understands the original text? Does this imply that Jesus is returning in a flesh state?*** How should this verse be understood regarding the past or future flesh state? – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 14:28
  • Sorry that I misunderstood: I deleted your answer as part of the migration from Christianity to Biblical Hermeneutics. Perhaps it is due to my lack of higher learning, but as I read this question it belongs more on C.se than where you moved it to. As I read this question it is asking for Scriptural backup to whether or not Jesus will return in the flesh. At any rate the site seems to have metastasized into a place where no one really wants to help anymore and only tries bend everything to their concept. Perhaps this is no longer a site for me, continued; – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 15:23
  • continued: Since my reasons for using this site is to help others understand Christianity. That appears to no longer be the aim of the site. To my way of thinking if the site is to be of any use what so ever it needs to try to dispel any misunderstanding of Christianity and specifically the Bible which is the basis of Christianity. – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 15:27
4

While I cannot answer for Caleb, I suspect that it was deleted because you do not specifically address the question about the meaning of 2 John 7. That is, you presented a good argument that Jesus will return in the flesh, but you did not continue with that to answer the question about whether 2 John 7 should be taken that way or not (which is the question).

So just because Jesus is returning in the flesh (second coming) does not mean 2 John 7 is referring to that necessarily; it may still be referring to simply the past event (His incarnation). That is what the question is asking, so that needs to be addressed in your answer.

9
  • I beg to differ with you. if you read the question it specifically asks: Some commentaries I have read concerning this verse states that "coming" refers not only to his past but future presence, returning in the flesh. Can this be clarified by someone who understands the original text? Does this imply that Jesus is returning in a flesh state? How should this verse be understood regarding the past or future flesh state? – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 13:56
  • @BYE what are you differing with me on? I agree that is what the question is asking. What I am saying is, the answer you gave only argued that there is a future flesh state, without addressing whether 1 John 7 should be taken as referring to that future state or the past state. Having established the validity of a future flesh state (as you did), which demonstrates 1 John 7 could be referring to the future, you need to then argue specifically that 1 John 7 is referring to the future state rather than the past incarnation. – ScottS Mar 13 '15 at 14:11
  • I disagree because: Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." is unambiguously the past. – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 14:41
  • 1
    @BYE You seem to still be missing the point. In short, you need to specifically address 1 John 7 in your answer, whatever view you hold to for its meaning. Specifically does "coming" refer to the fact that He has come or is it referring to the fact that He will come or possibly both. That will then answer the question of what 1 John 7 is asserting. Is it a polemic against Gnostics who did not believe Christ ever came in the flesh to begin with (as the other answer argues) or is it against those refusing to believe He will come again? Or both. Whatever your position, relate it to 1 John 7. – ScottS Mar 13 '15 at 14:59
  • @BYE - correction on my part, all my 1 John 7 references above are wrong. It is 2 John 7 that is the question. – ScottS Mar 13 '15 at 15:04
  • You are misreading the question; the Scripture was quoted as the reason for his consternation; but the question was asking for background and not explanation. – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 15:07
  • 1
    @BYE: Now I beg to differ. If you do not believe "How should this verse be understood regarding the past or future flesh state?" is not asking for an explanation of the verse, then I don't know how else the OP could have stated it clearer that he is asking for explanation. Of course, explanation often includes the necessity of background in order to explain. – ScottS Mar 13 '15 at 15:15
  • @BYE: But my whole point here in answering was to inform you what you needed to do to get your answer "undeleted." I don't have time to debate any more about that. Fix it or not, its your choice. – ScottS Mar 13 '15 at 15:18
  • @etal getting my answer undeleted is not what the site is supposed to be about it is to the best of my knowledge supposed to help others understand Christianity. If it is only here to bolster ego's you can count me out. Although I am not a fanatic about evangelism, I do feel that I have the obligation to help others to have sufficient information to make an educated decision about Christianity. – BYE Mar 13 '15 at 15:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .