The Greek word aírō when referring to something that is attached to something actually does mean to cut off or remove.
It
can mean that, yes. But it isn't
required or
necessary that this particular meaning apply in
John 15:2. Nothing in any of the Bible lexicons I've consulted indicate that "cut off" or, in the KJV, "takes away"
must be how "airo" is translated. Even your own lexicon quotation does not state that "airo"
must always mean "cut off" or "remove" when referring to something that is attached to something else. And, as I pointed out, the viticultural practice of the time in which Jesus spoke the words of
John 15:2 would not have been to cut off branches but to lift them up from the ground onto trellises. Pliny the Younger, the Roman magistrate, described this very practice in detail in one of his many letters. You can read his description of the viticulture of his (and Christ's) time in Gary W. Derickson's article.
The word “abide” itself implies that the person referred to either is or was already in Christ. The word abide means to dwell, to stay, or to remain. A person cannot dwell, stay, or remain somewhere they are not at or have never been. I can’t stay in New York if I’ve never been there.
John 15:6
6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
Verse 6 does not say that the person it describes is abiding, remaining, or dwelling in Christ. No, it describes one who is
not abiding in Christ. I don't see, then, what your observation about abiding has to do with the verse. It is not necessary for a person to have been in Christ in order to be described as one who is not in him. There are billions of people who do not presently abide in Christ who have never abided in him.
This is also supported by what Jesus said in verse 2. The Father cuts off every branch “in Me” (in Christ) that does not bear fruit.
You're Begging the Question here. I don't concede that "airo" in verse 2 actually means "cuts off." Thus far, you haven't offered anything persuasive enough to counter what I've pointed out about how the verse ought to be translated. So, whatever argument you want to make
assuming that it does mean "takes away" or "cuts off" doesn't carry any argumentative weight with me.
Jesus said in verse 5 he who abides in Me and I in Him will bear much fruit. Verse 2 is referring to a believer who is in Christ but does not abide in Him. To say otherwise is to contradict what Jesus actually said.
Oh? You are doing this very thing.
Verse 2 does not say that the person who is "lifted up" is not abiding in Christ, but exactly the opposite. Jesus says, "Every branch
in me that bears not fruit..." Can a branch be growing out of a vine and not be abiding in it? The branch is an extension of the vine, the outgrowth of the vine, and so the two are intimately and necessarily connected to each other. It is required that the branch be abiding in the vine in order for the branch to exist! You make Christ's vine analogy nonsensical, then, when you say that a branch can be growing out of a vine but not be abiding in it.
It does not follow necessarily from Christ's words in
verse 5 that every "branch" in him will
immediately and constantly bear fruit. Christ does not say when the fruit will appear or how much of it will develop, only that fruit will be - at some point - produced by the "branch." And so it is that the unfruitful branch in
verse 2 is not "cut off" but "lifted up" onto a supporting trellis where it may better grow and produce fruit. No vinedresser expects fruit to develop instantly upon every branch that sprouts from the main vine; it takes time for grapes to appear on the branches of the vine. Christ would certainly know this when he chose to analogize from the grapevine, as would his disciples. None of them, then, would be thinking that an unfruitful branch would
never bear fruit, only that more time was needed for fruit to develop which, I think, further supports the "lifts up" rendering of "airo."
Another example of evidence is who is Jesus talking to? Jesus is speaking directly to His 11 faithful apostles who are the only people who are present with Him at this time.
It doesn't follow that because Jesus is talking
to his disciples, that he is always, therefore, talking
about them.
I’m verse 4 Jesus tells them “Abide in Me and I in you for apart from Me you can do nothing. This is a conditional statement. Unless they abide in Him they can do nothing.
Had Jesus yet died on the cross when he spoke these words to his disciples? No. It seems to me, therefore, that Jesus was speaking to his disciples of a future action they would need to take, a future event they would need to experience, that would place them in him. None of them had been born-again, Spirit-indwelt, after the manner described by Paul in
Titus 3:5 and by Luke in
Acts 2. And so Jesus was saying to his disciples in
John 15:5 that they would need to be placed in him by the Spirit (who he mentions to them in both chapter 14 and 16), born-again by the Spirit of God and baptized into Christ, and so able to "bear much fruit." Therefore, while Jesus was speaking to his disciples about abiding in him and bearing fruit, he was not speaking about their current state and the necessity of maintaining it but rather of a future state into which they would need to pass in order to be spiritually fruitful.
In any case, being spiritually fruitful is definitely contingent upon being in Christ. But truly being in Christ is not a condition out of which a person can move. It is God's work that brings a man into a saved state (
John 6:44; John 16:8; 2 Timothy 2:25; Romans 12:3) and it is God's work that keeps him there (
Philippians 1:6; Philippians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24).
Now if Jesus’ 11 faithful apostles were incapable of failing to abide what is the point of this message?
See above. They were not yet truly abiding in him. That would not happen until Pentecost.
Why would Jesus warn them, even going so far as to explain the consequences of failing to abide, if they were incapable of failing to abide?
It appears to me that Christ was simply teaching his disciples about the difference between one who was in him and one who was not.
Was Jesus warning them of something they are incapable of doing? Of course not that wouldn’t make any sense.
This might be true, I suppose, if you think he was warning them. But, I don't think this. See above.