Numbersandletters, you're avoiding the question. I asked you what DISBARS the the interpretation of the Gentiles from being the fulfillment of the "Other Sheep" in the first century and you can't think of anything which disbars it. Instead you switched to trying to talk about what (you think) proves the modern JW explanations, which is a totally different issue.
The are no objections you can raise to the 1st Century Gentile explanation for the "other sheep". That being so, and because it is the much simpler explanation and is in harmony with the hope for Christians outlined at length in the NT and has a 1st century fulfillment, it must be preferred over an explanation appearing 1900 years later, against which numerous objections CAN be raised because it DOESN'T neatly fulfill the requirement of them really becoming "one flock" in any way shape or form.
They are seen and described as two distinct groups by JW's not one - so they are not "one flock".
They do not have the same relationship with the shepherd now, according the the Society (mediator only for anointed), so they don't have "one shepherd".
At the point when you argue they will really become "one flock" one group is not even on earth or in the same form of being as the other group.
Etc.
There are so many holes in your notion it's truly laughable. Even the Society knew this - just as all other Christians have for centuries - for the first half of it's history, I believe. Until the drunkard Rutherford decided to overturn 2000 years of simple Christian understanding for a self serving, convoluted fantasy.