$cirisme
June 24th 2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=130800&action=showthread) by Captain Ochre in the thread Jesus, The Divine Liar (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=6229)
Today @ 07:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130789#post130789)
Minnesota:
So what? Care to explain how this impacts Jesus' meaning?
It means that your presentation of the logic involved is seriously in error.
In that Jewish culture, statements were not taken to be true in a legal sense if they were not corroborated. That means that judgement is withheld, not that the unattested statement is taken as false, as you illogically supposed).
(emphasis mine)
Oh really! I see no "because" either stated or implied in the verses.
John 8:17,18
17 "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. 18 "I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."
If you had considered that the passages were written by the same person, and had simultaneously considered even the context, you would have good reason to see that it is implied, in fact.
The context of the other verse corroborates:
John 5:31,32
31 "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
NAS
The relevant verses of john 8:
13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true."
14Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."
Now, at the time Jesus said, "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." in John 5:31 did he NOT KNOW "where [he] came from and where [he was] going,"?
He was aware, and he was also speaking in terms of the Jewish Law. You equate "not true" with "false" which is incorrect in terms of the law.
Why would Jesus be unaware of where he came from? After all, this is the reason he gives for being able to "bear witness of Myself."
Is that all? Nothing about where he was going?
You think that it could have had something to do with divine nature?
Secondly, please note that the operative word linking Jesus' claim and that of the Father is the word "and", NOT "because," as claimed by Robertson. Jesus is Not using the Father's claim as a basis of his own--would he really need it?--but that the Father's claim is a substantiation. It's as if I said "I'm a darn smart guy, and my dad will tell you the same thing." Regardless if everyone in the five state area agrees with me, I have still made the claim for myself: Yet I told you in unqualified terms. " If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." It does not say, "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true, unless, of course, the Father agrees.".
The terms are qualified by their literary and cultural context. Skeptics who come to the table with contextual blinders on will tend to find contradictions where there are none.
And let's address this
issue.
Regardless of what could be construed as the "true" meaning of the verse in ancient Greek, the fact remains that one has to accept that the publishers of the Bible today have correctly represented the meaning or they have not. It not, then one must question everything that they have put in English.
But that's not the slippery slope fallacy, oh no.
:rofl:
Are you ready to assert that almah truly means just "young woman" and not "virgin"?
No, as a matter of fact.
:smile:
OR, Is the Bible simply in error??
We have good evidence here that MN is in error, and no good evidence that the Bible is in error unless we regard the fact that the text itself does not inform MN specifically regarding the cultural context along with various nuances of meaning as an error.
Or course, using that standard, virtually all communication is in error.
Today @ 07:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130789#post130789)
Minnesota:
So what? Care to explain how this impacts Jesus' meaning?
It means that your presentation of the logic involved is seriously in error.
In that Jewish culture, statements were not taken to be true in a legal sense if they were not corroborated. That means that judgement is withheld, not that the unattested statement is taken as false, as you illogically supposed).
(emphasis mine)
Oh really! I see no "because" either stated or implied in the verses.
John 8:17,18
17 "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. 18 "I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."
If you had considered that the passages were written by the same person, and had simultaneously considered even the context, you would have good reason to see that it is implied, in fact.
The context of the other verse corroborates:
John 5:31,32
31 "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 "There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
NAS
The relevant verses of john 8:
13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true."
14Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."
Now, at the time Jesus said, "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." in John 5:31 did he NOT KNOW "where [he] came from and where [he was] going,"?
He was aware, and he was also speaking in terms of the Jewish Law. You equate "not true" with "false" which is incorrect in terms of the law.
Why would Jesus be unaware of where he came from? After all, this is the reason he gives for being able to "bear witness of Myself."
Is that all? Nothing about where he was going?
You think that it could have had something to do with divine nature?
Secondly, please note that the operative word linking Jesus' claim and that of the Father is the word "and", NOT "because," as claimed by Robertson. Jesus is Not using the Father's claim as a basis of his own--would he really need it?--but that the Father's claim is a substantiation. It's as if I said "I'm a darn smart guy, and my dad will tell you the same thing." Regardless if everyone in the five state area agrees with me, I have still made the claim for myself: Yet I told you in unqualified terms. " If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." It does not say, "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true, unless, of course, the Father agrees.".
The terms are qualified by their literary and cultural context. Skeptics who come to the table with contextual blinders on will tend to find contradictions where there are none.
And let's address this
issue.
Regardless of what could be construed as the "true" meaning of the verse in ancient Greek, the fact remains that one has to accept that the publishers of the Bible today have correctly represented the meaning or they have not. It not, then one must question everything that they have put in English.
But that's not the slippery slope fallacy, oh no.
:rofl:
Are you ready to assert that almah truly means just "young woman" and not "virgin"?
No, as a matter of fact.
:smile:
OR, Is the Bible simply in error??
We have good evidence here that MN is in error, and no good evidence that the Bible is in error unless we regard the fact that the text itself does not inform MN specifically regarding the cultural context along with various nuances of meaning as an error.
Or course, using that standard, virtually all communication is in error.