How Does the WT Explain this verse

by XBEHERE 49 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  Frank:

  If the meaning is close to "permission" or "authority," we can picture the Father raising the Son, just as the Scriptures state, and the Son taking back his own life that the Father restored to him.

  You make no sense attempting that explanation. In your scenario does the Son have a choice in the matter? How do you "take back" something if you're not around to take it (i.e. dead). You make absolutely no logical sense - think about it...

  You're using some of your own metaphors to explain something, rather than letting the context simply explain the verse, as you earlier slated others for. The honest answer would have been to admit that there are difficulties with whichever position you take on the subject...

  Being just as candid, while the NT often portrays Jesus as having a Divine stature the whole Trinity thing is only in primitive form. If you want to get a consistent view you're going to have to drop something, as the canon of 66 shows a number of conflicts.

  Personally I would show a Johannine bias and agree from personal experience with the authenticity of Thomas' [late-recorded] reaction in John 20:28.
• 

  Hellrider

  Leolaia:

  Hellrider....Everyone is certainly justified in pointing out that throughout most of the NT and especially in the Pauline letters, Jesus is depicted as raised by God. This was the dominant view and it reflects Paul's view of Christ as subject to God

  I know this. Like I said to Fjoth:

  People who view the Bible as Gods word (each and every word that is in it), will never admit that there is historical development within the Bible itself, a historical development that makes the interpretation-work very, very difficult. I can accept that some people can`t swallow that

  Some of Pauls letters are the oldest texts of the NT, and are low-Chistological. Later on, in the texts of the Johannine community, Christ is given a much higher status. The view that Christ raised himself (in John) isn`t so strange, as it appears in John. I would never try to make it appear as if this could be found in Pauls letters too. But my discussion with Fjoth is about an overall view of the Bible and the Trinity. He would never admit that your view is correct either, btw (the view that each text must be viewed on its own, and that an overall doctrine that aims at embracing the entire Bible, is...impossible? ) I was trying to debate Fjoth on this "common" ground, but I now realise that it doesn`t work. But yes, I am aware that Pauls view is that the Father raised him. And I believe that the best "overall view/ doctrine" on the Bible (if we are going to have develop one...personally I don`t think it`s necessary, but I believe that if you are going to do it, only the trinity can explain cerrtain inconsistencies), then the trinity is the way to go.
• 

  ringo5

  no no no Jesus didn't mean what he said, 'cause, 'cause, lots of times the Bible says things that it doesn't mean , right?

  
  
  

  It's easy to mock when you're not thinking deeply.

  If you notice I was quoting the “ Questions from Readers” and mocking their explanation of that scripture. Sorry if I offended you, but perhaps that is because this type of explanation is all too common among believers, Trinitarians included.
  
  This seems to be the process to explain dogma, taking all the scriptures and accounts that touch on a particular subject and look for a common theme or idea.
  Divide up the scriptures into “ for” and “against” columns in regards to a certain doctrine according to a literal reading of the scriptures.
  
  Now from our first reading, not all the scriptures are going to end up in one column. But if we believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, we have to get all of the scriptures either in one column or the other, because obviously the Bible can’t contradict itself [ that would indicate human writers].
  
  Here’s where the fun begins. The column with the greatest amount of scriptures, will be our dogma of choice [ unless we already have a bias toward a certain dogma]. Now we take the scriptures that don’t agree, and try to determine what other possible ways they could be interpreted. These could include metaphors, hyperboles, illustrations or any other creative possibilities, that would either cast doubt on the literal interpretation of these, or even better, lend credence to dogma we have chosen.
  
  

  The Bible is so plain, and I wish you could open your eyes to see what it actually says:

  
  
  This has to be the most ironic statement so far in this thread.
  
  Thanks to Leolaia, as her post shows the whole gospel of John helps out the Trinitarians and is a problem for our friend, Frank, and I can see why he didn’t address it.
  Cheers
• 

  fjtoth

  Hellrider,

  I now see why we're getting nowhere in this discussion. I should have seen it earlier, but it just now crept up on me.

  The view that you and your friends have is that the Bible (or parts of it) is inconsistent and therefore not wholly reliable, though you might not express it in so many words. Mine is that "all scripture is inspired of God." That's an altogether different topic, but now I see why you don't accept what Paul wrote about who raised Jesus.

  I respect your view, and I trust you respect mine. Hopefully, some day we'll both see for ourselves which point of view is the correct one. I'm an old man, but I still have to work for a living. So my time is limited. My preference at this time is to move on with my life rather than to keep trying to figure out whether this text or that one is going to be acceptable to my opponent in the discussion.

  I must say that discussing matters with you has been enjoyable, and I now view you less harshly than I did when I thought you were being deliberately stubborn.

  God bless,

  Frank
• 

  sspo

  Are you guys still arguing about the scriptures?

  As JW we argued with people for some of us for decades, take a break and enjoy the day
• 

  fjtoth

  As JW we argued with people for some of us for decades, take a break and enjoy the day

  Great idea! I'm all for it!
• 

  tijkmo

  i dont know what the actual understanding of the scripture is..i just quoted the wt understanding that was requested of the poster..

  what i do know is....i could care less

  or could i

  maybe i couldnt care less
• 

  1ofhissheep

  MAN! I TOTALLY missed that onE! Of all the verses I have in my collection and in my essays, THAT one I missed! Thanks, I will use it when I speak to my JW friend next time.
• 

  Kenneson

  Since John says that Jesus was involved in his own resurrection and Romans says the Spirit was involved and other passages say the Father was involved, why do we need to insist that only the Father was involved? Also, if Jesus was non-existent for three days why was does 1 Pet. 3:16 portray him as preaching instead?
• 

  Hellrider

  Since John says that Jesus was involved in his own resurrection and Romans says the Spirit was involved and other passages say the Father was involved, why do we need to insist that only the Father was involved?

  Because that would smell of trinitarianism. And anti-trinitarians will have none of that. That`s why they insist on explaining away/twisting the scriptures that goes against the scriptures that says The Father did it.