fjtoth

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 1,366 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by fjtoth

• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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!
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

  Scholars tell us that the exact translation of exousia, the word for "power" as used here is not easy. It is doubtful whether anything in English is the full equivalent of this Greek term. It has been rendered "authority," "choice," "commission," "freedom," "influence," "liberty," "permission," "power," and "right". 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.
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  you still haven`t come up with a satisfactory explanation of the I-will-raise-it-up,

  Hellrider,

  You know very well that the above statement is not true. Jesus said "I will raise it up" simply because he had authority from God to say that.

  Your reasoning is mind-numbing. You are so obsessed with the Trinity that you appear blind to what the Bible actually says. Twenty-two verses say God the Father raised Jesus. You are so preoccupied with a statement that has a metaphor in its context that you just can't accept the very clear and easy-to-understand passages that far outnumber that one statement, passages that have no metaphors in their context.

  Trying to reason with you seems like a hopeless cause, but I'm willing to continue as long as you feel you have to go on with this obsession you have.

  As I see it, whether one is trinitarian or non-trinitarian it should be so easy to accept the fact that the Bible teaches Jesus was raised by God the Father. I'm defending neither the trinitarian cause nor the non-trinitarian one. All I'm pleading for is a humble recognition of a very simple truth that is accepted by many trinitarians, whether you do or not, as well as by many non-trinitarians.

  Here's one example among many that could be cited:

  • "Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: 'And in three days I will raise it up.' He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11)."- A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: (New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  No, I admit I can`t really explain Galatians 1:1 in light of trinitarian doctrine.

  I doubt that this will impress you much, though, but this is how I would explain it.

  Hellrider,

  I say this sincerely, not sarcastically: You are correct. You can't really explain Galatians 1:1, and you seemed to go round in circles as you tried to explain it to my satisfaction. So, again, you are correct: I am not impressed.

  There is nothing to explain when we take the Scriptures for what they say, unless there is evidence within the context of something like a metaphor or hyperbole. There is none of such in the 22 verses that claim God the Father resurrected Jesus, but you yourself admitted that there is "an essence of metaphor" in John 2:19.
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  Hellrider,

  It's strange that you haven't pointed out the metaphor in Galatians 1:1. Apparently you see a metaphor there because you can't seem to accept it at face value. Is there a reason why you keep ignoring that verse? You say "God the Son" raised Jesus without any help from his God and Father, but the Bible clearly states "God the Father" did it. Who should we believe, you or the Bible?
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  I am giving consideration to the rest of the NT. This is exactly what I am doing. I am just not willing to ignore or twist one passage beyond recognition to arrive at a certain, desired conclusion. I choose an overall view that lets all the passages fit into that overall view.

  Hellrider,

  I'm sorry, but I could hardly keep from laughing as I read this! You're a riot as you go through all kinds of acrobatic contortions with words to explain that the Father was not the one who raised Jesus. You so much want to hold on to your personal interpretation of John 2:19!

  As I weigh matters between trinitarian and non-trinitarian beliefs, my preference will always be to abide by what the Scriptures say, to compare scripture with scripture. I will abandon any belief in my mind that contradicts what I learn from the Scriptures. I will not reject a teaching if a majority of texts say one thing and one or two verses appear to say the opposite. I will ask why there is a difference. I will ask myself what am I not seeing in the apparently contradictory passage. If there is anything metaphorical about it, that could be why the contradiction seems to exist.

  To me it's very simple: Jesus said he would raise "this temple." He said the temple was his "body." There certainly was something metaphorical about that, because his listeners were not thinking of his body. They were thinking of the literal temple in Jerusalem. Even Jesus' apostles didn't know that he had gone metaphorical. Like the Jews, you are taking everything in that discussion as literal. They believed Jesus meant the temple, and you believe Jesus meant he would raise himself without any participation by the Father.

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

  • Galatians 1:1 specifically states that "God the Father" raised Jesus, but you insist that "God the Son" did it.
  • Jesus' resurrection is clearly explained at Acts 17:30, 31: "God [the Father] is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He [the Father] has fixed a day in which He [the Father] will judge the world in righteousness through a Man [Jesus the Son of God] whom He [the Father] has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him [Jesus the Son of God] from the dead."
  • Too many references regarding the resurrection of Jesus state that he was "raised" to allow for the thought that he raised himself by his own power alone. There are verses that state Christians also will "rise," but none of us is foolish enough to think we can accomplish this without God the Father keeping his promise to raise us. Jesus also counted on the Father's promise.

  The Bible says "God the Father" raised Jesus. That's what I also say. On the other hand, you prefer not to believe what the Bible clearly says many times.
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  It should be easy to see that such statements as "if thine right offend you, pluck it out" are metaphors, and should be interpreted as such.

  I supplied the "metaphors" to illustrate that we can't always give a literal interpretation to the words of Jesus. Are you taking issue with that or what?

  Yes, there is an element of something metaphorical in equating "temple" with "body", but this is explained to us. There is nothing metaphorical when Jesus says "Break down this Temple and in three days I will raise it up". There is nothing in that that even indicates that it is metaphorical.

  Either there is "an element of something metaphorical" or there is "nothing in that that even indicates that it is metaphorical." Which is it? In one breath you acknowledge something metaphorical, and in the next breath you deny there is anything metaphorical at all!

  As for the argument that agents of God often speaks on behalf of God: It simply doesn`t hold water. This is not the same kind of passage.

  Is this established fact or merely your opinion? Where is your evidence or supportive authority for stating "This is not the same kind of passage"?

  Your insisting on that this I will raise it up-statement should be interpreted symbolically/metaphorically is a result of your doctrinal view.

  I think you're the one with the "doctrinal view." You insist on your interpretation of one verse against the clear testimony of 22 other verses. You make no allowance for how the Bible interprets itself and insist on your own view. As explained above, there is another way to understand the metaphorical and hyperbole expressions of Jesus, but you won't allow for that. You deny what 22 verses state just so you can have it your way.

  If you read the verse without any doctrinal basis, there is no reason to believe that the verse means that there is someone else than himself that would raise him up.

  I am reading the verse "without any doctrinal basis" while you're reading it without giving consideration to the rest of the New Testament. Think about that. I'm sticking to what 22 verses clearly say while you're sticking to one that possibly contains, according to your own admission, "an element of something metaphorical."

  And from this, the reader would probably come to his/her own trinitarian conclusions.

  "Probably"? How about "possibly"? You seem very confident that nearly everybody sees things the way you do. Some of us, however, prefer to stick to the Bible. Twenty-two statements specifically state that it was God the Father who raised Jesus, and that's good enough for us. Jesus is not God the Father, or is that a new doctrine you want us to believe?
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  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.

  Did Jesus literally mean what he said in the following texts?

  • "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: ... And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee." (Matthew 5:29, 30)
  • "But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:6) [No praying in church or when you're in school or at work!]
  • "No one can serve two masters." (Matthew 6:24) [It's impossible to hold jobs at two different companies!]
  • "Why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these." (Matthew 6:28, 29) [Don't worry about making or buying clothes because they'll be provided to you miraculously!]
  • "Let the dead bury the dead." (Matt. 8:22) [Dead people will rise from the dead in order to bury other dead people!]
  • “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) [You can't be a Christian unless you hate your family!]
• 
  49

  How Does the WT Explain this verse

  by XBEHERE in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (john 2:18-22) 18 therefore, in answer, the jews said to him: "what sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?

  " 19 in answer jesus said to them: "break down this temple, and in three days i will raise it up.

  " 20 therefore the jews said: "this temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  fjtoth

  Hellrider,

  This is not a matter of quantity of verses saying that or the other, such as is the WTS-strategy on so many things, this is a matter of taking the whole Bible into consideration.

  So, you're saying that the 22 verses are not part of "the whole Bible"?

  Now, the anti-trinitarian view of the WTS chooses to emphasise the 20 verses saying God raised him up, and ignore (which basically is the same as saying that Jesus lied) or twist the one passage that says he raised himself up.

  A person doesn't have to be a member of the "WTS" to notice that there is a certain emphasis when more than 20 verses say the same thing, and only one or two verses appear to contradict what they say. Why are you ignoring that fact? I'm not a JW, and I'm not using JW publications to show there is a contrast between those 20 some verses and the one that you have your attention focussed on. I haven't even used the JW Bible!

  You are putting words in my mouth when you suggest that I'm saying Jesus lied or that I am twisting your key text here. What I am saying is that you seem eager to ignore a basic fact about the Bible. There is such a thing as providential agency in the Scriptures. Many examples in addition to Ezekiel 43:3 show that God gives credit to his servants for things he himself accomplishes. Angels are frequently called Jehovah though they are not God himself. David is given credit for victories even though he was nowhere near the battlefield. You seem to want that factor to go away as though it doesn't exist.

  The other option is that of the trinitarian view:

  The Bible is explicitly and solidly clear that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead. It is also very plain when it states that God is the One who will raise Christians from the dead. Notice, however, what 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says, according to the New American Standard Bible: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first."

  We can force a very literal interpretation here, just as you've done with John 2:19. We could force the conclusion that those who are dead in Christ will raise themselves from the dead when Jesus returns. Please note that Paul doesn't tell the Thessalonians that the dead will be raised. Instead, he says they "shall rise." Even though the verse doesn't say it, we understand what is meant. We know that God will do the raising, but that is not what the verse actually says. The verb tense is accurately translated by the NASB.

  We know who will raise dead Christians because of what several verses say, not because one verse seems to say they will raise themselves. Similarly, we know who raised Jesus because of what several verses say, not because of what appears to be a contradiction from one or two other verses.

  I doubt Jesus here meant that his body was a Temple in which simply the spirit of God dwelled, when he said "destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it up". And the point of Tijkmo about agents acting on Gods behalf, counts in the matter of JC, when he said that he himself would raise his body up.

  Each of us has a right to believe as we wish. I'm simply stating that there is another view besides the trinitarian one, and it's scriptural as well as reasonable.

  Frank