How do JWs explain John 20:28?

by Zico 58 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pahpa

  Doug

  I don't think there is any confusion between the OT and NT with regard to the relationship of Father and Son. At the time that the OT was written God was directing the worship of his people to Himself as differentiated between the many gods of the surrounding nations. But when God's son came down and faithfully sacrificed himself in obedience to his father, God bestowed all "power and authority" upon him. He fully represented his father. But he is never equal to his father. They were one in purpose and cause even as Jesus' disciples were "one" with him. "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, JUST AS YOU ARE IN ME AND I AM IN YOU. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me I have given them the glory you gave me, that they may be ONE AS WE ARE ONE: I IN THEM AND YOU IN ME." (John 17 20-23) This seems very clear and understandable in contrast to the confusion of the trinity doctrine.

  God's revelation is progressive. And this was certainly true of the revelation of his son.
• 

  Pahpa

  Narkissos

  Being a "gentile" Christian myself, there is no confusion in my mind about the intent of John's gospel. The "Jews" that John mentions that come in for criticism are those "Jews" who opposed and persecuted Christ and those other "Jews", the followers of Christ. (Jesus condemned the "Scribes and Pharisees" as well as the "Saducees" because of their general rejection of God's revelation with regard to his son. But on the other hand, many of these same men became followers of Christ.) The distinction is clear in the gospels. The earliest Christians were Jews. Their first persecutors were opposing Jews. It was only after the death of the apostles and their close associates that the attitude of the Gentile Christians changed toward the Jewish roots of the church itself. With the destruction of the Temple and the suppression of the Jewish rebellions against Rome, a strong anti-Jewish sentiment spread throughout the Roman Empire. The Gentile element in the church eventually became dominant. They became anxious to distant themselves from their Jewish origins particularly as the Romans thought of them as just another Jewish sect. Some of the Christian leaders became known for the virulent diatribes against the Jews.

  I find in your postings that you give more weight and credence to the modern textual critics than you do to the more traditional and Biblical oriented commentaries. One senses that you really do not accept the Bible as God's revelation to man. Is this a true evaluation?
• 

  Zico

  TopHat,

  The way I see it, Thomas adressed two different persons.....My Lord=Jesus/ AND My God=The Almighty God

  Is this really the way you see it? You should read the text again, there's no way Thomas is addressing anyone but Jesus when he uses the phrase 'my God.' Liza: Yes, it's confusing, I'm confused too. But, as I've already said in this thread, if their exact relationship really mattered enough to be a part of salvation, surely it would be so clear, it would be inarguable? I don't think a correct view of the father-son relationship (whatever it is) is a necessary part of Christian salvation.
• 

  Terry

  Terry,
  
  Do you ever have more than 2 ways to approach something? ;) JWs believe your first approach, so it is up to them to explain any inconsistency between clear bible texts and their doctrine.

  I wonder what you are trying to say??

  1. I see everything as black or white?

  2.I'm always looking at both sides of an issue?
• 

  Terry

  Jesus was granted godship by the Father. By accepting Jesus as God, a second God, is not polytheism because it was God Himself that gave him that status and God has the right to do so if He so wishes and also the two are in such total harmony that it makes no difference who you think of as God there is absolute trust between the two and not a trace of mistrust or suspicion.

  I wonder what you must think such a "relationship" consists of! ???

  If two anythings are equal the identity of "each" becomes moot.

  Take two oranges.

  In what way does one orange have more or less identity AS an orange in relation to another orange? It only takes on identity if we proceed to further delineate by some standard of particularity such as size or flavor or blemish.

  Generically what is "god" that a Father god would have in relation to a Son god in terms of quantitative or qualitative identity?

  The very idea of "Fatherhood" or "Sonship" is metaphorical in the first place in relation to a Spirit!!

  What use does the metaphor itself serve if one identity (Father) does not in some way precede or dominate the other identity? (Son)

  In for a penny; in for a pound.

  Why do you think the Church was split over this ridiculous charade of genus/differentia?

  I'll tell you why: IT IS OBSESSIING OVER METAPHOR and not really analysing IDENTITY.
• 

  Zico

  Terry, You said:

  There are two ways to approach every scripture in the bible.

  1.The bible is a true rendering of actual events and preserved by Almighty God to serve his purpose. Therefore, it is only a matter of gaining clarity through proper methodology.

  2.The bible is almost anything but true events and badly garbled at that. Consequently, it doesn't bring any enligtenment to parse words, phrases, sentence structure or context because the reports themselves are bogus.

  I think there are more than 'The bible's true, or 'it's not' I don't think you have to see the bible as completely true to believe in Jesus. In the bible I see lots of mythology, contradictions and inaccuracies, but I can still believe in Jesus death and resurrection. I guess I'd place myself somewhere in the middle. Look, I've just added red.
• 

  Terry

  I myself am very confused about this too.
  
  There are sites showing scriptures that are for and against the trinity.

  This accurately reflects the fact that the hands that produced scripture were divided over the opinon as well.

  Jews had one opinion and Gentiles had another opinion and Jewish Christians and Christian pagans all had some measure of middle-ground opinion.

  The bible is not filtered by ONE standard of absolute superior omni-understanding in redacting the result into comprehensible fact. It is the broom-sweepings of what wasn't burned or buried or driven out of town by a vigilante mob.
• 

  Terry

  I think there are more than 'The bible's true, or 'it's not' I don't think you have to see the bible as completely true to believe in Jesus. In the bible I see lots of mythology, contradictions and inaccuracies, but I can still believe in Jesus death and resurrection. I guess I'd place myself somewhere in the middle.

  Let us, for the sake of discussion, assume that what you present here as a possible rational view---is true.

  How do we demonstrate the flow of reasoning that gets you there from "mythology, contradictions, inaccuracies"?

  There are people who believe in Astrology; that it works and is useful for helping them understand themselves, their own character and personality and destiny while, at the same time, admitting it is mostly a pseudo-science.

  In either case---HOW?

  A stopped clock is right twice a day. But, a clock that gains and loses time randomly is a pretty chaotic device for determining time.

  Where and How do you divide myth from fact? Where and How do you subtract contradiction from information? Where and How do you separate inaccuracy from divine wisdom?

  I'd like a glimpse into your methodology. I'm desperate, in fact, to comprehend this. It could change my life.

  Finally, what does it say about God in allowing myth, contradiction and inaccuracy to be represented as HIS WORD and HIS WILL for over 2,000 years when it has certainly led to divisions, sects, wars, false doctrines and reproach?
• 

  Narkissos

  The Gentile element in the church eventually became dominant. They became anxious to distant themselves from their Jewish origins particularly as the Romans thought of them as just another Jewish sect.

  Imo this applies very well to much of the NT. Acts being perhaps the best case in point. Roman officials are always painted as nice, reasonable people, who sympathise with like-minded Christians and do their best to protect them from the fierce, hateful, superstitious, bigoted Jews who are the real troublemakers and threaten public peace. See the message?

  The overall picture of Judaism in the NT is widely acknowledged as both anachronical (for instance, the Pharisees are consistently pictured in Jesus' time as the villains they became to the Christians after 70 AD, when they first were in a position to rule and standardise Judaism) and biased. Of course it was antijudaism, not antisemitism, but the former has fueled the latter for centuries. If I remember correctly, TheGood News Bible has deemed necessary to devote a part of its general introduction to this topic.

  I find in your postings that you give more weight and credence to the modern textual critics than you do to the more traditional and Biblical oriented commentaries. One senses that you really do not accept the Bible as God's revelation to man. Is this a true evaluation?

  Fairly so. (Just substitute or add "literary" to "textual" for good measure, and explain to me what is a "Biblical oriented commentary" coz I don't know, 'k? )
• 

  Zico

  We've gone quite far from the simple 'How do JWs interpret John 20:28' haven't we? :)
  
  Terry,
  
  I see the bible as a book with a collection of different writers who are attempting to understand the divine, who wrote down their own thoughts and own experiences. If you set up a religion, (or even just some sort of club) and had a group of people who followed you everywhere, and then, if, a few decades after your death, some of them wrote down accounts of your life, each would write different parts, and there would be some conflict between the accounts, as people remember things differently, but that would not necessarily mean that none of the things that they wrote were true. People who compared the works would see some conflict but they would still be able to get a good enough idea of who you were and the things you did. They wouldn't just dismiss you as a false person, or dismiss everything you did due to a few contradictions, especially when taking into consideration that there are a lot of similarities in the text.
  
  If the 4 bible writers stood up in court and repeated their gospels it would stand up as reliable enough eyewitness testimony even with a few contradictions.
  
  : Where and How do you divide myth from fact? Where and How do you subtract contradiction from information? Where and How do you separate inaccuracy from divine wisdom?
  
  I don't believe just part of the bible is inspired, I believe NONE of it is inspired, but as I've attempted to explain above, I still believe there's adequate enough information to prove Jesus existence, and that he was someone very special, this link provides better arguments than I could for the reliability of the gospels:
  
  http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
  
  : I'd like a glimpse into your methodology. I'm desperate, in fact, to comprehend this. It could change my life.
  
  I hope you're not too disappointed! (But then, you were only patronising me anyway) I feel I should point you to this thread I wrote about a month ago: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/131576/1.ashx My JW upbringing has taught me to question everything, and in this thread I even questioned my own spiritual experience, which was the single greatest moment of my life, so it's not as if I'm just accepting anything, I'm studying and trying to work things out for myself.
  
  : Finally, what does it say about God in allowing myth, contradiction and inaccuracy to be represented as HIS WORD and HIS WILL for over 2,000 years when it has certainly led to divisions, sects, wars, false doctrines and reproach?
  
  People will always argue over doctrine, will always have divisions, and will always use God to support them in war, and would do so no matter what the bible, or any holy book that's claimed to be from God, says.