Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thanks for answering. Then go back to my point: in John 10:17,18 the Greek verb "to receive/get" is mentioned twice:Yes, that's possible, but its supported nicely by what he said and then did in John 2:19
Is it possible that the JW's bias has affected you? They actually rewrote things in the Bible to echo their unbelief?
I don't have a problem with it becuse if he has the power to take it again then he would still be in existence to take it.Thanks for answering. Then go back to my point: in John 10:17,18 the Greek verb "to receive/get" is mentioned twice:
1) when the passage says "to give my soul and to get it back"
2) when the passage says: "this instruction I received from my Father".
Tell me something: why the first time it appears in the passage the version you are quoting translates this verb as "to take" and the second time IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH it translates it as "I received"???? We all know that TAKING and RECEIVING is not the same, right?
And that is another problem, because the word that is translated as "power" in the version that says "I have the power" DOES NOT mean power but AUTHORITY, and that is quiet a change, don't you think?I don't have a problem with it becuse if he has the power to take it again then he would still be in existence to take it.
When we consider that he returned in a new form after his body was killed then it all makes sense.
Not really, its still his innate will. As a divine being he had/has power and authority. In fact the Jews were questioning his authority to preach becuse in Judaism authority is everything! He told them that he would prove his authority by returning from death on his own.And that is another problem, because the word that is translated as "power" in the version that says "I have the power" DOES NOT mean power but AUTHORITY, and that is quiet a change, don't you think?
Its like you are conducting a trial??? A grand inquisitor???Let's get back to the point: the analysis of John 10:17,18.
When you read the passage translating the word RECEIVE as it is and AUTHORITY as it is, isn't it true that it no longer means the same thing you understood before?
You have taken one particular translation over many that oppose your point. How convenient for you?No, it's not that... I know that if a dialogue focuses on one thing at a time, it is possible to reach an agreement while maintaining order and peace in the exchange. If you talk about several things at the same time, it is likely that none of them will be clarified... It is a bad practice that many do not realize. Do you understand me? Scripture counsels Christians that this must be the way, and no other.
James 3:13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him by his fine conduct demonstrate works performed with a mildness that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and contentiousness in your hearts, do not be bragging and lying against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above; it is earthly, animalistic, demonic. 16 For wherever there are jealousy and contentiousness, there will also be disorder and every vile thing.
17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, not hypocritical. 18 Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.
Back to the topic: if you think on Jesus RECEIVING his life back because the Father gave that permission, you understand better what the Bible says OUT OF your own preconceived ideas so you start learning really from the Bible.
The fact that Jesus returned in a new form as he said that he would in John 2:19 overrules the question posed by one particular interpretation of John 10: 14 That being the case your point based on one biased translation is moot.No. I am telling you that sometimes people can be biased depending on the translation they read. That is why I am trying to show you other ways to translate the same passage and all who read this dialog understand why it is important to have an open mind to different interpretations.
As you can see from my previous posts, there are reasons to think that John 10:17,18 does not support the idea that Jesus resurrected himself. If my arguments seem incorrect to you, then mention what specific detail seems to you so and we continue dealing with the matter.
I sense some agression in your way to answer ... It would be preferable if you try to avoid that, so that we can continue the dialogue and reach some agreement, even if it was the agreement that we will not agree ... is also valid . The Bible says that would happen at this time.The fact that Jesus returned in a new form as he said that he would in John 2:19 overrules the question posed by one particular interpretation of John 10: 14 That being the case your point based on one biased translation is moot.
Its not aggression, I'm just plain spoken. You just confessed to having a bias yourself. Thats called "phycological projection". Its when one see's their own behavior in others and accuses them of it in order to avoid the discomfort of what they are doing themselves.I sense some agression in your way to answer ... It would be preferable if you try to avoid that, so that we can continue the dialogue and reach some agreement, even if it was the agreement that we will not agree ... is also valid . The Bible says that would happen at this time.
Every Jehovah's Witness knows that Jesus Christ was resurrected by Jehovah at the third day (the Bible says so) ... I don't think that's a point we can't agree on. Is that what you think, that the correct reading of John 10:17,18 changes the fact that Jesus was resurrected?
Mmmh, no. I did not say any of that ...Its not aggression, I'm just plain spoken. You just confessed to having a bias yourself. Thats called "phycological projection". Its when one see's their own behavior in others and accuses them of it in order to avoid the discomfort of what they are doing themselves.
I sense some agression in your way to answer ... It would be preferable if you try to avoid that, so that we can continue the dialogue and reach some agreement, even if it was the agreement that we will not agree ... is also valid . The Bible says that would happen at this time.
Every Jehovah's Witness knows that Jesus Christ was resurrected by Jehovah at the third day (the Bible says so) ... I don't think that's a point we can't agree on. Is that what you think, that the correct reading of John 10:17,18 changes the fact that Jesus was resurrected?
Right and your snarky way of speaking further undermines your point.Mmmh, no. I did not say any of that ...
Maybe another day we continue the dialog. I guess this was too much for one single day ...
Have a nice one.
Leave the one's cherry picked boy cOLTER, as corrupted by Hellenist Paul and the Pauline-Church as they make Jesus a false Messenger/Prophet in terms of Deuteronomy, since Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew, not a Pauline-Christian, please. Right?All of the Gospels say that Jesus died and rose on the third day, yet you cherry pick parts of those same Gospels to string together a flimsy conspiracy. Using the same books that you are using, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the death and resurrection.
Jesus taught the Gospel for 3+ years prior to being killed by fellow Jews. He was entombed and returned from the death of his body on the 3rd day. After returning to heaven, several years passed before Paul had his conversion.Leave the one's cherry picked boy cOLTER, as corrupted by Hellenist Paul and the Pauline-Church as they make Jesus a false Messenger/Prophet in terms of Deuteronomy, since Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew, not a Pauline-Christian, please. Right?
Regards
" He (Jesus) was entombed"Jesus taught the Gospel for 3+ years prior to being killed by fellow Jews. He was entombed and returned from the death of his body on the 3rd day. After returning to heaven, several years passed before Paul had his conversion.
Christianity is about Jesus, it replaced the religion of Jesus. Paul had his own ideas.
You just made that up." He (Jesus) was entombed"
Jesus friends took Jesus' wounded body hurriedly to the tomb so that Jesus is treated for his wounds, and when he was able to come out he was seen by his family and friends. Jesus did not die and could not die on the Cross, a cursed death, as he was truthful Messenger/Prophet of G-d, and he had prayed in the garden very fervently for that , please. Didn't Jesus pray, please? Right?
Regards