Billi, on Mar 16 2004, 07:23 PM, said:
a) God the Father raised Christ
b) Christ raised Christ
c) both raised Christ
d) the Bible contradicts, therefore Jesus' words must be given prominence
I think part of d) which claims Bible contradicts needs to be rejected. However, I really don't believe we should disregard what Jesus said simply because there are lots of other passages that 'contradicts' whatever he was saying.
No one is saying that we should disregard Jesus' words. What we are saying is that we need to understand what the Bible is really saying.
The other passages that you suggest 'contradict' Jesus' words in John 10:18 don't contradict Jesus' words - rather, they help us to understand Jesus' words more. That is the way to look at it; that is useful.
Jesus is the 'truth', if that's what he said, that's what he said.
No one's denying that. But what did he say? That's the question.
Another possibility is that John gave false testimony regarding what Jesus said.
I agree with you that this isn't the case (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Final possibility is that the Holy Bible is once again mis-translated.
This is always a possibility, and there are plenty of really bad translaions out there that mess around with what God's message is actually saying. This doesn't mean that we can't eventually come to understand what God's message really says.
It's impossible for Paul to give false testimony.
It's impossible for Jesus to not know what he's talking about.
It's also impossible that John gave false testimony
I agree to all of the above three points. But we still need to truly understand what they mean by what they say. Sometimes it's hard to understand what they say, but it can be worked out.
so for Christadelphians, natural conclusion is Bible mistranslation on the Trinitarians part.
I believe that there are a few mistranslations in many of the versions of the Bible that we have; most of the time I would say that these mistranslations aren't on purpose, but are just the result of bias on the side of the translaters.
However, I'd go as far as to say that, in some versions of the Bible, there are even bits that have not just been mistranslated, but which have been simply added by the translators (like the imformous verse added in the KJV of 1 John).
I really think Christadelphians need to raise money and translate the Bible properly. I think it's a cop out for some to stay in Trinitarian churchs simply because family or friends are still there. I also think it's a cop out for Christadelphians to continue to use these Trinitarian biased Bibles.
Why is it a cop out? People have read these 'trinitarian biased' versions for years and, with prayer and a bit of proper study, have still come to understand what Christadelphians believe to be the turth.
Personally, I think having a Christadelphian translation would be a bad idea, because then Christadelphians could be charged with producing something that is biased themselves. Better to work with what we've got than to be accused of that.
We need to debate on equal footing. I really hate to be told that I'm wrong because I don't know certain hidden meaning of some Greek words.
It's not hard to do a bit of looking into the original Greek words, and it can be very useful to. Why not give it a go.
Trinitarian Doctrine is most certainly not perfect, however, this stupid man-invented doctrine is the only way we can reconcile a), b) and c).
Clinging to the trinity isn't the only way to understand John 10:18 and the other passages about who raised Jesus. This thread has shown you another way to do that, and a way that stays within the scope of the Bible, without having to base its starting point on a man made-doctrine like the trinity.
I seriously disagree with the notion that since more passages support this idea and only ONE passage supports another... we must disregard this ONE passages. Majority rules...
No body is saying that we should disregard anything. What is being said is that we should use the majority to understand the minority. If we use scripture to help us understand other parts of scripture then we can come to the truth.
or this ONE passage was mistranslated somehow, it didn't really mean that...
But that is a very real possibility. Why can't you accept that?
For what it's worth, some English translations verify what has been said in this thread with regard to the Greek of John 10:18. The Contemporary English Version (CEV
), for example says this:
John 10:18, on CEV, said:
No one takes my life from me. I give it up willingly! I have the power to give it up and the power to receive it back again, just as my Father commanded me to do.
And the Weymouth New Testament puts it like this:
John 10:18, on WNT, said:
No one is taking it away from me, but I myself am laying it down. I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father."
Edited by luke, 16 March 2004 - 07:11 PM.