Llyricist

Sorry that doesn't cut it. in the first case he says his own testimony about himself is NOT valid BUT god's testimony about him IS valid.

In the second he claims his own testimony about himself IS valid BECAUSE God's testimony backs him up

You still have the contradiction of him claiming his own testimony about himself is NOT valid, BUT when the pharisees try to say this very thing about him, he claims his testimony about himself IS valid. The context does nothing to change this.

GakuseiDon

I'm not an inerrantist. There are definitely numerical contradictions in the Bible.

What about the contradiction you just posted? In context, is it a contradiction?

GakuseiDon

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. If both Jesus and God are testifying about the same thing, how can Jesus's testimony be false, while God's testimony be valid?

The charge is that "someone who bears witness to himself cannot be believed", i.e. it requires a separate witness to establish a case. This is the charge against Jesus in both John 5 and John 8. In both cases, Jesus says He does have another witness, which is God.

Llyricist

No, in John 5 Jesus himself is making the claim....no-one is "charging" him. He is essentially enunciating and validating the rule that a persons testimony about themselves is not valid, and APPLYING it to himself.
But in John 8 when he is "charged" with it by the pharisees, he contradicts the rule and says his testimony about himself is indeed valid. These are contradicting claims by Jesus plain and simple.

GakuseiDon

Why on earth would Jesus say that His own testimony is not valid? What testimony exactly is He saying is not valid?

Llyricist

You are kidding right?

If not, excuse me while I get off this merry-go-round.

GakuseiDon

Obviously one of us is suffering cognitive dissonance.

You said: He is essentially enunciating and validating the rule that a persons testimony about themselves is not valid, and APPLYING it to himself.

I said: Why on earth would Jesus say that His own testimony is not valid?

Seems clear to me - Jesus doesn't apply it to Himself. In John 5:31, Jesus says: "IF I bear witness of myself..." He then goes on to explain that in fact He doesn't, and God is His witness.

This is what we have: in John 5, Jesus says, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness isn't true - but I have God as a witness, so there!"

In John 8, Jesus says, "Even if (NKJV) I bear witness of myself, my witness is still true, because I have God as a witness, so there!"

Jesus is charged in John 8 for bearing witness to Himself alone, not for just bearing witness to Himself. In both cases Jesus is saying the same thing - He is not bearing witness of Himself alone, because God is His witness.

Llyricist

because that's the rabbinical rule he was applying to himself
That's mighty misleading there GD, what he goes on to say is my testimony is not true THEN he goes on to say God is his witness.

ummm that's what I said (with different emphasis) ... and you disputed ...... several posts back

Nope, in the first case he doesn't bear witness to himself at all, (because that would break the rule), in the second case he does, almost to spite the rule because the pharisees brought it up instead of himself.

ichabod crane

Hey, the links work now.

Boy, do I look a fool ...

GakuseiDon

The rule is that you need two people to make testimony true - this is specified directly in John 8:17, and it is the rule that Jesus uses to directly refute the charge against Him. One person by himself testifying is worthless. That's the rule that is being applied. I believe there is a comparable rule somewhere in the OT.

In the first case He doesn't bear witness alone. Just testifying for oneself isn't what makes the testimony invalid, it is the lack of witnesses. That's what is being said here. That's why the context is important.