When One Witness is a True Witness

[Daniel Gregg]

13 The Pharisees therefore said to him, “You are bearing witness of yourself. Your witness is not true.”† 14 Yĕshua answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true, because I know where I came from, and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going. 15 You people judge according to the flesh. I am not judging anyone. 16 But even if I do judge, my judgment is true, because I am not alone in it, but I and he who sent me. 17 But also in the Law for you† it has been written, that the testimony of two men is true.” 18 I am he who bears witness of myself, and the Făther who sent me bears witness of me.” (John 8:13-18)
†vs. 13. The argument was a logical fallacy.
†vs. 17. Yeshua is technically exempt from necessity of having a second witness (cf. vs. 14) because he is the Sŏn of the Almĭghty. Nevertheless, He argues that the Făther (not being man) is the second witness. The Făther is greater than mere man, so this second witness meets the requirement of the Torah by the rule of light and heavy. This is why he says “Law for you,” because he is exempt from it by his status, just as a farmer is exempt from laws for the priests, or a merchant is exempt from laws for the king. The Almĭghty is exempt from laws that apply only to fallable man.

 

[visionary]

Yep.... I wouldn't say exempt though.. because as you say, His Father is the second witness.

 

[Hoshiyya]

13 The Pharisees therefore said to him, “You are bearing witness of yourself. Your witness is not true.”† 14 Yĕshua answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true, because I know where I came from, and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going. 15 You people judge according to the flesh. I am not judging anyone. 16 But even if I do judge, my judgment is true, because I am not alone in it, but I and he who sent me. 17 But also in the Law for you† it has been written, that the testimony of two men is true.” 18 I am he who bears witness of myself, and the Făther who sent me bears witness of me.” (John 7:13-18)
†vs. 13. The argument was a logical fallacy.
†vs. 17. Yeshua is technically exempt from necessity of having a second witness (cf. vs. 14) because he is the Sŏn of the Almĭghty. Nevertheless, He argues that the Făther (not being man) is the second witness. The Făther is greater than mere man, so this second witness meets the requirement of the Torah by the rule of light and heavy. This is why he says “Law for you,” because he is exempt from it by his status, just as a farmer is exempt from laws for the priests, or a merchant is exempt from laws for the king. The Almĭghty is exempt from laws that apply only to fallable man.

Well written and insightful. You make some great points. Here are my thoughts on what I consider your two main points:

- God is not bound to keep the law, though he chooses to abide by certain restrictions (meaning he abides by promises he makes). The two great principles of the Torah are to love other humans as yourself, exemplified in the practice of reciprocity / the golden rule, and to love God above that, meaning he is not subject to reciprocity. We cannot do unto God what we would have him do unto us, nor can we not do unto him what we would have him not do unto us. I would say God is not bound by any restriction at all, excepting such as he voluntarily abides by.

- The Father could not actually be called upon as a second witness in court. I think Yeshua generally tried to act in a way that was imitable by others, but occasionally he does and says things that cannot be imitated / done / said by others. Yeshua calling the Father as a hypothetical second witness is one of those things. A normal human being could also not be a witness to himself.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

A normal human being could also not be a witness to himself.

How I replied to the same remark on my FB page:

XXXX In logic, a source cannot verify itself. But he is saying God is his witness, just as Acts 2:22 says.
Like · Reply · 8 hrs

​

Daniel Gregg The Pharisees were equivocating. One can certainly give testimony by themselves. It is also a non-sequitor because one witness may be true. What the Torah says is not that one witness is false or untrue, but that one witness is not legally valid for judgment.

In logic a source can verify itself. It is called a circular argument. A circular argument is neither valid or invalid it is simply not proved if it is a vicious circle. We call that begging the question. But some circular arguments are valid, such as the one concerning the laws of logic.

1. The laws of logic must be assumed to reason
2. The laws of logic are valid because we reason

So Yeshua gives two answers, one that is circular, He is the Son of the Almighty (circular), and one that is not. There is another witness, namely the signs he did is the Father's witness.
Like · Reply · 3 · 8 hrs

​

Daniel Gregg I just remembered the name for valid circular arguments. They are called Transcendental arguments.
Like · Reply · 1 · 8 hrs
YYYYY That's a good point, Daniel. They were simply accusing his testimony of being false instead of true simply because he was the only witness. This is also a false dichotomy in this circumstance because the third option, that he is neither right or wrong without another witness, exists.https://www.facebook.com/daniel.gre...=1281244635223261&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

 

[daq]

Yep.... I wouldn't say exempt though.. because as you say, His Father is the second witness.

What about the glaring contradiction which was just posted in another thread yesterday, here? No wonder the OP has asked me not to engage him anymore: apparently he considers posting scripture which disproves his theories as "harassment". However John 5:31 is a clear emphatic statement, without qualification, while the passage in question here is qualified with if's, and's, and but's. Ignoring John 5:31, (which comes first in the Gospel of John), creates a blatant contradiction by what has been put forth herein above.

John 5:30-33 The Scriptures (ISR 1998)
30 “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own desire, but the desire of the Father who sent Me.
31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
32 “There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true.
33 “You have sent to Yoḥanan, and he bore witness to the truth.
http://biblehub.com/isr/john/5.htm

Plain and simple: "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true."
But look closely at what is said in John 8, (which the OP misquotes as John 7).

John 8:13 The Scriptures (ISR 1988)
13 The Pharisees, therefore, said to Him, “You bear witness about Yourself, Your witness is not true.”
http://biblehub.com/isr/john/8.htm

It does not matter whether these are the same people from the same location or not: the author is directly referring the reading back to John 5:31 with the usage of the same words contained therein, (in this case used against Yeshua which he already stated to be the case with himself). In other words Yeshua already imposed this rule upon himself by his own statement in John 5:31. But look closer at the answer from Yeshua in the following passage from the opening post; it is qualified with if's, and's, and but's, and yet Yeshua never actually says that he does in fact testify of himself:

John 8:14-18 The Scriptures (ISR 1988)
14 יהושע answered and said to them, “Even if I witness concerning Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you do not know from where I come, or where I go.
15 “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.
16 “But even if I do judge, My judgment is true, because I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me.
17 “And in your Torah also, it has been written that the witness of two men is true.
18 “I am One who witnesses concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me witnesses concerning Me.”
http://biblehub.com/isr/john/8.htm

If someone says, "But even if I do", it does not necessarily mean, "I do", or if the same was to say, "But even if I did", it does not necessarily mean, "I did". In fact, because we have the previous statement from John 5:31, this passage says just about the opposite of what the OP has surmised. The opening post has created a blatant contradiction for ignoring what was already posted in another thread where he asked me not to engage him anymore, (thus my comments are to you and not to him).
.
.

 

[daq]

Galatians 4:4-5 The Scriptures (ISR 1998)
4 But when the completion of the time came, Elohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under Torah,
5 to redeem those who were under Torah, in order to receive the adoption as sons.
http://biblehub.com/isr/galatians/4.htm

"Exempt from Torah" . . .
"Born under Torah" . . .


.
.

 

[Hoshiyya]

One can give testimony or opinion, but one cannot be witness to oneself. Unless one is watching oneself in a mirror or on a computer connected to a camera, it is not even possible to physically witness oneself.

By the way your quote is from ch. 8, not 7.

All of 8:12-20 is concerned with Yeshua's identity, and not outlining any legal praxes or changes. He was not actually in court. It was an informal discussion between him and some pharisees who just wanted some validation of who he was. He apparently knew these particular pharisees were not elect, so he felt no need to prove himself to them and gave them an answer that he probably knew these pharisees would feel justified in dismissing.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Galatians 4:4-5 The Scriptures (ISR 1998)
4 But when the completion of the time came, Elohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under Torah,
5 to redeem those who were under Torah, in order to receive the adoption as sons.
http://biblehub.com/isr/galatians/4.htm

"Exempt from Torah" . . .
"Born under Torah" . . .


.
.

The Father is not the son. The Father created the Torah. When he created the Torah, he did not create a master for himself.

 

[daq]

The Father is not the son. The Father created the Torah. When he created the Torah, he did not create a master for himself.

There was a point, which was, how can the Son be "exempt from Torah" if Paul says the Son was "born under Torah, to redeem those who were born under Torah"?? It seems to me yet another contradiction, (a head-scratcher dilemma for some, I suppose, but I know better by what is written).
.
.

 

[Hoshiyya]

There was a point, which was, how can the Son be "exempt from Torah" if Paul says the Son was "born under Torah, to redeem those who were born under Torah"?? It seems to me yet another contradiction, (a head-scratcher dilemma for some, I suppose, but I know better by what is written).
.
.

Exemption from Torah would apply to the Father, not the Son.

The Son was born into the world of 1st century Judaea, hence he was born into the Torah world. The Torah does apply to him, but even a Roman pagan born in Judaea at the time could be said to be born into Torah. A Muslim born in Utah could be said to be born into Mormonism. Someone born in 1940's Europe could be said to be born into war, and so on.

 

[daq]

Exemption from Torah would apply to the Father, not the Son.

The Son was born into the world of 1st century Judaea, hence he was born into the Torah world. The Torah does apply to him, but even a Roman pagan born in Judaea at the time could be said to be born into Torah. A Muslim born in Utah could be said to be born into Mormonism. Someone born in 1940's Europe could be said to be born into war, and so on.

.
.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

it is not even possible to physically witness oneself

Do you realize that you are equivocating here two senses of the word witness? 1. Testify, 2. See oneself. Arguing fallacies is not worthy of the Messianic Faith.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Do you realize that you are equivocating here two senses of the word witness? 1. Testify, 2. See oneself. Arguing fallacies is not worthy of the Messianic Faith.

You can bear witness (ie. saying what you've seen) if you have witnessed something. You must see it physically. (Though I guess a blind person could be made to give an account of something he heard.)

If you commit, or don't commit, a murder, you cannot witness that, nor bear witness after the fact. You are the suspect. Your account cannot exonerate yourself. Because of the reason mentioned.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

If you commit, or don't commit, a murder, you cannot witness that, nor bear witness after the fact. You are the suspect. Your account cannot exonerate yourself.

Strike 3. Join Daq. I don't seek to impress the audience by argument but to find out who truly follows Messiah.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Strike 3. Join Daq. I don't seek to impress the audience by argument but to find out who truly follows Messiah.

Yeah, having a completely logical disagreement with Daniel Gregg certainly disqualifies me from following Yeshua.

 

[daq]

Yeah, having a completely logical disagreement with Daniel Gregg certainly disqualifies me from following Yeshua.

That's right, he's the judge of who is a "true Messianic" and who is not.
Welcome to the heretics club,

(Thank goodness Yeshua is the ringleader of the heretics).
.
.

 

[daq]

You can bear witness (ie. saying what you've seen) if you have witnessed something. You must see it physically. (Though I guess a blind person could be made to give an account of something he heard.)

If you commit, or don't commit, a murder, you cannot witness that, nor bear witness after the fact. You are the suspect. Your account cannot exonerate yourself. Because of the reason mentioned.

Was just reading this a while back for other reasons, and not that I agree with everything there, but remembered some of what I read how that not even in the criminal court was the testimony of a defendant allowed, not even a confession which would incriminate himself, (but the circumstances get reversed in certain cases like that of Yeshua). Simply put it was easier to go grab this quote from this site just because I remembered what search words I originally used to find it:

QUOTE:]Adin Steinsaltz explains:

The basic assumption in halakhah is that a man does not belong only to himself; just as he has no right to cause physical harm to others, so he has no right to inflict injury on himself. THIS IS WHY IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CONFESSION OF THE DEFENDANT HAD NO LEGAL CONSIDERATION. This rule, which has its own formal substantiation, served courts for centuries as a powerful weapon AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS BY FORCE OR PERSUASION. Not only can no man be forced to incriminate himself through his own testimony, but SELF-INCRIMINATION HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AND IS UNACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE IN COURT [Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, pp. 167-168].[End Quote.

QUOTE:]It goes even farther, FOR IT MAKES NO USE WHATEVER OF ADMISSIONS OR OF CONFESSIONS OF GUILT, EITHER IN OR OUT OF COURT; [Deuteronomy 19:15] is understood as EXCLUDING THE MOUTH OF THE ACCUSED; and THE PRINCIPLE IS LAID DOWN, "NO ONE CAN MAKE HIMSELF OUT GUILTY" (OR WICKED), and it appears often throughout the Talmud [The Jewish Encyclopedia, Accusatory and Inquisitorial Procedure, p. 163].[End Quote.
The Jewish Trial

Another reason why Yeshua would have said, (and meant what he said), "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true", (John 5:31).
.
.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Was just reading this a while back for other reasons, and not that I agree with everything there, but remembered some of what I read how that not even in the criminal court was the testimony of a defendant allowed, not even a confession which would incriminate himself, (but the circumstances get reversed in certain cases like that of Yeshua). Simply put it was easier to go grab this quote from this site just because I remembered what search words I originally used to find it:

QUOTE:]Adin Steinsaltz explains:

The basic assumption in halakhah is that a man does not belong only to himself; just as he has no right to cause physical harm to others, so he has no right to inflict injury on himself. THIS IS WHY IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CONFESSION OF THE DEFENDANT HAD NO LEGAL CONSIDERATION. This rule, which has its own formal substantiation, served courts for centuries as a powerful weapon AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS BY FORCE OR PERSUASION. Not only can no man be forced to incriminate himself through his own testimony, but SELF-INCRIMINATION HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AND IS UNACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE IN COURT [Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, pp. 167-168].[End Quote.

QUOTE:]It goes even farther, FOR IT MAKES NO USE WHATEVER OF ADMISSIONS OR OF CONFESSIONS OF GUILT, EITHER IN OR OUT OF COURT; [Deuteronomy 19:15] is understood as EXCLUDING THE MOUTH OF THE ACCUSED; and THE PRINCIPLE IS LAID DOWN, "NO ONE CAN MAKE HIMSELF OUT GUILTY" (OR WICKED), and it appears often throughout the Talmud [The Jewish Encyclopedia, Accusatory and Inquisitorial Procedure, p. 163].[End Quote.
The Jewish Trial

Another reason why Yeshua would have said, (and meant what he said), "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true", (John 5:31).
.
.

Thanks for posting!

I forgot about John 5:31, good catch.