John 3:11

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

John 3:11

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: John 3:11

Post #2

Post by William »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
This appears to be a reference to a particular state of being which is not perceived directly through the state of being a human, in human form - where the physical experience is the dominant one.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: John 3:11

Post #3

Post by onewithhim »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
Good question. I would say that Jesus is referring to himself and his Father and the angelic hosts---making up Jehovah's heavenly organiztion.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: John 3:11

Post #4

Post by 1213 »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
I understand it means, we people, everyone speaks what they know, and testify what they have seen. But, maybe I am wrong.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: John 3:11

Post #5

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

1213 wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:30 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
I understand it means, we people, everyone speaks what they know, and testify what they have seen. But, maybe I am wrong.
Hmm, it is quite puzzling because the sentence ends
...do not accept our testimony.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: John 3:11

Post #6

Post by nobspeople »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
Maybe the thought of 'we' are all disciples, both current and future? But it's possible, if jesus was god and man, he considered himself, at least at time, in the plural.
Or maybe he was tired and misspoke.
Of the author had an alternative reason that only they know.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: John 3:11

Post #7

Post by myth-one.com »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
"We" refers to Jesus and the disciples. This is confirmed eleven verses down:
John 3:22 wrote:After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: John 3:11

Post #8

Post by onewithhim »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 2:58 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
Maybe the thought of 'we' are all disciples, both current and future? But it's possible, if jesus was god and man, he considered himself, at least at time, in the plural.
Or maybe he was tired and misspoke.
Of the author had an alternative reason that only they know.
Well, perhaps I could clear up one point so that we could better get to the crux of the matter. Jesus is NOT God Almighty and doesn't see himself as more than one person. Further, what is so unusual about Jesus using the plural "we"? It very well could include the Father, Jehovah. Jehovah has said in the past that He has SEEN the misery of His people, and He acted on those things being SEEN by Him. (Example: Exodus 3:7) Therefore that would give some meaning to "we testify to what we have seen."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: John 3:11

Post #9

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

onewithhim wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 9:26 pm
nobspeople wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 2:58 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
Maybe the thought of 'we' are all disciples, both current and future? But it's possible, if jesus was god and man, he considered himself, at least at time, in the plural.
Or maybe he was tired and misspoke.
Of the author had an alternative reason that only they know.
Well, perhaps I could clear up one point so that we could better get to the crux of the matter. Jesus is NOT God Almighty and doesn't see himself as more than one person. Further, what is so unusual about Jesus using the plural "we"? It very well could include the Father, Jehovah. Jehovah has said in the past that He has SEEN the misery of His people, and He acted on those things being SEEN by Him. (Example: Exodus 3:7) Therefore that would give some meaning to "we testify to what we have seen."
That's reasonable but the verse also goes on to say "you people do not accept our testimony".

I'm drawn toward myth-one's remarks here.

But what testimony did the disciples have in common with Jesus? they could only testify about Jesus surely?

Furthermore the chapter begins by telling us that Nicodemus (and others) did already accept Jesus:
“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: John 3:11

Post #10

Post by onewithhim »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:30 pm
onewithhim wrote: Fri Feb 04, 2022 9:26 pm
nobspeople wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 2:58 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:41 pm
Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
This has often made me wonder, what is the need for the plural here? The original Greek clearly has this.

I could be construed as the Father and Jesus but I don't see how the Father could be included in "we testify to what we have seen".

What can this mean?
Maybe the thought of 'we' are all disciples, both current and future? But it's possible, if jesus was god and man, he considered himself, at least at time, in the plural.
Or maybe he was tired and misspoke.
Of the author had an alternative reason that only they know.
Well, perhaps I could clear up one point so that we could better get to the crux of the matter. Jesus is NOT God Almighty and doesn't see himself as more than one person. Further, what is so unusual about Jesus using the plural "we"? It very well could include the Father, Jehovah. Jehovah has said in the past that He has SEEN the misery of His people, and He acted on those things being SEEN by Him. (Example: Exodus 3:7) Therefore that would give some meaning to "we testify to what we have seen."
That's reasonable but the verse also goes on to say "you people do not accept our testimony".

I'm drawn toward myth-one's remarks here.

But what testimony did the disciples have in common with Jesus? they could only testify about Jesus surely?

Furthermore the chapter begins by telling us that Nicodemus (and others) did already accept Jesus:
“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
I wonder why anyone would think that Jesus' disciples knew only about him. The Jews were already a dedicated people---to Jehovah, the Most High (see Psalm 83:18, KJV). It was a given that they knew about Him. All the Hebrew Scriptures testify to that fact. The trick was to get the nation to accept Jehovah's Son as being from Him, to save the nation by his sacrifice.

Post Reply