Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    jakester's Avatar
    jakester Posts: 582, Reputation: 165
    Senior Member
     
    #1

    Jul 18, 2010, 08:26 PM
    What does it mean to be a Witness for Christ?
    First off, I'd like to define the word witness: One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident. As I read the gospels, it seems to me that one of the most significant reasons the twelve disciples of Jesus were chosen was for the purpose of being witnesses to his life, his teachings, his miracles, and his resurrection. After Judas Iscariot died, the disciples convened to address the matter of selecting someone who had been a witness to the following: “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” No other believer would be selected but one who had the ability to say: “I saw all of these things with my own eyes.”

    So when I look at Christ's words in light of what I have just stated above—“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”—I see that he is giving a clear command to testify (witness in the verb tense) to others about the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Because in going out and teaching about him, the disciples were bringing with them a first-hand, authoritative account. When the time came for them to preach and teach, if someone were to stand up and ask “you weren't there so how do you know these things were true?”, the disciples would be able to rebut such an argument since they were witnesses.

    In our idiom today as Christians, we use the term “witness” to imply preaching, teaching, and various other things I think. But I think it is a little sloppy, perhaps, to use witness in the same manner as Jesus and the disciples used that term—I don't mean to be crass when I say this but I am a person who prefers to use words for their intended meaning. What I mean is, you nor I cannot say that we are witnesses to the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Obviously we were not there. Ah, but someone can say “but we can testify to what God has done in our lives.” True, but witnessing or testifying in the manner the disciples did was more collective or shared in its integrity than my own or your own self-attesting witness could ever be. The resurrection of Jesus was something that was a spectacular event and there were many people who were witnesses to that event. So even if one person thought he had misidentified what he saw in seeing the resurrected Jesus, others were present to say “no, you had that right. Jesus is alive from the grave.” And this experience was a shared experience where others in that community were attesting to it for the sake of not being wrong or misled in some way: “in the multitude of counselors there is safety” as the Proverb says.

    But with you or me there is no collective testifying available. I cannot go out on the same authority of the disciples and proclaim my own religious experience to be authoritative in the same way as testifying to the resurrection was. Jesus is not saying “you will be a witness concerning the things I have done in you to the ends of the world.” I believe this is so because people may not be given over to my own subjective experience: “I'm glad Christianity works for you but you have your way and I have mine” as many in our culture can say. What goes on inside my heart and mind is not formational to the existential commitments of another human being necessarily. Just because I have been “born-again” does not mean that someone else should believe upon that basis. I have to appeal to something greater than my own subjective experience. The only thing that I can appeal to is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    What I see being the command on the table today is that I must come to terms with the Gospel. Is it a story that I want to base my life upon? Does the Gospel make senses given all of the competing world-views available to me? If I agree that the Gospel is true and is worth committing my life to, then I have granted authority to the Gospel. I am making it the truth in a way that I am not making for anything else. But I cannot go and preach the Gospel of me; I cannot go out and say that because I believe the bible is true, it must be true. The best I can do is preach it to others and try to give compelling reasons I think it is true. But sometimes my understanding of the Gospel isn't always accurate…this is the limitation we all live in this side of the Apostolic Age: we have nobody to come into our assemblies to say “let me teach you the more accurate Way of God.” We humbly rely upon the Spirit of God to teach us and admonish us in the ways of God and we must wrestle with the ancient texts to enter into the discussions that took place so long ago (the Pauline letters, etc.) and try to understand what the biblical writers were trying to say.

    So, I ask, are we witnesses? Are we to witness? I believe so…but to what? What are we witnesses to? To the resurrection? No. To what Christ has done in our lives? Maybe, but is that the basis of our authority? What are we testifying to? I submit that in a manner of speaking that we are to testify to why we think the Gospel is true and why the risen Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of God. God help us to understand this Gospel for ourselves and explain it with integrity and truth, so that we may not run in vain.
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #2

    Jul 18, 2010, 11:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jakester View Post
    First off, I'd like to define the word witness: One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident. As I read the gospels, it seems to me that one of the most significant reasons the twelve disciples of Jesus were chosen was for the purpose of being witnesses to his life, his teachings, his miracles, and his resurrection. After Judas Iscariot died, the disciples convened to address the matter of selecting someone who had been a witness to the following: “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” No other believer would be selected but one who had the ability to say: “I saw all of these things with my own eyes.”

    So when I look at Christ’s words in light of what I have just stated above—“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”—I see that he is giving a clear command to testify (witness in the verb tense) to others about the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Because in going out and teaching about him, the disciples were bringing with them a first-hand, authoritative account. When the time came for them to preach and teach, if someone were to stand up and ask “you weren’t there so how do you know these things were true?”, the disciples would be able to rebut such an argument since they were witnesses.

    In our idiom today as Christians, we use the term “witness” to imply preaching, teaching, and various other things I think. But I think it is a little sloppy, perhaps, to use witness in the same manner as Jesus and the disciples used that term—I don’t mean to be crass when I say this but I am a person who prefers to use words for their intended meaning. What I mean is, you nor I cannot say that we are witnesses to the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Obviously we were not there. Ah, but someone can say “but we can testify to what God has done in our lives.” True, but witnessing or testifying in the manner Jesus and the disciples was more collective or shared in its integrity than my own or your own self-attesting witness could ever be. The resurrection of Jesus was something that was a spectacular event and there were many people who were witnesses to that event. So even if one person thought he had misidentified what he saw in seeing the resurrected Jesus, others were present to say “no, you had that right. Jesus is alive from the grave.” And this experience was a shared experience where others in that community were attesting to it for the sake of not being wrong or misled in some way: “in the multitude of counselors there is safety” as the Proverb says.

    But with you or me there is no collective testifying available. I cannot go out on the same authority of the disciples and proclaim my own religious experience to be authoritative in the same was as testifying to the resurrection was. Jesus is not saying “you will be a witness concerning the things I have done in you to the ends of the world.” I believe this is so because people may not be given over to my own subjective experience: “I’m glad Christianity works for you but you have your way and I have mine” as many in our culture can say. What goes on inside my heart and mind is not formational to the existential commitments of another human being necessarily. Just because I have been “born-again” does not mean that someone else should believe upon that basis. I have to appeal to something greater than my own subjective experience. The only thing that I can appeal to is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    What I see being the command on the table today is that I must come to terms with the Gospel. Is it a story that I want to base my life upon? Does the Gospel make senses given all of the competing world-views available to me? If I agree that the Gospel is true and is worth committing my life to, then I have granted authority to the Gospel. I am making it the truth in a way that I am not making for anything else. But I cannot go and preach the Gospel of me; I cannot go out and say that because I believe the bible is true, it must be true. The best I can do is preach it to others and try to give compelling reasons why I think it is true. But sometimes my understanding of the Gospel isn’t always accurate…this is the limitation we all live in this side of the Apostolic Age: we have nobody to come into our assemblies to say “let me teach you the more accurate Way of God.” We humbly rely upon the Spirit of God to teach us and admonish us in the ways of God and we must wrestle with the ancient texts to enter into the discussions that took place so long ago (the Pauline letters, etc.) and try to understand what the biblical writers were trying to say.

    So, I ask, are we witnesses? Are we to witness? I believe so…but to what? What are we witnesses to? To the resurrection? No. To what Christ has done in our lives? Maybe, but is that the basis of our authority? What are we testifying to? I submit that in a manner of speaking that we are to testify to why we think the Gospel is true and why the risen Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of God. God help us to understand this Gospel for ourselves and explain it with integrity and truth, so that we may not run in vain.

    Hi Jake,

    I think you definition of a witness is a pretty good one. It has everything to do with experience. Unfortunately our sense experiences and historical information is always changing. We can never tell whether our sensory information is necessarily true. To have absolute certainty we would need to show what was, or is experienced, cannot be false. By the very fact that we experience something puts an end to that.

    Everything historical takes place in time and we can only ever know something in terms of the temporary arrangements. You mention existentialism> Kierkegaard says that we can never have any necessary knowledge about the historical facts.

    Unfortunately being alive during Jesus' time would afford us no advantage even if were were with him the whole time. If we were there at the time all we would see is a human being doing extraordinary things. What we also know while being there is that God cannot be a human being.

    Regardless of the time we know that it is logically impossible for God to be PART of the historical world. By definition no temporal properties apply to God. If we believe God exists in time and space and acts in human and historical situations then we would be believing in something logically impossible.

    This is why we say that Jesus was fully human and fully God. To say otherwise would be a contradiction.


    P.S. Probably not the answer you were looking for.


    Regards

    Tut
    jakester's Avatar
    jakester Posts: 582, Reputation: 165
    Senior Member
     
    #3

    Jul 19, 2010, 05:52 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    Hi Jake,

    I think you definition of a witness is a pretty good one. It has everything to do with experience. Unfortunately our sense experiences and historical information is always changing. We can never tell whether our sensory information is necessarily true. To have absolute certainty we would need to show what was, or is experienced, cannot be false. By the very fact that we experience something puts an end to that.

    Everything historical takes place in time and we can only ever know something in terms of the temporary arrangements. You mention existentialism> Kierkegaard says that we can never have any necessary knowledge about the historical facts.

    Unfortunately being alive during Jesus' time would afford us no advantage even if were were with him the whole time. If we were there at the time all we would see is a human being doing extraordinary things. What we also know while being there is that God cannot be a human being.

    Regardless of the time period we know that it is logically impossible for God to be PART of the historical world. By definition no temporal properties apply to God. If we believe God exists in time and space and acts in human and historical situations then we would be believing in something logically impossible.

    This is why we say that Jesus was fully human and fully God. To say otherwise would be a contradiction.


    P.S. Probably not the answer you were looking for.


    Regards

    Tut
    Tut - thanks for following up. I'm curious about a couple of things you mentioned and would like to understand you better.

    First, regarding Kierkegaard, what is your understanding of "we can never have any NECESSARY knowledge about the historical facts"? Can you explain that more?

    Second, it is not my belief that it was impossible for God to be present in human form. I see that you see a logical implausibility with that account that I am not sure I understand. "What we also know while being there is that God cannot be a human being."

    When you say "Regardless of the time period WE KNOW that it is logically impossible for God to be PART of the historical world", I sense that you assume it is universally accepted fact. Would you care to explain why you think that this is true and why you feel that God could not be a part of the historical world in human form?

    Thanks, Tut.
    dwashbur's Avatar
    dwashbur Posts: 1,456, Reputation: 175
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Jul 19, 2010, 06:38 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jakester View Post
    When you say "Regardless of the time period WE KNOW that it is logically impossible for God to be PART of the historical world", I sense that you assume it is universally accepted fact. Would you care to explain why you think that this is true and why you feel that God could not be a part of the historical world in human form?
    I was wondering about this as well. While I don't subscribe to it, process theology a la Pannenberg and others says exactly that: God is part of the creation and changes along with it. So it's hardly a universally-accepted idea.
    JoeT777's Avatar
    JoeT777 Posts: 1,248, Reputation: 44
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Jul 19, 2010, 07:23 PM
    Are we to witness? Yes

    What are we witnesses to? God’s Truth, wherever it is found.

    Is [our witnessing from our personal perspective of private revelation] the basis of our authority? No the teaching authority was given to the Catholic Church for the unity of faith.


    JoeT
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #6

    Jul 19, 2010, 07:26 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jakester View Post
    Tut - thanks for following up. I'm curious about a couple of things you mentioned and would like to understand you better.

    First, regarding Kierkegaard, what is your understanding of "we can never have any NECESSARY knowledge about the historical facts"? Can you explain that more?

    Second, it is not my belief that it was impossible for God to be present in human form. I see that you see a logical implausibility with that account that I am not sure I understand. "What we also know while being there is that God cannot be a human being."

    When you say "Regardless of the time period WE KNOW that it is logically impossible for God to be PART of the historical world", I sense that you assume it is universally accepted fact. Would you care to explain why you think that this is true and why you feel that God could not be a part of the historical world in human form?

    Thanks, Tut.

    Hi Jake,

    I guess I have a bad habit of trying to make logical sense out of religion. There are those who would argue( myself included) that unless religion conforms to some type of logical analysis then we are pretty much wasting our time. Others might say who cares about logic when it comes to religion all that matters is faith. I am not sure where you would fit in.

    Firstly, I thought your reference to existentialism was quite interesting because it reminded me somewhat of the problem outlined by Kierkegaard.

    For Kierkegaard the test of faith is whether one's beliefs can be held in the face of constant contradictions. Kierkegaard does not throw logic out the door, he is very much aware of its importance.

    Kierkegaard was a complete skeptic and he doubted our ability to know anything about the world which is true and necessary. This reflects David Hume's claim that experience can never give us any sort reliable knowledge about the physical world. If 100 people saw Jesus perform a miracle we would get a 100 different accounts of what happened. In other words, 100 different experiences gives us just that. Can there be an objective account? As Hume said when it comes to facts there is no logical necessity. As we can see Kierkegaard took the distinction between contingent and necessity very seriously. ( If you want me to clarify this distinction a bit more just let me know).

    In relation to your second question... "God not being part of the physical world" I guess it is pretty much a logical necessity that God exists outside of the physical world if we want to claim that he created the universe. I think most people want to claim this. It is interesting you used the term, 'universal fact'. My above explanation says that facts cannot be universal. God existing outside of the universe is a logical requirement of him being able to create the universe. If he were part of the physical world then I cannot see how he could create himself. Of course it is possible for God to influence and direct events in the physical world from his 'outside' position. Once God enters the world then he becomes part of what we experience. That is, things happening in time and space. All we can ever be aware of is a contingent being (as Jesus was).

    I am pretty confident in saying that this is position is generally accepted by most theologians. Kierkegaard solution to this problem is to, 'take a leap of faith'.

    I'm not sure I did a very good job of explaining.

    Regards

    Tut
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #7

    Jul 20, 2010, 03:50 AM

    Perhaps necessity and contingency needs further explanation. It is an important consideration in theology.

    We know that God exists, but in what way does he exist? It is generally accepted (Christian theology) that God's existence is necessary rather than contingent. Things experienced in the world are contingent. That is, things are temporal-they come in and out of existence. Cars, people, rocks, trees are all contingent. Existence of these things relies on other objects and other processes. (History could be seen as a process) . It is quite possible for none of these things to exist. It just so happens they do.

    There seems to be a problem looming for us if we wants to say that God is part of the physical world. To whom or what does he owe his existence?

    God is not contingent because he is not dependent on any other thing for his existence. There are no objects or process necessary to give rise to the existence of God. God's existence requires him to be outside of time and space. From this position he acts upon the world. If we regard him as being part of time and space then he is subject to said laws.

    I am pretty sure this is standard theology.

    This is why we say that Jesus was' fully human' and 'fully God'.
    We have to say this because anything else would be a contradiction.

    Tut
    jakester's Avatar
    jakester Posts: 582, Reputation: 165
    Senior Member
     
    #8

    Jul 20, 2010, 06:25 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    Perhaps necessity and contingency needs further explanation. It is an important consideration in theology.

    We know that God exists, but in what way does he exist? It is generally accepted (Christian theology) that God's existence is necessary rather than contingent. Things experienced in the world are contingent. That is, things are temporal-they come in and out of existence. Cars, people, rocks, trees are all contingent. Existence of these things relies on other objects and other processes. (History could be seen as a process) . It is quite possible for none of these things to exist. It just so happens they do.

    There seems to be a problem looming for us if we wants to say that God is part of the physical world. To whom or what does he owe his existence?

    God is not contingent because he is not dependent on any other thing for his existence. There are no objects or process necessary to give rise to the existence of God. God's existence requires him to be outside of time and space. From this position he acts upon the world. If we regard him as being part of time and space then he is subject to said laws.

    I am pretty sure this is standard theology.

    This is why we say that Jesus was' fully human' and 'fully God'.
    We have to say this because anything else would be a contradiction.

    Tut
    Tut - yes, I believe that God is not contingent... he exists whether the world exists or not. Paul even expresses that thought: "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." "In him we live and move and have our being’;"

    Particularly the part, "In him we live and move and have our being." We only exist (or be) because God allows us to be. We derive our existence from God. I agree that it is standard theology but I suppose I didn't get what it was you were saying prior to this more clear statement.

    You can throw away the term I used earlier "universally accepted fact." All I meant was that when you used the words "WHAT WE ALSO KNOW while being there is that God cannot be a human being" it suggests that it is universally accepted or known by people. Maybe I need to get out more because I didn't know that God cannot be a human being. That's all I meant there.

    Lastly, you mention that Kierkegaard was a complete skeptic. I've only read Fear and Trembling which if you didn't already know, is his in-depth analysis of the Abraham and his "movement of faith" which is as you described as the "leap of faith" into the absurd. I don't get the impression that Kierkegaard was a skeptic as much as he was someone trying to reconcile how it is someone can "make the movement" of following God. Using the life of Abraham and his choice to sacrifice Isaac (which God told him to do as a test), Abraham had to make the leap of faith and trust in the promise God made to him, "supposing that God was able to raise him from the dead." Perhaps other points Kierkegaard was a skeptic, I cannot say for certain having not read his other books but in Fear and Trembling I don't get that impression.

    Thanks, Tut.
    Moepennington's Avatar
    Moepennington Posts: 1, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #9

    Oct 12, 2011, 03:55 PM
    I am very sexy. -Morgan
    kimblack's Avatar
    kimblack Posts: 1, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #10

    Dec 30, 2011, 08:02 AM
    Hello,

    I just found this blog while searching the Web.

    The author of this article may be correct that we did not witness Jesus' earthly life. But for those in Christ, we are witnesses of the grace of God in our lives.

    Colossians 3:3 says "For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God."

    Ephesians 2:6 says that "So we are in two places: on earth doing the work of the ministry of reconciliation and seated with Christ in heaven at the right hand of his Father."

    This means that we are in 2 places at once. On earth, and in heaven.

    We are witnesses of this.

    We are also witnesses of much more, but just wanted to say this.

    Peace in Yeshua!

    Kim Black
    Www.ExaltAdonai.com

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

Having the Spirit of Christ [ 95 Answers ]

Are individual that walk in the spirit concerned, and alarmed sinners, or do they through the spirit destroy deeds of sin in their body, and fulfilled the righteousness of the law? Romans 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the...

Do you know who you are in Christ? [ 11 Answers ]

It is worth your time.Don't miss this one! OpenHeaven.com - Lance Wallnau - The Fusion Experience

Who is Jesus Christ? [ 20 Answers ]

First off, I am not Jewish... I am a gentile. I do believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah in the Old Testament, so I wanted to be up front about that. I have had an interest in Jewish culture since the first time I traveled to Israel more than 10 years ago. Since that time, I have...

We Rest upon Christ. Why? [ 5 Answers ]

I believe and trust this say it all. We rest upon Christ the Rock of our salvation. Col 1:23-29 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am...

About Jesus Christ [ 8 Answers ]

In which ways is and or was worshipped and what was the impact the death had on his respective religion?


View more questions Search