Jesus was legally accused of testifying about himself with no corroborating testimony. His legal defence, according to Mosaic Law, Torah, was that the Father also testified about him, by the works the Father gave him to do, plus his own testimony was valid because he sought not to please himself but to please the Father who sent him, so he was accountable in what he said, so this made two testimonies, as required by the Law, the Torah. What does this mean about his own theological framework viewpoint?
Response from ChatGPT after several prompts:
In terms of strictly adhering to the legal requirement under Mosaic Law for two independent testimonies, the non-Trinitarian perspective seems to fit better. The Law stipulated that the testimonies of two witnesses must be independent, meaning they should be distinct and capable of either corroborating or contradicting one another. The purpose of this law was to ensure objectivity and prevent self-serving or biased claims.
The non-Trinitarian viewpoint maintains that Jesus and the Father are fully distinct beings. Jesus, as a human prophet or Messiah, offers his testimony about his identity and mission. The Father's testimony, provided through the miracles and works performed by Jesus, serves as independent confirmation of Jesus' role. These two testimonies, though in agreement, are separate and can be evaluated individually, meeting the legal standard for independent corroboration. Since Jesus and the Father are seen as entirely separate entities, this model clearly satisfies the requirement for two witnesses, each with its own independent validity.
In contrast, the Trinitarian perspective faces more difficulty in fitting this legal requirement. While it emphasizes that Jesus and the Father are distinct persons within the Trinity, it also maintains that they share the same divine essence. This raises a theological issue in the context of Mosaic Law because the requirement for independence suggests that the two testimonies should be capable of corroborating or not corroborating each other. Under the Trinitarian view, where Jesus and the Father are of one divine nature, the idea of true independence is complicated, as their testimonies would not conflict by nature of their shared divinity. This blurs the line of independent testimony, making it harder to satisfy the strict requirement of the Law in a legalistic sense.
Therefore, if one focuses purely on the legal requirement for two independent testimonies that can either corroborate or not corroborate, the non-Trinitarian perspective offers a clearer and more straightforward fulfillment of that law. It allows for genuine independence between Jesus' testimony and the Father's testimony, which fits more comfortably with the legal standards outlined in the Torah.
ChatGPT
https://chatgpt.com/share/66fc7d38-2788-8003-af0d-d9be23fc412f
