Who was (is) Jesus ?

Originally posted by menace71
I believe the NASB is superior to the NWT hands down. But whatever you like to say or think is up to you my friend but you know this already 😉

www.biblegateway.com





Manny

Yes, even though it may not be perfect in every way, it is
the most accurate translation in English we have today.
especially of the Greek text.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, this was part of an answer Jesus gave to Nicodemus.
See John 3:10 The whole incident starts at verse 1.

There's no reason to believe that John 3:16-21 was said by Jesus rather than commentary by the writer of John. It's my understanding that the original text does not include quotation marks. So far as I know Jesus never referred to himself elsewhere using the third person "Him" or as the "only begotten Son", but the writer of John does. Plus the overall phrasing seems much more consistent with that of the writer of John.

Originally posted by menace71
I laugh at an organization (Not you guys personally for I really believe your sincere) that is so wrought with lies and errors that it's a joke. I feel bad that you guys don't see the joke but it is what it is, You both seem to have personal vendettas against Christianity for various reasons. (which I already know) Common sense is that you read something in owever the context is things strangled and bleed for worship to false god or idols.

Manny

Manny please very clearly and simply tell me just one lie that the organization is telling the world today about this thread of Who was Jesus?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There's no reason to believe that John 3:16-21 was said by Jesus rather than commentary by the writer of John. It's my understanding that the original text does not include quotation marks. So far as I know Jesus never referred to himself elsewhere using the third person "Him" or as the "only begotten Son", but the writer of John does. Plus the overall phrasing seems much more consistent with that of the writer of John.

Yes, John wrote this book; but this is what he remembers as Jesus' answer.
For it says, Jesus answered and said to him (Nicodemaus).
The Holy Bible I am looking at puts all the words that Jesus said
in red print. Those words in John 3:17-18 are all in red print.
I suppose you know better than they do. All the information I
know of indicates Jesus said this.What proof do you have that He did not?

Originally posted by galveston75
Manny please very clearly and simply tell me just one lie that the organization is telling the world today about this thread of Who was Jesus?

Ok very simply while professing Christ you deny Him in that you do not knowledge who He truly is. Your organization does this very thing in it's books or magazine. Your organization does this in it's translation of the bible. John 1:1 perfect example. The translators were never revealed why? Your organization has a history of errors (lies) about prophetic events which never come to pass. This is documented and there for all to see not something that Manny just made up. The doctrines of your organization in a lot cases go against what the bible says. You guys sometimes come off as very pompous and think that everyone else here is unaware of the bible or what it says. I bet some here are educated even on this subject. So there are Manifold reasons why the JW organization is a lie.

Manny

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, John wrote this book; but this is what he remembers as Jesus' answer.
For it says, Jesus answered and said to him (Nicodemaus).
The Holy Bible I am looking at puts all the words that Jesus said
in red print. Those words in John 3:17-18 are all in red print.
I suppose you know better than they do. All the information I
know of indicates Jesus said this.What proof do you have that He did not?

Some translations don't use quotation marks leaving it ambiguous, others attribute it to Jesus and others attribute it to John.

I've already given evidence to the contrary. While Jesus referred to himself as "Son of Man" or "Son of God" in many different places, so far as I know He did not refer to himself with a third person "He", "Him", "His", etc. Why would He?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, John wrote this book; but this is what he remembers as Jesus' answer.
For it says, Jesus answered and said to him (Nicodemaus).
The Holy Bible I am looking at puts all the words that Jesus said
in red print. Those words in John 3:17-18 are all in red print.
I suppose you know better than they do. All the information I
know of indicates Jesus said this.What proof do you have that He did not?

About the quotation marks, that is done because it is an english
translation and we use quotation marks in English when we repeat
what someone has said. The whole Hebrew and Greek original
text did not use quotation marks. There was no such thing back
then. It had not been invented at that time. Do more study before
you make these statements off the top of your head.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Some translations don't use quotation marks leaving it ambiguous, others attribute it to Jesus and others attribute it to John.

I've already given evidence to the contrary. While Jesus referred to himself as "Son of Man" or "Son of God" in many different places, so far as I know He did not refer to himself with a third person "He", "Him", "His", etc. Why would He?

Could you please give me a reference to any translation that says
John said this to Nicodemus. You said others attribute it to John.
You could satisfy me if you could give me the name of just one
translation so I could look it up for myself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
About the quotation marks, that is done because it is an english
translation and we use quotation marks in English when we repeat
what someone has said. The whole Hebrew and Greek original
text did not use quotation marks. There was no such thing back
then. It had not been invented at that time. Do more study before
you make these statements off the top of your head.

You certainly are a snippy one.

I'm quite aware that "The whole Hebrew and Greek original
text did not use quotation marks." If you read my post, you'll see that I said, "It's my understanding that the original text does not include quotation marks."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Could you please give me a reference to any translation that says
John said this to Nicodemus. You said others attribute it to John.
You could satisfy me if you could give me the name of just one
translation so I could look it up for myself.

Here's one:
http://gwt.scripturetext.com/john/3.htm

You can also look at this pastor's blog and the comments:
http://www.scottharness.com/538/who-said-john-316/

Edit: It isn't that John said it to Nicodemus, rather the writer of John was making a general comment.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here's one:
http://gwt.scripturetext.com/john/3.htm

You can also look at this pastor's blog and the comments:
http://www.scottharness.com/538/who-said-john-316/

Edit: It isn't that John said it to Nicodemus, rather John was making a general comment.

I read the reference you gave very carefully. It does not say John said
anything to Nicodemus. And later when they went into the land of Judea,
it is John the Baptist who is speaking to John's disciples. (John 3:27)

And as far as the pastor's blog goes. I wonder what translation he was
looking at, if it was a red letter edition, that did not have John 3:16 in red.
He does not say. But the translation I have is considered to be the most
accurate literal translation in modern American English today. The
translators put everything Jesus answered to Nicodemus in red from
John 3:10 all the way to John 3:21.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I read the reference you gave very carefully. It does not say John said
anything to Nicodemus. And later when they went into the land of Judea,
it is John the Baptist who is speaking to John's disciples. (John 3:27)

And as far as the pastor's blog goes. I wonder what translation he was
looking at, if it was a red letter edition, that did not have Jo ...[text shortened]... rs put everything Jesus answered to Nicodemus in red from
John 3:10 all the way to John 3:21.

Did you somehow miss the following also?
"Edit: It isn't that John said it to Nicodemus, rather the writer of John was making a general comment."

So much for your claim:
"You could satisfy me if you could give me the name of just one
translation so I could look it up for myself."

You asked for one, you got one. You don't seem too satisfied like you said you would be.

Maybe you also missed where the pastor said:

Recently I have been studying the Gospel of John noticed that John 3:16 was not in red. The passage before it is, but not John 3:16. I have always considered John 3:16 and following more conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. I must have been wrong.

Evidently it WAS a red letter edition.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you somehow miss the following also?
"Edit: It isn't that John said it to Nicodemus, rather the writer of John was making a general comment."

So much for your claim:
"You could satisfy me if you could give me the name of just one
translation so I could look it up for myself."

You asked for one, you got one. You don't seem too satisfied like you said you would be.

Yes you gave me one; but if you look closely at the beginning of
the verses it does not seem to match the original Greek. It looks
like something was added to the beginning of the verses to
make it appear to be a comment. Look at the reference below
giving the original Greek and the English below it and compare the
translations. Then click on over to verse 18 and compare that.
It may be the translator thought it was a comment so he added
something to make it agree with his belief.

http://interlinearbible.org/john/3-17.htm

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you somehow miss the following also?
"Edit: It isn't that John said it to Nicodemus, rather the writer of John was making a general comment."

So much for your claim:
"You could satisfy me if you could give me the name of just one
translation so I could look it up for myself."

You asked for one, you got one. You don't seem too satisfied like ...[text shortened]... us and Nicodemus. I must have been wrong. [/quote]
Evidently it WAS a red letter edition.

Yes, I did miss that statement that indicates it was a red letter edition.
But I also notice that you refer to the writer of John as if you doubt
John actually wrote this book. All commentary I have read say John,
the son of Zebedee and one of the twelve disciples wrote the book of
John. Do you know something I don't about the writer of John?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You certainly are a snippy one.

I'm quite aware that "The whole Hebrew and Greek original
text did not use quotation marks." If you read my post, you'll see that I said, "It's my understanding that the original text does not include quotation marks."

Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you meant that
quotation marks should not be used in the Enlish translation
because there was none in the original lamguage.