Did Jesus of Bible claim he is God?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Dear Manny,

Once again, you need to study the word you are using to prove your point.

Why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? **Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” **There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father.

**The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is mo·no·ge·nes′, from mo′nos, meaning “only,” and gi′no·mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo·no·ge·nes′ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E.Robinson.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Mo·no·ge·nes′] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16,18; and 1John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.”**

So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge.

Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? **Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” **There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father.

**The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is mo·no·ge·nes’, from mo’nos, meaning “only,” and gi’no·mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo·no·ge·nes’ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Mo·no·ge·nes’] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.” **

watchtower.org/e/ti/article_05.htm

Originally Posted by BibleSteve

Daniel,

I don’t speak for the Watchtower, for Russell, or Rutherford… I speak for myself as a student of the Bible… so you don’t need to keep arguing with them…

I want to focus our discussion on Scripture… not the Catholic Church, the Watchtower, the ECF’s, Russell, etc…

Steve

Steve, I think the copy and paste from the watchtower proves that you are not doing original research on your own as you claim. I am sure any honest person reading this post will likely believe that you copy and pasted ( without reference, did’nt you compain about me leaving out a link? which I did supply at the end of my series of church father quotes ) from the watchtower with minor editing on your part to make it appear to be in your own words.

Since, I know that these quotes are from the watchtower, I believe that they are likely misquotes or in the case of Edward Robertson very outdated, even by its second edition that lexicon had to be completely redone.

famousamericans.net/edwardrobinson/

For a new edition a mere reprinting or remodeling of the first was out of the question because Greek studies had progressed far beyond Wahl’s Clavis. So Robertson prepared an entirely new work, all his own, following the historico-logical method which Gesenius had used so successfully for his Hebrew Lexicon and Passow for the Greek.

Edward Robinson as a Biblical Scholar
Julius A. Bewer
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Dec., 1939), pp. 355-363
doi:10.2307/3259707
This article consists of 9 page(s).

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231(193912)58%3A4%3C355%3AERAABS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

(John 5:18) On this account, indeed, **the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because ******not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

Then, you also hold the opinion that John thought Jesus had broke the Sabbath and was deserving of the death penalty?

If so, was John correct or incorrect in this opinion?

I maintain Jesus did not break the Sabbath because by doing so, he wouldn’t be sinless.

It was the incorrect opinion of the Jews that he broke the Sabbath and that he was making himself equal to God.

Your either or mentality is boring.

The first part clearly states something that is false, that Jesus sinned by breaking the sabbath. He did break the sabbath without sinning though as did David when his men ate the show bread. So, the first part is both true and false. He did break the sabbath, but he did not sin breaking the sabbath.

The second part does not depend on the first part being true or false – this is where your either or mentality fails. In fact, the second part is written in the greek grammar and Hebrew translations as an afterthought.

Luke 6

1And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

3And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

4How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

5And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

6And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

7And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.

8But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

9Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

10And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

11And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

Yes, Jesus broke the sabbath. But, as any good rabbi will tell you it is not a Sin to do good, heal, clothe the poor, on the sabbath.

So, he broke the sabbath and without sin doing so.

Tell what does “Lord of the Sabbath” mean to you? Where in scripture does it say that anyone other than God is master over the sabbath? Yes, the sabbath was made for man, I agree. But, that does not make man its master or object of worship.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am very much a believer.

You’ve cut out an important part of my post:

"I’ve read the Bible, praying to God to reveal the truth to me and this is what I’ve recieved… "

**I’ve looked to the authority of the Bible, and God’s Holy Spirit. **

Why not go straight to the source instead of relying on the opinions of imperfect, uninspired men telling you what to believe?

So, did I and I have come to exactly the opposite conclusion. Therefore, our contray opinions prove that this method does not work on its own. In fact, in an eariler post today I think I proven that you are NOT simply reading the bible on its own, but are in fact getting your theology from the watchtower – remember your copy and paste without giving proper reference to the watchtower it came out of? that quote proves to all honest people here that you are depending on the traditions of men at the watchtower.

 

[BibleSteve]

Dear Daniel,

I provide quotes from multiple sources. I do plenty of research in books and publications from a wide variety of groups and organizations.

You are now implying that I’m a liar.

I find that behavior irresponsible.

I’m looking for intelligent conversation on the Scriptures without personal attacks.

I’ll be spending less time here refuting your Scriptural analysis.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Steve, you seem well versed and thorough and I have asked this of other non Trinitarian christians who weren’t able to reconcile this statement Jesus made in the Gospels.

What view of Himself did Jesus reveal when He said: John ( the Baptist) is the greatest man born of woman.

Thank you.

Peace

Hi Benadam, this is easy ( button ) the gospels have parallels. From comparing luke 7 with matthew 11, you will see that Jesus was calling John the greatest among the prophets. John was the greatest among the prophets for two reasons: 1) He had the spirit and power of Elijah, 2) He was the forerunner for Jehovah God in Matthew 3:3, who is Jesus. Note: this being greater was only temporary because John himself recoginises that Jesus will become greater while John fades away.

John 3:30 (New International Version)
He must become greater; I must become less.

Luke 7:28
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Matthew 11:11 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 1:17
And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Isaiah 40:3
A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.

Malachi 3:1
“See, **I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. **Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.

Matthew 3:3
This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert**, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord,** make straight paths for him.’ "

Mark 1:3
"a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ "

Luke 1:76
And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the** Lord to prepare the way for him**,

Luke 3:4
As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hebrews 1
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Remember, John faded away as Jesus got greater.

 

[BibleSteve]

Hi Steve, you seem well versed and thorough and I have asked this of other non Trinitarian christians who weren’t able to reconcile this statement Jesus made in the Gospels.

What view of Himself did Jesus reveal when He said: John ( the Baptist) is the greatest man born of woman.

Thank you.

Peace

First, thank you for the compliment and I appreciate your question. Jesus certainly spoke of people coming up to heaven with him, but he (and the Bible) also talks about people living here on earth (Matt 5:5, Psa 37:9, 10)

Most Bible readers haven’t distinguished this nuance thinking everyone just dies and goes to heaven.

But, just assume for a minute that people really will be living here on earth, and just a subset of people are taken to heaven to participate in the administration of the heavenly Kingdom/Government.

My reading of Scripture has lead me to that conclusion, with the understanding the selection process began when Jesus instituted the New Covenant.

Now, read this verse in that context:

“Truly I say to you people, Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; **but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. **But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.”

Jesus is here showing that John will not be in the heavenly Kingdom, since a lesser one there is greater than John. John prepared the way for Jesus, but his death occurs before Christ sealed the covenant, or agreement, with his disciples to be corulers with him in his Kingdom. That is why Jesus says that John will not be in the heavenly Kingdom. John will instead be an earthly subject of God’s Kingdom.

 

[MH84]

Dear Daniel,

I provide quotes from multiple sources. I do plenty of research in books and publications from a wide variety of groups and organizations.

You are now implying that I’m a liar.

I find that behavior irresponsible.

I’m looking for intelligent conversation on the Scriptures without personal attacks.

I’ll be spending less time here refuting your Scriptural analysis.

I don’t think he called you a liar, he just used your posts to point out that you were using JW information (ie cut and paste) to argue a JW case

 

[BibleSteve]

I don’t think he called you a liar, he just used your posts to point out that you were using JW information (ie cut and paste) to argue a JW case

I am arguing my opinion, the opinion of Isaac Newton, and millions of other non-JW, non-Trinitarians who read the Bible, use simple logic and realize YHWH is the only true God (John 17:3) and Jesus is his Son.

My quotes come from multiple sources, multiple books, multiple organizations.

I’ve explained in multiple posts about my intense and independant research methods.

I have never made an argument based on the authority of the Watchtower, or the authority of Russell…

Daniel just wants to attack any source that doesn’t agree with him. If I quote a point from deBuhn, deBuhn’s not worthy of consideration. If I quote 50+ other translations, they’re not worthy of consideration, If I quote a point out of a Watchtower publication, now he wants to attack that.

And now he’s off on a personal attack about me not doing my own research and only following the traditions of men from the Watchtower.

There’s alot of people in this world to reason Scritpure with… and Daniel has the potential of being a good person to talk with, but I find these kind of personal digs to be unacceptable.

You may not, so more power to you…

 

[Keikiolu]

I am arguing my opinion, the opinion of Isaac Newton, and millions of other non-JW, non-Trinitarians who read the Bible, use simple logic and realize YHWH is the only true God (John 17:3) and Jesus is his Son.

My quotes come from multiple sources, multiple books, multiple organizations.

I’ve explained in multiple posts about my intense and independant research methods.

I have never made an argument based on the authority of the Watchtower, or the authority of Russell…

Daniel just wants to attack any source that doesn’t agree with him. If I quote a point from deBuhn, deBuhn’s not worthy of consideration. If I quote 50+ other translations, they’re not worthy of consideration, If I quote a point out of a Watchtower publication, now he wants to attack that.

And now he’s off on a personal attack about me not doing my own research and only following the traditions of men from the Watchtower.

There’s alot of people in this world to reason Scritpure with… and Daniel has the potential of being a good person to talk with, but I find these kind of personal digs to be unacceptable.

You may not, so more power to you…

Is anyone else curious as to why I’ve put Steve-O here on my ignore list…?

He simply will not agree to disagree about anything.

Steve is right, in that Steve considers himself right, and isn’t interested in simply finding out how others could consider him wrong by them giving him their reasoning,…

…but he is wrong in that he is an authority about anything to anyone BUT an authority to Steve-O…

He wants to WIN…!!!

But he can’t “win” as he wants,… so he gets annoyed, and sees people not giving him his due reverence as “personal attack”.

So,… back into ignore-mode for Steve-O.

It IS interesting seeing him quoted by others who choose to deal with his “reasoning” though…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[po18guy]

Tell what does “Lord of the Sabbath” mean to you? Where in scripture does it say that anyone other than God is master over the sabbath? Yes, the sabbath was made for man, I agree. But, that does not make man its master or object of worship.

You are speaking with a JW who spent precious, irreplaceable years of his life pouring over every version of the bible on earth, diligently comparing verses side by side, taking copious notes and digesting several lifetimes’ worth of cognition, before coming to the conclusion that a cult formed in 1800s America by two rascals was God’s true path. He claims our logic is faulty.

Pray that the Lord who gave the Sabbath does not take it away.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

First, thank you for the compliment … John will instead be an earthly subject of God’s Kingdom.

Ephesians 4:7-13 (New International Version)

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says:
** “When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train ** and gave gifts to men.” 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

As usual Steve misses the boat.

The phrase “he led captives in his train” is understood that Jesus whom preached to the dead, led those in the paradise side of the grave to heaven, thus John the Baptist would be in heaven. In fact, Paul qutoes a passage that speaks about Jehovah and applies it to Jesus there.

Psa 68

17The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.

18Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.

19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah.

20He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death.

And, Augustine speaking on Psa 68 leds us to yet another trinity proof.

1. In the next place, turning his address to the Lord Himself, “You have gone up,” he says, “on high, You have led captivity captive, You have received gifts in men” (ver. 18). Of this the Apostle thus makes mention, thus expounds in speaking of the Lord Christ: “But unto each one of us,” he says, “is given grace after the measure of the giving of Christ: for which cause he says, He has gone up on high, He has led captive captivity, He has given gifts to men.” Ephesians 4:7-8 …And let it not move us that the Apostle making mention of that same testimony says not, “You have received gifts in men;” but, “He has given gifts unto men.”** For he with Apostolic authority has spoken thus according to the faith that the Son is God with the Father. For in respect of this He has given gifts to men, sending to them the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son**. But forasmuch as the self-same Christ is understood in His Body which is the Church, wherefore also His members are His saints and believers, whence to them is said, “But you are the Body of Christ, and the members,” 1 Corinthians 12:27 doubtless He has Himself also received gifts in men. Now Christ has gone up on high, and sits at the right hand of the Father: Mark 16:19 but unless He were here also on the earth, He would not thence have cried, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Acts 9:4 When the Same says Himself, “Inasmuch as to one of My least you have done it, to Me you have done it:” Matthew 25:40 why do we doubt that He receives in His members, the gifts which the members of Him receive?

newadvent.org/fathers/1801068.htm

back to my point,

On His part, in regard to those things which, in ascending, He did for our salvation. First, He prepared the way for our ascent into heaven, according to His own saying (John 14:2): “I go to prepare a place for you,” and the words of Micheas (2:13), “He shall go up that shall open the way before them.” For since He is our Head the members must follow whither the Head has gone: hence He said (John 14:3): “That where I am, you also may be.” In sign whereof He took to heaven the souls of the saints delivered from hell, according to Psalm 67:19 (Cf. Ephesians 4:8): “Ascending on high, He led captivity captive,” because He took with Him to heaven those who had been held captives by the devil–to heaven, as to a place strange to human nature. captives in deed of a happy taking, since they were acquired by His victory.

newadvent.org/summa/4057.htm

newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=he+led+captivity+captive+heaven&cof=FORID%3A9#912

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Dear Daniel,

I provide quotes from multiple sources. I do plenty of research in books and publications from a wide variety of groups and organizations.

You are now implying that I’m a liar.

I find that behavior irresponsible.

I’m looking for intelligent conversation on the Scriptures without personal attacks.

I’ll be spending less time here refuting your Scriptural analysis.

Ah, Steve I did not call you anything. I merely pointed out your source that you claim not to be using is in fact the watchtower.

** Bottom line, you are as much dependent on “traditions of man” as anyone else is, thats all. ** So, if you think that is calling you a liar than I appologize — I only presented the evidence you all drew the conclusion. But, if you think you can quote the watchtower and not be called on it, think again. Back when the trinity booklet came out, I seached down as many sources it used as I could and I kept finding the quotes to be out of context, so any quote from the watchtower I am going to reject out and out as likely a misquote too until proven otherwise.

Steve, in at least the online version of the Trinity booklet, why have the watchtower NOT added proper footnotes, indicating author, title of book, publisher, edition, etc., for each and every quote? Also, why not put out a second edition of the booklet with proper documentation in print?

You claim that you provide quotes from multiple sources and yet ONE AND ONLY ONE web page has your quotes. Follow the google search for “mo·no·ge·nes′, from mo′nos, meaning “only,” and gi′no·mai, a root word” and only one source comes up.

In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking you which edition of Edward Robertson Lexicon you are using? Since, you read “multiple” sources and you quoted this source, I am assuming you have a copy on your bookshelf right? I PM you my mailing address awhile back, please send me photo copies of the pages for the complete article quoted and of the title page, so that I may read them myself.

As for Kittle, what volume and pages are you quoting so, I can look them up in my set. And, as proof you have Robertson’s Lexicon on your shelf please mail it in the early mail tomorrow.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22mo%C2%B7no%C2%B7ge%C2%B7nes%E2%80%B2%2C+from+mo%E2%80%B2nos%2C+meaning+%E2%80%9Conly%2C%E2%80%9D+and+gi%E2%80%B2no%C2%B7mai%2C+a+root+word%22

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Isaac Newton?

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Isaac Newton. First published in 1754, twenty-seven years after Newton’s death, it reviewed all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages, at 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture

google.com/search?hl=en&q=An+historical+account+of+two+notable+corruptions+of+Scripture&btnG=Search

Pfizenmaier, Thomas C.
Was Isaac Newton an Arian?
Journal of the History of Ideas - Volume 58, Number 1, January 1997, pp. 57-80

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Thomas C. Pfizenmaier Historians of Newton’s thought have been wide ranging in their assessment of his conception of the trinity. David Brewster, in his The Life of Sir Isaac Newton (1831), was fully convinced that Newton was an orthodox trinitarian, although he recognized that “a traditionary belief has long prevailed that Newton was an Arian.”1 Two reasons were used to defend his conclusion that Newton was orthodox. The first was a letter from John Craig, a friend of Newton, written shortly after Newton’s death to John Conduitt, the husband of Newton’s niece. In this letter Craig remarked that Newton’s theological opinions “were sometimes different from those which are commonly received” but that he hoped Conduitt would publish Newton’s theological papers, “that the world may see that Sir Isaac Newton was as good a Christian as he was a mathematician and philosopher.”2 The second reason with which Brewster defended his conclusion was his acknowledgment that the doctrine of the trinity itself had variations. I had no hesitation when writing the Life of Sir Isaac Newton in 1830, in coming to the conclusion that he was a believer in the Trinity; and in giving this opinion on the creed of so great a man, and so indefatigable a student of scripture, I was well aware that there are various forms of Trinitarian truth, and various modes of expressing it, which have been received as orthodox in the purest societies of the Christian…

muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v058/58.1pfizenmaier.pdf

Some claims that he was an Arian
trinities.org/blog/archives/80
journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=11859

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Was+Sir+Isaac+Newton+an+Arian

interresting aside.

 

[Benadam]

Hi Benadam, this is easy ( button ) the gospels have parallels. From comparing luke 7 with matthew 11, you will see that Jesus was calling John the greatest among the prophets. John was the greatest among the prophets for two reasons: 1) He had the spirit and power of Elijah, 2) He was the forerunner for Jehovah God in Matthew 3:3, who is Jesus. Note: this being greater was only temporary because John himself recoginises that Jesus will become greater while John fades away.

John 3:30 (New International Version)
He must become greater; I must become less.

Luke 7:28
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Matthew 11:11 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 1:17
And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Isaiah 40:3
A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.

Malachi 3:1
“See, **I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. **Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.

Matthew 3:3
This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert**, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord,** make straight paths for him.’ "

Mark 1:3
"a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ "

Luke 1:76
And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the** Lord to prepare the way for him**,

Luke 3:4
As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.

thank you Steve, but what did this reveal about Jesus’ view of ‘Himself’. That He is not born of woman or John the Baptist is a greater prophet than He?

Luke 7

28 For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater** prophet** that John the Baptist.

 

[Benadam]

oops that wasn’t Steve. sorry Daniel. There is a deeper revelation about who Jesus is when He talks about John the Baptist. A hint: The Baptist is part of what Jesus referred to as “this generation”.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am arguing my opinion, the opinion of Isaac Newton, and millions of other non-JW, non-Trinitarians who read the Bible, use simple logic and realize YHWH is the only true God (John 17:3) and Jesus is his Son.

My quotes come from multiple sources, multiple books, multiple organizations.

I’ve explained in multiple posts about my intense and independant research methods.

I have never made an argument based on the authority of the Watchtower, or the authority of Russell…

Daniel just wants to attack any source that doesn’t agree with him. If I quote a point from deBuhn, deBuhn’s not worthy of consideration. If I quote 50+ other translations, they’re not worthy of consideration, If I quote a point out of a Watchtower publication, now he wants to attack that.

And now he’s off on a personal attack about me not doing my own research and only following the traditions of men from the Watchtower.

There’s alot of people in this world to reason Scritpure with… and Daniel has the potential of being a good person to talk with, but I find these kind of personal digs to be unacceptable.

You may not, so more power to you…

Steve, I am not using any personal attacks, I am using critical thinking. I personally, went through some watchtower books like “truth that leads to eternal life” checking the sources, and all I found was high levels of misquotes. The other men you quote are not infallible and they are far from being unbias. Face it you are reading what fits your bias. **You say you are not basing your stuff on watchtower authority and yet you copied and pasted out of the watchtower website itself. ** That in my opinion is basing your “bible study” on watchtower authority.

The article is on pages 737-741 of volume IV in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. The very short paragraph the watchtower quoted only deals with “only son” or “only daughter” as it is used in the NT. Kittel spends 2 more pages explaining the relationship of the Father to the Son.

The NWT is basically on a fourth and less grade reading level. Watchtower literature rarely reaches 4 or 5 grade reading level.

Steve you give us quotes directly out of the watchtower publications. And, you falsely claim that they are your own? be serious. ** If you think I am calling you names, then I apologize. **

Your answer about John the Baptist is not original with you. It is clear that you got it out of one of the watchtower publications about paradise on earth.

google.com/search?hl=en&q=watchtower+paradise+on+earth

Steve I always wondered about the 144,000 could you kindly explain that? You speak of a two class system of those in heaven and those on earth. Who are those who goes to heaven in your system? What is the watchtower going to do with “this generation” text?

Your answer about John the Baptist came from page 947 of Aid to Bible Understanding 1971 edition. The watchtowers bible dictionary.

Matthew 20:26
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,

Matthew 23:11
The greatest among you will be your servant.

Steve we all know from just looking at your posts that you are heavly depending on the authority of the watchtower – thus depending of traidtions of men.

What exactly do you call a bulletin board at kingdom hall? and why?

I am simply stating the facts as I see them.

Why is it ok for you to ignore 2,000 years of church history?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Millions? only if you include Muslims in your count.

Now, let’s discuss

1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Start by going to an English book and look up personal pronouns.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Matthew 24:34
I tell you the truth,** this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened**.

Since you bring up the two class ( or is it more ) system of those on earth and those in heaven. How does Matthew 24:34 fit into the watchtowers system? Who are the two or more classes? Where simply put does the 144,000 come in? And, while you are at it, where does God live?

Revelation 14:4 (King James Version)

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Please feel free to make this a new thread. In your own words.