Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is "Oneness" or Unitarianism. It's also a heresy. Please tell me if Jesus is the Father, did he pray to himself in the garden?
JW's are false. They say Jesus is the angel Michael. Why do you say anything in your defense?Empty JW assertion. One being of God. Three persons. Quite different.
Try to think for yourself instead of repeating what your false teachers say.This is "Oneness" or Unitarianism. It's also a heresy.
Jesus is God and he was speaking to God.Please tell me if Jesus is the Father, did he pray to himself in the garden?
No. You forget the coequal and coeternal part, the one being of God part etc. You're attacking a straw man deviously.
No it does not! It says that there's only one God but in His omnipotence and omnipresence He can communicate by different means at one time. He spoke to Moses from a burning bush, Barak through a donkey and Job from a tornado. The bush, donkey and tornado aren't three gods, right?
Here is what Paul said about unitarianism.
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him. (1 Corintians 8:6)
There is but one God, the Father. There is one Lord, the man Jesus.
God is not a man, Jesus is.
The trinity doctrine says Jesus is God but not the Father who is God.
That is a false doctrine.
Try to think for yourself instead of repeating what your false teachers say.
I am not a Oneness believer. The Oneness doctrine says that the three do NOT exist at the same time. I do NOT believe like that.
Jesus is God and he was speaking to God.
You're forgetting the rest of the verses where Paul states that Jesus is God.
Are you claiming that God is a man born of woman who can bleed and die? That would be a very unusual God.
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Jesus purchased the church of God from whom?
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)The term for this is redemption, the church is redeemed from eternal death and given eternal life by Jesus for those whom God gives him.
Jesus purchased the church on God's behalf and in due time Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God.
Jesus purchased the church of God from whom?
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)The term for this is redemption, the church is redeemed from eternal death and given eternal life by Jesus for those whom God gives him.
Jesus purchased the church on God's behalf and in due time Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God.
this verse has significant problems .2 basic problems, it's unclear if the verse originally said 'church of God' or 'church of the Lord" If it said church of the Lord, then acts 20.28 is no proof that Jesus is God, and the other big problem is how to translate 'the blood of his own".Acts 20:28 NKJV
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
God purchased us, with his own blood. It specifically says God, so when did God purchase us with his blood? On the Cross, the God who was crucified who bled and died and rose again.
Yes, the Alpha and the Omega, died and rose again.
1. Big Problems: Manuscript Variations of Various Kinds
Acts 20:28 is yet another passage ...................... It is a well known academic fact that very important early manuscripts do not read "Church of God" but instead have "Church of the Lord." These variant readings of this verse show us that one of them is certainly a corruption. And that is not the end of the manuscript problem either. There are further discrepancies between manuscripts concerning this verse which affect its intended meaning here. And that results in problem upon problem, building a house upon the sand. And there is yet an even further problem of translation. In short, there is no proof about what Luke actually wrote.
4. Trinitarian Translation Inconsistencies: A Cursory Look at the Problem
A review of various Trinitarian translations illlustrates the problem. Notice how Trinitarian scholars themselves have translated this passage:
the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. (ASV).
the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. (Darby).
the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son. (JB).
the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (RSV)
5. The Manuscripts
...........
Important early manuscript evidence, such as Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Bezae Cantabrigensis, Sahidic Coptic, read "church of the Lord" and not "church of God."
6. Early Christian Testimony
We do not have the original manuscripts of the books written in the Bible. Our earliest manuscripts are copies prepared centuries after they were originally written. Some manuscripts read "church of God" while many others read "church of the Lord." Our first witness who can testify what the early manuscripts did say is the early Christian Irenaeus who wrote Against Heresies around 180-185 A.D. This is the earliest known version of this verse. He writes:
"Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Book III, 14).
Obviously, Irenaeus was quoting from a very early version of Acts which read "Church of the Lord" and not "Church of God." Irenaeus was also extremely adamant about teaching the true teachings passed down by the apostles, and in fact, that just happens to be the topic under discussion when he makes this quotation. While that fact in itself does not prove his reading is correct, it is interesting that we at least take it into consideration. The point here is that his quotation demonstrates that very early manuscripts did indeed indeed read as "Church of the Lord" at Acts 20:28
...........
It is not uncommon to find Trinitarian commentators and apologists jumping up and down vehemently protesting against other commentators and translators who would translate this passage as "blood of his own son" instead of "his own blood." Now let us be reminded that there are Trinitarian scholars who think it should indeed be translated as "blood of his own [Son]." But it seems that Trinitarian apologists are conveniently ignorant of the facts and claim that since the word "son" is not present in the original Greek, and it is not, then it is completely unfeasible, perhaps dishonest, to translate it as "blood of his own son. These Trinitarian apologists must either be very ignorant of the facts or they are being quite dishonest. The RSV, a major translation that was translated by Trinitarian scholars does indeed translate it as "blood of his own son" and there is a very good reason they do so. It was indeed very common in Koine Greek to use the word "own" as we find it here in Acts 20:28 without explicitly stating an accompanying noun where that noun is implied and there are several examples in the New Testament and even right here in Luke's very own words in the book of Acts.
Concerning this passage, Trinitarian Greek scholar J.H. Moulton tells us that it is quite normal to use the Greek word for "own" without explicitly stating the implied accompanying noun. He writes:
"Before leaving [idious] something should be said about the use of [ho idios] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations: eg.[ho deina to idio khairein.] In Expositor... I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B.Weiss) who would translate Ac 20.28 'the blood of one who was his own.'" (Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol.1, Prologomena, 2nd edition, 1906, p.90).
pirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Book III, 14)
.
God purchased us, with his own blood.
Not sure which Grk text the ASV used since the word for "Lord" is in only 1 of the grk text, the B/M, which has both "Lord" and "God" in it.this verse has significant problems .2 basic problems, it's unclear if the verse originally said 'church of God' or 'church of the Lord"
If it said church of the Lord, then acts 20.28 is no proof that Jesus is God, and the other big problem is how to translate 'the blood of his own".
The Trinity Delusion: Acts 20:28
(Darby) Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own
mucho problem with this verse.
Jesus said God is Spirit. Spirit does not have flesh and blood. God is invisible and immortal, he can't die.
Jesus is an image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. Creature refers to a created being. God was not born and God was not created.
Jesus is the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)
The UBS (United Bible Society) gives 'God" a C rating, which means they are pretty unsure about it. they say the evidence is evenly split.Not sure which Grk text the ASV used since the word for "Lord" is in only 1 of the grk text, the B/M, which has both "Lord" and "God" in it.
LittleLambofJesus said:American Standard Version
20:28
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.
Looks like some variances in the 4 MSS below......
especially with the B/M text...which adds "Lord and".
Other than that, the word oder is different in the last part of that verse in 2 of the texts.......
The Word of God was not a created being, he existed before his incarnation.
Do you deny that he existed before his incarnation?
Christ became flesh and was born like any other human and his mother nursed him and changed him like any other baby.
When Christ became flesh he was no longer Spirit, he surrendered that and became mortal, his life was in his blood.
When Jesus died his body was entombed and his spirit returned to God who gave it. James defined death as the separtion of body and spirit.
Looks like some variances in the 4 MSS below......
especially with the B/M text...which adds "Lord and".
Other than that, the word oder is different in the last part of that verse in 2 of the texts.......
Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt
Parallel Greek New Testament
Acts 20:28
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus/Scivener 1894 TR
prosecete oun eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV
Byzantine Majority
prosecete oun eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou [kuriou kai] qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV
Alexandrian
prosecete eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou aimatoV tou idiou
Hort and Westcott
prosecete eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopouV poimainein thn ekklhsian
tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou aimatoV tou idiou
.
Very interesting stuff!.....................
"aimatos tou idiou {B}
The reading idiou aimatos is supported by many of the Byszantine witnesses that read the conflation kuriou kai teou in the preceding variant. It may well be, as Lake and Cadbury point out, that after the special meaning of ho idious (discussed in the previous comment) had dropped out of Christian usage, the tou idiou of this passage was misunderstood as a qualification of aimatos (" his own blood"). "This misunderstanding led to two changes in the text: tou aimatos tou idiou was changed to tou idiou aimatos (indluenced by heb. ix.12?), which is neater but perverts the sense, and teou was changed to kuriou by the Western revisers, who doubtless shrank from the implied phrase "the blood of God."
\ibid, page 482
This makes sense to me in explaining the different variants you speak of. Metzger is saying that if 'his own" (tou idiou) lost it's original meaning amongst early Christians as a term of endearment, then it's likely that the conflation "God and Lord" was put in for that reason. and the blood of his own (tou aimatos tou idiou) was changed to "his own blood" (tou idiou aimatos) in order to make it neater, which I presume he means more grammatically correct. then he says God (theos) was changed to Lord (kurios) to make it says blood of the Lord instead of the more theologically difficult blood of God..
So, would you say that humans are flesh, as in my mind...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?