Preexistence

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,10:46)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:38) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,10:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:21) Quote (martian @ June 15 2010,18:48) He has met him in a salvation experience. I have no doubt that he has had some success in overcoming the evil one (despite his false doctrine) however I do doubt he knows the one who is from the beginning or he could never attempt to prove that this Christian God could change his character or mortality or worse yet that the real God could stop being God. That’s not at all what I said was it? Why do you deceitfully misrepresent me? It is the enemy’s tricks to bear false witness! Wow I had no Idea that I would stir up so much hostility! HMMM, that was normally the reaction of the Pharisees and the Sadusees when Jesus spoke the truth! “Sad-U-See”, WJ You say you do not say God can become mortal yet in the post right previous to this on you say “Jesus blood and body is the blood and body of God. Acts 20:28”  So you say God has blood and a body. Sure sounds like you are calling God mortal to me. As I have said your interpretation of that verse must be wrong if your end conclusion changes the nature or character of God. Thank you for proving yourself wrong so clearly. Martian What does Acts 20:28 say? Does “of God” mean anything to you? The scriptures clearly teach that “our bodies are his temple”. They also teach that our bodies are our tabernacle or tent, or like clothes that can be put off and changed! So God is a Spirit who can live in a “body” (temple) of flesh, can he not? WJ You would have a good point if it said “of God”   It says “of own”. You presume it means of own self but that is based on your doctrine. I could as easily say it is his own son.

Yea and you would be adding to the text!

It was Jesus “own blood” that saved us! Therefore Jesus is God!

WJ

[martian]

For those of you that are honest with scripture —-

http://www.angelfire.com/space….28.html

Acts 20:28

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”

The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text.

The Trinitarian Claim
Trinitarians claim this verse shows that Jesus is God because it was Jesus who bought the church with his own blood and the passage says God bought the church with his own blood.

What the Evidence will Show
The facts will show that Trinitarians are appealing to a text which has doubtful authenticity. The facts will also show that major Trinitarian translations reflect the questionable character of this text. The facts will also show that the earliest evidence we have concerning this passage does not support their claims. The facts will further show that the grammar and language style do not support the Trinitarian interpretation of their preferred rendering and this is also reflected in one major Trinitarian translation.

Examination of he Evidence
Textual Discrepancies
Acts 20:28 is yet another passage which is disingenuously promoted by Trinitarians to try and support their doctrine. Here we have a passage where the Trinitarian claims that Jesus must be the one called “God” since the church was purchased with God's own blood and only Jesus has blood. Like all the other passages in the Trinitarian's apologetic box, this passage is plagued with many critical issues which Trinitarian apologists conveniently forget to inform people about. The passage may be a scribal error, or it may just be a case of Trinitarian mistranslation. First, it is a well known fact that some early manuscripts do not read “Church of God” but instead have “Church of the Lord.” Trinitarians turn a blind eye to these facts. Secondly, the Greek text does not literally say, “his own blood” but “the blood of the own.” There is no possessive pronoun “his” in the Greek text. And thirdly, the original Greek does not say “with the blood” but “through the blood” or “by [means of] the blood” which does indeed affect the intended meaning of the passage.
Translations Translation Inconsistencies
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)
Now how can we accept this passage as “evidence” for their doctrine when Trinitarian scholars themselves do not agree that Jesus is identified as “God” in this passage? How do they expect anyone to rest their faith upon such doubtful evidence?
Early Church 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. 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 scroll of Acts which read “Church of the Lord” and not “Church of God.” He was also extremely adamant about teaching the true teachings passed down by the apostles and in fact that is the topic under discussion when he makes this quotation. His quotation shows us without doubt that early manuscripts did indeed indeed show “Church of the Lord” at Acts 20:28. While it is theoretically possible that other manuscripts were also circulating at that time which showed “church of God,” the fact that Irenaeus quotes it as “church of the Lord” is enough to completely render the Trinitarian use of Acts 20:28 as unreliable evidence for Trinitarian claims. We do have manuscripts that read “church of the Lord” and this evidence from Irenaeus suggests a very strong indication that this may have been what Luke actually wrote at Acts 20:28 and unless a Trinitarian can undeniably prove otherwise he has no business using Acts 20:28 as Scriptural evidence for his doctrine. But let us not stop here. Let us suppose the passage is intended to say “church of God” and see if the Trinitarian would then have anything to support his doctrine.
God's Blood
If Acts 20:28 said what Trinitarians want it to say, they also have a dilemma on their hands: God's blood. It sounds odd to any rational person. According to Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus did not have blood in his divinity but in his humanity. In order to explain away the problems created by their own translations of this passage, Trinitarians needed to invent another doctrine called communicatio idiomatum.1 This Latin term is just a fancy way of saying that Jesus' two natures are predicated with respect to the subject, that is, his person, the subject, owns/possesses two natures, the predicate, one divine and one human, and the person is therefore communicated to the two natures he owns as possessions. Essentially, all Trinitarians are doing here is playing a word game of categories; the person Jesus was not himself those two natures; he simply “owned” them or “possessed” them like one owns or possesses a pickup truck. That way, the Trinitarian can tell us that Jesus was working with one of the natures he owned one moment, but working with the other nature on another occasion, and dying with one and not the other. Here, they want to claim that this was not God's own blood by nature, but blood which God owned as part of his overall possessions. Quite simply, it is a clever way of saying God [the Son] was not the blood but it was an item in his possession; it was “his” blood. In this manner, he can also make the disingenous claim that “God the Son” was not dead in the tomb and it was simply his human nature that was dead in the tomb. Although they shout hypostatic union on one hand, they necessarily divide the natures of Christ on the other when it becomes suitable to their agenda. Any intelligent mind can see the severity of the contriving here that was necessary for them is a very big red flag. And the Scripture teaches that the divine Word became touchable flesh and that flesh was dead in the tomb. What Trinitarians must say is that “God” disowned his body at the point of death or they are caught in an escapable dilemma of having a dead God. The reasonable person can see the term “God's blood” is a strange and startling statement that is out of place in Scripture. However, such facts and observations do little to convince the Trinitarian mindset.
The Greek Grammar
1. The word “own” and its use in Koine Greek context
Very often one can 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 insist it should indeed be translated as “blood of his own [Son].” But it seems that some Trinitarians are 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 to translate it as “blood of his own son. These Trinitarian apologists must be either 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 i
t 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” 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).
Let us now carefully consider several New Testament examples where the word idios (“own”) is used where the idea that is attached to it is not explicitly states but is indeed implied and expected to be understood by the reader.
VerseLiteral TextImplied Meaning
John 1:11He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him.He came unto his own [people] and his own [people] did not receive him.
John 13:1having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them to the endhaving loved his own [disciples] he loved them to the end
John 19:27Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple took her to the ownThen he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple took her [to his own home].
John 19:27After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (Douey-Rheims)After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her [as his own mother].
1 Timothy 5:8But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbelieverBut if anyone does not provide for his own [family], and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Acts 4:23And being let go, they went to their ownAnd being let go, they went to their own [Christian brethren]
Acts 21:6we went into the ship and they returned to their ownwe went into the ship and they returned to their own [lives/families]
Acts 24:23and to forbid none of his own from providing for him and coming to himand to forbid none of his own [friends] from providing for him and coming to him
Acts 28:20the church… he purchased with the blood of his ownthe church… he purchased with the blood of his own [son]
The literal word for word translations shown above imply a concept that is not explicitly mentioned in the original Greek text but is most certainly implied. Hence, we can see quite clearly that the word “son” was indeed implied at Acts 20:28, It was common in Koine Greek to use the word “own” in this respect and leave the reader to understand what is implied but not stated. The Implied Meaning is what the writer expects the reader to understand. We can see plainly that there is nothing unusual about first century Greek writers using the word idios (“own”) without an accompanying noun and that an idea was simply implied and expected to be understood by the reader. In fact, we can see from the above evidences in Acts that Luke himself has a habit of writing this way. He does the very same thing four times in this same book of Acts. In each and every case, we are are left to infer what the word “own” intends to imply to us.
2. Terms of Endearment
There is yet another very important piece of evidence which cannot be ignored. Notice our above examples. In each and every case the possessive “own” refers to dear or loved ones. We happen to do the very same thing in English when we say we “take care of our own.” Our own what? Our own loved ones and our own things which are dear to us. These loved ones or things are not stated explicitly but implied in the expression. We are endeared to the things we own; that is why we own them. The term ho idios is also found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment for relatives. In the present sense idios is the equivalent of Hebrew YAHID, “only,” “well-beloved,” otherwise rendered beloved, chosen only-begotten (See F.F.Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed., p. 434. See J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90).
Note how this concept is clearly presented by Jesus in the Gospel of John.
If you were of the world, the world would love its own (ho idios) but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
What is meant here is not stated by expected to be understood by the reader. In the same way, what is meant at Acts 20:28 is not stated explicitly but expected to be understood by the reader, “the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Beloved Son.”
3. Trinitarian Greek Scholars
Due to the above evidence, there are numerous well known Trinitarian Greek scholars who believe the passage is intended to mean “blood of his own son, including Bruce, Fitzmeyer, Knapp, Pesch, Weiser. This in itself reveals the passage does not support Trinitarian dogma as Trinitarian apologists like to pretend. Fitzmeyer writes:
“The mention of blood” must refer to the vicarious shedding of the blood of Jesus, the Son. Through his blood the Christian community has become God's own possession, the people acquired for his renewed covenant. Cf. Eph 1:14; Heb 9: 12; 1 Pet 2:9-10, which speak of God acquiring a people, echoing an OT motif (1Sa 43:21; Ps 74:2j. Luke may be thinking of the action of God the Father and the Son as so closely related that his mode of speaking slips from one to the other; if so, it resembles the speech patterns of the Johannine Gospel.”
Krodel writes:
“…he has 'purchased' or obtained it with the blood of his own Son. This translation of v. 28 in the second edition of the RSV is better than that found in the first edition, The Greek text does not contain the word Son, but reads 'his own.' Like 'the Beloved'. (Eph. 1:6), so “his own” refers to the Son of God. Only once in Acts does Luke speak of the saving efficacy of the death of Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3: l8) by using a traditional formulation. God redeemed his people, the church, through the atoning death of his Son, Therefore the church is God's possession.”
4. The Greek word dia
The Greek word used at Acts 20:28 is not “with” but “through” (dia) and actually reads “through or “by” the blood of his own” where the word implies a “means.” When it is translated as “by” it means “by means of.” This is an extremely typical New Testament way of referring to the relationship of God and his Son. God is said to have created through Jesus Christ or by [means of] Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6) and did miracles through Jesus Christ or by means of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22). Relating God and Christ in this way is very, very common in the New Testament. Thus it is even more likely that Acts 20:28 is intended to convey, “he purchased through/by the blood of his own son.”

Summation of the Facts
•The text appealed to by Trinitarians is very questionable concerning its authenticity. Some manuscripts read “church of the Lord” and others read “church of God.”
•
•
•A comparison of major Trinitarian translations reflects the doubtful character of their preferred version of the text.
•
•
•Irenaeus, an early Christian deeply concerned with preaching the apostolic tradition, quotes this verse as “church of the Lord,” and this is the earliest evidence we have for what this verse should say.
•
•
•It was quite commo
n in the Bible, and especially in Luke's writings, to use the word “own” without explicitly stating the noun which is implied. This is evidence by several passages we cited. The RSV, a Trinitarian translation, reflects this fact by translating the passage as “blood of his own son.”
•
•
•It is also know that the ancient Greeks spoke in this manner. They used this kind of terminology to refer to their beloved. And indeed we know that Jesus was God the Father's beloved.
•
•
•Given the forceful nature of the evidence, Trinitarians have no grounds for objecting to a “blood of his own son” translation.
•
•

Call for Discernment
If nothing else, Acts 20:28 is plagued with so many difficulties that it renders the passage completely useless as evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. But it is even worse than just unreliable evidence. Luke may not have even wrote “Church of God” but instead had written “Church of the Lord” as Irenaeus' early quotation indicates. The reasonable person can also see that “God's blood” stands oddly out of place in the Scriptures. And even if the passage was written by Luke to say “church of God”, we can see clearly that it was common to use the term “own” without an accompanying noun with the expectation the reader would understand the implied inference to God's beloved son. The implication is not hard to figure out since we are all expected to know it was God's son who shed his blood. And when we add to this the fact that the church was purchased “through” the blood of his own, it really matters not if the passage says “Church of God” or not since this could easily mean and would likely mean “through the blood of his own son.” No matter how you slice it and dice it, the Trinitarian has absolutely nothing at Acts 20:28 but his own contriving desire to promote a concept that the passage does not.
“church of the Lord which he bought through/by his own the blood”

“church of God which he bought through/by the blood of his own son” (RSV)

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00)

For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text.

Hi All

Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!  

Nothing new!

WJ

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:52)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,10:46) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:38) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,10:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:21) Quote (martian @ June 15 2010,18:48) He has met him in a salvation experience. I have no doubt that he has had some success in overcoming the evil one (despite his false doctrine) however I do doubt he knows the one who is from the beginning or he could never attempt to prove that this Christian God could change his character or mortality or worse yet that the real God could stop being God. That’s not at all what I said was it? Why do you deceitfully misrepresent me? It is the enemy’s tricks to bear false witness! Wow I had no Idea that I would stir up so much hostility! HMMM, that was normally the reaction of the Pharisees and the Sadusees when Jesus spoke the truth! “Sad-U-See”, WJ You say you do not say God can become mortal yet in the post right previous to this on you say “Jesus blood and body is the blood and body of God. Acts 20:28”  So you say God has blood and a body. Sure sounds like you are calling God mortal to me. As I have said your interpretation of that verse must be wrong if your end conclusion changes the nature or character of God. Thank you for proving yourself wrong so clearly. Martian What does Acts 20:28 say? Does “of God” mean anything to you? The scriptures clearly teach that “our bodies are his temple”. They also teach that our bodies are our tabernacle or tent, or like clothes that can be put off and changed! So God is a Spirit who can live in a “body” (temple) of flesh, can he not? WJ You would have a good point if it said “of God”   It says “of own”. You presume it means of own self but that is based on your doctrine. I could as easily say it is his own son. Yea and you would be adding to the text! It was Jesus “own blood” that saved us! Therefore Jesus is God! WJ

Am I adding to the text or are you using a questionable translation to prove your doctrine?
As my previous post says it cannot be proven one way or another so it is not as full proof as you claim.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:11)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:52) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,10:46) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:38) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,10:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,02:21) Quote (martian @ June 15 2010,18:48) He has met him in a salvation experience. I have no doubt that he has had some success in overcoming the evil one (despite his false doctrine) however I do doubt he knows the one who is from the beginning or he could never attempt to prove that this Christian God could change his character or mortality or worse yet that the real God could stop being God. That’s not at all what I said was it? Why do you deceitfully misrepresent me? It is the enemy’s tricks to bear false witness! Wow I had no Idea that I would stir up so much hostility! HMMM, that was normally the reaction of the Pharisees and the Sadusees when Jesus spoke the truth! “Sad-U-See”, WJ You say you do not say God can become mortal yet in the post right previous to this on you say “Jesus blood and body is the blood and body of God. Acts 20:28”  So you say God has blood and a body. Sure sounds like you are calling God mortal to me. As I have said your interpretation of that verse must be wrong if your end conclusion changes the nature or character of God. Thank you for proving yourself wrong so clearly. Martian What does Acts 20:28 say? Does “of God” mean anything to you? The scriptures clearly teach that “our bodies are his temple”. They also teach that our bodies are our tabernacle or tent, or like clothes that can be put off and changed! So God is a Spirit who can live in a “body” (temple) of flesh, can he not? WJ You would have a good point if it said “of God”   It says “of own”. You presume it means of own self but that is based on your doctrine. I could as easily say it is his own son. Yea and you would be adding to the text! It was Jesus “own blood” that saved us! Therefore Jesus is God! WJ Am I adding to the text or are you using a questionable translation to prove your doctrine? As my previous post says it cannot be proven one way or another so it is not as full proof as you claim.

If It can't be proven then why does your source say that some are being dishonest?

WJ

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ

Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim.

To everyone –

Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions.

So much mouth moving and no truth in it.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it.

Brush it off!

I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own!

WJ

[martian]

Well enough of the stupidity of the Trinitarians for now. I leave the board to decide if the translation of Acts 20:28 is good enough to prove WJ's point or not.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:19)

Well enough of the stupidity of the Trinitarians for now. I leave the board to decide if the translation of Acts 20:28 is good enough to prove WJ's point or not.

Ad hominems is a sign of weakness!

WJ

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ

No I am not going to play your usual bait and switch. We are dealing with the authenticity of your proof text as you have quoted it. When we are done with that I will deal with other issues.
I am not going to be side stepped by a debate tactic of yours.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:21)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ No I am not going to play your usual bait and switch. We are dealing with the authenticity of your proof text as you have quoted it. When we are done with that I will deal with other issues. I am not going to be side stepped by a debate tactic of yours.

Side stepped, as you said it cannot be proven either way, but that does not mean that it cannot mean what I have been saying does it?

So who is side stepping now?

WJ

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ

Besibes of which even if it were true that I brushed it off does that make it OK for you to do the same? Does it somehow absolve you of your responsibility to be honest with the verse you quoted?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:23)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ Besibes of which even if it were true that I brushed it off does that make it OK for you to do the same? Does it somehow absolve you of your responsibility to be honest with the verse you quoted?

I just answered you!

You are implying that I am being dishonest but as the source says it could go either way. So how am I being dishonest. Or are you being dishonest in saying that your way has to be right?

Now answer me!

WJ

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:23)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ No I am not going to play your usual bait and switch. We are dealing with the authenticity of your proof text as you have quoted it. When we are done with that I will deal with other issues. I am not going to be side stepped by a debate tactic of yours. Side stepped, as you said it cannot be proven either way, but that does not mean that it cannot mean what I have been saying does it? So who is side stepping now? WJ

I am not the one trying to use a questionable text as proof of my doctrine.
Are you now willing to retract that your evidence is without question as your posts would indicate?
Are you willing to say that Acts 20:28 cannot be used as a proof text that it was God's own blood?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:27)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:23) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ No I am not going to play your usual bait and switch. We are dealing with the authenticity of your proof text as you have quoted it. When we are done with that I will deal with other issues. I am not going to be side stepped by a debate tactic of yours. Side stepped, as you said it cannot be proven either way, but that does not mean that it cannot mean what I have been saying does it? So who is side stepping now? WJ I am not the one trying to use a questionable text as proof of my doctrine. Are you now willing to retract that your evidence is without question as your posts would indicate? Are you willing to say that Acts 20:28 cannot be used as a proof text that it was God's own blood?

Now you are contradicting yourself.

You say it is not Gods own Blood yet you say it is Gods own Son!

WJ

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:25)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ Besibes of which even if it were true that I brushed it off does that make it OK for you to do the same? Does it somehow absolve you of your responsibility to be honest with the verse you quoted? I just answered you! You are implying that I am being dishonest but as the source says it could go either way. So how am I being dishonest. Or are you being dishonest in saying that your way has to be right? Now answer me! WJ

I never brought the verse into the debate. You did. I did not attempt to use it as proof of my opinions. You did. I simply pointed out that you are using a questionable interpretation that cannot be used as proof.
You are the one trying to prove that God has actual body and blood of his own.

BTW…. Just who do you think you are in demanding that I answer you!!!!!
I am more then happy to answer to God but you are certainly a different matter. Who died and made you God!!!!!!!

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:29)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:23) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ No I am not going to play your usual bait and switch. We are dealing with the authenticity of your proof text as you have quoted it. When we are done with that I will deal with other issues. I am not going to be side stepped by a debate tactic of yours. Side stepped, as you said it cannot be proven either way, but that does not mean that it cannot mean what I have been saying does it? So who is side stepping now? WJ I am not the one trying to use a questionable text as proof of my doctrine. Are you now willing to retract that your evidence is without question as your posts would indicate? Are you willing to say that Acts 20:28 cannot be used as a proof text that it was God's own blood? Now you are contradicting yourself. You say it is not Gods own Blood yet you say it is Gods own Son! WJ

Further more it IS dishonest to use a questionable translation to prove a doctrine. I did not use the scripture as proof you did.
Now if you want to admit that you did not realize it was questionable and admit that it cannot be used as the proof you attempted to use it for, then that is all well and good.

Now I have other things to do for now.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:25) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ Besibes of which even if it were true that I brushed it off does that make it OK for you to do the same? Does it somehow absolve you of your responsibility to be honest with the verse you quoted? I just answered you! You are implying that I am being dishonest but as the source says it could go either way. So how am I being dishonest. Or are you being dishonest in saying that your way has to be right? Now answer me! WJ I never brought the verse into the debate. You did. I did not attempt to use it as proof of my opinions. You did. I simply pointed out that you are using a questionable interpretation that cannot be used as proof. You are the one trying to prove that God has actual body and blood of his own. BTW…. Just who do you think you are in demanding that I answer you!!!!! I am more then happy to answer to God but you are certainly a different matter. Who died and made you God!!!!!!!

Settle down man, you are getting way to riled! Take a few breaths and relax.

Okay I have admitted that it could go either way, yet you and your source says that I am dishonest because I choose the translation that favours Gods own blood!

How about some other evidence…

while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and “to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. Tit 2:13, 14

The important thing to see in these verses is that Paul calls Jesus the “Savour” then says that “Jesus purifies FOR HIMSELF a people that are his very own”.

According to the scriptures “God alone” is our Savour. Yet Jesus “own blood” saves us.

Now who was it being pierced in Zech 12:10? Click here…  

WJ

[martian]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:29)

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:23) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ No I am not going to play your usual bait and switch. We are dealing with the authenticity of your proof text as you have quoted it. When we are done with that I will deal with other issues. I am not going to be side stepped by a debate tactic of yours. Side stepped, as you said it cannot be proven either way, but that does not mean that it cannot mean what I have been saying does it? So who is side stepping now? WJ I am not the one trying to use a questionable text as proof of my doctrine. Are you now willing to retract that your evidence is without question as your posts would indicate? Are you willing to say that Acts 20:28 cannot be used as a proof text that it was God's own blood? Now you are contradicting yourself. You say it is not Gods own Blood yet you say it is Gods own Son! WJ

Actually I did not say “God's own son” I simply pointed out scholars (including Trinitarian) that believe that to be the correct translation.
I am more then willing to admit that it cannot be used as proof of anything.

Again are you willing to admit that your proof text as you quoted it is questionable and cannot be used as proof of your conclusions?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,12:02)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:29) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:23) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:18) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,03:08) Quote (martian @ June 16 2010,11:00) For those of you that are honest with scripture —- Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text. Hi All Of course when it disagrees with the Arians then they have to claim corruption in the text!   Nothing new! WJ Of course when it disagrees with the cult of trinitarians they choose a questionable text/translation and refuse to look at or give any credence to any evidence that might counter their claim. To everyone – Notice that WJ did not deal with the actual issue but rather just brushed it aside as having no bearing on his opinions. So much mouth moving and no truth in it. Brush it off! I noticed how you have brushed of that God can live in mortal flesh and speak through man, yet you say he could not have a tent of his own! WJ No I am not going to play your usual bait and switch. We are dealing with the authenticity of your proof text as you have quoted it. When we are done with that I will deal with other issues. I am not going to be side stepped by a debate tactic of yours. Side stepped, as you said it cannot be proven either way, but that does not mean that it cannot mean what I have been saying does it? So who is side stepping now? WJ I am not the one trying to use a questionable text as proof of my doctrine. Are you now willing to retract that your evidence is without question as your posts would indicate? Are you willing to say that Acts 20:28 cannot be used as a proof text that it was God's own blood? Now you are contradicting yourself. You say it is not Gods own Blood yet you say it is Gods own Son! WJ Actually I did not say “God's own son” I simply pointed out scholars (including Trinitarian) that believe that to be the correct translation. I am more then willing to admit that it cannot be used as proof of anything. Again are you willing to admit that your proof text as you quoted it is questionable and cannot be used as proof of your conclusions?

Martian

Do you not read what I have said?

Okay I have admitted that it could go either way, yet you and your source says that I am dishonest because I choose the translation that favours Gods own blood!

To me it is proof, to you it is not.

And you are being disengenuous if you say I an being dishonest for believing the text the way I do since it can mean either!

WJ

[Author]

Posts