Did Jesus pre-exist before his birth on Earth?

Where did Jesus come from?

John 6:38-40
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The first verse suggests that Jesus came down from Heaven. This seems to contradict that belief which suggests he first existed as a man when he was born into this world. For if Jesus came into existence for the first time when he was conceived through Mary, how could he come down from Heaven? We (Man) came into existence when we are born into this world, but would it be correct to say that we came down from Heaven too? If a verse said that we came down from Heaven, would you think that we pre-existed in Heaven? If so, then why not Jesus?

John 3:17 is another verse that provides support that Jesus came down from Heaven or was sent rather than created.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

The word ‘send’ is the Greek word ‘apostello’.

apostello {ap-os-tel’-lo}
1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed
2) to send away, dismiss
2a) to allow one to depart, that he may be in a state of liberty
2b) to order one to depart, send off
2c) to drive away

To be sent surely implies existence otherwise you would just say born or created. In fact this word (sent) is similar in meaning and sound to the word Apostle (apostolos), which means “one sent forth with orders”. To be sent forth with order, you must exist.

John 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Jesus is clearly stating here that he came from above since he eventually ascended into Heaven to be at the right-hand of God.

How old is Jesus?

John 1:15
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.‘ “

John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus Christ. So it is physically impossible for Christ to be before him in age. If this verse is referencing age, then it shows preexistence. Jesus existed before  John the Baptist in the least.

John 8:58
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham, the father of the Jews. The words ‘I am’ mean ‘I exist’. So Jesus claimed existence before Abraham. We can see that Jesus is getting older as we explore the scriptures. But how old?

Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

Here we can see that majesty, power, and authority through Jesus Christ is before all ages (all worlds) and forever more into the future. This strongly implies that Jesus existed even before all things. But can we substantiate this?

Did Jesus exist before all creation?

Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians answers the question outright. It states that “He is before all things“.  But are there other verses that support this idea?

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So there is nothing that was made that didn’t involve Jesus being there. This verse alone answers the question because the universe, angels, and men were made and Jesus was present when they were created according to these verses. In case that is not enough to convince you, I also add another clear verse that says the same thing.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Is Jesus the Word of God?

But some say that this is talking about the Word and not all believe that Jesus is the Word of God. They argue that Jesus came from the Word, but is not the Word itself that was with God in John 1:1. If you believe this, then please explain the next two verses within their wider context:

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Colossians 1:15-18
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Okay, if you are honest, this is a closed case. God created all things through the Word. Jesus is called the Word of God and also the son of God. We are also told that God created all things through the son of God. Even if you do not believe that Jesus is the Word, then you still have to believe that Jesus pre-existed on account of him being the son of God. But what we know from scripture is that Jesus existed as the Word of God before he came as a man called Jesus. We know that the Word became flesh.

More proof verses

If Jesus pre-existed, then you might expect that even though the above verses are clear, there would be more verses that teach or at least imply that he pre-existed. So let’s see if this is the case.

Revelation 22:16
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Here we see that Jesus is the offspring of David, yet he is also the root of David, which at appears to show existence before King David. He also claims to be the bright Morning Star and we read in Job how the Morning Stars were present when God created the Earth.

Job 38:6-7
“On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 

Luke 10:18
He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Comparing Luke 10:18 with Revelation 12:1-10, some say that Satan and his angels fell to the earth before the birth of Christ as a man. If this was the case, then Jesus saw an event that took place before he was born as a man. However, others argue that Satan hasn’t fallen to the Earth yet, or that he has, but Jesus saw this in a vision. Regardless, it certainly doesn’t contradict that Jesus pre-existed.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

The above verse talks about someone who will rule Israel and whose origin is from ancient times. Who but Jesus could fit that description?

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God/Divine.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ 1:14 Or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Clearly, Jesus was with God in the beginning as the Word of God. This places his existence as before all things and thus comes as no surprise that he was there when God created all things.

The Angel of YHWH

We know from certain scriptures that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and many assume that Jesus gave the Law of God. We are told in Acts:7:30-39 for instance that an Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses through whom God spoke and this is the same Angel who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and passed on the living words (The Law) to Moses.

30 “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.
31 When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to look more closely, he heard the Lord’s voice:
32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.
33 “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals; the place where you are standing is holy ground.
34 I have indeed seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set them free. Now come, I will send you back to Egypt.’
35 “This is the same Moses whom they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
36 He led them out of Egypt and did wonders and miraculous signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the desert.
37 “This is that Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will send you a prophet like me from your own people.’
38 He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us.
39 “But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.

So is this Angel of the Lord, Jesus? Well it seems possible. Perhaps the correct model to look at is the one mentioned in Revelation 1:1

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Here we can see that the order of the Revelation started with the Originator which is God. He then passed the message to Jesus Christ who in turn sent it to his Angel and then to John. So perhaps it is possible that the angel in Revelation is the same angel mentioned in Acts:7:30-39.

But the Angel of YHWH or Angel of the LORD is described as one like the son of gods.

Daniel 3:24-25
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astounded and stood up in haste; he said to his high officials, “Was it not three men we cast bound into the midst of the fire?” They replied to the king, “Certainly, O king.” He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”

The idea that a preincarnate Jesus was this Angel of the LORD is a popular one. We know that this Angel of the LORD is never mentioned while Jesus is walking the earth which supports this idea. But it could also be a coincidence. One connection that can be made with Jesus being this messenger is found in Judges 13:18.

Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honor you?” But the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”

Now read what Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 .

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Clearly, Isaiah was speaking of Jesus Christ and note that he was called Wonderful Counselor. Is there a connection here? Perhaps. What we do know is the word ‘angel’ is the same word messenger in the Old Testament, and while it is held that Jesus is not an angel in kind, we know he certainly was a messenger of YHWH and would be fair to say even ‘The Messenger of YHWH’.

So the idea that he may be this angel is not that far fetched. Some vehemently oppose this idea, but they are not aware that both Jesus and John are called angels in the messenger sense.

More to come here……

More proof that Jesus pre-existed

Rev 3:14
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Moving on we read the following in Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Surely the above verses assumes preexistence.  Look at verse 7: ‘but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness’. This verse points out that Jesus humbled himself to become a (or like a) human and also a servant. So this suggests to us that he preexisted in a higher state because to humble oneself is to become lower. If he started life in this humbled state, then it would be incorrect to say that he humbled himself. Further, he “found himself in appearance as a man” is a weird statement to make if he first existed as a human baby.

This verse is often used in support of the trinity doctrine because of the word ‘equal’. But if you are equal to something it means that you are not that thing, rather you are like that thing. This scripture is also very clear about the following: The Father is God and Jesus is Lord and that God exalted Jesus to the highest place.

A closer look at verse 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Now I am not sure if Jesus was exalted higher than he was before he came to this world or whether he was exalted to the exact position that he had before. But if we look at John 17:5 again we can see that Jesus asked to return to his former glory.

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

The above verse is clear about Christ’s pre-existence in glory before the world began. Just to prove this is not an isolated scripture here is a similar verse:

John 16:28
I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

The next verse also confirms that Jesus pre-existed in Heaven.

John 3:12-15
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven, the Son of Man.
14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Ezekiel 8:1-3
1 In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day, while I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign LORD came upon me there.
2 I looked, and I saw a figure like that of a man. From what appeared to be his waist down he was like fire, and from there up his appearance was as bright as glowing metal.
3 He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance to the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood.

This verse is interesting in the sense that the description is very similar to the description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:12-18,

12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.
15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.
16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Have a look at the next verse. 1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Now the word head in the Greek is ‘kephale’ which can mean head, source or master. Now if we notice the order in a time sense, we have to admit that God is the first as he is the only one who has existed for all eternity with no beginning. We also know from scripture that the man came first and the woman came from the man. So that part is correct if we use a timeline. That just leaves Christ. Did he come between God and Man. I think so, as I believe that all things came from him and this opinion does fit perfectly into this model in a time sense at least. Anyway the word Christ here is ‘Christos’ which means “anointed”. So the anointed is the head of Man.
God > Christ > Man > Woman

If God created all things for his Son and his Son was the channel for that creation to come into being, then we can only assume that Christ existed at this point. As Genesis says: Let us make Man in our image. God was talking to Christ at this point and we know that Christ is the image of God and we are the image of Christ. Therefore the image of the image of God (man) is still the image of God. But Christ is the original and first image and we can only assume again that that image existed before the image of the image. A bit like a mirror that reflects a mirror, the original mirror has to exist in order to reflect the second mirror.

So we know that Christ preexisted before creation and now we will look at some more scriptures that show that he was born before creation itself?

Colossians 1:15-16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

The above verse is quite clear that ALL things were created by or through Jesus.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So again, there is nothing that was made that didn’t involve Jesus/The Word being there. Only the Father and Son were not made. God has always existed and the Son was born from God before the creation of the universe, before anything was made. The next verse describes clearly who/what was the first of God’s works.

Proverbs 8:22-30
22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

This verse is talking about Wisdom, whom many believe is Christ. This scriptures compliments other scriptures that that teach that Jesus was given birth by God and then created all THINGS though him.

So from this verse we can see the following points.

Wisdom was brought forth as the first of Gods works.
Wisdom was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
Wisdom was given birth before creation.
Wisdom was the craftsman at his side and rejoiced in his presence before creation.
Some say that Wisdom isn’t Christ, rather this is just wisdom in a conceptual sense and it is true that wisdom is being spoken of in that way. But from verse 22 onward it changes tempo. With terms like I was given birth, I was the craftsman at his side and I was filled with delight, we have to admit that it seems to be talking about a person. Now have a look at the following verses:

1 Corinthians 1:24 (English-NIV)
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 (English-NIV)
It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God–that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Let’s look at some other concepts that Jesus personifies:

Jesus is the Truth. Yet truth is also a concept.
Jesus is the Way. Yet the way is also a concept.
Jesus is the Life. Yet life can also be a concept.
Now look at the following mystery:

1 Corinthians 2:6-9
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”

Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Perhaps another scripture alluding to Jesus being the Wisdom of God.

Finally I leave you with the following OT scripture that suggests that God had a Son before the birth Of Jesus Christ on earth.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!


Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 7,421 through 7,440 (of 19,165 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #197376

    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”, :D

    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

    #197377
    martian
    Participant

    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)

    #197378

    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!  :D

    Nothing new!

    WJ

    #197379
    martian
    Participant

    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”, :D

    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.

    #197380

    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”, :D

    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

    #197381
    martian
    Participant

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.

    #197382

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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

    #197383
    martian
    Participant

    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.

    #197384

    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

    #197385
    martian
    Participant

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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.

    #197386

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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

    #197387
    martian
    Participant

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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?

    #197388

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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

    #197389
    martian
    Participant

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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?

    #197390

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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

    #197391
    martian
    Participant

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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!!!!!!!

    #197392
    martian
    Participant

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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.

    #197393

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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

    #197395
    martian
    Participant

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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?

    #197397

    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!  :D

    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.
    :O
    So much mouth moving and no truth in it.


    Brush it off! :D

    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

Viewing 20 posts - 7,421 through 7,440 (of 19,165 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account