Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Download Free Apps & Games @ PHONEKY.com
Subject: ACTS 20:28
Replies: 11 Views: 1106
may2011 28.04.10 - 08:01am
''Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.'' Notice that it says God purchased the church with HIS OWN blood. We know Jesus is the one who spilled hi blood for our purchase. Therefore Jesus is God. *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:06am
well heres another 'proof scripture' trying to prove trinity. but this deals with a relationship between 2, Father and Jesus. lets look at how this has been twisted around.
*
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:09am
first of all lets hav a look at how TRINITARIANS 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)
those are trinitarian bibles by the way! *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:10am
Now how can this passage be 'evidence' for their doctrine when Trinitarian scholars themselves do not agree that Jesus is identified as ''God'' in this passage? *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:12am
lets hav a look at early church testimony .
We do not have the original m cripts of the books written in the Bible. Our earliest m cripts are copies prepared centuries after they were originally written. Some m cripts read ''church of God'' while many others read ''church of the Lord''. Our first witness who can testify what the early m cripts 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 m cripts did indeed indeed show ''Church of the Lord'' at Acts 20:28. *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:13am
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. *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:14am
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. *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:16am
Basically, 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. *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:17am
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. *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:19am
i can carry on explaining the word 'own'and its use in in Koine Greek context. but i dont want to confuse you. your own doctrine confuses you enough. *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:22am
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 *
unquiet1 12.05.10 - 09:23am
something i want to point out here... do you see why translators removed God's name, Jehovah, from the Bible and replaced it with LORD...? so they can easily play around with words and trick you to thinking that its talking about Jesus and not Jehovah do you see that in this passage....? it went from Lord(Jesus) to LORD(Jehovah) and now its just says God. and now been changed to say that God is Jesus. *
