Did Jesus say he was God???

[yourgraceisenough]

33 ἀπεκρίθησανVIAO--3Pἀποκρίνομαι αὐτῷNPDM3Sαὐτός οἱDNMPὁ ἸουδαῖοιAP-NM-PἸουδαῖος, ΠερὶPGπερί καλοῦA--GN-Sκαλός ἔργουN-GN-Sἔργον οὐQNοὐ λιθάζομένVIPA--1Pλιθάζω σεNPA-2Sσύ ἀλλὰCHἀλλά περὶPGπερί βλασφημίαςN-GF-Sβλασφημία, καὶCCκαί ὅτιCSὅτι σὺNPN-2Sσύ ἄνθρωποςN-NM-Sἄνθρωπος ὢνVPPANM2Sεἰμί ποιεῖςVIPA--2Sποιέω σεαυτὸνNPAM2Sσεαυτοῦ θεόνN-AM-Sθεός.

where does it mention a god in the passage other than to those who need it...

 

[yourgraceisenough]

RSV says "Blood of his own son", as do many others, the grammar is clearly indicative "of his own" being a separate being.

makes no sense at all why would the Holy spirit over look a flock bought by the sons blood, and what and how could something be bought by the blood of an angel or arch angel...

 

[yourgraceisenough]

rsv version 32Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” 33The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

no "a"...

 

[Shermana]

makes no sense at all why would the Holy spirit over look a flock bought by the sons blood, and what and how could something be bought by the blood of an angel or arch angel...

Why not? Where does it say it has to be G-d's blood? That's right, it's not in the scripture at all. Do you even know the Messianic prophecies to begin with?

 

[Shermana]

rsv version 32Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?”33The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

no "a"...

I used the RSV for Acts 20:28, not John 10:33. You have a habit of doing this of shifting the verse in question. Either way, you can't just ignore the grammar of it being an Anarthrous Theon. Like I said, look at Acts 12:22, same concept, "a god". The Trinitarian versions refuse to do this consistently when referring to Jesus because it would rattle their markets. Do you even know why Jesus says what he does in 10:34? What is his actual official charge? For claiming G-d to be His Father.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

I used the RSV for Acts 20:28, not John 10:33. You have a habit of doing this of shifting the verse in question. Either way, you can't just ignore the grammar of it being an Anarthrous Theon. Like I said, look at Acts 12:22, same concept, "a god". The Trinitarian versions refuse to do this consistently when referring to Jesus because it would rattle their markets. Do you even know why Jesus says what he does in 10:34? What is his actual official charge? For claiming G-d to be His Father.

if one doesn't say a God whats the odds the other wouldn't...

so you are admitting the jews believed he was God that why they wanted to stone him...

 

[yourgraceisenough]

Why not? Where does it say it has to be G-d's blood? That's right, it's not in the scripture at all. Do you even know the Messianic prophecies to begin with?

I thought angels and arch angels are spirit beings, do they bleed...

so who's blood is it being shed for the church...??

 

[Shermana]

if one doesn't say a God whats the odds the other wouldn't...

so you are admitting the jews believed he was God that why they wanted to stone him...

I admitted that? How? You can't even read my own replies properly, don't even try Greek text. I said his charge was for declaring G-d to be his father. You refused to address John 10:34 yet again. And if you're going to completely ignore the grammar issues, feel free to demonstrate your unwillingness to even address it. It's like you're intentionally trying to annoy me or something by ignoring or distorting what I say. Like I said, if I wasn't so used to Trinitarians behaving like this, I'd be annoyed by now. If you're not going to address anything I actually say in detail, don't bother replying to me.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

I admitted that? How? You can't even read my own replies properly, don't even try Greek text. I said his charge was for declaring G-d to be his father. You refused to address John 10:34 yet again. And if you're going to completely ignore the grammar issues, feel free to demonstrate your unwillingness to even address it. It's like you're intentionally trying to annoy me or something by ignoring or distorting what I say. Like I said, if I wasn't so used to Trinitarians behaving like this, I'd be annoyed by now. If you're not going to address anything I actually say in detail, don't bother replying to me.

there was no "a" in the statement so the Jews knew he was claiming to be God almighty...

 

[Mark2020]

there was no "a" in the statement so the Jews knew he was claiming to be God almighty...

lol

Just ignore him

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html

 

[Shermana]

there was no "a" in the statement so the Jews knew he was claiming to be God almighty...

Yeah, totally ignore the grammar issue. Totally ignore what I said about Acts 12:22. No need for grammatical consistency, that would just be a waste of time.

I think you're unaware that you have to actually read the Greek and not rely on the translations themselves since they are loaded with Doctrinal biases.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

the rsv take on the acts 20 vs 28 are quite interesting
28Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God£ which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.£

it claims God can be Lord and the own son in greek could read

Acts 20.28bGreek with the blood of his Own or with his own blood​

so it could read take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood...

mmmmm now that puts a whole different slant on it...

 

[Mark2020]

makes no sense at all why would the Holy spirit over look a flock bought by the sons blood, and what and how could something be bought by the blood of an angel or arch angel...

Yes, I remember having a cool discussion with him about Acts 20:28.

Check this post:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2602448-post4414.html

Note his argument against all that I presented:

I said something about you having to prove that no one lived with their parents or brothers and everyone owned their own house.

 

[Mark2020]

(Acts 20:28 [NIV]) Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

(Acts 20:28 [TR]) προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος
του ιδιου αιματος: literally means " his own blood"

(Acts 20:28 [coptic]) ⲙⲁϩⲑⲏⲧⲉⲛ `ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲟϩⲓ ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲭⲁ ⲑⲏⲛⲟⲩ `ⲛ`ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ `ⲛϧⲏⲧϥ `ⲉ`ⲁⲙⲟⲛⲓ `ⲛϯⲉⲕ`ⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓ`ⲁ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡ̅ϭ̅ⲥ ⲑⲏ ⲉⲧⲁϥ`ϫⲫⲟⲥ `ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲡⲉϥ`ⲥⲛⲟϥ `ⲙⲙⲓⲛ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ
'pef esnof emmin emmof' also means "his own blood".

(Acts 20:28 [Pe****ta]) ܐܙܕܗܪܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܒܢܦܫܟܘܢ ܘܒܟܠܗ ܡܪܥܝܬܐ ܗܝ ܕܐܩܝܡܟܘܢ ܒܗ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܐܦܤܩܘܦܐ ܕܬܪܥܘܢ ܠܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܗܝ ܕܩܢܗ ܒܕܡܗ ܀
ܒܕܡܗ : (with His blood) "from Paul Younan's interlinear"

(Acts 20:28 [AraSVDV]) اِحْتَرِزُوا اِذًا لأَنْفُسِكُمْ وَلِجَمِيعِ الرَّعِيَّةِ الَّتِي أَقَامَكُمُ الرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ فِيهَا أَسَاقِفَةً، لِتَرْعَوْا كَنِيسَةَ اللهِ الَّتِي اقْتَنَاهَا بِدَمِهِ.
بِدَمِهِ :"bedamehe" : "with his blood"

Even this:
(Acts 20:28 [WHNU]) προσεχετε εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του αιματος του ιδιου

The question is whether του ιδιου is adjective or possessive genitive.
Checking all other similar locations:
(John 1:41 [WHNU]) ευρισκει ουτος πρωτον τον αδελφον τον ιδιον σιμωνα και λεγει αυτω ευρηκαμεν τον μεσσιαν ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον χριστος
"his own brother"
(John 5:43 [WHNU]) εγω εληλυθα εν τω ονοματι του πατρος μου και ου λαμβανετε με εαν αλλος ελθη εν τω ονοματι τω ιδιω εκεινον λημψεσθε
"his own name"
(Acts 1:25 [WHNU]) λαβειν τον τοπον της διακονιας ταυτης και αποστολης αφ ης παρεβη ιουδας πορευθηναι εις τον τοπον τον ιδιον
"his own place"

we can see that [article + noun1 + article + ἴδιος] always means "his own noun1", where [article + ἴδιος] always comes as an adjective and never as a possessive genitive.

So the meaning is "with his own blood. "

If he wanted to say "of his own son", it would have been easy to say "του ιδιου υιου" as in Romans 8:32

It is worth mentioning that nowhere in the NT is "tou idiou" used as a substantive referring to Christ.


For more, you can check:
For an Answer: Chrsitian Apologetics - Acts 20:28
which even points to the early translations that I had quoted in my previous post, like the coptic and the pe****ta which support this one:

(Acts 20:28 [NIV]) Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

(Acts 20:28 [NIV]) Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

(Acts 20:28 [TR]) προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος
του ιδιου αιματος: literally means " his own blood"

(Acts 20:28 [coptic]) ⲙⲁϩⲑⲏⲧⲉⲛ `ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲟϩⲓ ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲭⲁ ⲑⲏⲛⲟⲩ `ⲛ`ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ `ⲛϧⲏⲧϥ `ⲉ`ⲁⲙⲟⲛⲓ `ⲛϯⲉⲕ`ⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓ`ⲁ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡ̅ϭ̅ⲥ ⲑⲏ ⲉⲧⲁϥ`ϫⲫⲟⲥ `ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲡⲉϥ`ⲥⲛⲟϥ `ⲙⲙⲓⲛ `ⲙⲙⲟϥ
'pef esnof emmin emmof' also means "his own blood".

(Acts 20:28 [Pe****ta]) ܐܙܕܗܪܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܒܢܦܫܟܘܢ ܘܒܟܠܗ ܡܪܥܝܬܐ ܗܝ ܕܐܩܝܡܟܘܢ ܒܗ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܐܦܤܩܘܦܐ ܕܬܪܥܘܢ ܠܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܗܝ ܕܩܢܗ ܒܕܡܗ ܀
ܒܕܡܗ : (with His blood) "from Paul Younan's interlinear"

(Acts 20:28 [AraSVDV]) اِحْتَرِزُوا اِذًا لأَنْفُسِكُمْ وَلِجَمِيعِ الرَّعِيَّةِ الَّتِي أَقَامَكُمُ الرُّوحُ الْقُدُسُ فِيهَا أَسَاقِفَةً، لِتَرْعَوْا كَنِيسَةَ اللهِ الَّتِي اقْتَنَاهَا بِدَمِهِ.
بِدَمِهِ :"bedamehe" : "with his blood"

Even this:
(Acts 20:28 [WHNU]) προσεχετε εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του αιματος του ιδιου

The question is whether του ιδιου is adjective or possessive genitive.
Checking all other similar locations:
(John 1:41 [WHNU]) ευρισκει ουτος πρωτον τον αδελφον τον ιδιον σιμωνα και λεγει αυτω ευρηκαμεν τον μεσσιαν ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον χριστος
"his own brother"
(John 5:43 [WHNU]) εγω εληλυθα εν τω ονοματι του πατρος μου και ου λαμβανετε με εαν αλλος ελθη εν τω ονοματι τω ιδιω εκεινον λημψεσθε
"his own name"
(Acts 1:25 [WHNU]) λαβειν τον τοπον της διακονιας ταυτης και αποστολης αφ ης παρεβη ιουδας πορευθηναι εις τον τοπον τον ιδιον
"his own place"

we can see that [article + noun1 + article + ἴδιος] always means "his own noun1", where [article + ἴδιος] always comes as an adjective and never as a possessive genitive.

So the meaning is "with his own blood. "

If he wanted to say "of his own son", it would have been easy to say "του ιδιου υιου" as in Romans 8:32

It is worth mentioning that nowhere in the NT is "tou idiou" used as a substantive referring to Christ.


For more, you can check:
For an Answer: Chrsitian Apologetics - Acts 20:28
which even points to the early translations that I had quoted in my previous post, like the coptic and the pe****ta which support this one:

(Acts 20:28 [NIV]) Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

thats what I said...

 

[Mark2020]

thats what I said...

But the thing to note is the quality of his arguments against all that.
Not only giving poor arguments that were replied to, but also repeating them over and over.
I think people should seek the truth instead of trying to impose their poor point of view on others. They should convince themselves before trying to convince others.

(Matthew 13:15 [KJV]) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

But the thing to note is the quality of his arguments against all that.
Not only giving poor arguments that were replied to, but also repeating them over and over.
I think people should seek the truth instead of trying to impose their poor point of view on others. They should convince themselves before trying to convince others.

blah blah blah my old math teacher said you get more points for the working out but I always got the right answer....

 

[Shermana]

But the thing to note is the quality of his arguments against all that.
Not only giving poor arguments that were replied to, but also repeating them over and over.
I think people should seek the truth instead of trying to impose their poor point of view on others. They should convince themselves before trying to convince others.

Yeah, you're never guilty of simply repeating poor arguments over and over. At least my argument is gramatically consistent, all you can do is present translations that agree with you, your grammar is faulty and you simply brush off my counter of use of the word "of his own" as "poor". If you want to tell the RSV they're so wrong, write them a letter. The "Tou Idiou" clearly implies a genetive case regarding his own as in own son.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

the jw's are always the same they are taught their rhetoric on a flow chart if you take them off topic they soon flounder...

 

[Mark2020]

Yeah, you're never guilty of simply repeating poor arguments over and over. At least my argument is gramatically consistent, all you can do is present translations that agree with you, your grammar is faulty and you simply brush off my counter of use of the word "of his own" as "poor". If you want to tell the RSV they're so wrong, write them a letter.

lol
Did you not read my whole post?
It does show that your argument is poor.
And surely not consistent as I showed.