The Trinity

[Yes]

Act 20:28

“through the death of his own Son”

Today’s English Version, American Bible Society, New York.

Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the King James Version and Douay Version, “with his own blood.” That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (margin) (followed by Moffatt’s translation) read “the congregation of the Lord,” instead of “the congregation of God.” When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, “with his own blood.” However, אBVg read “God” (articulate), and the usual translation would be ‘God’s blood.’

The Greek words τοῦ ἰδίου (tou i·di′ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ἴδιος [i′di·os] something should be said about the use of ὁ ἴδιος [ho i′di·os] 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 . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’”

Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: “it is by no means impossible that ΥΙΟΥ [hui·ou′, “of the Son”] dropped out after ΤΟΥΙΔΙΟΥ [tou i·di′ou, “of his own”] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.”
- 6C With the Blood of God’s Own Son — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Jesus is not related to God by blood. So then, your choice teachers explanations are wrong.

Why don't you discuss what you believe instead copying/pasting what others believe?

 

[Yes]

Revelation 22 - Who Is Speaking?

Re 22:1-11 - an angel and John
Re 22:12-15 - Jehovah himself
Re 22:16 - Jesus
Re 22:17 - John
Re 22:18-22a - Jesus
Re 22: 22b - John

To whom do the titles “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the First and the Last” refer? The title “the Alpha and the Omega” applies to Jehovah, stressing that there was no almighty God before him and that there will be none after him. He is “the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 21:6; 22:13) Although Jehovah is referred to as “the first and the last” at Revelation 22:13, in that there is none before or after him, the context in the first chapter of Revelation shows that the title “the First and the Last” there applies to Jesus Christ. He was the first human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life and the last one to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally.—Col. 1:18.

What don't you get about GOD CALLING HIMSELF the First and the Last and Jesus calling himself that?

 

[cataway]

Brings up the question as to what is meant by 'fully human'. How much did Jesus 'know', how much was known by Him intuitively and would He, being 'fully human' have the human knowledge to articulate it in His present time and culture?

it means he could not get any more human.
I have reasons to believe he did not know fully,who he was until he had spent the 40 days..... after his baptism

 

[Kolibri]

it means he could not get any more human.
I have reasons to believe he did not know fully,who he was until he had spent the 40 days..... after his baptism

It is very possible that he took the 40 days to assimilate restored memories from his life as an angel.

 

[Kolibri]

Why don't you discuss what you believe instead copying/pasting what others believe?

Because sometimes people need more than my word for it. Printed material that highlights secular sources. And sometimes it is easier to copy and reference than to risk plagiarizing - if the explanation that I agree with is too involved. Perhaps it is a devaluation of my own ability to transmit clearly the same thoughts in my own words. And I think in terms of anyone that might read these threads, not just those who are posting. What would best serve them? Sometimes it is my own expressions, sometimes they may need something more involved.

 

[Kolibri]

What don't you get about GOD CALLING HIMSELF the First and the Last and Jesus calling himself that?

What have we looked at so far? Rock, Savior, who made things, who restores life. It is all relative. None of that conclusively proves that the Son is God and that God is the Son. All it means God is using his Son to have his will accomplished. Also there was a valid reason to understand how Jehovah and Jesus would have differing reasons to use the words "the first and the last" in reference to themselves. Every argument so far has had a counter argument. And Jesus truly is God's closest relative - by blood or not - the only creation formed exclusively by Jehovah's hands.

What is wrong with plain speech and plain teachings as presented in the Bible? Father-Son is a relationship we all understand. If Jesus is God was truth, one would think that the Family relationship of Twins would be used instead.

Only Jehovah is called Almighty.
Only Jehovah was immortal till Jesus was resurrected to a body immune to death.
Only Jehovah is called the Most High over all the earth. - Psalm 83:18
Jesus subjected himself to God's will by becoming human, he subjected himself as he always did the Father's will while here on the earth. He will subject himself when all things subjected to him by God are fully in harmony with God's will and purpose again. Interesting theme. Jesus is ALWAYS in submission to his Father, from the distant past into the distant future.

 

[Shiranui117]

It is very possible that he took the 40 days to assimilate restored memories from his life as an angel.

Do you believe Jesus truly became human, or was he a temporarily amnesiac angel masquerading in human flesh?

 

[Kolibri]

Do you believe Jesus truly became human, or was he a temporarily amnesiac angel masquerading in human flesh?

Colossians says he emptied himself. When he was human he was no longer any more or any less than human. But it is likely that when he was anointed with the holy spirit that his memories from his previous life would have been restored.

For Jesus to be a cooresponding ransom, he needed to be no more than Adam before he sinned. An Angel, being a higher life-form, would be paying too much - let alone God. (Which is impossible since God has always been deathless.) The scales of Justice required an exact payment to maintain balance.

 

[Kolibri]

On the other hand, just as Jehovah required the Israelites to sacrifice their best animals to him for temporary forgiveness of sin, Jehovah provided his very best by providing his most dear one to provide an enduring ransom that only needed to be paid once.

 

[Shiranui117]

Colossians says he emptied himself. When he was human he was no longer any more or any less than human. But it is likely that when he was anointed with the holy spirit that his memories from his previous life would have been restored.

For Jesus to be a cooresponding ransom, he needed to be no more than Adam before he sinned. An Angel, being a higher life-form, would be paying too much - let alone God (which is impossible since God has always been deathless). The scales of Justice required an exact payment to maintain balance.

Hmm, interesting. The West mainly adheres to Anselm's substitutionary theory of atonement, which states that since humanity's sin offended God, and since everything about God was infinite, His offense at our sin was infinite. Therefore, an infinite satisfaction was required to satisfy God's infinite offense, which only Jesus, as fully Man and fully God in one Person, could fulfill. You say that since a human offended God, only a human could render satisfaction to God. Interesting.

Do you believe that Jesus is still human, or is He back to being an angel and has ceased to be human?

 

[Kolibri]

Bible says that Jesus became a life-giving spirit. After death he was restored to life as an angel. Only this time he would be granted immorality. No longer could he ever be killed.

Jesus' 'little flock' would also put on this deathlessness when they are resurrected to heavenly life. So at the end of the first resurrection there there will be 144,002 with immortal life. Jehovah (The Father) will still be the Almighty and the personification of Love, but he trust these ones with this inability to die.

The scales of Justice requires that Jesus never reclaims his right to human life.

 

[moorea944]

BTW, here is the Passover scenario from your NWT:

“Go and get the Passover ready for us to eat.”+ 9 They said to him: “Where do you want us to get it ready?” 10 He said to them: “Look! When you enter into the city, a man carrying an earthenware water jar will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters.+ 11 And say to the landlord of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you: “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’ 12 And that man will show you a large, furnished upper room. Get it ready there.” 13 So they left and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared for the Passover. 14 So when the hour came, he reclined at the table along with the apostles.+ 15 And he said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” 17 And accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, from now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 Also, he took a loaf,+ gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body,+ which is to be given in your behalf.+ Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+ 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant+ by virtue of my blood,+ which is to be poured out in your behalf.+

So Jesus says to do Passover in remembrance of him.

Exodus 23 states:

14 “Three times a year you are to celebrate a festival to me.+ 15 You will observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread.+ You will eat unleavened bread for seven days, just as I have commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of A′bib,*+ for at that time you came out of Egypt

God wants the celebration to him. Jesus wants the celebration to him from the Last Supper forward. You do the math.

Exodus 23 is for the children of Israel. The covernant has been changed with Christ.

[So Jesus says to do Passover in remembrance of him.]
Yes, that's correct, but they were at Passover anyway. They were Jews. But this is something new now. When we get baptised, which is a commandment, we are baptised into the death and resurrection of Christ. We are now "in Christ". And we are now in the promises to Abraham. He is telling his apostles to remember his death and resurrection. We are never told to remember his birth. Jesus was like us. Who better to conquer sin and the flesh than someone like us. We can look up this Jesus because he did this. Who better to "represent us" to God. He was NOT a subsitute. If Jesus was God, nothing would make sense. (But only to you). The Atonement was done by a man. I'm not saying a mere man. But a man with our nature. It had to be. He was a mortal man, not an immortal God.

[God wants the celebration to him. Jesus wants the celebration to him from the Last Supper forward.]
I dont think I would use the word celebration. I would only go with what scripture tells us. Remembrance. We should be doint this once a week in church.

[You do the math.]
What????

 

[moorea944]

Whose blood is it?


God’s blood

Acts 20:28 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.

Jesus’ blood

1 Peter 1:19
but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

It is Jesus's blood. God doesnt have blood. Jesus died. God does not die. If He could we would be dead too and there would be no one to raise us up. All life would end.

 

[Shiranui117]

It is Jesus's blood. God doesnt have blood. Jesus died. God does not die. If He could we would be dead too and there would be no one to raise us up. All life would end.

Except, God cannot be contained by death. So when Jesus (God the Son) died in the flesh, He burst apart the chains of death that bound us, and raised up into new life, opening for us the opportunity to do the same. God is immortal, but the humanity He assumed can die.

 

[Kolibri]

Except, God cannot be contained by death. So when Jesus (God the Son) died in the flesh, He burst apart the chains of death that bound us, and raised up into new life, opening for us the opportunity to do the same. God is immortal, but the humanity He assumed can die.

And yet Jesus did not resurrect himself like some mythical phoenix. He slept in death for parts of 3 days and then Jehovah woke him up.

"But God resurrected him by releasing him from the pangs (or possibly, "cords.") of death, because it was not possible for him to be held fast by it....God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses." - Acts 2:24,32

 

[Wharton]

[You do the math.]
What????

God=Jesus.

 

[Sonofason]

One means the same.

According to the Bible my wife and I are one flesh. While I agree with the statement in a spiritual and metaphorical sense, my wife and I are indeed two distinct individuals.

 

[Sonofason]

Jesus is not separate from the Father. You thinking I dance around is nonsense. How can Jesus be separate from God ever? How can Jesus be separate from God when the Bible says Jesus is God? How can Jesus be separate from God when Jesus says when you see him you have seen the Father? Jesus only says what the Father says. Jesus only does what the Father does. Does that sound like I am dancing around?

Indeed, It's hard for any person who loves the Father to be separated from the Father. When the Father is in you, you cannot be separate from Him. I wonder if you yourself could be separate from God? Is God in you, or is He not? Are you God?

I don't think Jesus could be separate from God, except for perhaps three days in his past, when He was a dead rotting corpse, paying for the sins of the world, experiencing a complete separation from God, a separation from God that we all indeed deserve.

So actually, it doesn't sound like your dancing around. I believe you believe exactly what your saying. I'm just not certain your digging deep enough. But, again, maybe you're right. I was wrong once before, I just don't remember when.

 

[JayJayDee]

Whose blood is it?

God’s blood

Acts 20:28 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.

um....you might want to check out other translations on this verse or at least read the footnote in the ESV.

"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[a] which he obtained with his own blood."

Footnotes:

Acts 20:28 Some manuscripts of the Lord
Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his Own

Incredible trinitarian bias there! seriously.

Jesus’ blood

1 Peter 1:19
but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

Yep, "the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." It didn't make him God. The true Passover Lamb.

Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

I am sorry that you eyes are blinded by your own beliefs. What is it that prevents you from seeing plain statements in the Bible and twisting their meaning?
Jesus is worthy in this regard because he purchased persons for God by paying the price for them....a perfect life for a perfect life. The whole point of Jesus' mission was mankind's reconciliation with the Father, alienated from him due to Adam's sin.

No one can reason with someone so closed minded.

 

[JayJayDee]

When incarnated, Jesus gives up the authority/GLORY he had in heaven to do the will of his father, not his own. He makes his will subject to that of the father while incarnated-if this cup can pass, if not, thy will be done thingy.

So here we have one God in two places at once talking to himself.
One part of God can accede to the will of the other, though both are fully God. One part of God is immortal and cannot die but the other is mortal and can be killed by mere humans whist still being fully God. The Word was "with God" in heaven and "the Word became flesh". He was "divine" (a god-like, powerful mighty one) but he was not Almighty God.

Subjecting his will is something that he did not have to do in heaven prior to the incarnation. Plus, the Trinity always acts in unison, not independently.

But what happened when he returned to heaven? Was he still God?

In the Revelation to John, given by God to Jesus through an angel, Jesus is clearly still the subservient son he always was.

Rev 3:12...Jesus says....

"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name."

Even in heaven, Jehovah is still the God of Jesus. Can one part of God worship an equal part of himself in heaven? Really?