The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[civic]

I disagree.
I am supporting the spiritual understanding of crucifixion and resurrection with several biblical texts.
So, you cannot say that Gospel B is "non-existent".
Furthermore, Gospel B seems to me much more rational, while Gospel A seems to me irrational.
Gospel B leads me to embrace my brothers of all religions. Gospel A leads me to approve genocide.
Gospel B leads me to love a God who is truly merciful, so that I can be truly merciful to others. Gospel A leads me to tie mercy with answering some questions of a quiz on Theology, and that is both absurd and evil.

Why would any person with no religion, listening to a preaching, want to convert to Gospel A and not to B?
What Gospel would truly change his heart to loving God and his neighbors?
Just think.

you are not supporting the "spiritual" understanding of the crucifixion and resurrection. You are denying the literal importance of His death, burial and resurrection which is the gospel. His physical death included His literal blood which made atonement for sin. Its all literal not symbolic.

The death, burial, resurrection seen by many witnesses is a historical biblical fact which the salvific gospel derives its literal meaning from in the New Testament.

If Christ is not raise from the dead ( resurrected physically/bodily ) you faith is in vain and you are still dead in your sins. Pauls inspired words from 1 Corinthians 15.

Jesus words I am the Resurrection and the Life are not symbolic, they are literal. His words I am the Way, the Truth and the Life are not symbolic, they are literal.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Zero scriptures were quoted

Thirty for forgiveness without atonement. I added one more few post laters. So they were 31.
If you are interested in debating these passages, we can open a thread and ask a moderator. Would you be willing to do that?

 

[Dizerner]

Is this what Jesus means for you? It is not what it means for me.
So I gently ask you to retract your statement as this is a strawman fallacy.

You know, I've debated on the internet many, many years.

When people don't want to face the logical consequences of their own position, they pull out a very special fallacy.

I call it "The Straw Man Straw Man Fallacy."

As if saying the words "straw man" exempt them from their own words.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You know, I've debated on the internet many, many years.

When people don't want to face the logical consequences of their own position, they pull out a very special fallacy.

I call it "The Straw Man Straw Man Fallacy."

As if saying the words "straw man" exempt them from their own words.

It is good to know that the both of us have in coming an experience of many years debating in the Internet… in my case not just as a believer, but also as an atheist.

From the proposition
A. “the purpose of crucifixion and resurrection is to take our cross, die to the old man and be born into the new man” it does not follow…
B. “Jesus just symbolizes our own self-empowerment and "Christ consciousness" that we are the "I am."
I did not do such non-sequitur and would never do it. So what you did is a strawman: attacking an argument line I don’t believe in and I have never presented.

Jesus is not only a symbol. Jesus is a personal being, a Manifestation of God Himself… loving enough and powerful enough to change our lives for good.

 

[civic]

It is good to know that the both of us have in coming an experience of many years debating in the Internet… in my case not just as a believer, but also as an atheist.

From the proposition
A. “the purpose of crucifixion and resurrection is to take our cross, die to the old man and be born into the new man” it does not follow…
B. “Jesus just symbolizes our own self-empowerment and "Christ consciousness" that we are the "I am."
I did not do such non-sequitur and would never do it. You think I do it. So what you did is a strawman: attacking an argument line I don’t believe in and I have never presented.

Jesus is not only a symbol. Jesus is a personal being, a Manifestation of God Himself… loving enough and powerful enough to change our lives for good.

No He is God, not a manifestation of God. A distinction with a difference.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No He is God, not a manifestation of God. A distinction with a difference.

I know this is what you believe, my brother.
I believe different in this regard. Still, His Gospel is power of God for the transformation of our lives.

 

[TibiasDad]

It's a bit more than that, which is why many Greek experts don't really translate it as literally God's blood because God doesn't have blood.

I pulled up some info on Acts 20:28 from Bible Hub to look at. The idea is that the blood being talked about is the blood of God's own family member, i.e., His son.

G2398. idios
Strong's Lexicon
idios: own, private, personal, peculiar
Original Word: ἴδιος
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: idios
Pronunciation: EE-dee-os
Phonetic Spelling: (id'-ee-os)
Definition: own, private, personal, peculiar
Meaning: one's own, belonging to one, private, personal; one's own people, one's own family, home, property.

Word Origin: A primary word

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The Hebrew equivalent often used in similar contexts is "בַּעַל" (ba'al - H1167), which can mean owner, master, or husband, emphasizing possession or relationship.

Usage: The Greek word "idios" is used to denote something that belongs to oneself, is private, or is peculiar to an individual. It often emphasizes personal possession or association, distinguishing what is one's own from what belongs to others. In the New Testament, "idios" is used to highlight personal responsibility, ownership, or relationship.

Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of personal ownership and identity was significant. The use of "idios" would resonate with the cultural understanding of property, family, and individual rights. In a society where lineage and personal honor were highly valued, distinguishing what was "one's own" was crucial for maintaining social order and personal dignity.

source: https://biblehub.com/greek/2398.htm

Have you studied Greek?

 

[Runningman]

Have you studied Greek?

Yep and seems numerous experts are in agreement with me.

 

[Johann]

Yep and seems numerous experts are in agreement with me.

On what?

 

[Runningman]

On what?

See the previous posts.

 

[MTMattie]

The notion that "it was also necessary for Messiah to die in the exact way He did for the atonement of sins" has no support in reason or scripture.

A confirmation of what has long been thought. A troll is the kindest thing I can say before ignoring.

 

[Johann]

See the previous posts.

With his own blood (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). Through the agency of (dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Rom_9:5; Col_2:9; Tit_2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Col_1:15-20; Php_2:5-11.



"He purchased with His own blood" This reflects the OT concept of sacrificial substitution (cf. Leviticus 1-7; Isaiah 53). This emphasis is surprisingly not mentioned much in the kerygma of Acts (see James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NT, pp. 17-18). It is also possibly a strong reference to Jesus' deity (i.e., "church of God").

Paul often uses phrases which point to this truth (cf. Rom_9:5; Col_2:9; Tit_2:13).
It is also possible to translate this Greek phrase as "through His own," meaning near relative (i.e., His Son Jesus). F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the book of the Acts, p. 416 #59, says this phrase should be translated "by means of the blood of His own one," which he asserts is well attested in the Egyptian Koine papyri literature.

J.

 

[civic]

Yep and seems numerous experts are in agreement with me.

On what ?

Not about Jesus I guarantee that.

 

[civic]

With his own blood (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). Through the agency of (dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Rom_9:5; Col_2:9; Tit_2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Col_1:15-20; Php_2:5-11.



"He purchased with His own blood" This reflects the OT concept of sacrificial substitution (cf. Leviticus 1-7; Isaiah 53). This emphasis is surprisingly not mentioned much in the kerygma of Acts (see James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NT, pp. 17-18). It is also possibly a strong reference to Jesus' deity (i.e., "church of God").

Paul often uses phrases which point to this truth (cf. Rom_9:5; Col_2:9; Tit_2:13).
It is also possible to translate this Greek phrase as "through His own," meaning near relative (i.e., His Son Jesus). F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the book of the Acts, p. 416 #59, says this phrase should be translated "by means of the blood of His own one," which he asserts is well attested in the Egyptian Koine papyri literature.

J.

See above @Pancho Frijoles

 

[Runningman]

On what ?

Not about Jesus I guarantee that.

As already shown above, I hold the advantage of the word "own" in Acts 20:28 not referring to the blood that God has, but rather referring to blood of his own [family]. "Own" is being used in regards to a different level of ownership than something innate to God. This word describes something that belongs to God in a familial sense, but not in regards to God's individual self. The nuance of the word refers to family with G2398 idios. Pinging @Johann on this as well since there are now two who want to challenge the Bible on this point.

Acts 20:28 is a powerful refute against Trinitarianism.

Many translators and scholars understand this. For example, in the footnote for the NIV it says regarding Acts 20:28 "Or with the blood of his own Son." Same thing with the ESV, BSB, and some other versions.

Additionally, this is understood already by numerous trinitarian theologians.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
"...the word own, which follows, and have explained “His own blood,” i.e. “the blood of His own Son.” And as the Greek text, which has been accepted, as of most authority, by Westcott and Hort, reads αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, it has been suggested that after this peculiar collocation of words, υἵου has fallen away in very early times. This would make all easy, rendering “with the blood of his own Son.”

Pulpit Commentary
"With regard to the difficulty that this reading seems to imply the unscriptural phrase, "the blood of God," and to savor of the Monophysite heresy, it is obvious to reply that there is a wide difference between the phrase as it stands and such a one as the direct "blood of God," which Athanasius and others objected to. The mental insertion of "the Lord" or "Christ," as the subject of the verb "purchased," is very easy, the transition from God the Father to God incarnate being one that might be made almost imperceptibly. Others (including the R.T.) take the reading of several good manuscripts, Διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, and understand τοῦ ἰδίου to be an ellipse for τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, the phrase used in Romans 8:32; and so render it "which he purchased by the blood of his own Son." Οἱ ἰδίοι, his own, is used without a substantive in John 1:11. This clause is added to enhance the preciousness of the flock, and the responsibility of those who have the oversight of it. Acts 20:28"

 

[civic]

As already shown above, I hold the advantage of the word "own" in Acts 20:28 not referring to the blood that God has, but rather referring to blood of his own [family]. "Own" is being used in regards to a different level of ownership than something innate to God. This word describes something that belongs to God in a familial sense, but not in regards to God's individual self. The nuance of the word refers to family with G2398 idios. Pinging @Johann on this as well since there are now two who want to challenge the Bible on this point.

Acts 20:28 is a powerful refute against Trinitarianism.

Many translators and scholars understand this. For example, in the footnote for the NIV it says regarding Acts 20:28 "Or with the blood of his own Son." Same thing with the ESV, BSB, and some other versions.

Additionally, this is understood already by numerous trinitarian theologians.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
"...the word own, which follows, and have explained “His own blood,” i.e. “the blood of His own Son.” And as the Greek text, which has been accepted, as of most authority, by Westcott and Hort, reads αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, it has been suggested that after this peculiar collocation of words, υἵου has fallen away in very early times. This would make all easy, rendering “with the blood of his own Son.”

Pulpit Commentary
"With regard to the difficulty that this reading seems to imply the unscriptural phrase, "the blood of God," and to savor of the Monophysite heresy, it is obvious to reply that there is a wide difference between the phrase as it stands and such a one as the direct "blood of God," which Athanasius and others objected to. The mental insertion of "the Lord" or "Christ," as the subject of the verb "purchased," is very easy, the transition from God the Father to God incarnate being one that might be made almost imperceptibly. Others (including the R.T.) take the reading of several good manuscripts, Διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, and understand τοῦ ἰδίου to be an ellipse for τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, the phrase used in Romans 8:32; and so render it "which he purchased by the blood of his own Son." Οἱ ἰδίοι, his own, is used without a substantive in John 1:11. This clause is added to enhance the preciousness of the flock, and the responsibility of those who have the oversight of it. Acts 20:28"

No Greek scholars duly noted

 

[Runningman]

No Greek scholars duly noted

Greek scholars wrote the Bible versions and commentaries cited in my previous post. "Blood of His own [son]" is an honest translation according to many theologians of standing.

 

[civic]

Greek scholars wrote the Bible versions and commentaries cited in my previous post. "Blood of His own [son]" is an honest translation according to many theologians of standing.

Nope try reading below from these reliable translations



English Standard Version
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, which he obtained with his own blood.

Berean Standard Bible
Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

Berean Literal Bible
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has set you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with the own blood.

King James Bible
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.

New King James Version
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

New American Standard Bible
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

NASB 1995
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

NASB 1977
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

English Revised Version
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.

International Standard Version
Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood.


Young's Literal Translation
'Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, to feed the assembly of God that He acquired through His own blood

Next fallacy

 

[Runningman]

Nope try reading below from these reliable translations



English Standard Version
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, which he obtained with his own blood.

Berean Standard Bible
Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

Berean Literal Bible
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has set you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with the own blood.

King James Bible
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.

New King James Version
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

New American Standard Bible
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

NASB 1995
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

NASB 1977
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

English Revised Version
Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.

International Standard Version
Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood.


Young's Literal Translation
'Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, to feed the assembly of God that He acquired through His own blood

Next fallacy

Those are theological translations, but God having blood is heresy. People have blood, God doesn't. As already shown in my previous post, Jesus has blood because a man was slain on the cross. Hopefully Revelation 5 will make it clearer for you. As you can see, even the KJV proves that the blood of the lamb is not the blood of God.

Revelation 5 (KJV)
9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[civic]

Those are theological translations, but God having blood is heresy. People have blood, God doesn't. As already shown in my previous post, Jesus has blood because a man was slain on the cross. Hopefully Revelation 5 will make it clearer for you. As you can see, even the KJV proves that the blood of the lamb is not the blood of God.

Revelation 5 (KJV)
9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Nope they are the literal Greek to English word for word.

The Greek word Huios ( son ) is not in the original Greek manuscripts.

Next fallacy