The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[Runningman]

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

Next fallacy

Then we agree that the God doesn't have blood, but the man Jesus does. The Lamb is a man and not God. Welcome to the family.

John 1
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

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]

Then we agree that the God doesn't have blood, but the man Jesus does. Welcome to the family. The Lamb is a man and not God.

John 1
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

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;

Nice dodge Runninman.

We are discussing Acts 20:28 so quit diverting- running away from the text we are discussing.

Now back to your fallacious argument from the text.

The Greek word Huios ( son ) is not in the original Greek manuscripts. Its used 382 times in the Greek New Testament and Acts 20:28 in not one of them. But God ( Theou, Θεοῦ ) sure is.

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

Westcott and Hort 1881
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

conclusion: you have no leg to stand on your legs have been cut off and your interpretation is false, built upon the lies of men and not the word of God which I have proven.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Runningman]

Nice dodge Runninman.

We are discussing Acts 20:28 so quit diverting- running away from the text we are discussing.

Now back to your fallacious argument from the text.

The Greek word Huios ( son ) is not in the original Greek manuscripts. Its used 382 times in the Greek New Testament and Acts 20:28 in not one of them. But God ( Theou, Θεοῦ ) sure is.

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος

Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

Westcott and Hort 1881
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

conclusion: you have no leg to stand on your legs have been cut off and your interpretation is false, built upon the lies of men and not the word of God which I have proven.

hope this helps !!!

Already debunked it in a previous post which you buried with an irrelevant one sentence reply. I was hoping it wouldn't turn into this, but seems we are here again. Let me copy and paste it for you.

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]

Already debunked it in a previous post which you buried with an irrelevant one sentence reply. I was hoping it wouldn't turn into this, but seems we are here again. Let me copy and paste it for you.

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"

Debunked not Greek manuscripts have “ son , huios” in them. It’s added by the terrible translations. No reliable translation has son but they all have God.

Your appeal to authority fallacy has been exposed.

Next fallacy .

 

[Runningman]

Debunked not Greek manuscripts have “ son , huios” in them. It’s added by the terrible translations. No reliable translation has son but they all have God.

Your appeal to authority fallacy has been exposed.

Next fallacy .

It's implied in the meaning of the Greek. Already proven in the commentaries and Bible versions I've shown.

 

[civic]

It's implied in the meaning of the Greek. Already proven in the commentaries and Bible versions I've shown.

Nope the Greek word huios( son) is not in the text.

End of discussion.

 

[civic]

It's implied in the meaning of the Greek. Already proven in the commentaries and Bible versions I've shown.

Using your argument I can say there are 100’s of verses implying Jesus is God.

You would have to concede that if what you claim is correct ( it’s not )

 

[Runningman]

Nope the Greek word huios( son) is not in the text.

End of discussion.

Using your argument I can say there are 100’s of verses implying Jesus is God.

You would have to concede that if starchy claim is correct ( it’s not )

you have no verses saying God has blood. This is getting a bit laughable. Do you believe God is descended from Adam, is not a Spirit, etc?

 

[mikesw]

you have no verses saying God has blood. This is getting a bit laughable. Do you believe God is descended from Adam, is not a Spirit, etc?

weird. you would have to say that God incarnate among humanity would somehow not also have blood in his body? you only share a philosophical preference of the idea that God is incapable of being incarnate among humanity. That seems to be your driver behind all your denial of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Yes. This needs to be stated once in awhile.

 

[civic]

you have no verses saying God has blood. This is getting a bit laughable. Do you believe God is descended from Adam, is not a Spirit, etc?

Christ is God therefor its biblical and correct to say its Gods blood as Acts 20:28 says.

next fallacy

 

[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

Nothing that you have said here supports your argument. υἱός is not found in the verse, but the idea of ‘God’s blood” is very clear. Since we know that the Father’s blood is impossible, for God the Father is Spirit, then the blood of Jesus is the only logical conclusion for being the reference point, and since Jesus is also “God”, this is a theological point of reference to his Deity.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Yep and seems numerous experts are in agreement with me.

Not if you do a simple grammatical sentence diagram. I learned how to do that in my Greek classes. So I assume you have that capability too.


Doug

 

[Runningman]

weird. you would have to say that God incarnate among humanity would somehow not also have blood in his body? you only share a philosophical preference of the idea that God is incapable of being incarnate among humanity. That seems to be your driver behind all your denial of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Yes. This needs to be stated once in awhile.

This is sheer philosophy on your part and easily countered by the solid fact that God doesn't need to be a man.

Matt 11 (ESV)
25At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

Acts 17 (ESV)
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

 

[Runningman]

Christ is God therefor its biblical and correct to say its Gods blood as Acts 20:28 says.

next fallacy

This is a one sentence argument despite the wall of evidence I have already given to the contrary.

 

[mikesw]

This is sheer philosophy on your part and easily countered by the solid fact that God doesn't need to be a man.

Matt 11 (ESV)
25At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

Acts 17 (ESV)
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

Then with Acts 17:24 you would be denying that Jesus was needed in our justification. Also, you simply use this as a proof text that is out of context. Paul was addressing people worshiping false gods and telling them that their actions involved a wrong perception of God. Yet, we know the Levitical priests did serve God with the aid of their hands. So we have more confirmation of your attempts to interpret scripture.

 

[Runningman]

Not if you do a simple grammatical sentence diagram. I learned how to do that in my Greek classes. So I assume you have that capability too.


Doug

So you reject the meaning of of Acts 20:28 and believe a Spirit has blood?

Luke 24 (ESV)
39See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

John 4 (ESV)
24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

 

[civic]

This is a one sentence argument despite the wall of evidence I have already given to the contrary.

you have no evidence from scripture and Acts 20:28 just the opinions of fallen and uninspired men.

 

[Johann]

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.

You are steel manning my point and a strong case for the Deity of Messiah.

Act 20:28 be-ye-heeding !01 Then02 to-[your]selves03 And04 to-entire05 The06 Flocklet07 among08 Which09 ye10 The11 Spirit12 The13 Holy14 appointed15 supervisors16 To-be-shepherding17 The18 ecclesia19 Of-the20 God21 N1 Which22 He-procures23 through24 The25 Own26 Blood27 N2

Act 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he obtained through the blood of his own Son . [Or “through his own blood”; the Greek construction can be taken either way, with “Son” implied if the meaning is “through the blood of his own”]

Act 20:28 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

5) "Which He hath purchased with His own blood." (en periepoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou) "Which He acquired (purchased) through His own blood," or the blood of His own Son Jesus Christ, who loved the church and gave Himself for her, Eph_5:25; 1Ti_3:15-16. The (Gk. periesato) is used in the sense of "to gain for one's self."



Act 20:28 Take heed Προσέχετε to yourselves ἑαυτοῖς and καὶ to all παντὶ the τῷ flock, ποιμνίῳ, among ἐν which ᾧ the τὸ - τὸ Holy Ἅγιον Spirit Πνεῦμα has set ἔθετο you ὑμᾶς overseers, ἐπισκόπους, to shepherd ποιμαίνειν the τὴν church ἐκκλησίαν - τοῦ of God, Θεοῦ, which ἣν He purchased περιεποιήσατο with διὰ the τοῦ own ἰδίου. - τοῦ blood. αἵματος

Thanks.

J.

 

[Runningman]

you have no evidence from scripture and Acts 20:28 just the opinions of fallen and uninspired men.

What is recorded in Acts 20:28 is clear about it being in regards to a human who is of God's (OWN) family. Your interpretation doesn't match any recognizable religion.

Come right out and say it. Do you believe God is a Spirit and that an invisible Spirit has blood?

 

[Runningman]

You are steel manning my point and a strong case for the Deity of Messiah.

Act 20:28 be-ye-heeding !01 Then02 to-[your]selves03 And04 to-entire05 The06 Flocklet07 among08 Which09 ye10 The11 Spirit12 The13 Holy14 appointed15 supervisors16 To-be-shepherding17 The18 ecclesia19 Of-the20 God21 N1 Which22 He-procures23 through24 The25 Own26 Blood27 N2

Act 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he obtained through the blood of his own Son . [Or “through his own blood”; the Greek construction can be taken either way, with “Son” implied if the meaning is “through the blood of his own”]

Act 20:28 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

5) "Which He hath purchased with His own blood." (en periepoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou) "Which He acquired (purchased) through His own blood," or the blood of His own Son Jesus Christ, who loved the church and gave Himself for her, Eph_5:25; 1Ti_3:15-16. The (Gk. periesato) is used in the sense of "to gain for one's self."



Act 20:28 Take heed Προσέχετε to yourselves ἑαυτοῖς and καὶ to all παντὶ the τῷ flock, ποιμνίῳ, among ἐν which ᾧ the τὸ - τὸ Holy Ἅγιον Spirit Πνεῦμα has set ἔθετο you ὑμᾶς overseers, ἐπισκόπους, to shepherd ποιμαίνειν the τὴν church ἐκκλησίαν - τοῦ of God, Θεοῦ, which ἣν He purchased περιεποιήσατο with διὰ the τοῦ own ἰδίου. - τοῦ blood. αἵματος

Thanks.

J.

My argument is essentially that Acts 20:28 refers to the blood of God's own family, i.e., His son. For you to argue against this, you must begin denying that Jesus is the son of God. Do you deny that Jesus is God's begotten son?