The Blood of God

[David H.]

There are those who deny that Jesus is God incarnate, and part of that is they cannot logically see how this works.

I want to show something here briefly That is a "proof" of this in the believers of past ages because of the shared experience of the Love of God through the sacrifice of the Blood of God on the cross that purchased us.

In other words there is an overwhelming moment when every believer tangibly feels and knows the Love of God for them and this comes from an understanding of the fact that Jesus was God incarnate and this is the blood of God that purchased us and redeemed us.

The means of this is through the lyrics of the hymnody of the church. Others please add your own here.

Here are few to get us started as a testimony of the Love of God expressed in the blood of God.

Charles Wesley: And can it be
And Can It Be? > Lyrics | Charles Wesley (timelesstruths.org)

1. And can it be that I should gain
   An int’rest in the Savior’s blood?
   Died He for me, who caused His pain—
   For me, who Him to death pursued?
   Amazing love! How can it be,
   That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
   • Refrain:
     Amazing love! How can it be,
     That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
2. ’Tis myst’ry all: th’ Immortal dies:
   Who can explore His strange design?
   In vain the firstborn seraph tries
   To sound the depths of love divine.
   ’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
   Let angel minds inquire no more.
3. He left His Father’s throne above—
   So free, so infinite His grace—
   Emptied Himself of all but love,
   And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
   ’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
   For, O my God, it found out me!
4. Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
   Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
   Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray—
   I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
   My chains fell off, my heart was free,
   I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
5. No condemnation now I dread;
   Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
   Alive in Him, my living Head,
   And clothed in righteousness divine,
   Bold I approach th’ eternal throne,
   And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Isaac Watts: Alas and did my savior bleed
Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed > Lyrics | Isaac Watts (timelesstruths.org)

1. Alas! and did my Savior bleed
   And did my Sov’reign die?
   Would He devote that sacred head
   For such a worm as I?
2. Was it for crimes that I had done
   He groaned upon the tree?
   Amazing pity! grace unknown!
   And love beyond degree!
3. Well might the sun in darkness hide
   And shut his glories in,
   When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
   For man the creature’s sin.
4. Thus might I hide my blushing face
   While His dear cross appears,
   Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
   And melt my eyes to tears.
5. But drops of grief can ne’er repay
   The debt of love I owe:
   Here, Lord, I give myself away,
   ’Tis all that I can do.
   • Refrain (Hudson):
     At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
     And the burden of my heart rolled away,
     It was there by faith I received my sight,
     And now I am happy all the day!

 

[Pearl]

I always think of God's covenant with Abraham where it was Abraham and who shed his own blood.
But God made a new covenant with man in which God shed His own blood. My God, my Father my Creator my Saviour shed his own blood for me - Awesome concept.

 

[Wrangler]

Charles Wesley: And can it be
And Can It Be? > Lyrics | Charles Wesley (timelesstruths.org)

Proof is lyrics from a song? Good grief!

 

[David H.]

Proof is lyrics from a song? Good grief!

A testimony of the Love of God for those he has redeemed.

And did my Sov’reign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

 

[Robert Gwin]

There are those who deny that Jesus is God incarnate, and part of that is they cannot logically see how this works.

I want to show something here briefly That is a "proof" of this in the believers of past ages because of the shared experience of the Love of God through the sacrifice of the Blood of God on the cross that purchased us.

In other words there is an overwhelming moment when every believer tangibly feels and knows the Love of God for them and this comes from an understanding of the fact that Jesus was God incarnate and this is the blood of God that purchased us and redeemed us.

The means of this is through the lyrics of the hymnody of the church. Others please add your own here.

Here are few to get us started as a testimony of the Love of God expressed in the blood of God.

Charles Wesley: And can it be
And Can It Be? > Lyrics | Charles Wesley (timelesstruths.org)

1. And can it be that I should gain
   An int’rest in the Savior’s blood?
   Died He for me, who caused His pain—
   For me, who Him to death pursued?
   Amazing love! How can it be,
   That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
   • Refrain:
     Amazing love! How can it be,
     That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
2. ’Tis myst’ry all: th’ Immortal dies:
   Who can explore His strange design?
   In vain the firstborn seraph tries
   To sound the depths of love divine.
   ’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
   Let angel minds inquire no more.
3. He left His Father’s throne above—
   So free, so infinite His grace—
   Emptied Himself of all but love,
   And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
   ’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
   For, O my God, it found out me!
4. Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
   Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
   Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray—
   I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
   My chains fell off, my heart was free,
   I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
5. No condemnation now I dread;
   Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
   Alive in Him, my living Head,
   And clothed in righteousness divine,
   Bold I approach th’ eternal throne,
   And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Isaac Watts: Alas and did my savior bleed
Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed > Lyrics | Isaac Watts (timelesstruths.org)

1. Alas! and did my Savior bleed
   And did my Sov’reign die?
   Would He devote that sacred head
   For such a worm as I?
2. Was it for crimes that I had done
   He groaned upon the tree?
   Amazing pity! grace unknown!
   And love beyond degree!
3. Well might the sun in darkness hide
   And shut his glories in,
   When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
   For man the creature’s sin.
4. Thus might I hide my blushing face
   While His dear cross appears,
   Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
   And melt my eyes to tears.
5. But drops of grief can ne’er repay
   The debt of love I owe:
   Here, Lord, I give myself away,
   ’Tis all that I can do.
   • Refrain (Hudson):
     At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
     And the burden of my heart rolled away,
     It was there by faith I received my sight,
     And now I am happy all the day!

Jesus was sent by God to be a ransom for us Dave. Why? Because Adam was perfect and lost life for us, since there was on other perfect human in existence, then none was an equal ransom. With God as his father, Jesus did not inherit sin, and was equal to Adam in his perfect state. His flesh and blood in sacrifice satisfies God's law of soul for soul, which atoned for mans sin. That of course does not mean that all will have everlasting life, like Adam, all who will be granted that has to be obedient to God's laws.

God would have been way too high, remember Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, to be a corresponding ransom. Heb 2:7; 1 Tim 2:6

 

[Cooper]

The fact that the blood of Jesus Christ, and no one else, cleanses from sin, proves that Jesus is God with us.

 

[David H.]

Jesus was sent by God to be a ransom for us Dave. Why? Because Adam was perfect and lost life for us, since there was on other perfect human in existence, then none was an equal ransom. With God as his father, Jesus did not inherit sin, and was equal to Adam in his perfect state. His flesh and blood in sacrifice satisfies God's law of soul for soul, which atoned for mans sin. That of course does not mean that all will have everlasting life, like Adam, all who will be granted that has to be obedient to God's laws.

God would have been way too high, remember Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, to be a corresponding ransom. Heb 2:7; 1 Tim 2:6

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. (Acts 20:28)

God's own blood purchased us....

 

[David H.]

1. O sacred Head, now wounded, with grief and shame weighed down,
   Now scornfully surrounded with thorns, Thine only crown;
   O sacred Head, what glory, what bliss till now was Thine!
   Yet, though despised and gory, I joy to call Thee mine.
2. What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered, was all for sinners’ gain;
   Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
   Lo, here I fall, my Savior! ’Tis I deserve Thy place;
   Look on me with Thy favor, vouchsafe to me Thy grace.
3. What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest friend,
   For this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
   O make me Thine forever, and should I fainting be,
   Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.
4. Be Thou my consolation, my shield when I must die;
   Remind me of Thy passion when my last hour draws nigh.
   Mine eyes shall then behold Thee, upon Thy cross shall dwell,
   My heart by faith enfolds Thee. Who dieth thus dies well.

Written in 1153AD

O Sacred Head, Now Wounded > Lyrics | Bernard of Clairvaux (timelesstruths.org)

 

[David H.]

Here is one from our Coptic Brothers and Sisters. You will have to click on the closed captioning for the English lyrics.

 

[Wrangler]

The fact that the blood of Jesus Christ, and no one else, cleanses from sin, proves that Jesus is God with us.

Do you realize saying one is called 'God with us' does not literally mean that person is God incarnate? And if it did, every person so named must also be God, right? If not, why not?

 

[David H.]

Do you realize saying one is called 'God with us' does not literally mean that person is God incarnate? And if it did, every person so named must also be God, right? If not, why not?

The thing is we know when we have Christ we have God with us....

Those living in the Muslim world are dying for their faith in the deity of Christ, I Point to the Coptics in Egypt because of all that transpired in the Arab Spring which is still familiar in people's minds.

 

[tigger 2]

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. (Acts 20:28)

God's own blood purchased us....

...............................................
Acts 20:28

There are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!

First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, "the church of the Lord." - NEB; REB; ASV; RSVCE; WE; Moffatt. Since Jesus was often referred to as "the Lord," this rendering negates any "Jesus is God" understanding for Acts 20:28.

Yes, even the popular trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also: "to feed the church of the Lord"!

And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering "the church of God" at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is "considerable degree of doubt" about this "preferred" rendering. They admit that "The external evidence is singularly balanced between `church of God' and `church of the Lord.'"

Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." - RSV, 1971 ed. also NRSV; NJB; CEB; CJB CEV; GNT; LEB; MOUNCE; NCV; NET; and VOICE.

The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow "with the blood" in this scripture. This could be translated as "with the blood of his own." A singular noun may be understood to follow "his own." This would be referring to God's "closest relation," his only-begotten Son.

The NIV Study Bible tells us in a footnote for Acts 20:28: "his own blood. Lit[erally] 'the blood of his own one,' a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one,' referring to his own son)." - Zondervan, 1985.

Noted trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:

"something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] 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.'" - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.

And for the above reason noted trinitarian NT scholar and translator William Barclay rendered Acts 20:28:

"... the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One."

Highly respected trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:

"it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or `of the Son'] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or `of his own'] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind." - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.

And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, tells us:

"Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [`through the blood of the own'], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean `with the blood of his Own.' (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that `his Own' (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to `the Beloved'."

Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV's "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or `beloved']" is obviously an honest, proper rendering.

Although the UBS Committee didn't actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that "some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [`his own Son']." - p. 481. Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.) and Today's English Version.

Note the the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:

"I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one' or 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son' (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.

"If however, one follows many English versions in construing [IDIOS] adjectivally ('through his own blood'), [HO THEOS] could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore allude to 'the blood of God,' although on this construction of [IDIOS] it is more probable that [THEOS] is God the Father and the unexpressed subject of [PERIEPOIHSATO] is Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible, that Acts 20:28 [HO THEOS] denotes Jesus." - p. 141, Jesus as Theos, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Baker Book House, Grand rapids, Michigan, 1992.

Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can't honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept.

 

[Cooper]

Do you realize saying one is called 'God with us' does not literally mean that person is God incarnate? And if it did, every person so named must also be God, right? If not, why not?

God is a title not a name.

 

[Cooper]

...............................................
Acts 20:28

There are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!

First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, "the church of the Lord." - NEB; REB; ASV; RSVCE; WE; Moffatt. Since Jesus was often referred to as "the Lord," this rendering negates any "Jesus is God" understanding for Acts 20:28.

Yes, even the popular trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also: "to feed the church of the Lord"!

And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering "the church of God" at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is "considerable degree of doubt" about this "preferred" rendering. They admit that "The external evidence is singularly balanced between `church of God' and `church of the Lord.'"

Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." - RSV, 1971 ed. also NRSV; NJB; CEB; CJB CEV; GNT; LEB; MOUNCE; NCV; NET; and VOICE.

The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow "with the blood" in this scripture. This could be translated as "with the blood of his own." A singular noun may be understood to follow "his own." This would be referring to God's "closest relation," his only-begotten Son.

The NIV Study Bible tells us in a footnote for Acts 20:28: "his own blood. Lit[erally] 'the blood of his own one,' a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one,' referring to his own son)." - Zondervan, 1985.

Noted trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:

"something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] 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.'" - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.

And for the above reason noted trinitarian NT scholar and translator William Barclay rendered Acts 20:28:

"... the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One."

Highly respected trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:

"it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or `of the Son'] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or `of his own'] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind." - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.

And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, tells us:

"Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [`through the blood of the own'], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean `with the blood of his Own.' (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that `his Own' (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to `the Beloved'."

Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV's "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or `beloved']" is obviously an honest, proper rendering.

Although the UBS Committee didn't actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that "some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [`his own Son']." - p. 481. Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.) and Today's English Version.

Note the the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:

"I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one' or 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son' (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.

"If however, one follows many English versions in construing [IDIOS] adjectivally ('through his own blood'), [HO THEOS] could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore allude to 'the blood of God,' although on this construction of [IDIOS] it is more probable that [THEOS] is God the Father and the unexpressed subject of [PERIEPOIHSATO] is Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible, that Acts 20:28 [HO THEOS] denotes Jesus." - p. 141, Jesus as Theos, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Baker Book House, Grand rapids, Michigan, 1992.

Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can't honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept.

"Church of God or Church of the Lord" emphasises the Oneness of the one God in the One Church.

As Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God."
.

 

[Wrangler]

God is a title not a name.

A species of life, like dog whose name is Lassie. But when there is only one dog, the title is synonymous with the name, right?

When one says that THE (definite article) came over, one is naming the visitor. So, what is your point?

 

[Cooper]

A species of life, like dog whose name is Lassie. But when there is only one dog, the title is synonymous with the name, right?

When one says that THE (definite article) came over, one is naming the visitor. So, what is your point?

In the beginning, a dog was a wolf.

In the beginning Jesus was the Word.
.

 

[Robert Gwin]

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. (Acts 20:28)

God's own blood purchased us....

David I would agree with you based on this one verse, but that is why you have to take the Bible as a whole. Do you think the Bible contradicts itself sir? I anticipate you will say no, and I further believe that you can quote Jn 3:16, so how can you harmonize those two passages?

 

[Wrangler]

In the beginning, a dog was a wolf.

In the beginning Jesus was the Word.
.

Absolutely not! In the Beginning was God who spoke words. Speaking is an attribute of God's being - not another person of his being.

Ironically, I re-read John 1 at 4 AM today. The 1st 13 verses are talking about God, not Jesus. Perhaps this video will enlighten you on how badly trinitarians botched the interpretation of John 1. The "He" was with God is the same word in 6:60, "that" teaching is hard to understand. John 1:2 should read It or that (word) was with God.

Finally, language usage, definition and logic inform us that given that 'the word' was 'with God,' you know with certainty that the word is not God. It is figurative language.

 

[Cooper]

Absolutely not! In the Beginning was God who spoke words. Speaking is an attribute of God's being - not another person of his being.

Ironically, I re-read John 1 at 4 AM today. The 1st 13 verses are talking about God, not Jesus. Perhaps this video will enlighten you on how badly trinitarians botched the interpretation of John 1. The "He" was with God is the same word in 6:60, "that" teaching is hard to understand. John 1:2 should read It or that (word) was with God.

Finally, language usage, definition and logic inform us that given that 'the word' was 'with God,' you know with certainty that the word is not God. It is figurative language.

If you expect me to watch 90 minutes of garbage, you need to think again.

 

[Wrangler]

If you expect me to watch 90 minutes of garbage, you need to think again.

Yea, better to remain ignorant. (And it is only 42 minutes long).