Jesus is God - Acts 20:28

[Wootah]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

28 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.

So we are to pay careful attention and care for the church of God, which He obtained with his own blood.

Isn't it clear that God obtained the church with his own blood?

[JehovahsWitness]

Acts 20:28 - NAS

"... shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

TOU IDIOU: HIS OWN BLOOD or THE BLOOD OF HIS OWN?

" Lit[erally] 'the blood of his own one,' a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one,' referring to his own son)." - The NIV Study Bible [footnote] , 1985.

"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.'" - J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.

"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'." - And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481

ACTS 20:28b ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATIONS

Contemporary English Version

...Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son

NET Bible
Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

New Revised Standard Version
Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

[onewithhim]

So do we agree now that the verse says "with the blood of his own"?

Yes. That's a common possessive/genitive construction in classical Greek.

That makes sense when considering hundreds of other scriptures.

Again, yes. "The x of the y" is a pretty common possessive construction and it appears in hundreds of other scriptures.

His own Son shed his blood.

No. "Son" is neither present in nor implied by the text. Unless you can find "hundreds of other scriptures" where "son" is added by translators, your argument is a non sequitur.

It IS implied by the text.

[Difflugia]

It IS implied by the text.

Only if you imagine it there. Adding "son" is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize a theologically difficult reading. Though the NWT notes don't include it, the quotation from Moulton actually goes on to mention that this pattern "in the papyri" is limitied to a single phrase in a single papyrus:

Mt 27:24, according to the text of ℵL and the later authorities, will supply a parallel for the grammatical ambiguity: there as here we have to decide whether the second genitive is an adjective qualifying the first or a noun dependent on it. The ΜGr use of ὁ ἴδιος, as substitute for the old ὁ αὐτός, has nothing foreshadowing it in the NT; but in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.C.) we find a passage where τῆι ἰδίαι is followed by τῆι αὐτῆι in the same sense, so that if seems inevitable to trace, with Blass, an anticipation of MGr here. Perhaps the use was locally restricted.

This continuation, omitted by the Watchtower article, makes it clear just how speculative it is, again reinforcing that the offered solution is theological rather based on any weight of textual evidence.

Another properly academic source, The Anchor Bible volume on Acts by Fitzmyer, says this:

The obvious meaning of the phrase creates a difficulty with the antecedent of the preferred reading, "God." Hence some commentators (e.g., Bruce, Knapp, Pesch, Weiser) have preferred to understand this phrase to mean, "with the blood of his Own," i.e., his own Son. Such an absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment for relatives. Perhaps, then, it might be used here for Jesus, somewhat like Rom 8:32 or 1 Tim 5:8. That, however, is a last-ditch solution for this text-critical problem.

Again, the author notes the speculative nature of this rendering, further noting that it is a "last-ditch solution." It's no wonder that Witnesses can find the theology they want in the Bible when their translators are willing to insert it there for them in the first place.

I will admit, however, that compared to scare quotes around "Samuel," this solution might be considered positively elegant.

[onewithhim]

It IS implied by the text.

Only if you imagine it there. Adding "son" is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize a theologically difficult reading. Though the NWT notes don't include it, the quotation from Moulton actually goes on to mention that this pattern "in the papyri" is limitied to a single phrase in a single papyrus:

Mt 27:24, according to the text of ℵL and the later authorities, will supply a parallel for the grammatical ambiguity: there as here we have to decide whether the second genitive is an adjective qualifying the first or a noun dependent on it. The ΜGr use of ὁ ἴδιος, as substitute for the old ὁ αὐτός, has nothing foreshadowing it in the NT; but in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.C.) we find a passage where τῆι ἰδίαι is followed by τῆι αὐτῆι in the same sense, so that if seems inevitable to trace, with Blass, an anticipation of MGr here. Perhaps the use was locally restricted.

This continuation, omitted by the Watchtower article, makes it clear just how speculative it is, again reinforcing that the offered solution is theological rather based on any weight of textual evidence.

Another properly academic source, The Anchor Bible volume on Acts by Fitzmyer, says this:

The obvious meaning of the phrase creates a difficulty with the antecedent of the preferred reading, "God." Hence some commentators (e.g., Bruce, Knapp, Pesch, Weiser) have preferred to understand this phrase to mean, "with the blood of his Own," i.e., his own Son. Such an absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment for relatives. Perhaps, then, it might be used here for Jesus, somewhat like Rom 8:32 or 1 Tim 5:8. That, however, is a last-ditch solution for this text-critical problem.

Again, the author notes the speculative nature of this rendering, further noting that it is a "last-ditch solution." It's no wonder that Witnesses can find the theology they want in the Bible when their translators are willing to insert it there for them in the first place.

I will admit, however, that compared to scare quotes around "Samuel," this solution might be considered positively elegant.

You just have to cast aspersions against the Witnesses and the NWT. It doesn't work. The many of other versions have shown that "of his own Son" is a logical rendering, considering the dozens of verses of Scripture that say that Jesus shed HIS blood, and not God.

[Wootah]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #14]

Can you show that in the Greek?

[Eaglestarz]

Why are all of you so stuck on the literal translation of words in a book of which you're not even certain from whence it came? Does Divine Inspiration and the workings of the Holy Spirit have no value to you whatsoever?

[Wootah]

Why are all of you so stuck on the literal translation of words in a book of which you're not even certain from whence it came? Does Divine Inspiration and the workings of the Holy Spirit have no value to you whatsoever?

The Holy Spirit testifies to Jesus is God. Anything else is not from the Spirit.

[Eaglestarz]

Exactly! So, why all the multitude of words referencing the writings and their numerous translations to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is God?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #14]

Can you show that in the Greek?

Nope. But, as I said, there are dozens of verses that show that Jesus shed his own blood, not God's. God cannot die. Use your brain.

[DB]

Why are all of you so stuck on the literal translation of words in a book of which you're not even certain from whence it came? Does Divine Inspiration and the workings of the Holy Spirit have no value to you whatsoever?

The Holy Spirit testifies to Jesus is God. Anything else is not from the Spirit.

Why are you approaching such an enigmatic, incomprehensible, and implausible subject matter, in such a simplistic and impetuous manner?
You found a single text that, depending on the translator's comprehension level and bias, supports your belief, but that defies every single axiom that any sound exegete knows about God: He is incorporeal, immortal, transcendent, wise, holy, incorruptible, etc.
God cannot die, be abused by His own creation, sacrifice Himself to Himself, nor bleed, etc...
You trinitarians insist that it was the human nature of Christ that died, because somehow you're willing to concede that God cannot die, and now you assert both that God can die, and can bleed???

Is there a single tenet in any of trinitarian theology that makes any sense, is consistent, and does not make a mockery of God?