Janosky:
Source:Quora
By :Arthur Paul Burton, Spiritual Minister.

you can read the “New World Translation” which is put out by the Watchtower here: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/acts/20/

Here is their explanation for including the word “Son” when that exact word does not appear in the Greek.

At least you know that the Greek manuscript doesn't contain the word "Son" that makes it a fraudulent insertion by who ever put it in their translation

Also, do you listen to other translations' reason why some certain words were inserted into their own translations, or you think only your demonic organization have explanation for inserting anything into the scripture? Hypocrite!

“with the blood of his own Son: Lit., “through the blood of the own (one).” Grammatically, the Greek expression could be translated “with the blood of his own” or “with his own blood,” so the context has to be taken into consideration.

This is the most delusional statement.
Firstly, the phrase lit: "through the blood of the own place (one)"

Is in reference to "...of God, the Lord" mentioned earlier.

Here is the YLT of that verse `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,

But your demonic translation knows that leaving that verse without insertion of "SON" will make Jesus to be God since the Father wasn't the one who shield blood and the reason why your translation silent on using Jehovah in place of THE LORD in that verse.

In Greek, the expression ho iʹdi·os (“his own”) could stand alone without a clarifying noun or pronoun, as seen by how it is rendered at Joh 1:11 (“his own home”); at Joh 13:1 (“his own”); at Ac 4:23 (“their own people”); and at Ac 24:23 (“his people”). In non-Biblical Greek papyri, the phrase is used as a term of endearment to refer to close relatives. A reader of this verse would logically understand from the context that a noun in the singular number is implied after the expression “his own” and that the noun referred to God’s only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed. Based on this, quite a number of scholars and translators acknowledge that the word “son” is to be understood here and render the phrase “with the blood of his own Son.”

So why didn't NWT allow the phrase to stand on it's own rather than adding to it

We know if that word stands alone, it will expose your lying organization more because it's obvious that "the LORD, OF GOD" is the one reference in that verse as shielding his blood.

As you can see, the Watchtower is not the only one to translate it that way.

Which then means NWT translation isn't the ONLY ACCURATE TRANSLATIONS out there.

This is getting interesting

It is their view and some other translators views, that there is a family relation implied in the Greek.

These other translations, are they consider by your demonic organization as accurate or they only find this particular part true because it only dance to their tune

However, let’s say the The Watchtower understanding is correct, that the Greek for “his own” implies a close relation, even a family relation.

Meaning not only watchtower understand the Greek text and can interpret it accurately.

In their notes they acknowledge that it literally doesn’t say “son” but “His own (one).”

Which then means Jesus is God because "His own" is in reference to "The Lord or of God"

I respect that honesty! [/i]They say- here is what it literally says, and here is what we think the literal meaning is pointing towards[/b]

Are they the ONLY translator who put FOOTNOTE in their translations? So you respect them just because it's the organization you belong to but see others that did the same as fraudster

[i]Then from my POV including son, is not 100% accurate… but leaving it just as “his own” isn’t either.

This part needs to be bookmarked for agreed that it's not 100% but don't be ashamed to call the translator of NWT "fraudulent insertion" as you do call others for doing the same thing.



Leaving it as "his own" is very accurate that's why reading that verse in translations that don't including the word SON makes more sense because the verse is simply talking about "OF GOD" who shields His own blood.

I would say, “His own kin.”

You still added to it....you this fraudster!


Read the verse slowly again as YLT puts it then you'll know you don't need any insertion.

`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,

It's only a liar and fraudster will see the reason of adding anything to the last part.

Emusan:


At least you know that the Greek manuscript doesn't contain the word "Son" that makes it a fraudulent insertion by who ever put it in their translation

Also, do you listen to other translations' reason why some certain words were inserted into their own translations, or you think only your demonic organization have explanation for inserting anything into the scripture? Hypocrite!



This is the most delusional statement.
Firstly, the phrase lit: "through the blood of the own place (one)"

Is in reference to "...of God, the Lord" mentioned earlier.

Here is the YLT of that verse `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,

But your demonic translation knows that leaving that verse without insertion of "SON" will make Jesus to be God since the Father wasn't the one who shield blood and the reason why your translation silent on using Jehovah in place of THE LORD in that verse.



So why didn't NWT allow the phrase to stand on it's own rather than adding to it

We know if that word stands alone, it will expose your lying organization more because it's obvious that "the LORD, OF GOD" is the one reference in that verse as shielding his blood.



Which then means NWT translation isn't the ONLY ACCURATE TRANSLATIONS out there.

This is getting interesting



These other translations, are they consider by your demonic organization as accurate or they only find this particular part true because it only dance to the tune of them



Meaning not only watchtower understand the Greek text and can interpret it accurately.



Which then means Jesus is God because "His own" is in reference to "The Lord or of God"



Are they the ONLY translator who put FOOTNOTE in their translations? So you respect them just because it's the organization you belong to but see others that did the same as fraudster



At least you agreed that there's fraudulent insertion in your translations just as you can called others for doing the same thing.

Leaving it as "his own" is very accurate that's why reading that verse in translations that don't including the word SON makes more sense because the verse is simply talking about "OF GOD" who shields His own blood.




You still added to it....you this fraudster!


Read the verse slowly again as YLT puts it then you'll know you don't need any insertion.

`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,

It's only a liar and fraudster will see the reason of adding anything to the last part.

Romans 8:32 = Acts 20:28 His own Son

Have you taken your Doctor's prescription lately?
Anger & bigotry not good for your health.


Shame on you, Mr LIENUS.[/b]

Emusan:


This is the most delusional statement.
Firstly, the phrase lit: "through the blood of the own place (one)"
.

Emusan deliberately adds "PLACE" to his misquote to DECEIVE this forum.

Emusan:


Is in reference to "...of God, the Lord" mentioned earlier.
.

There are 3 different renditions of that line in different manuscripts.
Mr LIENUS,Your rendition is NOT authentic.

Emusan:


But your demonic translation knows that leaving that verse without insertion of "SON" will make Jesus to be God since the Father wasn't the one who shield blood and the reason why your translation silent on using Jehovah in place of THE LORD in that verse.

Emusan says Acts 20:28 is NOT the God, Father of Jesus Christ, @John 20:17.
Acts 20:28 references his 2nd God.
Emusan LIENUS confesses he is a Polytheist worshipping 2 Gods.

Emusan:


So why didn't NWT allow the phrase to stand on it's own rather than adding to it

.We know if that word stands alone, it will expose your lying organization more because it's obvious that "the LORD, OF GOD" is the one reference in that verse as shielding his blood
.

Your Trinitarian mentor, Bill Mounce did the same thing.
Another of your Trinitarian mentor, Good News Translation did the same thing as NWT.
Complete Jewish Bible did so too.
According to your logic,is Bill Mounce , Good News Translation & complete Jewish Bible "demonic"?

If JW organization that says their GB and group is the one that saves people that it is no longer Jesus that saves people

If JW cult they can say holy spirit is just a force

If JW can say God is not on earth

Then this simple shows they worship devil using Bible as a diversion

Bishopkingsley:

If JW organization that says their GB and group is the one that saves people that it is no longer Jesus that saves people

If JW cult they can say holy spirit is just a force

If JW can say God is not on earth

Then this simple shows they worship devil using Bible as a diversion

You must be high on something
There is no proof of your GIBBERISH.

Janosky:

You must be high on something
There is no proof of your GIBBERISH.

What I said here is what JW followers preach is there any point you want to revoke

Ok tell me who saves people Jesus or GB

Janosky:

You must be high on something
There is no proof of your GIBBERISH.

Is your group able to save people or is it Jesus

sagenaija:

The request with respect to Acts 20:28 was simple:

Can MaxinDHouse, janosky and DappaD tell us where "Son" came from to enter into the picture here.

Instead of the "other people put it too" or "our interpretation makes sense to us" or "Complete Jewish Bible is the Koko" excuse we are seeing, one would have expected a simple, truthful and straightforward answer - 'Yes, here it is .....' or 'It's not there, but .. '.

Even our friend who quickly runs to the lexicon is now referring us to the Jewish Bible. I suppose that we can see that the answer is obvious.

Again, If a group can be so DECEITFUL and disingenuous in not translating portions of Scripture faithfully what else can't they twist to conform to their DOGMA?

Romans 8:32
God didn't spare [i]his own Son but handed him over [to death] for all of us

Sagenaija @ Acts 20:28 & Romans 8:32, who is "his own"?
DUBIOUS FRAUDULENT Trinitarians, una no get conscience.

The Greek word his own is used elsewhere in the holy Scriptures to reference endearment.
For this reason, there are overwhelming Scriptural evidences for referencing "the Son" as his own, Romans 8:32 is very pivotal.
John 3:16 is very pivotal.
Galatians 4:4 is also pivotal and proven evidences.
Una no get SENSE to resort to shameless desperation to DISPROVE Jesus @ John 3:16 and contradict Paul @Romans 8:32.



@ Acts 20:28, does that expression "his own" ,refers to God?
Numbers 23:19 "God is NOT man", does God have blood?
John 4:24, "God is a spirit". Do spirit have blood?
Are you telling this forum that your Triune God was slain by men?

Sagenaija IF your claim is true, why did your 'oly ghost not give the same reasoning & revelations to your Trinitarian devotees, Bill Mounce ,Good News Translation & Complete Jewish Bible?
If your claim is true, kindly tell this forum: What is the DOGMA of your Trinitarian devotees @ ACTs 20:28?

GardenOfGod:
https://www.nairaland.com/6711919/jesus-christ-archangel-michael-jehovah#up

Dump your GIBBERISH into the dustbin.

Bishopkingsley:


What I said here is what JW followers preach is there any point you want to revoke

Ok tell me who saves people Jesus or GB

Do you have proof?

Janosky:
Romans 8:32 = Acts 20:28 His own Son

When you already agreed that His own Son is NOT 100% accurate, you still went ahead to support the same inaccurate quote with another verse, isn't that self delusion?

Have you taken your Doctor's prescription lately?
Anger & bigotry not good for your health.

Lying liar JWs like your father the devil.

Just as hypocrisy is ruining your life

Shame on you, Mr LIENUS.[/b]

Shame on you lying liar JWs hypocrite.

Janosky:


Romans 8:32
God didn't spare [i]his own Son but handed him over [to death] for all of us

Sagenaija @ Acts 20:28 & Romans 8:32, who is "his own"?
DUBIOUS FRAUDULENT Trinitarians, una no get conscience.

The Greek word his own is used elsewhere in the holy Scriptures to reference endearment.
For this reason, there are overwhelming Scriptural evidences for referencing "the Son" as his own, Romans 8:32 is very pivotal.
John 3:16 is very pivotal.
Galatians 4:4 is also pivotal and proven evidences.
Una no get SENSE to resort to shameless desperation to DISPROVE Jesus @ John 3:16 and contradict Paul @Romans 8:32.


@ Acts 20:28, does that expression "his own" ,refers to God?
Numbers 23:19 "God is NOT man", does God have blood?
John 4:24, "God is a spirit". Do spirit have blood?
Are you telling this forum that your Triune God was slain by men?

Sagenaija IF your claim is true, why did your 'oly ghost not give the same reasoning & revelations to your Trinitarian devotees, Bill Mounce ,Good News Translation & Complete Jewish Bible?
If your claim is true, kindly tell this forum: What is the DOGMA of your Trinitarian devotees @ ACTs 20:28?

I do hope that you got it but you are constrained to have to defend your organisation.

The issue is that of [b]REMAINING TRUE to the original Greek. If in the notes explanations are given or words are out in brackets to show that they were not in the original, that would be in order. But inserting words that are not there originally without letting readers know is not being truthful.

In YOUR THEOLOGY was Archangel Michael previously a Spirit being before he became a man? Do spirits shed blood? But as a man did that man shed his blood? Are you telling us that Archangel Michael, an angel, was slain by men?

It is not about what men say that portion means or what 'devotees' propound. It still remaining true to the text first and foremost. Why read meaning into the text? Understand the text and if it requires you to change your stance then do so.

Even the sources you pasted say that the word "Son" was included in the translation, which means that it was not in the original.

Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead was in Jesus. Not part. Not a subordinate nature - All. And ALL means ALL.

And so translating it without what you people think it IMPLIES is the way of being true to the text. In other words, since the word 'Son' is NOT in the Greek, there is no need to assume that it OUGHT to be there. Translating it as "which he bought (or purchased) with his own blood" is the correct, factual and reasonable rendering of that portion.

If any assumptions are to be made they are certainly not in this clear verse of Scripture.

The Son of God is God the Son. As we see in Col. 2:9, all of God is in him. So, since God the Son shed his blood to pay for man's sin then the purchase was made by God's blood. It was his own blood that purchased the church. Remember Jesus said "I will build my church". He owns the church. He demonstrated this in the book of Revelation.

Remember again what Abraham said: "Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son. ...”
Genesis 22:8 NIV
God provided and to that extent it is God's own.

Like someone has asked you:
If it's the God the Father of Jesus Christ, why didn't your demonic translation use JEHOVAH THERE?
If your translators believe it was God the Father referenced there, why didn't they use your favoured word Jehovah in that portion? Why didn't they say "the congregation of Jehovah, which he bought with the blood of his Son"?
Can you see that something went wrong with your people's work on that portion of Scripture?

Janosky:
Emusan deliberately adds "PLACE" to his misquote to DECEIVE this forum.

That should be a typo because even the word has no meaning there nor perverted the verse as your demonic translation does.

There are 3 different renditions of that line in different manuscripts.
Mr LIENUS,Your rendition is NOT authentic.

Oponu JaNosense that is Young Literal Translation which is more authentic than your demonic translation.

Emusan says Acts 20:28 is NOT the God, Father of Jesus Christ, @John 20:17.
Acts 20:28 references his 2nd God.
Emusan LIENUS confesses he is a Polytheist worshipping 2 Gods.

If it's the God the Father of Jesus Christ, why didn't your demonic translation use JEHOVAH THERE So that your father the devil will be put to shame

Your Trinitarian mentor, Bill Mounce did the same thing.

Which means Bill Mounce translation is more authentic than your NWT

Severe pain for you always

Another of your Trinitarian mentor, Good News Translation did the same thing as NWT.

Which means not ONLY NWT is more accurate

Besides, do you agree with Good News Translation on John 1:1 and other verses that negate your demonic translation?

Only Jehovah knows the version outside your demonic translation that you haven't called their witnesses to support your lying doctrine despite the fact that you never believe those translations are accurate

So much for the lying liar JWs like his father the devil.

Complete Jewish Bible did so too.

Which means Complete Jewish Bible is accurate, do you agree with that?

You'll see the oponu changing mouth now

According to your logic,is Bill Mounce , Good News Translation & complete Jewish Bible "demonic"?

According to your logic, are Bill Mounce, Good News Translation & Complete Jewish Bible not accurate? Why do you take NWT over them?

Hypocrite, who will run to the so called TRINITARIAN BIBLE to support his demonic translation when in actual sense he doesn't regard the same translations.

Like I always tell you, you can keep doing your hide and seek & jumping from different commentaries to Bible translations of the so called TRINITARIAN to support your demonic translation, it won't change the fact that the devil is the inspired force behind that translation.

The same way, your brothers in bethel were twisting Metzger work to support their lying doctrines before he came out openly to stop them of misinterpreting his work for their selfishness.

Janosky:

Do you have proof?

Just state your own truth

Who can save people is it Jesus or Jehovah witness organization

Bishopkingsley:


Just state your own truth

Who can save people is it Jesus or Jehovah witness organization

they will deny it but in their Watchtower it is JW organization that they believe can save human. Lol

Janosky:

Dump your GIBBERISH into the dustbin.

A challenge that even Russell will run away from.

GardenOfGod:

A challenge that even Russell will run away from.

Every reasonable person will jakpa from your GIBBERISH.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
I do hope that you got it but you are constrained to have to defend your organisation.

The issue is that of REMAINING TRUE to the original Greek. If in the notes explanations are given or words are out in brackets to show that they were not in the original, that would be in order. But inserting words that are not there originally without letting readers know is not being truthful.

In YOUR THEOLOGY was Archangel Michael previously a Spirit being before he became a man? Do spirits shed blood? But as a man did that man shed his blood? Are you telling us that Archangel Michael, an angel, was slain by men?

It is not about what men say that portion means or what 'devotees' propound. It still remaining true to the text first and foremost. Why read meaning into the text? Understand the text and if it requires you to change your stance then do so.

Even the sources you pasted say that the word "Son" was included in the translation, which means that it was not in the original.

Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead was in Jesus. Not part. Not a subordinate nature - All. And ALL means ALL.

And so translating it without what you people think it IMPLIES is the way of being true to the text. In other words, since the word 'Son' is NOT in the Greek, there is no need to assume that it OUGHT to be there. Translating it as "which he bought (or purchased) with his own blood" is the correct, factual and reasonable rendering of that portion.

If any assumptions are to be made they are certainly not in this clear verse of Scripture.

The Son of God is God the Son. As we see in Col. 2:9, all of God is in him. So, since God the Son shed his blood to pay for man's sin then the purchase was made by God's blood. It was his own blood that purchased the church. Remember Jesus said "I will build my church". He owns the church. He demonstrated this in the book of Revelation.

Remember again what Abraham said: "Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son. ...”
Genesis 22:8 NIV
God provided and to that extent it is God's own.

Like someone has asked you:
If it's the God the Father of Jesus Christ, why didn't your demonic translation use JEHOVAH THERE?
If your translators believe it was God the Father referenced there, why didn't they use your favoured word Jehovah in that portion? Why didn't they say "the congregation of Jehovah, which he bought with the blood of his Son"?
Can you see that something went wrong with your people's work on that portion of Scripture?

Acts 20:28 = Romans 8 32. Who is "his own?"
Scriptures interprete scriptures.
Go & argue with Bill Mounce,CEV ,& GNT Bibles, your fellow Trinitarian devotees.

Accept it & dump Trinity GIBBERISH into the dustbin.

God the son is a man made scam.
Revelation 3:5,12 Jesus Christ confirmed that.

Godhead is alien to the Greek scriptures.
Theiotes = divine nature, divine quality.

Janosky:


Every reasonable person will jakpa from your GIBBERISH.

You have been reduced to always saying GIBBERISH!
While your brother whom you denied has been reduced to always posting pictures of baptism.

Non of you could address my challenge of Jehovah being an angel if Jesus is angel.

That's the challenge!!!

GardenOfGod:

You have been reduced to always saying GIBBERISH!
While your brother whom you denied has been reduced to always posting pictures of baptism.

Non of you could address my challenge of Jehovah being an angel if Jesus is angel.

That's the challenge!!!

The reason why they are mentally un coordinated is because they have no focus they use their mind to interpret scripture and that leads to madness

So the only thing they can give is confusion to their members thus this makes them rant when you ask them to stay in one place

They move tro and fro like devil some even say devil is their father

Who knows

Janosky:


Acts 20:28 = Romans 8 32. Who is "his own?"
Scriptures interprete scriptures.
Go & argue with Bill Mounce,CEV ,& GNT Bibles, your fellow Trinitarian devotees.

Accept it & dump Trinity GIBBERISH into the dustbin.

God the son is a man made scam.
Revelation 3:5,12 Jesus Christ confirmed that.

Godhead is alien to the Greek scriptures.
Theiotes = divine nature, divine quality.

The 'his own' in Acts 20:28 is not a 'who' but a 'what'. The 'his own' in Acts 20:28 is 'blood' ; 'his own blood' - that what's in the that Acts 20 portion.

"... the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. "

It is when you want to make it a 'who' that you begin to look for what to insert into the verse to make it conform to what you want.

The one who said "I will build my church" is the one who bought it with his own blood.
Did you see "my church" in that my last sentence? Who said "my church"?

Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead was in Jesus. Not part. Not a subordinate nature - All. And ALL means ALL.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
The 'his own' in Acts 20:28 is not a 'who' but a 'what'. The 'his own' in Acts 20:28 is 'blood' ; 'his own blood' - that what's in the that Acts 20 portion.

"... the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. "

John 5:37.
"And the Father who sent me has testified about me himself. You have never heard his voice or seen him face to face"

John 5:37 & Romans 8:3, was his Father in the likeness of sinful man?
John 4:23-24, "the God is a spirit".
Is blood in the veins of God his Father?

sagenaija:

It is when you want to make it a 'who' that you begin to look for what to insert into the verse to make it conform to what you want.

Sagenaija, just kukuma tell this forum that you deleted John 5:37, Romans 8:3 & Matthew 27:24-25,46 from your Bible.

sagenaija:

The one who said "I will build my church" is the one who bought it with his own blood.
Did you see "my church" in that my last sentence? Who said "my church"?

John 17:7, God his Father owns the Church.
1 Corinthians 3:23,who owns Jesus & the Church?
Trinity GIBBERISH dey robb people SENSE

sagenaija:

Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead was in Jesus. Not part. Not a subordinate nature - All. And ALL means ALL.

Colossians 2:10, the fullness of theoites (divine nature/quality) in Christ was given to humans, the believers.
According to your claim in verse 9, every man is God in verse 10 & @ 2 Peter 1:4

Trinity shege !!!!!

Bishopkingsley:


[s]The reason why they are mentally un coordinated is because they have no focus they use their mind to interpret scripture and that leads to madness

So the only thing they can give is confusion to their members thus this makes them rant when you ask them to stay in one place

They move tro and fro like devil some even say devil is their father

Who knows[/s]

GIBBERISH

GardenOfGod:

You have been reduced to always saying GIBBERISH!
While your brother whom you denied has been reduced to always posting pictures of baptism.

Non of you could address my challenge of Jehovah being an angel if Jesus is angel.

That's the challenge!!!

Isaiah 6:8
"Then I heard the voice of JEHOVAH saying:
"Whom shall I send?"
JEHOVAH is NOT a angel/messenger.

Genesis 16:7, Malachi 3:1 , John 7:16(Amplified Bible &Geneva Bible), your Trinitarian mentors proven that Jesus Christ is angel/messenger for his Father.


Bros Garden, connect your brain to the scriptures & stop DECEIVING yourself ..

Bishopkingsley:


Is your group able to save people or is it Jesus

John 9:4 & John 20:17who are worshippers of the God whom Jesus worships?

Acts 15:14,17-18, which group do they belong to?

Well he is, your fruitless arguments can't disprove what is WORKING fine in the midst of believers! James 2:18-26

DappaD:


My point exactly! Jesus really became the Lamb of God when he was resurrected and offered the value of his sacrificial death to God in heaven(Hebrews 9:14, 24-26) in order for our sins to be forgiven(1John 1:7) and for us to have the prospect of living forever. John 3:16
So the title “Lamb” belonged to Jesus before his death(John 1:29) and after his resurrection to heaven. Revelation 5:6

This buttresses my point so well that’s why Jesus is still being called Servant even after his resurrection because that is something that will not also change! Matthew 12:18 see also Acts 3:13

You see what happens when you want to enter into argument with superior wisdom. Mr sagenaija, please please please there are still so many other questions I asked you so please attend to them quickly.

My point exactly!

One begins to wonder, what really was the point? Continue reading

Jesus really became the Lamb of God when he was resurrected and offered the value of his sacrificial death to God in heaven(Hebrews 9:14, 24-26) in order for our sins to be forgiven(1John 1:7) and for us to have the prospect of living forever. John 3:16

Since Jesus really became the Lamb of God when he when he was resurrected and offered his sacrificial death to God in heaven. What was Jesus really before his death?

So the title “Lamb” belonged to Jesus before his death(John 1:29)

But he was really the Lamb after his death as captured in your post above.

and after his resurrection to heaven. Revelation 5:6

What was Jesus really before his death?

Before his death Jesus must be an unreal lamb after his death was when he became the really or real lamb of God.


Perfect case of you thinking you made a point.

Janosky:

John 9:4 & John 20:17who are worshippers of the God whom Jesus worships?

Acts 15:14,17-18, which group do they belong to?

1. Is it the group that saves?

Or

2. Is it Jesus that saves?

Na the question be that.

Or choose to admit the image below as captured from your darling religious organisation are LIES.


Who are the WE? Are you(Janosky? among them?

Janosky:

John 5:37.
"And the Father who sent me has testified about me himself. You have never heard his voice or seen him face to face"

John 5:37 & Romans 8:3, was his Father in the likeness of sinful man?
John 4:23-24, "the God is a spirit".
Is blood in the veins of God his Father?

Sagenaija, just kukuma tell this forum that you deleted John 5:37, Romans 8:3 & Matthew 27:24-25,46 from your Bible.

John 17:7, God his Father owns the Church.
1 Corinthians 3:23,who owns Jesus & the Church?
Trinity GIBBERISH dey robb people SENSE

Colossians 2:10, the fullness of theoites (divine nature/quality) in Christ was given to humans, the believers.
According to your claim in verse 9, every man is God in verse 10 & @ 2 Peter 1:4

Trinity shege !!!!!

Clown janosky!! Still fluttering around.
How do these relate to Acts 20:28?

sagenaija:

Clown janosky!! Still fluttering around.
How do these relate to Acts 20:28?

Acts 20:28 reads : "blood of his own."
No royko, no Maggi, no medemede.


Bros, why are you desperate to cherry pick on Acts 20:28?
Your stance is in conflict with Jesus Christ @John 3:16 &John 5:37.
Jesus Christ says his Father has no blood in him.

Matthew 27:24-25,the Jews & the Pagan Roman ruler, Pontius Pilate knows that God has no blood in him.

Did it occur to you that you are telling this public forum that holy spirit inspired Matthew, Paul & John with the same message
@ Romans 8:3,32,Matthew 27:43,46 & John 3:16/1John1:7 & a conflicting, contradictory message @ Acts 20:28?

Another important point is this:
There are 2 slightly different versions of Acts20:28, which is highly regarded by Bible scholars.
Another version of authentic authority reads: "Church of the lord".

Acts 20:24 references Jesus as lord.

On the basis of Acts 20:24, verse 28 references Jesus Christ as having blood, not his Father.

Still another solid scriptural evidences:
Everywhere in the holy scriptures, the expression [b]"his own" references a person or people.

Contrary to Sagenaija's claim, "His own" does NOT, NEVER refers to any substance or quality.
John 1:11 "his own" references a group of persons, the Jews.
Romans 8:3,32 "His own" references a person, Jesus.
Acts 20:28, "blood of his own" refers to a person, Jesus.

Even a pagan, Pontius Pilate knows that God has no blood.
Trinity na fraud jare.

achorladey:


1. Is it the group that saves?

Or

2. Is it Jesus that saves?

Na the question be that.

Or choose to admit the image below as captured from your darling religious organisation are LIES.


Who are the WE? Are you(Janosky? among them?

Acts 4:12 & Acts 15:14,17-18. Jesus saves only the "WE", the Group chosen to bear his Father, Jehovah's name.

John 5:43, the same name Jesus identified with.

Is Achorladey in the Group chosen to bear JEHOVAH's name?.