THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Also the Holy Spirit would be included when Jesus said; “I and the Father are one." I can see Dualism more than the Trinity if one needed more than the actual Unity that I see.
This leaving out the Holy Spirit so often in Scripture leads me to believe it's just God's spirit in another expression.
 
Exactly, The word Christ means the anointed one. Anointed with the spirit of God. If Jesus were God, then why would he be anointed? God would not anoint himself with himself.
Here is one for you Builder, I don't think I've ever seen it;

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

A Contemorary changes it to the blood of His son. Which is correct?

Acts 20:28
Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.

Was the blood of Jesus "God's blood" or was it the human blood of Jesus? Perhaps the Father saying "His own blood" meant the blood of his Son. The Father not having blood but being a Father to Jesus had a bloodline. I could say "through my blood" if I was referring to my own son.

The blood of God would make God human. The Mother of God could be used to explain Mary. God was soul(Father), body(Jesus), and spirit(Holy Spirit)?
Not that I follow this belief, just trying to show how others do.
Does God have a body? Is God now Jesus? Oneness? Will we see God as Jesus only?
What I don't see or understand through that is Jesus still was human. He had a human body and a human spirit. He may have had something from his Father but regardless he was fully man. That man who died and resurrected has to be somewhere. Somewhere separate than the Father. God didn't just reabsorb the divine Jesus part back to the other 2/3rds and leave the man part at the right hand of the Father.
 
Last edited:
Also the Holy Spirit would be included when Jesus said; “I and the Father are one." I can see Dualism more than the Trinity if one needed more than the actual Unity that I see.
This leaving out the Holy Spirit so often in Scripture leads me to believe it's just God's spirit in another expression.
Agreed, and church history verifies the same. The HS as a 3rd coequal person of a triune God is the weakest link. Without it, the trinity crumbles. However, it will remain, it's in the bible. It's the 3 part baptismal formula, 666, it's the three part beast, it's the antichrist that claims to be God. Ever thought about why the wording does not say that the antichrist claims to be Jesus???? What does this tell you? You have to really dig deep in thought? Kind of like the analogy..... If you have two people, a liar and a truth teller..... Whom is the real truth teller. One will say, I am the truth teller, and the other will say I am the truth teller. Now apply this mindset to the antichrist claiming to be God. The hypothetical trinity Jesus has claimed to be God. The antichrist has been here since the HS became a 3rd person
 
Here is one for you Builder, I don't think I've ever seen it;

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

A Contemorary changes it to the blood of His son. Which is correct?

Acts 20:28
Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.

Was the blood of Jesus "God's blood" or was it the human blood of Jesus? Perhaps the Father saying "His own blood" meant the blood of his Son. The Father not having blood but being a Father to Jesus had a bloodline. I could say "through my blood" if I was referring to my own son.

The blood of God would make God human. The Mother of God could be used to explain Mary. God was soul(Father), body(Jesus), and spirit(Holy Spirit)?
Not that I follow this belief, just trying to show how others do.
Does God have a body? Is God now Jesus? Oneness? Will we see God as Jesus only?
What I don't see or understand through that is Jesus still was human. He had a human body and a human spirit. He may have had something from his Father but regardless he was fully man. That man who died and resurrected has to be somewhere. Somewhere separate than the Father. God didn't just reabsorb the divine Jesus part back to the other 2/3rds and leave the man part at the right hand of the Father.
I don't see an issue here. Whether it's the blood of his own or blood of the son, it does not say that is the blood of God. It just references the church of God. Not God. Did I misunderstand your point? I should reread it
 
I don't see an issue here. Whether it's the blood of his own or blood of the son, it does not say that is the blood of God. It just references the church of God. Not God. Did I misunderstand your point? I should reread it
It is a verse used to support the Trinity.

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Implying that the church was bought with God's blood. God's flock--his church, purchased with his own blood.

Another translation;
"to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood."

Read it again and tell me whose blood? Who died on the Cross, God or Jesus? I was thinking if God was his Father, then Jesus would have to have his Father's blood. I have my father's blood but it doesn't make me my father. Therefore it could still be God in Acts 20:28 whose blood purchased the Church.
This doesn't mean that God has a body or that God is human? Whose blood was needed God's or man's? Some say both. That God had to die on the Cross as well as man. I don't believe that God died on the Cross therefore it wasn't the blood of God.

Maybe a better translation would be "with the blood of his own." Meaning Jesus. Jesus being his Son.
 
It is a verse used to support the Trinity.

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Implying that the church was bought with God's blood. God's flock--his church, purchased with his own blood.

Another translation;
"to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood."

Read it again and tell me whose blood? Who died on the Cross, God or Jesus? I was thinking if God was his Father, then Jesus would have to have his Father's blood. I have my father's blood but it doesn't make me my father. Therefore it could still be God in Acts 20:28 whose blood purchased the Church.
This doesn't mean that God has a body or that God is human? Whose blood was needed God's or man's? Some say both. That God had to die on the Cross as well as man. I don't believe that God died on the Cross therefore it wasn't the blood of God.

Maybe a better translation would be "with the blood of his own." Meaning Jesus. Jesus being his Son.
The "he" is assumed Jesus. It makes no reference to the he being God. It refers to the church of God. No issue here. -------Keep practicing with the team of which the coach has made you captain. Be a leader of the Chicago Bulls, which he, [michael Jordon] bought with his own money--------- They wish they could remove this; the word church, church of God. Then they could make it work
1577 [e]ekklēsianἐκκλησίανchurch
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #27
The "he" is assumed Jesus. It makes no reference to the he being God. It refers to the church of God. No issue here. -------Keep practicing with the team of which the coach has made you captain. Be a leader of the Chicago Bulls, which he, [michael Jordon] bought with his own money--------- They wish they could remove this; the word church, church of God. Then they could make it work
1577 [e]ekklēsianἐκκλησίανchurch
If you don't know anymore of the subject than you say, I wouldn't say anything, if you have Bible Scripture on the subject to prove different then put it on here and explain it ! ! !
 
If you don't know anymore of the subject than you say, I wouldn't say anything, if you have Bible Scripture on the subject to prove different then put it on here and explain it ! ! !
I just did explain it. You can't force the "church of God" to be a reference to the next use of blood. LOL, if so, it's not God's blood.... then it's the churches blood. That don't work, now does it?
 
But no Bible Scriptures to prove it just words.
Haha, how about this. [the red letter is not my intention. It came from cut n paste]. I show you another route. Lets see what the writer of Acts actually taught
…21And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ 22Men of Israel, listen to thismessage: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certifiedby God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs,which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. 23He was handed over by God’s set plan and foreknowledge ..... but God raised him from the dead.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 3; 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to Him in everything He tells you.
9:20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 9;22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah. [notice he did not teach Jesus was God]
10;38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
17;3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. [notice not proclaiming Jesus is God]
17;31For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
acts 18;5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 18;28 For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. [notice not teaching Jesus is god]
Since we know Luke wrote Acts, lets see what the gospel of Luke taught.... Lk 24;19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24;19 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

So, are you trying to tell me that Acts was teaching that Jesus is God or that God purchased the church with his own blood.? No way. Your obiviously taking something out of context here. You see what you want to see while denying what it is that Luke believed and taught. You could only conclude that Luke made an inspired mistake that he was not aware of. As if it was a nugget planted for those later, who understood more of what Luke taught than Luke himself knew.
 
If you don't know anymore of the subject than you say, I wouldn't say anything, if you have Bible Scripture on the subject to prove different then put it on here and explain it ! ! !
Just so you know, for your trin hand full of proof texts, if your going to distort context, I will give you another one to distort. Call it a "handicap" Acts 16;34
 
Acts 20:28 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.

Best Trinity version. It has the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
Acts 20:28 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.

Best Trinity version. It has the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Son is not in the greek.
 
But no Bible Scriptures to prove it just words.
John 10:34-38
Jesus replied, "It is written in your own Scriptures that God said to certain leaders of the people, 'I say, you are gods!'35 And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people who received God's message were called 'gods,'
36 why do you call it blasphemy when I say, 'I am the Son of God'? After all, the Father set me apart and sent me into the world.
37 If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”

Scripture where God says "you are gods." Jesus asking why is it blasphemy when he says he is the Son of God when scripture says men are gods.

To continue it was the Father who set Jesus apart. Not Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit but the Father. Jesus said his Father sent him. Not him nor the Holy Spirit. Actually the Holy Spirit isn't even in on these actions according to this Acts passage.
Jesus ask; " If I am not doing the works of my Father then do not believe me." He was showing that he was only doing the works of his Father. This to show the Jews he himself was not God. That he was only doing the works of God.

It's a pretty good explanation by Jesus. He shows that God calls men god. He explains the God selected and sent him. He shows he is only doing the work of God and not of himself.
Then he says even if you don't believe me, believe the works themselves. If you believe the works themselves then you can understand the Father is in me and I'm in the Father. You can see that unity of how God can uses others. You can see that it is all from God. That it's his power.
It's not blasphemy at all when Jesus says "I am the Son of God" because it's still God who is doing everything through the Son.
 
Last edited:
Son is not in the greek.
I know the one that sounds more Trintitarian isn't the correct translation. It's definitely translated the blood of God which makes it more Oneness than Trinity if one was lead to read it that way.
Maybe this one is a good verse to show how translations more than inspiration have us a bit messed up in our learning scripture.

So you've got a passage translated the blood of God or the blood of the Son and Trinitarians are using the "blood of God" instead of the "blood of the Son" to prove the Trinity.
 
Last edited:
John 10:34-38
Jesus replied, "It is written in your own Scriptures that God said to certain leaders of the people, 'I say, you are gods!'35 And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people who received God's message were called 'gods,'
36 why do you call it blasphemy when I say, 'I am the Son of God'? After all, the Father set me apart and sent me into the world.
37 If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”

Scripture where God says "you are gods." Jesus asking why is it blasphemy when he says he is the Son of God when scripture says men are gods.

To continue it was the Father who set Jesus apart. Not Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit but the Father. Jesus said his Father sent him. Not him nor the Holy Spirit. Actually the Holy Spirit isn't even in on these actions according to this Acts passage.
Jesus ask; " If I am not doing the works of my Father then do not believe me." He was showing that he was only doing the works of his Father. This to show the Jews he himself was not God. That he was only doing the works of God.

It's a pretty good explanation by Jesus. He shows that God calls men god. He explains the God selected and sent him. He shows he is only doing the work of God and not of himself.
The he says even if you don't believe me, believe the works themselves. If you believe the works themselves then you can understand the Father is in me and I'm in the Father. You can see that unity of how God can uses others. You can see that it is all form God. That it's his power.
It's not blasphemy at all when Jesus says "I am the Son of God" because it's still God who is doing everything through the Son.
Miracles was how they were to recognize that God sent him. "when the Christ comes.... will he do greater miracles than this" implying that this must be the Christ based on the miracles.
I know the one that sounds more Trintitarian isn't the correct translation. It's definitely translated the blood of God which makes it more Oneness than Trinity if one was lead to read it that way.
Maybe this one is a good verse to show how translations more than inspiration have us a bit messed up in our learning scripture.
I can't agree with the blood of God. It does not say that? It is "own blood" or blood of [his] own. Then whom is it referring to as own? Assumed Jesus? God? church of God? I say it's assumed as Jesus
 
Son is not in the greek.
Acts 20 Interlinear
28 4337 [e]
28 prosechete
28 προσέχετε
28 Take heed
28 V-PMA-2P

1438 [e]
heautois
ἑαυτοῖς
to yourselves
RefPro-DM3P

2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj

3956 [e]
panti
παντὶ
to all
Adj-DNS

3588 [e]

τῷ
the
Art-DNS

4168 [e]
poimniō
ποιμνίῳ ,
flock
N-DNS

1722 [e]
en
ἐν
among
Prep

3739 [e]


which
RelPro-DNS

4771 [e]
hymas
ὑμᾶς
you
PPro-A2P

3588 [e]
to
τὸ
the
Art-NNS

4151 [e]
Pneuma
Πνεῦμα
Spirit
N-NNS

3588 [e]
to
τὸ
-
Art-NNS

40 [e]
Hagion
Ἅγιον
Holy
Adj-NNS

5087 [e]
etheto
ἔθετο
has set
V-AIM-3S

1985 [e]
episkopous
ἐπισκόπους ,
overseers
N-AMP

4165 [e]
poimainein
ποιμαίνειν
to shepherd
V-PNA

3588 [e]
tēn
τὴν
the
Art-AFS

1577 [e]
ekklēsian
ἐκκλησίαν
church
N-AFS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
-
Art-GMS

2316 [e]
Theou
Θεοῦ ,
of God
N-GMS

3739 [e]
hēn
ἣν
which
RelPro-AFS

4046 [e]
periepoiēsato
περιεποιήσατο
he purchased
V-AIM-3S

1223 [e]
dia
διὰ
with
Prep

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
-
Art-GNS

129 [e]
haimatos
αἵματος
blood
N-GNS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
the
Art-GNS

2398 [e]
idiou
ἰδίου .
own
Adj-GNS
 
Miracles was how they were to recognize that God sent him. "when the Christ comes.... will he do greater miracles than this" implying that this must be the Christ based on the miracles.
I can't agree with the blood of God. It does not say that? It is "own blood" or blood of [his] own. Then whom is it referring to as own? Assumed Jesus? God? church of God? I say it's assumed as Jesus
But Son is not in the Greek.

I would agree that it implies Jesus. I would hope most Trinitarians see it this way as well. Otherwise it's Oneness and not the Trinity.
It's not a very good verse to prove the Trinity. It would better prove Oneness if one is trying to say it's God's blood.
 
Thread starter #40
The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19; 1 John 5:7, 8). Some people teach that these are not names that they are mere titles, but such teaching demonstrates ignorance of human language and contradicts the Word of God. Our dictionaries and grammars call such words "nouns" or "substantives" and say that all such nouns are names. It is true that not all such are always "proper names" or names of certain individuals. But usage in any particular instance shows whether a word becomes a "proper name" or not; that is, whether it is applied as a name to a certain person. In Matt. 28:19 it is not just any father or any son or any ghost, but it is definitely a particular "Father" and "Son" and "Holy Ghost." The definite article "the" is used both in the Greek and English versions before each word. It is "the Father," and "the Son," and "the Holy Ghost." These terms thus used and associated can apply to no other persons on Earth or in Heaven.
 
Top