And what does the author of the gospel of John himself say?
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
41
John 20: 28 in the NWT Calls Jesus God
by Sea Breeze inin answer thomas said to him: “my lord and my god!
- john 20: 28 nwt.
why don't jehovah's witnesses believe jesus is god when he is called that in their own bible?.
-
-
-
65
Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's how this verse should read: .
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.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
-
-
slimboyfat
Murray J. Harris wrote a book (“Jesus As God”) exploring instances in the NT of Jesus being called “God” and he concludes this verse is unlikely an instance of that. This is notable as a Trinitarian who believes there are other instances where Jesus is called God. This was his conclusion on Acts 20:28:
-
65
Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's how this verse should read: .
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.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
-
-
slimboyfat
Perhaps a good translation is “the church of God which he purchased with the blood of his Own”. That’s fairly literal and most would get the point of what it’s saying. Adding “Son” just makes more explicit what the author meant and what the early readers likely understood. The idea that God himself died and gave his own blood is much later and not anything that would have remotely entered the imagination of first century Christians. It doesn’t even sit all that comfortably with Trinitarian orthodoxy either which in many respects is a fruitless exercise in trying to combine incompatible statements in various combinations, which is perhaps why even some Trinitarian scholars and/or apologists have not pushed the so-called Trinitarian reading for this particular text.
-
24
Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
-
-
slimboyfat
Okay, here my AI responds to your AI (For entertainment value only, this AI is no more reliable on matters of fact than the other one!):
Ah yes, the classic appeal to Raymond E. Brown—because nothing says “airtight Trinitarian exegesis” like a scholar who literally files the passage under “Texts Where the Use of the Title God for Jesus Is Dubious.” But please, do go on lecturing others about how Brown actually clinches the case for Christ’s deity here. Because, you see, if you just squint hard enough, wave away the syntax, ignore the broader Lukan theology, and insert a bit of theological wishful thinking—voilà!—you’ve got a verse that might, possibly, under certain grammatical readings, suggest Jesus is God... or not.
Let’s slow this down and admire the sleight of hand. First, Brown surveys the manuscript evidence between κύριος and θεός—a necessary first step, of course, and he does conclude that θεός is more likely original. But then we’re told, with almost comical confidence, that the debate is over. Case closed. Jesus is God. Brown said so. Never mind that he literally spends the rest of the paragraph explaining why it still doesn’t prove Jesus is called “God.” No, let’s not get bogged down in the second half of his argument—the part where he admits the grammar still permits reading “God” as the Father and “his own” as an elliptical reference to the Son. That part’s just a footnote, right?
But here’s the punchline: Trinitarians are so desperate for proof texts that they’re reduced to treating a text Brown himself lists under “dubious” as if it were a flashing neon sign reading “Jesus is God.” Imagine thinking a verse is slam-dunk Trinitarian because the grammar might allow it if you read it a certain way assuming your theology is already true. It’s like arguing a man is guilty because he could have been at the crime scene, even though no one saw him there, and the fingerprints don’t match.
And let’s not gloss over the acrobatics needed to make “the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” into “Jesus is Almighty God.” First, assume “God” refers to Jesus (not the Father, which is how Luke uses “God” literally everywhere else in Acts). Then, insist that “his own” means Jesus himself—not his Son—even though the New Testament frequently uses that very phrase (ho idios) to refer to a beloved person in relation to someone else (Romans 8:32, anyone?). And finally, ignore the fact that early scribes themselves were clearly uncertain about how to handle this text—hence the variant readings.
But no worries—Trinitarians will just shout “θεός is original!” as if that settles anything. Yes, θεός may be original. And yet, Brown still places it among passages where calling Jesus “God” is dubious. Why? Because being original doesn’t mean being unambiguous. You can have the right word and still the wrong interpretation. That’s how language works. But apparently, in some circles, grammar is optional when theology demands certainty.
And just to really drive this home: if this verse is your best shot—if this is what you pull out to prove the deity of Christ—then it’s no wonder Trinitarianism relies so heavily on creeds and councils rather than Scripture. Because if Acts 20:28 is your home run, you’re playing tee-ball.
So to summarize with all due respect (which, by this point, is a courtesy): yes, Brown prefers θεός. No, he does not thereby say “Jesus is definitely being called God here.” In fact, he spends most of the paragraph cautioning against such a conclusion. And yes, the NWT’s rendering—“with the blood of his own [Son]”—isn’t a sectarian twist; it’s one of two grammatically sound options acknowledged by even critical Trinitarian scholars. Dismissing it as an “interpolation” only reveals a lack of exegetical sobriety.
In short: Brown’s analysis is not the triumphant proof some imagine. It’s a reluctant footnote in the already flimsy dossier of verses stretched beyond recognition to serve a theology the Bible never clearly teaches. So if you’re going to invoke Raymond E. Brown, at least read him carefully. Because cherry-picking his first sentence and ignoring the rest isn’t exegesis—it’s theological propaganda dressed up in a scholar’s robe. Ah yes, the classic appeal to Raymond E. Brown—because nothing says “airtight Trinitarian exegesis” like a scholar who literally files the passage under “Texts Where the Use of the Title God for Jesus Is Dubious.” But please, do go on lecturing others about how Brown actually clinches the case for Christ’s deity here. Because, you see, if you just squint hard enough, wave away the syntax, ignore the broader Lukan theology, and insert a bit of theological wishful thinking—voilà!—you’ve got a verse that might, possibly, under certain grammatical readings, suggest Jesus is God... or not.
Let’s slow this down and admire the sleight of hand. First, Brown surveys the manuscript evidence between κύριος and θεός—a necessary first step, of course, and he does conclude that θεός is more likely original. But then we’re told, with almost comical confidence, that the debate is over. Case closed. Jesus is God. Brown said so. Never mind that he literally spends the rest of the paragraph explaining why it still doesn’t prove Jesus is called “God.” No, let’s not get bogged down in the second half of his argument—the part where he admits the grammar still permits reading “God” as the Father and “his own” as an elliptical reference to the Son. That part’s just a footnote, right?
But here’s the punchline: Trinitarians are so desperate for proof texts that they’re reduced to treating a text Brown himself lists under “dubious” as if it were a flashing neon sign reading “Jesus is God.” Imagine thinking a verse is slam-dunk Trinitarian because the grammar might allow it if you read it a certain way assuming your theology is already true. It’s like arguing a man is guilty because he could have been at the crime scene, even though no one saw him there, and the fingerprints don’t match.
And let’s not gloss over the acrobatics needed to make “the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood” into “Jesus is Almighty God.” First, assume “God” refers to Jesus (not the Father, which is how Luke uses “God” literally everywhere else in Acts). Then, insist that “his own” means Jesus himself—not his Son—even though the New Testament frequently uses that very phrase (ho idios) to refer to a beloved person in relation to someone else (Romans 8:32, anyone?). And finally, ignore the fact that early scribes themselves were clearly uncertain about how to handle this text—hence the variant readings.
But no worries—Trinitarians will just shout “θεός is original!” as if that settles anything. Yes, θεός may be original. And yet, Brown still places it among passages where calling Jesus “God” is dubious. Why? Because being original doesn’t mean being unambiguous. You can have the right word and still the wrong interpretation. That’s how language works. But apparently, in some circles, grammar is optional when theology demands certainty.
And just to really drive this home: if this verse is your best shot—if this is what you pull out to prove the deity of Christ—then it’s no wonder Trinitarianism relies so heavily on creeds and councils rather than Scripture. Because if Acts 20:28 is your home run, you’re playing tee-ball.
So to summarize with all due respect (which, by this point, is a courtesy): yes, Brown prefers θεός. No, he does not thereby say “Jesus is definitely being called God here.” In fact, he spends most of the paragraph cautioning against such a conclusion. And yes, the NWT’s rendering—“with the blood of his own [Son]”—isn’t a sectarian twist; it’s one of two grammatically sound options acknowledged by even critical Trinitarian scholars. Dismissing it as an “interpolation” only reveals a lack of exegetical sobriety.
In short: Brown’s analysis is not the triumphant proof some imagine. It’s a reluctant footnote in the already flimsy dossier of verses stretched beyond recognition to serve a theology the Bible never clearly teaches. So if you’re going to invoke Raymond E. Brown, at least read him carefully. Because cherry-picking his first sentence and ignoring the rest isn’t exegesis—it’s theological propaganda dressed up in a scholar’s robe.
-
24
Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
-
-
slimboyfat
And yet you drivel on, and repeat the falsehood.
Brown lists Acts 20:28 among texts where “the application of theos to Jesus is dubious,” not because the reading ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ is in doubt or because he thinks an invisible huiou lurks in the line, but because the genitive τοῦ ἰδίου allows two grammatical analyses.
This is factually incorrect. Brown considers the text, God or Lord, itself uncertain. That’s why he put it in a section of his chapter under a heading for texts that are uncertain because of textual variants! That’s how he categorises it. But your AI simply doesn’t care about true and false, and it will happily supply you with endless plausible-sounding false statements about Brown and whatever else until the cows come home. Give it a rest. Read an actual book for yourself.
-
24
Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
-
-
slimboyfat
Your AI post is utterly bizarre if read carefully Aqabot. You start out by saying that Brown does not “vindicate” the NWT rendering. Then you go on to acknowledge that Brown says the NWT rendering “with the blood of His Own [Son]” fits Paul’s theology and “perhaps Luke intended it.” If not a full throated endorsement, that sounds like a measure of support for the plausibility of the NWT at least. It at least undermines any argument that Acts 20:28 is a reliable endorsement of 4th century Nicene Christology.
The doubt he registers is not about the text (“church of God” is accepted) but about how the genitive τοῦ ἰδίου should be construed.
Actually, he explores and expresses doubt about both. This is a false summary. Simply factually wrong.
As so often with these fabricated AI posts, the conclusions offered either don’t match the evidence presented, or else the evidence presented is a fabrication. It takes a lot of time and careful reading to work out exactly where the problem lies and that is why it is a waste of time.
-
24
Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
-
-
slimboyfat
Your characterisation of Brown’s view is entirely misleading. He discusses Acts 20:28 under the heading “Passages Where the Use of the Title ‘God’ for Jesus is Dubious”. How come you missed out his characterisation “dubious”? That’s a pretty important thing to miss out if you are in any way interested in reporting the facts. But your AI is not interested in reporting the facts, it’s just presenting a plausible looking argument by hiding the pertinent facts. Or what about Brown’s conclusion that: “And so, even if we read ‘the Church of God’, we are by no means certain that this verse calls Jesus God”.
“By no means certain” is pretty uncertain, don’t you think? Why not report those words? Because your AI simply doesn’t care what Raymond Brown thought or argued, it is only interested in making a plausible looking script - a complete waste of everybody’s time and energy.
-
24
Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
-
-
slimboyfat
The AI first claimed there were no variants before backtracking and then dealing with the variants. That's a consistent pattern of unreliability and if you don't already know the facts then are vulnerable to accepting AI nonsense as fact. You may not care if errors are relied upon to support the truth but the God you purport to serve surely does not have such a cavalier attitude to the truth.
Even staunch Trinitarians such as Raymond Brown don't think Acts 20:28 can be relied upon. I am satisfied from my reading on the subject that at the very least there is significant doubt about what this verse really means and no doctrine should be based on it. That's a very generous assessment of the evidence. In truth I think the Trinitarian reading is extremely unlikely for the many reasons that textual and biblical scholars, including Trinitarians have outlined at length.
-
24
Hebrews 1: 8 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inthe watchtower translates this verse like this: .
but about the son, he says: “god is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
- hebrews 1: 8 nwt.
-
-
slimboyfat
The problem is AI gets things wrong while looking as if it knows what it’s talking about. Not just small things, but howlers, that you might miss if you don’t read it very carefully and know the subject well. On another thread the AI didn’t realise that a woman’s maiden name indicates her husband’s ancestry and not her own, and proceeded to write thousands of words on a completely faulty basis. On the Acts 20:28 thread it claimed there are no variants in this text when anybody familiar with the issue knows this is comeplete nonsense. The most common “mistake” it makes, if it can be called a mistake, because in a deep sense AI doesn’t care about being accurate, it cares only about simulating a credible response, is to attribute wrong views to scholars. In past threads the AI has attributed the complete opposite view to scholars than the view they actually hold. And when this is pointed out it carries on as if there is nothing wrong, like an unstoppable steam roller of plausible lies and nonsense. So yes, I think there is significant harm if anyone takes this AI bot seriously, and I think you’re an opportunistic fool if you don’t realise that it damages your own cause in the long run.
-
18
Books that are taboo C.O not happy lord of the rings
by Witness 007 inso the c.o and his wife came over for dinner and of course checked out our library and saw lord of the rings and told us off for spiritism books...it's just a damn fantasy book the bible has more magic and devils in it.
.
-
-
slimboyfat
Witness 007 I’m somewhat amazed, reading your comments on here for decades, that you’re still in a situation of inviting around a CO for dinner. What’s the story?
p.s. I had a worse situation than this. I had a book on spiritualism by the occultist Rudolph Steiner which I had purposely turned the other way to hide it. An elder took it out the bookshelf and turned it around and his eyes nearly popped out his head. He put it back without saying a word. Perhaps he didn’t know I saw him look at it, I’m not sure. His gobsmacked silence was message all its own.