Whose blood is it?

//Whose blood is it?

Question #39: Why did your translators insert the word ‘Son’ at Acts 20:28 into the text even though it is nowhere to be found in the original text? Your original 1950 Version of Acts 20:28 included the word ‘Son’ in brackets, but your current 2013 Version of Acts 20:28 has no brackets or footnotes at all! If properly translated, this would mean God purchased with his OWN blood. Therefore, who would this mean Jesus Christ is?

It is not a problem of translation. It is the translators’ prerogative to insert words at their discretion in order to add clarity. The necessity of adding clarity is due to the fact that trinitarians have twisted the Scriptures to such an extent.

The simple fact is, trinitarians deny that Jesus is the Son of God. Because of that everything is skewed –distorted. Of course, trinitarians give lip service to the father and son, but it is all a song and dance –a theological run-around. That’s because according to trinitarian dogma there is no father/son relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus is God. God is God. Jesus was not born from a father. The Father did not give life to the son. Why do they even bother with the whole father/son revelation if no such relationship exists? No one can figure it out. It is a “mystery.” 

In the real world, though, there is no mystery. Fathers and sons have a very different relationship. In the real world sons are born from fathers. In the real world it is impossible for a son to be as old as his father. Yet, obviously, fathers and sons are closely related. They have the same blood, literally. It is even a common saying that close relatives are “blood.” A father might say of his son, ‘he is my own flesh and blood.’

But no sane person would suppose that a son who is the same blood as his father is also the same person as his father, or that the son was not born from the father. Only in the trinitarian house of mirrors is the father and son relationship distorted into a grotesque mockery.

It is actually laughable that anyone would even suppose that the Almighty God who created the universe and even an invisible world that is far grander than the visible, somehow dissolved himself into a tiny human and was killed by men and then resurrected himself. Trinitarians have no understanding of the simple yet profound truth that Jesus was merely a perfect man. Jesus was made to correspond to the value of the blood of the perfect man, Adam. Providing a ransom did not require the death of God. It required the sacrifice of a perfect man, which is what Jesus was. 

Besides, God cannot become human. It is impossible. One would rather try and wrap cellophane around the sun than shrink the Creator and wrap him in tissue-thin flesh. It is blasphemous and absurd. Even more nonsensical is the suggestion that the immortal, Ever-living God could be killed by puny little, earthling grasshoppers.

The apostle John in his introduction to Jesus conveyed a profound truth, a truth that alludes trinitarian cultists. John wrote: So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth…No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.” —John 1:14,18

Although trinitarians insist that Jesus was Almighty God, John, who was personally acquainted with Jesus, knew otherwise. He knew Jesus was God’s only-begotten Son, who existed at the Father’s side long before he became the man Jesus. Although not God Almighty, the Firstborn was in all respects like his Father, to the extent that he was a god himself. But since no man has personally ever seen Jehovah God, obviously Jesus, who was viewed by men, could not have been God himself; and of course, he never claimed to be.

As regards the blood, obviously Jesus gave his own blood in order to provide the legal basis for God to ransom sinful humanity. But since Jesus belongs to God, even as Paul stated at 1 Corinthians 3:23, it is not unreasonable that God would lay claim to the outpoured blood of his Son as his own.

Certainly whatever ambiguity may exist in connection with Paul’s statement in Acts becomes clear in other texts. For example,  at 1 John 1:7 it is clearly evident that Jesus gave his blood in behalf of mankind for God. That verse says: “However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

2018-02-12T18:48:51+00:00February 12th, 2018|60 Questions|16 Comments