How does Blood save?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by SoulReaper

 

but I would not be disappointed to share his eternal fate with him.

I wouldn't share that same sentiment... I wonder how many Christians lives he was responsible for taking?

Though perhaps if a murderer can be forgiven for his crimes... Most of the world has little to fear about their "fate" in the afterlife...

Actually, you're right. There's little to fear as long as people repent and turn their lives around to follow Jesus like Paul did.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SQUEALER

 

So we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood to become pure? Sounds a bit vampire-ish and morbid to me.

I thought you said that God doesn't want us to consume life? If we drink Jesus' blood, aren't we going against God's wish for us not to consume life? Because, as you said, the spirit/life is within the blood.

I see this kind of thing a lot with Christians, they say one thing one second then the opposite the next.

Matthew 9
13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

No one is turning wine into blood or bread into flesh. These are symbolism. Jesus was the Spirit of love incarnate. He came to teach us how God wants us to love one another and he promised that we are forgiven for all sin.

The symbol is the bread is the love of God turned flesh. Remembering the words Christ spoke since Christ is the Holy Spirit sent from God to guide men. He is the savior, because he is the spirit of love.

The wine represents his blood, his life, the fact that he is living in his believers, through spirit.

To partake in the wine and bread is to acknowledge Christ as the teacher and to accept the Holy Spirit into your heart to guide you down the path of righteousness. Let the spirit of love guide you down the path to love, simply obey the message of Christ, and the truth becomes known. Knock and the door will be opened.

reply to post by sacgamer25


I guess I'll point you to Revelation 18:3 as well.

Revelation 18
3 For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."

The Eucharist is a Satanic ritual implemented by the church.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

I guess I'll point you to Revelation 18:3 as well.

Revelation 18
3 For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."

The Eucharist is a Satanic ritual implemented by the church.

I agree anyone who drinks the Eucharist would be considered a bit vampiric. They do not believe what I believe. So therefore many have been fooled if I am correct? Right?

Because even Christians believe in the false teaching of the harlot, Original Sin.

I think that the Last Supper institution of the "new covenant" actually originated with Paul who said that he got it directly from Christ.
Then the description by Paul was incorporated into the Gospels, based on the authority of Paul's testimony.
Looking at Paul's explanation of it in Romans would be helpful in understanding how it was used.
Jesus desired "greatly" to have this meal together with all those who he called "his friends".
Paul made that ceremonial "love feast" central to the ritual performed in the individual church congregations to demonstrate the 'welcoming' of all people to God's love.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Mark 14:22-25

22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Even Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples as his last supper (as described above), which was the ceremonial remembrance of what God did for the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt.

What's your problem with Paul using the last supper as ceremonial remembrance of what Christ did for us?

reply to post by Akragon


I originally posted this post below, in a reply to Vethumanbeing…which can be found here

Thought I may as well post it here as well…

*************************************************************************

As you may well know, wine is made from grape fruits. Jesus uses the word fruit, when talking about Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. And I believe the same is true/applies, when He’s talking about wine.

In the last supper scene, Jesus is holding a cup of wine, and stating that “this is my blood” etc…

Matthew 26:27-29
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

In the Old Testament wine is a symbol for wisdom, especially in many verses found in Proverbs. There are also verses in the OT which state that the spirit, of an animal, is contained within its blood.

Blood is both symbolic of Wine and Spirit, and wine represents Wisdom. The Holy Spirit is the bringer of Wisdom, which is how those 2 things are connected. In 1 Corinthians, verse 12:8, Wisdom is the first gift of the Holy Spirit, mentioned in that chapter.

And there’s this below from The Gnostic “Gospel of Philip”

Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit.

And this from the same, Gospel of Philip

The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks is given. And it is full of the Holy Spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When we drink this, we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man. The living water is a body. It is necessary that we put on the living man. Therefore, when he is about to go down into the water, he unclothes himself, in order that he may put on the living man.

From “The Gnostic Catechism”

182. How can the spiritual (PNEUMATIC) body and blood of Christ take on the appearance of the bread and wine?

Through the sacred phenomenon of Transubstantiation or Transelementation , which is brought about by the Holy Spirit.

What this amounts too, is that in Matthew 26:27-29, Jesus is really saying that it is the “Holy Spirit”, which is poured out for our sins. Christianity has turned that Matthew 26 verse, into a literal interpretation, and made Jesus into a sacrifice for all sins, by his blood/death, on the cross etc…

Another important piece of the jigsaw piece, is that the Essenes were against all manner of sacrifices to do with animals and so called atonement. They had constant disagreements with both the Sadducees and Pharisees, about what they considered to be Gods commandments, and what they believed were traditions made by men. They believed that sacrifices of animals (along with many other Laws, which the Pharisees were practicing) didn’t come from Gods Laws, but instead came from men’s traditions. These very same issues are echoed, in many of Jesus interactions with the Pharisees.

Like for example, in this verse below…

Matthew 12:7

7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.

In the verse above, Jesus is actually quoting Hosea 6 verse 6, a verse that clearly states that God does not require sacrifices of animals. And there are many other similar Old Testament verses, which state that sacrifices were not necessary… Of course Jesus would say those things, because he was most likely an Essene and against sacrifices etc...


And there’s this, from the Gnostic text “On the Origin of the World”

Let us return to the aforementioned rulers, so that we may offer some explanation of them. Now, when the seven rulers were cast down from their heavens onto the earth, they made for themselves angels, numerous, demonic, to serve them. And the latter instructed mankind in many kinds of error and magic and potions and worship of idols and spilling of blood and altars and temples and sacrifices and libations to all the spirits of the earth, having their coworker fate, who came into existence by the concord between the gods of injustice and justice.

So summing up, because Paul and other early Christian/Jewish writers believed that sacrifices were part of Gods Laws, and because they didn’t understand the symbolism behind Jesus use of the word “blood”… Jesus became made into, a sacrifice, for all sins IMO.


- JC

reply to post by Deetermined

Even Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples as his last supper (as described above), which was the ceremonial remembrance of what God did for the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt.

He may have been celebrating a pre-Passover meal, since it seems this was a couple of days early.

What's your problem with Paul using the last supper as ceremonial remembrance of what Christ did for us?

That's included in his description in 1 Corinthians 11:26.

reply to post by Joecroft


Why does everyone need to make this so complicated?

Jesus was the first man to teach the world that there is one God who unconditionally loves ALL men like they are his children. Jesus was the first man to teach forgiveness of sins to all simply because of God's amazing unconditional love for us, Paul used the term Grace, the free gift given to all who believe what Christ said.

You must believe God loves you and you are forgiven for your mind to accept forgiveness as true. If you do not believe a veil to the truth remains. Not believing that God loves you is living apart from God's love. If you believe God loves you than you should always be able to feel that love inside of you.

This message was delivered to you only because of the Resurrection.

Luke 24:46-47 The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name.

Romans 4:25 He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day.

1 Peter 1:3 According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Romans 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

Philippians 3:10…that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death…

John 11:25-26 I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?

Romans 6:4…just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

The reason Christ BLOOD is important is because it was the proof of his death. His disciples and everyone else saw clearly that the Christ BLED to death. There was no question regarding his death, everyone that saw him on the cross accepted that he died, BLEEDING to death on the cross.

1 Corinthians 15:12-32
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. ...

Why does everyone want to make this more complicated than a sign? The Christ had to BLEED to death on the cross and to be resurrected from the dead. The reason he had to do this is so that his brothers might believe that God loves them unconditionally, and has forgiven all men of all sin, even the murder of the only truly innocent man to ever live. It is only by the power that came to the witnesses of the resurrection, and those who accept their testimony that we believe in God's love and forgiveness of sin.

This entire message can be summed up simply here. It needs to be no more complicated than this.

If you believe God loves you and forgives you than it is the blood and the resurrection of Christ that has saved you, because it is by his message that you have been saved. For no one but Christ delivered this message.

reply to post by Joecroft

Through the sacred phenomenon of Transubstantiation or Transelementation , which is brought about by the Holy Spirit.

I don't know what this Gnostic Catechism is, but I looked up "Transelementation". That's what the Eastern Church teaches. The Iron and fire analogy is a bit obsolete in my view.

Back in those days, the atomic theory of the Epicureans was not generally held. Not until modern times has the atomic theory become common knowledge.

I have heard people say, "When we walk the Earth, our feet touch the very ground that Jesus walked. When we breathe we breathe the same air" and they are correct.

The body and blood are indeed in the bread and wine. The words change nothing except in the soul of those who hear.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Even Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples as his last supper (as described above), which was the ceremonial remembrance of what God did for the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt.

He may have been celebrating a pre-Passover meal, since it seems this was a couple of days early.

What's your problem with Paul using the last supper as ceremonial remembrance of what Christ did for us?

That's included in his description in 1 Corinthians 11:26.

Did you even do any research on the meaning of what Paul said? When you don't understand a particular verse, you should always look for other verses to help explain them. Here's what else Paul has said.

Romans 6:8-11

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I hope these verses are easy enough for you to understand what Paul was getting at in 1 Corinthians 11:26.

reply to post by Deetermined

Did you even do any research on the meaning of what Paul said?

Yes, and that was what I was talking about, is something I was reading in this book, Romans, by Robert Jewett. The specific verse is Romans 15:7,

Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

which is the ESV translation, that uses the word, welcome, which matches the meaning that Jewett says that should be understood from Paul's use of it.
It doesn't say explicitly what Paul was referring to in that verse, but apparently that was what he was talking about, was the home church meetings where they would have their love feasts in commemoration of the last Supper.

reply to post by sacgamer25

Originally posted by Sacgamer
You must believe God loves you and you are forgiven for your mind to accept forgiveness as true. If you do not believe a veil to the truth remains. Not believing that God loves you is living apart from God's love. If you believe God loves you than you should always be able to feel that love inside of you.

This message was delivered to you only because of the Resurrection.

Oh, I believe that God does love me…but I also believe that it’s the message of God, that Jesus brought, which is what really saves a person, and that He gave his life in order to bring it to us. I say He gave His life for us, because God knows all things ahead of time, and knew that men would reject the truth, and put Jesus to death. Yet Jesus brought the message of Love/God anyway, to help save others.

So as you can see, I believe Jesus died for my sins, but just not in the same way Christians believe it. When you look at in the way I have described above, the focus gets shifted from Jesus dieing for sins, and judgment from God etc… and more towards his life message, and how you can find salvation through it, and by following it.

Originally posted by Sacgamer
The reason Christ BLOOD is important is because it was the proof of his death. His disciples and everyone else saw clearly that the Christ BLED to death. There was no question regarding his death, everyone that saw him on the cross accepted that he died, BLEEDING to death on the cross.

It has nothing to do with the literal blood IMO…Jesus use of the word Blood is a metaphor, and wasn’t meant to be taken literally. The same error is compounded in Paul’s epistles…Where Paul uses the word blood, you can replace it with…“Jesus died, to help save others”

Originally posted by Sacgamer
If you believe God loves you and forgives you than it is the blood and the resurrection of Christ that has saved you, because it is by his message that you have been saved. For no one but Christ delivered this message.

It is the coming to know God, through Jesus message, which is what saves, not blood. I think that no matter how Jesus came to testify too the truth, men would always reject it, and put him to death etc…But God turns this into a positive through the power of the resurrection. I believe the resurrection helped to carry Gods message, because of its impact. In fact, I see the resurrection as another key aspect of Gods overall message, and also that it confirms the power of God through Jesus words, in Matthew 20:19.


- JC

reply to post by jmdewey60


Oh, brother! It's obvious from previous statements you made about this author that you need to drop him like a hot potato. Just like him saying that Paul never spoke about or tied Jesus' death and forgiveness of sins together.

reply to post by pthena

Originally posted by pthena
I don't know what this Gnostic Catechism is, but I looked up "Transelementation". That's what the Eastern Church teaches. The Iron and fire analogy is a bit obsolete in my view.

Due to an excellent discussion I had with a user called Dominicus, I have come to know that the ancient eastern orthodox churches, kept many of the so called “original teachings” of Jesus intact. I’m still just scratching the surface in that regard, but it is fascinating stuff, if you’re open enough to look into it.

Originally posted by pthena
Back in those days, the atomic theory of the Epicureans was not generally held. Not until modern times has the atomic theory become common knowledge.

I have heard people say, "When we walk the Earth, our feet touch the very ground that Jesus walked. When we breathe we breathe the same air" and they are correct.

The body and blood are indeed in the bread and wine. The words change nothing except in the soul of those who hear.

In many other Gnostic texts, it states that Jesus “word” is bread, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. The 2 are very closely connected.

Interestingly enough the “Transelementation” can be broken down visually …Trans = Tranformation, El, of God and men = men. Which may look pretty random, I will admit…

A transformation involving men’s spirit and Gods Holy Spirit; similar to the transforming of one metal into another.


- JC

reply to post by Deetermined

Oh, brother! It's obvious from previous statements you made about this author that you need to drop him like a hot potato. Just like him saying that Paul never spoke about or tied Jesus' death and forgiveness of sins together.

The quote is:

"Nowhere does Paul link the blood of Christ with remission of sins, as some maintain."

Your comeback was quoting Ephesians 1:7

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (ESV)

Which is pseudo-Paul, meaning basically a forgery.
Even if you consider a forgery "baptized" by people believing that it was properly included in the New Testament canon, it does not say anything more than that we are delivered from the legal infractions sustained by being in violation of the old written Mosaic Law.
That is biblical if you understand it in that way, and when you read it in the Greek, it is obvious that is how it was meant.
Jesus' blood is symbolically the seal of the new covenant. The new covenant makes the old obsolete.
If you were a Jew in the time of Paul, then you could think of it as how you quoted in your next to the last post, dying with Jesus to the Law. Someone who had always been a gentile may not have to think of it in such a severe sort of way as that.

So, what is your problem, specifically, with what I was talking about in my last post, about Jewitt linking Paul's request to welcome people, with the congregational church services?

reply to post by Joecroft

Due to an excellent discussion I had with a user called Dominicus, I have come to know that the ancient eastern orthodox churches, kept many of the so called “original teachings” of Jesus intact.

I wouldn't be so sure about that because this group is highly into the use of mysticism. I know they think that Jesus used it, but I can pretty much guaranty that he didn't teach people to do it. In fact, the Bible tells us the opposite. I have a hard time believing that Jesus would teach something that God spoke strongly against in the Old Testament based on some other text.

reply to post by Joecroft


Our thinking is almost identical. The variations are meaningless religion, personal only to the one who experiences him.

reply to post by Akragon


Akra

Here is your answer from the other thread.

Sacrifice of animals for remission of sins is ancient, even before the Hebrews wrote about it. We know sacrifices occurred all over the ancient world and continued into the Americas with the Mayans and the Aztecs. We have to understand that the belief did say "a life for a life" that is why the shedding of blood was a sacrifice.

As Micah says "

Micah 6:1 Hear ye now what the Lord saith; Arise, contend thou before the mountains, and let the hills hear thy voice. 2 Hear ye, O mountains, the Lord's controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the Lord hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel. 3 O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me. 4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. 5 O my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from #tim unto Gilgal; that ye may know the righteousness of the Lord. 6 Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? 9 The Lord's voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it. 10 Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable? 11 Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? 12 For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. 13 Therefore also will I make thee sick in smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins. 14 Thou shalt eat, but not be satisfied; and thy casting down shall be in the midst of thee; and thou shalt take hold, but shalt not deliver; and that which thou deliverest will I give up to the sword. 15 Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; thou shalt tread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with oil; and sweet wine, but shalt not drink wine. 16 For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels; that I should make thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing: therefore ye shall bear the reproach of my people.

I know that was a long chapter, sorry for that. But we see, even though gods were sacrificed to, and the Hebrews would find no exception in that, it goes simply back to "a life for a life". As man cannot fully compensate for his crimes against humanity, even Hammurabi mentions that, then man has to compensate ultimately. And then by placing it onto animals, which man can never replace a human life, the sacrifice must be made by something lesser, in the case of the Hebrews, or Mithra, or the Greeks, Romans and Persians.

But the purpose of the sacrifice of Christ, because God had made man, God had to come as a man to make the atonement that humans could never do. God could no longer accept sacrifice upon sacrifice upon sacrifice that held no meaning any more to the one doing the sacrificing.

God was not only atoning for sins of humanity, but His own. And this could only be when God became a man. How does sacrifice remit? A life for a life.

The blood is the life of the body, and as such, to shed this blood, means to shed a life. And when Cain shed Abel's blood, Abel had sacrificed the animals before his own life was taken. And yet it cried up from the ground, because Abel was innocent, but through his sacrifices also atoned Cain.

God did repent for the evil He thought to do, but since He could not sacrifice anything else, had to sacrifice Himself. A life for lives. Christ came into this world already knowing before what He was coming here for. But if we look at Micah, what was required of man? To do justly, which man could not do, to love mercy, which man did not do, and to walk humbly with God, which man rejected.

So sacrifice became atonement, remission of sins. Because it is a life for a life. Jesus told us that it was finished, there was not more need for atonement because the ultimate sacrifice was given, His life for that of humanity. For those who do not want to be atoned, then they can be like Cain, to wander aimlessly with fear that every man would kill them. The remission atones for sin, that Cain had rule over him. His life was spared because of the atonement, but death was at his door everyday, because there was no more atonement for him. The life he took, not as a sacrifice, could never replace his life or that of his brother.

That's what sacrifice and atonement in the shedding of blood means, a life for a life.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Sorry to butt in again, but I have something to say about sacrifice. Well... Jesus did actually.

Matthew 9
13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

Jesus said he desired mercy, not sacrifice. Those who nailed Jesus to the cross showed him no mercy, and that was said to be his sacrifice. So Jesus was mercilessly sacrificed, the opposite of what he desired.

Jesus was not a sacrificial lamb that forgave sins. His own words prove Christian doctrine wrong. A merciless sacrifice is what Christians say they require, yet Jesus desired neither of those two things by his own words.