The Blood of Christ, the Blood of the Lamb.

a reply to: Szarah

Your wrong and the Bible is correct. end of story.

Gnosisisfaith/Szarah

a reply to: Akragon

But to believe that Christ preexisted as pure Spirit and is God is to believe that he only temporarily wore the flesh and his ascension was to the right hand of God.

No physical being is a God and Christ is immortal, flesh dies. Blood is to transport oxygen and is useless to God or any immortal Spirit. No flesh and blood creature is immortal.

1 Corinthians 1:15 says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.

So if they do believe that they are mistaken what is written by their favorite ""apostle""

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Blood is physical blood in every instance of its use in the Whole Bible.

including these verses.

Acts 20:28 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.
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

It says "His own blood", but it doesn't state that it was literal blood. Think, if the lamb was symbolic for Christ, then the lamb's blood had to be symbolic too. It can't be literal.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Did Christ have real blood or not?

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Hem, seems he had real blood that was poured out.

So if the blood that came out of his side is real blood then all the scriptures speak of blood.

Going back to Greek or Hebrew wont clarify a thing they all say blood and mean real blood.

originally posted by: mikefunctions
Please tell me how my sin was forgiven by the blood of the lamb. What changed or what are the nuts and bolts of it, how does it work and how does it apply now to me 2000 yrs. later. a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, the blood of lambs, goats, and bulls actually had no power to forgive sins, they were merely symbols to foreshadow Christ. The OT blood sacrifices were designed to be expensive and shocking to burn the image into the minds of the observers and to remind the people how costly salvation is to God. It cost God His Son.

Sin is an offense to God. All sins are first committed in the heart, and then manifest overtly via actions, so sin is a corruption of the Mind and Heart.

Jesus did not sin, nor was He under Adam's curse, so His Mind and Heart were not corrupted. This meant that Jesus' thoughts were a delight to God.

So how did Jesus pay for sins? When He was on the cross, God imputed Adam's Original Sin along with our personal sins into Christ's Mind and Heart. Jesus then neutralized those sins with the intrinsic value of His thoughts/Blood. That is what Isaiah 53:11 bluntly states.

Isaiah 53:11...By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.

Before Jesus went to the cross, Satan first tempted Him for 40 days, and each time, Jesus quoted scripture. There are the nuts and bolts you're asking about.

Here is a figurative illustration:
Lets say each sin costs a $0.01. Jesus' thoughts would be worth over $100.00 each, so not only did Jesus pay for our sins, but He over paid.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Jesus was human, so yes He had real blood, but His liquid blood did not pay for our sins.

Isaiah 53:11 clearly states that His KNOWLEDGE paid for our sins. The atoning BLOOD was the Blood of His soul, which are His thoughts.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: mikefunctions
Please tell me how my sin was forgiven by the blood of the lamb. What changed or what are the nuts and bolts of it, how does it work and how does it apply now to me 2000 yrs. later. a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, the blood of lambs, goats, and bulls actually had no power to forgive sins, they were merely symbols to foreshadow Christ. The OT blood sacrifices were designed to be expensive and shocking to burn the image into the minds of the observers and to remind the people how costly salvation is to God. It cost God His Son.

Sin is an offense to God. All sins are first committed in the heart, and then manifest overtly via actions, so sin is a corruption of the Mind and Heart.

Jesus did not sin, nor was He under Adam's curse, so His Mind and Heart were not corrupted. This meant that Jesus' thoughts were a delight to God.

So how did Jesus pay for sins? When He was on the cross, God imputed Adam's Original Sin along with our personal sins into Christ's Mind and Heart. Jesus then neutralized those sins with the intrinsic value of His thoughts/Blood. That is what Isaiah 53:11 bluntly s

Actually the blood of a goat sacrificed to Azazel is ordered by Jehovah as an atonement for sin.

On Yom Kippur the priest would cut a red string in half and tie half to the goat and push it off a cliff.

If the red string turned white then the sins of Israel were forgiven. If not they weren't.

So the blood of a goat could atone for sins and thus had power to do so, per Jehovah.

It was not a foreshadowing of Christ and had nothing to do with him at all. That is a random assumption.

You are incorrect that the blood was powerless. If that was the case then it wouldn't be done. It is ordered by the god of Israel and if not done he will kill people.

Power is the point of the bloodshed and blood is the power.

double post

a reply to: Seede

You made a lot of very good observations. Thank you.

The blood sacrifices were costly....just as the death of God's Son was costly.

Life is in the blood, literally for animals. For humans, life is in the Blood of our Souls which is our thoughts. We are not alive until God gives us the Breath of Life. Notice that the Word of God is called Living Water. Because Living Water introduces Life into the Blood of our Souls.

The entire OT is the shadow of the NT. So make the comparison yourself. God reveals.

Remember that it was not the literal blood that satisfied God in Isaiah 53:11, but the KNOWLEDGE in the mind of His suffering servant.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why do you think it is righteous to profit from human sacrifice?

That is not the point of Jesus mission.

His words are the point. Every thing he said.

And he never said "I came to die for your sins."

Paul made that up.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I am afraid until you can show me any other type of Blood in the Bible that is not liquid, I will stick to liquid blood thank you.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I already gave you Isaiah 53:11. We know that we are saved by His KNOWLEDGE and BLOOD. They are one in the same.

The OT practices were symbolic. So put 2 and 2 together.

a reply to: Szarah

And he never said "I came to die for your sins."

Matt 12:3
for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

John 3: 16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Ya, but HE never said his death was a vicarious atonement for sin.

You only quoted him talking about his death.

Not that it means what you claim it does.

Plus that whole 3 days thing is a metaphor for the sun at the winter solstice.


Fact is that what you are claiming wasn't taught by Christ.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Szarah

And he never said "I came to die for your sins."

Matt 12:3
for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

John 3: 16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

None of that says Christ is a human sacrifice for sin.

Just about belief, belief leads to baptism which gives you the Spirit and THAT is Salvation.

You are a profiteer of human sacrifice.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriestBut Christ death was real not symbolic. the OT sacrifices were called types not symbols. symbols and types are different.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Typology-

the study and interpretation of types and symbols, originally especially in the Bible.

The death that saved us was Jesus' spiritual death not physical. His work was declared FINISHED before His physical death.

So physical animal sacrifice was a symbol for Jesus' spiritual blood and spiritual death.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

John the Baptist recognized Jesus as the Lamb of God. By making that statement, John was saying that Jesus was the fulfillment of the symbolic Passover lamb, which was sacrificed in ancient Israel for the atonement of sin. It was understood as far back as the first Passover night in Egypt that the blood of the lamb took away the penalty of sin...death.

Actually, it was the goat, not the lamb, that was the sacrificial atonement for the whole of Israel once a year at Yom Kippur. Half of a torn red string was tied to the goat, it was pushed of a cliff, and if the string turned white all was forgiven.

And John doesn't recognize Jesus in every Gospel.

So, if the Passover lamb was symbolic for Christ, then it stands to reason that the lambs blood was symbolic too. This means that Jesus physiological blood, had no redemptive quality. The term Blood of Christ has a far more significant meaning.

The Passover lamb didn't symbolize Christ until long after his death. Christ is beyond symbols, and symbols too inadequate to represent Christ.

How about what the man actually taught?

You focus on symbols and symbolic meanings which serve the purpose of allowing for any interpretation because a symbol has individual meaning to different people.

Symbols are distractions and tools of manipulation that convey FALSE meaning to all but a few.

Blood, lambs, goats, crosses, doves are all silly symbols.

Who they are supposed to represent are beyond representation by mere idols, which is the equivalent of a symbol.

The TRUE power, not the believed in power, is in his WORDS.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You have it all mixed up Jesus did not die spiritually only physically.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

He was dead enough to enter hell.

That is pretty dead.