'Blood of Jesus'

[GerhardEbersoehn]

THIS is the day that the Lord has made...Let us be glad and rejoice in it!

This is the LIFE the Lord has earned, Exodus 15:1-22b morning and Exodus 14:13-31 evening. Therefore Deuteronomy 5:15; 6:23,24 Mark 2:25-28 John 5:17-31. Let us rejoice and be glad in it! 2Chronicles 23:18-21 2Kings 11:18-20.

 

[Helen]

PS 96
11 "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.
12 Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice
13 Before the Lord: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth."


....

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Jesus still bled even when nails were put through his hands and feet, and the crown of thorns stuck on his head. And also the flogging, would have caused stripes.
It would be unusual had he not bled, and that would be noted in the gospels.

Refer George Steward, Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2

Q~Gen 22:9 When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
This is the Hebrew understanding of "Akeda" which is the "binding of Isaac" and its root comes from the Hebrew word, akod, which meant -- bound but it literally means "ringed" or "striped". One of the ancient scholars of Israel, Rashi, explained the use of the verb as "stripe-like marks" left by ropes on the ankles and wrists of a person who is tied hand and foot. Thus the reason for the word "akeda" for the naming of the story is named after the marks that were left on Issac's body! A perfect picture of the fact that Yeshua still had marks even after his resurrection. As Thomas only believed after reaching his hands into his side -- and his wrists -- a perfect picture even to the Hebraic understanding of word -- akeda. As Issac was laid on the wood -- so Yeshua was laid on the cross.~Q

Does ‘~Rashi explain the use of the verb … the Hebrew word "Akeda"..root word, akod … literally "ringed" or "striped" … as "stripe-like marks…"~’? ‘~… marks left by ropes on the ankles and wrists of a person who is tied hand and foot~’?

No, it is George Steward’s ‘explanation’ which is no explanation but his interpretation and ideas – preconceived ideas – inserted and added against every probability that marks – injured ‘marks’, resulted when “Abraham laid Isaac on the altar and on top of the wood : roped / bound” him".
Is it not “the wood” that was “roped” together in a heap whereon Isaac lied down?

Says Steward himself, ‘~Issac by this age was strong enough to fight off his father Abraham who was well into his age -- yet Issac was willing to lay down his life -- just as Yeshua was willing to lay His life down for His Father.~’ Isaac would not resist to be roped fast, how would he sustain injury, ‘~marks~’ that ‘~still~’ would be left ‘~even after~’? What is the ‘~perfect picture to the Hebraic understanding~’ of the word ‘akeda’ which means “ropes”, not '~stripes~'?

Isaiah 53:5 He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his ROPES we are healed”, because the Hebrew word ‘akeda’ / ‘akod’ refers to the “ropes” Jesus was bound, ‘~literally "ringed"~’, with, to the cross; not to imagined and indoctrinated ‘~bleeding caused by the whipping~’.

 

[Enoch111]

NO drop of physical blood of Jesus the Christ was spilt. The claim is Roman Catholic bloody idolatry.

As others have already pointed out, your claim that Christ did not shed His blood for our redemption is TOTALLY FALSE and not according to Scripture. I'm not sure why you are trying to promote this false doctrine, but it undermines Gospel truth, and you should withdraw such nonsensical assertions.

There are dozens of Scripture which teach and confirm that there could be no remission of sins without the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, which washes away our sins and our guilt. I will quote just one Scripture, and that should be sufficient for you to withdraw you assertion:

1 PETER 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

As others have already pointed out, your claim that Christ did not shed His blood for our redemption is TOTALLY FALSE and not according to Scripture. I'm not sure why you are trying to promote this false doctrine, but it undermines Gospel truth, and you should withdraw such nonsensical assertions.

There are dozens of Scripture which teach and confirm that there could be no remission of sins without the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, which washes away our sins and our guilt. I will quote just one Scripture, and that should be sufficient for you to withdraw you assertion:

1 PETER 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

There is no word in this Scripture my belief does not hold fast to unadulterated, literally as well as spiritually true. But you have to explain these words, "the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot". You cannot, unless with the worthless blood of Christ as of a lamb with blemish and with spot, which would be and in all Catholicism is, gross, heathen, pagan, godless, idolatry.

Christ having "poured out his SOUL", "shed his blood" or did neither.

 

[Enoch111]

But you have to explain these words, "the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot".

There is nothing to explain. That statement is very clear and self-explanatory.

Just as for every animal sacrificed under the Old Covenant, the blood had to be shed in order "to make atonement" for sins, so for Christ -- the ultimate Lamb of God -- His precious blood (having infinite value because He is God) had to be shed for our redemption.

If you resist this truth or you reject it, then you cannot possibly call yourself a Christian, since every true Christian is washed in the blood of the Lamb.

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...(Rev 1:5).

 

[bbyrd009]

As others have already pointed out, your claim that Christ did not shed His blood for our redemption is TOTALLY FALSE and not according to Scripture. I'm not sure why you are trying to promote this false doctrine, but it undermines Gospel truth, and you should withdraw such nonsensical assertions.

5 years ago i might have said the same thing, but it is striking how little (zero) verses actually document any of this supposed blood, i mean not one verse along the lines of "Jesus was bleeding" there; the only place we find that is at "sweat was drops of blood."

no record of any apostles or followers--who did not flake off after the "drink, this is My Blood" discourse; meaning they grasped the significance of the Blood, right--making it a point to get some of this blood on them, or a cloth, nothing like that.

There are dozens of Scripture which teach and confirm that there could be no remission of sins without the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, which washes away our sins and our guilt. I will quote just one Scripture, and that should be sufficient for you to withdraw you assertion:

According to the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness, yes

so i suggest that a little subterfuge is being used, a...talking a certain way around the children, there at your Quote. But since this surely comes across as like attempting to deny Christ or something, it can prolly only cause division to talk about it. But imo the assertion is valid, just maybe not in this venue

ppl have expectations, and God comes to us where we are at.

The Son of Man had to be raised up like a Snake on a Pole in order to draw all men to Himself; and we must break up Nehushtan if we want to follow Christ.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

There is nothing to explain. That statement is very clear and self-explanatory.

Just as for every animal sacrificed under the Old Covenant, the blood had to be shed in order "to make atonement" for sins, so for Christ -- the ultimate Lamb of God -- His precious blood (having infinite value because He is God) had to be shed for our redemption.

If you resist this truth or you reject it, then you cannot possibly call yourself a Christian, since every true Christian is washed in the blood of the Lamb.

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...(Rev 1:5).

'~clear and self-explanatory~' you say of the blood of Christ, '~nothing to explain~', YET you go straight on to 'explain', '~Just as for every animal sacrificed ... so for Christ~'.

You further explain, this time, much, infinitely, better, '~every true Christian is washed in the blood of the Lamb~'.

Now you see, there's what I believe. But that first explanation of yours, I don't believe. The two are diametrically contradicting, mutually excluding and destructive. "The blood of Jesus" is the only of its kind. 'It', cleanses every one of Jesus' redeemed from every sin of his or her.

Now you said it, cleansed and saved '~in the blood of the Lamb~'. Where is the blood 'in' which the redeemed is / are cleansed or washed?

It is not in shed blood, but in his "poured out LIFE", in his "poured out SOUL". As I have used the Scripture many times, the same Scripture, but no one seems to care, "the life is in the blood" of animal, mortal, sacrifice, whereas "the blood" of '~the ultimate Lamb of God -- His precious blood (having infinite value because He is God) had to be shed for our redemption~' IN HIS LIFE, HIS SOUL, HIS INFINITE POWER HE (not man) WILLED to (not 'had to') "shed" or "pour out", '~"to make atonement" for sins~'.

Eventually therefore, NO blood of an '~animal sacrificed under the Old Covenant had to be shed in order "to make atonement" for sins~'. In truth mortal blood had to be shed to show what transgression of the Law is, KILL God-given life!
But instead God in Christ "according to the Law of INDESTRUCTIBLE LIFE", "by the Sacrifice-of-Himself" unselfishly fulfilled the Law "God is Love".

In a word, the 'shedding of Jesus' blood' is HIS DIVINE LIFE AND LOVE, "HIS SOUL, POURED OUT" to make atonement and establish peace between God the Saviour and the saved.

 

[Truth7t7]

There is no word in this Scripture my belief does not hold fast to unadulterated, literally as well as spiritually true. But you have to explain these words, "the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot". You cannot, unless with the worthless blood of Christ as of a lamb with blemish and with spot, which would be and in all Catholicism is, gross, heathen, pagan, godless, idolatry.

Christ having "poured out his SOUL", "shed his blood" or did neither.

He has given you God's word in 1 Peter 1:19
No explanation is needed, you can deny this all ya want.

100% Self Explanatory

1 PETER 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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...(Rev 1:5).

Like "washed" is spiritually, so is "blood" spiritually.
Be consistent, as the believer is spiritually OR physically "washed", so is Jesus' "blood" spiritual / metaphorical / figurative, OR, physical / actual / literal.
And so, the believer! If Jesus' blood is the stuff in his veins literally shed or bled, then the person must be literally washed with, yea, in, his blood. Obnoxious thought, what condition for '~calling oneself a Christian~'!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

He has given you God's word in 1 Peter 1:19
No explanation is needed, you can deny this all ya want.

100% Self Explanatory

1 PETER 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Thanks for having said nothing.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

"sweat was drops of blood."

"sweat LIKE drops of blood"
But many thanks anyway.

 

[bbyrd009]

"sweat LIKE drops of blood"
But many thanks anyway.

ok, good point i guess, its hematohydrosis either way right. Mostly sweat though, ya. Sure looks like blood when it happens

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

ok, good point i guess, its hematohydrosis either way right. Mostly sweat though, ya. Sure looks like blood when it happens

Nothing medicinal in this; this is Biblical. It FELL LIKE drops of blood to the ground (would); not, it '~looks like blood when it happens~". It was not something that ever happened with anybody than Jesus. It was Divine and happened according to the eternal Council of the Almighty once for ever.

 

[bbyrd009]

Nothing medicinal in this; this is Biblical. It FELL like drops of blood to the ground; not, it '~looks like blood when it happens~"; it was not something that ever happened with anybody than Jesus. It was Divine and happened according to the eternal Council of the Almighty once for ever.

it happens under extreme stress, it isn't unheard of, just unusual
saw it once in boot camp

 

[Enoch111]

Like "washed" is spiritually, so is "blood" spiritually. Be consistent, as the believer is spiritually OR physically "washed", so is Jesus' "blood" spiritual / metaphorical / figurative, OR, physical / actual / literal.

Now that you have been presented with Scriptures which show that Christ shed His blood for our redemption, you are simply trying to avoid believing that, by all this talk about literal and metaphorical. Which means that you do not really wish to believe the Word of God.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Now that you have been presented with Scriptures which show that Christ shed His blood for our redemption, you are simply trying to avoid believing that, by all this talk about literal and metaphorical. Which means that you do not really wish to believe the Word of God.

You show me ONE believer literally washed in the blood of Jesus, and I'll believe you Jesus literally bleeds and sinners are literally washed in his blood.

I have yet to be '~presented with Scripture which show [which READS] that Christ shed His blood~. To make it easier for you, rather than with the examples, start with Scripture and stop avoiding it, but show, quote, place them, here.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

God "made" a garment of skin, right, God did not kill anything to get the skin;
you are just being allowed to interpret that to suit yourself imo

No, you are just taking the liberty to interpret that to suit yourself. God did not "make" a skin, but used it and "made" coats of it, right, and for that, even God had to kill an animal to get the skin; and so even God, had to shed the animal’s blood whereby even God had to take its “life (that) is in the blood”.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Yes, the Jews wanted Jesus dead but Pilate feared the dream from his wife. In the end he caved and handed Jesus over to be crucified.

The roman solders mocked Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews when they placed the crown of thorns on his head. But Pilate also mocked the Jews, by acknowledging Jesus as the King of the Jews.

Pilate mocked the Jews, by acknowledging Jesus as the King of the Jews. What on earth could have forced Pilate to do that?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

His flesh did not see decay because he was RESURRECTED before that could happen.

It could never happen unless Jesus sinned.