Don't want to upset anyone, but if you follow things through, this has to be the conclusion. All things are done in order to bring people to "participation in the divine nature". The divine nature is LOVE. God is LOVE. Anything that preceeds this "result" is only a "tool" to enable this result. That one of (the main "tool") the "tools" is the very nature of "suffering God" as exhibited in the body of Christ is obvious, along with the other things that are said to "save" - faith, hope etc ("we are saved by hope"). To claim that the blood of Christ was "special" is wrong other than it may have been genetically different. The blood denotes the suffering and death of the son, and by logical extension, the effect on the Father. What it all means is that God himself, through his son, has demonstrated, revealed, his very nature as one who has forgiven and forgives. The cross was his forgiveness to the world, just as it was his love to the world. Christ on the cross may also be said to have wresled, encountered, resisted, opposed, fought and destroyed in his flesh (body) sins attempts to conquer his righteousness, through the whole gambit of sinful possibilities. He conquered, and so the legal aspects of the law of sin and death were met. Death could not hold him, his righteousness survived.
If people start to use scriptures to object to this position, they must realise that this position has been derived from those very scriptures, and in any case I would probably not be able to defend against some scripture being used literally. Also I have no desire to argue the point, but am willing to look at what may be presented. Although I have padded this out, the main issue is obviously that Christ's blood should not be looked to as the magic ingredient of salvation, just as other things may also be held high in this regard, they are not the answer. It is man answering and responding to the love of God that brings salvation through the means that Christ is seen to have provided.
If people start to use scriptures to object to this position, they must realise that this position has been derived from those very scriptures, and in any case I would probably not be able to defend against some scripture being used literally. Also I have no desire to argue the point, but am willing to look at what may be presented. Although I have padded this out, the main issue is obviously that Christ's blood should not be looked to as the magic ingredient of salvation, just as other things may also be held high in this regard, they are not the answer. It is man answering and responding to the love of God that brings salvation through the means that Christ is seen to have provided.