'Blood of Jesus'

[aspen]

Wow....

Wow!

This is one crazy thread.....I just found it.

This just makes it so real for me; why the gospel writers and early church emphasized the bodily reserrection of Jesus and the account of doubting Thomas (god bless his testimony). Jesus was a real person; He lived and died on a Cross; His blood flowed out of His body, along with water after the spear was inserted, testifying to his real death; His tomb was empty on the third day.

Is this the end result of denying the Real Presence of the Eucharist? Yikes!

Without the pouring out of blood we are dead in our sins!

The OP sounds like Gnosticism run rampant.....

Amen.

 

[aspen]

The animal sacifice and purification rituals with it point to Christ. Though they didn't know it at the time. Jesus fulfilled the law by his sacrifice.

The wolfs would like us to stray from the shepherd's reach.

I question that idea that the animal skin clothing was a foreshadowing of Christ......

Seems to me that God was simply giving A&E what they wanted - it was their best plan for covering up their vulnerability. Psalm 51 talks about how God doesn’t want sacrifices - He wants a clean heart, which can only be provided by Jesus.

Animal sacrifice appears to be our attempt to appease God - more about ego than purification. Yes, it was accepted for a time, but the only sacrifice that actually purified us is Jesus.

 

[lforrest]

I question that idea that the animal skin clothing was a foreshadowing of Christ......

Seems to me that God was simply giving A&E what they wanted - it was their best plan for covering up their vulnerability. Psalm 51 talks about how God doesn’t want sacrifices - He wants a clean heart, which can only be provided by Jesus.

Animal sacrifice appears to be our attempt to appease God - more about ego than purification. Yes, it was accepted for a time, but the only sacrifice that actually purified us is Jesus.

Animal skins point to a sacrifice, through he doesn't draw attention to it. The purpose of which was to cover up their nakedness. It was a caring gesture on behalf of God. Most commentators agree it has something to do with Jesus.
Genesis 3:21 Commentaries: The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

 

[aspen]

Animal skins point to a sacrifice, through he doesn't draw attention to it. The purpose of which was to cover up their nakedness. It was a caring gesture on behalf of God. Most commentators agree it has something to do with Jesus.
Genesis 3:21 Commentaries: The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

I agree that the clothing was a bandaid for humanity after the Fall. Ego covers wounds, but Christ heals.

I guess the clothing in the garden foreshadowed the need for healing - if that is what is meant by foreshadowing Christ, I agree

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

And what is that agenda, because a teaching that denies Jesus shed his blood sounds like a snare trap from the pits of hell.

A teaching that denies Jesus' blood shed his "soul" being "poured out", must needs make of Him an animal sacrificed for the life and soul of it "in the blood" -- the very snare trap from the pit of hell of the Roman priests and bishops and popes which as a matter of fact has trapped countless souls of many centuries and today more than ever before.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Animal skins point to a sacrifice, through he doesn't draw attention to it. The purpose of which was to cover up their nakedness. It was a caring gesture on behalf of God. Most commentators agree it has something to do with Jesus.

That is true.
Think of the tabernacle in the wilderness. It was made of the skins of sacrifices and if someone took the life of another, he could find refuge under or inside the cover of skins of sacrifices and hold fast onto the horns of the altar as were it the object or person whom he assaulted and killed.

I believe one may also think about the tabernacle or tent of mercy of the skins of sacrifices while looking at Jesus the Word of God who "tabernacled" among men in view of Him sacrificed for our sins.

And then, the tabernacle in the "wilderness", the same meaning of the word 'Eden', I understand.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Wow!

This is one crazy thread.....I just found it.

This just makes it so real for me; why the gospel writers and early church emphasized the bodily reserrection of Jesus and the account of doubting Thomas (god bless his testimony). Jesus was a real person; He lived and died on a Cross; His blood flowed out of His body, along with water after the spear was inserted, testifying to his real death; His tomb was empty on the third day.

Is this the end result of denying the Real Presence of the Eucharist? Yikes!

Without the pouring out of blood we are dead in our sins!

The OP sounds like Gnosticism run rampant.....

Amen.

Your post sounds like Roman Catholicism run rampant. All the OP asks for is Scripture; not RC teachings of men. So my Protestant prayer is this thread to be the beginning of the end of the abomination of '~the Real Presence of the Eucharist~'. jigggg

 

[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.

You are aware of the plain truth it is not written Jesus bled when nails were put through his hands and feet; and the reason is obvious, it is written, "these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled". The LORD GOD PREPARED Jesus' body for the nails and spear driven into it and PRESERVED it that "his flesh should and did NOT see corruption or damage". The Scriptures are lying or the Church is lying.

Why do you think did they put the crown of thorns and stuck on his head hit it with a stick? Because they were DESPERATE TO GET BLOOD, to get Jesus' FLESH to corrupt and bleed from wounds they thought THEY could inflict, but was proven incapable of inflicting, every time because GOD said these things had to happen, not because man caused it to happen; and because Jesus was the Lamb without blemish of the Almighty who justly EARNED immortality and incorruptibility; because Jesus was the second Adam who did not obey the snake and TRIUMPHED where the first Adam failed and had to corrupt and die the death and corruption the reward for sin.

'~And also the flogging, would have caused stripes.~' Yes, that's what everyone thought, and still think --still JUDGE that that's what should have happened but God predetermined otherwise. So they all got and still get MAD AT GOD and tried even harder to make Jesus' flesh AT MAN'S ATTEMPT AND TO MAN'S DESIRE, corrupt to death.

For certain therefore, most unusual fact of Jesus' Divinity and sinless Humanness is that He did not bleed, or it would be noted in the Gospels that He did, but is not.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

HOGWASH.

Jesus's Passion began at the Last Supper.
AFTER supper, he went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray - and THIS is what it says:
Luke 22:44
“And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.”

The next day, Jesus was taken to the pillar ans scourged.
Isaiah 53:5
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his STRIPES we are healed.”
"Stripes" refers to the bleeding caused by the whipping.

The Bible says that He shed blood when pierced through the side (John 19:34).

YOU can whine all you want about "water and blood" not referring to actual bleeding - but it just shows how far a person will go to advance a perverse agenda like yours.

Re:
'~THIS is what it says: Luke 22:44 “And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.”~'

With another colouring-in, the text looks like this, "And being in anguish, He prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” "Sweat" fell and "sweat" was "drops"; not "blood".

In any case, this was not caused by man but by Himself, He having "been in anguish" -- "in anguish" of SOUL -- of HIS soul.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The next day, Jesus was taken to the pillar ans scourged.
Isaiah 53:5
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his STRIPES we are healed.”
"Stripes" refers to the bleeding caused by the whipping.

"Stripes" refers to "Stripes", not to bleeding caused however by whatever; no bleeding was caused. Before the whipping started, they changed Jesus' apparel for something they put on, whipped Him and afterwards put on his own clothes again, FOR WHAT? Because the clothing they scourged Him in had no blood on to show for their effort. Obvious; but if you will not understand you will not understand.
Why did they have to hit the crown of thorns with a stick? Because they CRAVED HIS BLOOD but got none.
Why you think Pilate asked Jesus if He was some divine being? Because Jesus' "flesh saw no corruption" by any means imaginable! This Man was like a lamb slaughtered, He did not make a sound; this Man was like a god --was God in fact--, He did not shed a piece of skin nor a drop of blood! THIS MAN AS BLOOD OF A GOD no eye of man could see POURED OUT HIS SOUL even the blind could see!

 

[bbyrd009]

He...died on a Cross; His blood flowed out of His body

sacrifice appears to be our attempt to appease God

hmm

Jesus was a real person

i would not try to say that He wasn't; but it is interesting how well He hides when you try to pin Him down, is maybe a better way to put it.

 

[bbyrd009]

His blood flowed out of His body, along with water after the spear was inserted, testifying to his real death

yet you had to fix that to make it sound like you want it to, see; you cannot Quote that.
"Water and blood" issuing forth should invoke other...situations, that you might compare.
"Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

 

[bbyrd009]

Without the pouring out of blood we are dead in our sins!

oh, if you still sin you will still die, i can Quote it right from Christ's lips if you like.
Sin still = death, the wages of sin is still death, and Christ did not die for anyone's unrepented sins.
saying "Jesus died for my sins" is not confessing anything, that is not a confession
and it is contrary to Scripture in many places too. OT and NT

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, it was accepted for a time, but the only sacrifice that actually purified us is Jesus.

when you pick up your cross and follow, certainly.
But crying "LordLord" is for suckers and chumps, the deceived

 

[bbyrd009]

Animal skins point to a sacrifice, through he doesn't draw attention to it.

a better way to say that is prolly "it ain't in There," wadr.

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


"Paul says that the hair of a woman serves her as would clothing (a noun from a verb that literally means 'throw around,' and which is most often used to mean clothe or don). A little verbal arithmetic yields the following: The hair on the head of a woman is for clothing. The head of woman is man. The hair of woman is to clothe man. Man is to have his head uncovered. Man's head is Christ. Ergo, man is to be covered and Christ isn't.

That pretty much means that the growing bald of the individual male symbolizes humanity's evolving readiness to receive (=uncover/discover) Christ, and the long cranial hair of a woman symbolizes the body hair of the male, which stands for the covering of humanity's sin. And to continue this line of thought: When Adam and Eve sinned they discovered that they were naked and God covered them with 'coats of skin' (Genesis 3:21).

This action resounds what Paul says in 1 CORINTHIANS 13:7, "Love covers all things," or Peter in 1 PETER 4:8, "Love covers a multitude of sins."
" 1 Corinthians 11:14 | Paul's remarks on hair | Commentary
might have some relevance here

 

[bbyrd009]

Most commentators agree it has something to do with Jesus.

yet few there are who find it.
"Most commentators" should tell you all you need to know there i guess

but fwiw i don't think our conclusions need to match perfectly here, either

 

[lforrest]

Moving this to the unorthodox section.

 

[amadeus]

Moving this to the unorthodox section.

LOL, yes, the blood of Jesus is certainly "unorthodox", isn't it? Why is that this godless society of ours [these United States of America for one example] is not looking more and more all of the time like Jesus as only few able to see him... in spite of statements of so many to the contrary?

 

[lforrest]

LOL, yes, the blood of Jesus is certainly "unorthodox", isn't it? Why is that this godless society of ours [these United States of America for one example] is not looking more and more all of the time like Jesus as only few able to see him... in spite of statements of so many to the contrary?

The blood of Jesus is orthodox, the teaching that it was not shed is unorthodox.

 

[amadeus]

The blood of Jesus is orthodox, the teaching that it was not shed is unorthodox.

I am not doubting your statement at all, but still... "Jesus wept".