Blood

Originally posted by usmc7257
Are you kidding me? [RJHinds] Your posts are rarely if ever agreed with.

Perhaps. But jaywill did single out RJHinds, from all the prominent regular Christian posters on this forum last last year, and declared him to be a 'serious seeker of the truth'.

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be
glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even
they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn
because of Him. Even so, Amen.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says
the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

(Revelation 1:5-8 NKJV)

The blood of the Lord Jesus the Christ is special for He is the Alpha
and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the one who is coming
again, the Almighty.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Remember you too must always post your sources as well then, okay?

Can you point to where I haven't?

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks. I'm not trying to hide anything or where I may get my info from but I know most here would not have the liturature to look at themselves as most is going to be from the WTS.
If it is from an outside sourse like wikipedia I'll always post that.

I think you should stop ranting at me for dissagreeing with you and try harder to follow forum protocol and basic intellectual honesty when copying significant amounts of material (which you do frequently) irrespective of where it comes from.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think there is a poster here who can explain the origin of life. I don't expect them to. It is not central to Christian theology is it?

[b]I have written adaquate explanations of the references to the blood of Christ.
Not adequate enough for me to understand. I am not sure whether I have read your explanations, but in my experience, the fe ...[text shortened]... a duality whereby they simultaneously claim that it is all symbolism, and that it is all real.[/b]

I don't think there is a poster here who can explain the origin of life. I don't expect them to. It is not central to Christian theology is it?

It is central to Christian faith that we know Who is responsible. It is not essential to our faith that we know how biological life arose. Though God certainly does not forbid us to be as curious as we like or try to find out.

I think it is central to an Atheistic Evolution Theory that it be known HOW biological life arose. And I suspect that to this thought your reply would be that the origin of biological life is not important to Evolution.

And my reply to that would be that the Atheistic Evolutionists has made it unimportant because of the difficulty in answering the question in Darwnian terms. Regardless of your protests that this is not true, I believe it is true. They "cut there loses" so to speak to save the theory. The Atheistic Evolutionist distances the theory from the problem of the origin of life in a quite cavalier attitude. Ie "Oh, but Evolution was never about the origin of life." etc.

jw:
I have written adaquate explanations of the references to the blood of Christ.

tw:
Not adequate enough for me to understand. I am not sure whether I have read your explanations, but in my experience, the few posters willing to write anything on the subject merely quote vast quantities of the Bible, and state as fact thinks that need explanation.

If you are sincerely seeking to understand the Redemption of Christ and how the blood relates, as far as what the Bible teaches, you should not be adverse to listening to Bible passages.

Actually, my talks on it sometimes went on considerably with no reference to a bible passage, or with slight reference.

Then again, everything related to the experience of Christ is a matter of revelation. On one hand, you are not completely wrong, that it is difficult for many of us to explain the blood of Christ. Sure, I agree that it is not easy to explain. On the other hand there is also the problem of someone not willing to pray about it to God and seek light on their PERSONAL situation before God.

I suspect that protests will come that one is completely OBJECTIVE and does not want to PRAY on any personal level but only seeks a explanation - distant from themselves as possible.

I am not sure that God will open the eyes of that kind of attitude. I am fearful that sometimes God will not waste truth on the one who has no heart for God Himself.

"For whoever has, it shall be given to him, and he will abound; but whoever does not have, even that which he has shall be taken away from him."

On one hand the subect of redemption is not an easy one.
On the other hand though, some people may have no intention of being touched by the need of redemption. Their vested interest is not Justification through God's way but self justification.

The problem of communication is not all from ONE side - that of the Christian searching for words.

On this particular topic, some people have tried to maintain a duality whereby they simultaneously claim that it is all symbolism, and that it is all real.

Well, I would put it this way. What the New Testament stresses is not that I am "under the blood" as so many songs might have it. But rather the emphasis is that the believer is "in Christ".

I mean that Christ is a living Person but rather unusual. Christ is a living Person as a realm and as a sphere one can enter into. Christ is the enterable God. Christ is the living God into Whom a man may get his whole being joined to and into.

In that realm Christ is his eternal justification before a holy and righteous God. The sinner's history is no longer a history of sinful acts and deeds, missteps and transgressions, iniquitites and wrongdoings. That history has been judged in Christ on His cross.

The sinner's history is now Christ Himself. And God looks upon that believer as being in Christ. Christ is his legacy and God sees him as if he had never sinned at all.

The effectiveness of His death and His shedding His blood is possible because one has spiritually entered into this realm - "in Christ". The blood is meaningful because being in Christ is benefitting from His death on our behalf.

Now as difficult as this is, and I do not suggest it is not difficult, it makes no sense if:

1.) Christ is not alive
2.) Christ is not God
3.) Christ is not a man
4.) Christ is not the Holy Spirit
5.) Christ is not enterable
6.) A man has no way to connect to, be found in, joined to, merge with, blend with, or be brought together with in his innermost being TO this Christ.

This little post is not an exhaustive treatise on the blood of Redemption. Many things are left unsaid.

I think the most important thing here is the any blood, any other item associated with the work of Christ is not effective or meaningfully operative except one get into the realm of that living Person Christ.

In Christ, the blood of Christ reveals it power to set the heart at peace. And this peace is a peace that nothing, nothing, nothing in the whole world can equal or give.

It may be very effective for an God seeking person to pray "Lord, I realize that I need the blood of Jesus to wash away my sins. Lord wash me in the blood of Christ. Wash all my sins away."

But it is really the entering INTO Christ, the available and living resurrected Person in His form as Holy Spirit that makes this prayer effective and peace and joy arise deeply within the human spirit.

The belief that one needs the blood of Jesus is really a confession that one needs Jesus Himself. His life is symbolized by His blood. He poured out His life. He poured out His blood for sinners.

What is His life ? It is the life that every fallen man needed in order to be appear approved according to God's standard of righteousness. According to God's standard of righteousness He is only satisfied with the life of His Son.

In a sense Jesus Christ is what God meant by mankind.
Our distance from this was the fall of man brought about by Adam.

God wants to forgive sinners. God wants to forgive me. God wants to forgive you. God wants to forgive your enemy. God wants to forgive you as you are some one else's enemy.

God wants to forgive. But God will not forgive in a sloppy and sentimental way. He will forgive in a way that demonstrates His judgment upon the wrong done.

The death of Christ for us sinners seems from our side to be free forgiveness. On God's side there is no such thing as free forgiveness. On God's side there is forgiveness because the dept has been paid in full.

The blood of Christ has to do with God seeing the dept of the world's sin has been paid in full by one on behalf of all. It is really a reversal of Adam's act which plunged all into alienation from God.

In one man Adam all were constituted sinners. In reverse in one man Christ, "the second man" and "the last Adam" all may be constituted righteous.

The human concept:

God please forgive me. Let us just forget about what I did.

The divine concept:

God will forgive but only as what I did was JUDGED on Calvary when Jesus shed His blood in my place.



The human concept:

God just use ANY old way to save me. As long as I get saved it doesn't matter to me. One method is as good as the next. Just get me forgiven and saved.

The divine concept:

God will save me righteously in a way that demonstrates His glory, His dignity, His legally right procedure. He will not forgive me at the expense of being involved in unrighteous forgiveness. He will forgive me not based on love alone. His standard must be maintained before the whole universe.

Originally posted by jaywill

I don't think there is a poster here who can explain the origin of life. I don't expect them to. It is not central to Christian theology is it?

It is central to Christian faith that we know Who is responsible. It is not essential to our faith that we know how biological life arose. Though God certainly does not forbid us to be as curi this prayer effective and peace and joy arise deeply within the human spirit.

I think it is central to an Atheistic Evolution Theory that it be known HOW biological life arose.

Well you'd be wrong. The diversification of life on this planet is explained by evolution, this is an established scientific fact. Atheists, deists and theists alike share this view. That we don't how exactly how biological life first formed in no way negates the massive evidence for evolution.

Regardless of your protests that this is not true, I believe it is true.

Well, end of debate then. You've chosen want you want to believe and that's the end of it.

Have you read your copy of The Blind Watchmaker? I seem to recall you said you had one when i asked a little while ago. All of the issues you are presenting were addressed by Dawkins over 20 years ago.

edit - Is it essential for the 'theistic evolutionist' to know how life arose?

Originally posted by jaywill
I think it is central to an Atheistic Evolution Theory that it be known HOW biological life arose. And I suspect that to this thought your reply would be that the origin of biological life is not important to Evolution.

Why do you label Evolution Theory 'atheistic'? Because it contradicts some of your religious claims? Would you equally label Einstein's theory of relativity 'atheistic' if it too contradicted one of your beliefs?
Or is it because you think that most people on these forums who promote the Theory of Evolution are atheists? (even though I am sure you know some are not).

And my reply to that would be that the Atheistic Evolutionists has [b]made it unimportant because of the difficulty in answering the question in Darwnian terms.[/b]
What are 'Darwinian terms' and why would one need to use them to answer the question?

Regardless of your protests that this is not true, I believe it is true.
Do you believe it because you have a logical reason for believing it? If so, please explain. If not, is it a religious reason? Plain old stubbornness?

The Atheistic Evolutionist distances the theory from the problem of the origin of life in a quite cavalier attitude. Ie "Oh, but Evolution was never about the origin of life." etc.
We say that, because its true. If you dispute it then explain why. Instead of substantiating your claims, you simply state that you are correct. Then you expect me to act on your unsubstantiated beliefs and start asking posters what they believe was the origin of life?

Originally posted by jaywill
If you are sincerely seeking to understand the Redemption of Christ and how the blood relates, as far as what the Bible teaches, you should not be adverse to listening to Bible passages.

I am not particularly seeking to understand it. I merely pointed out that nobody had come close to explaining it to me, and that in my eyes it seems ridiculous.
I am not particularly averse to Bible passages that make sense and are in context. I do however object to whole sale quoting of passages that do not make much sense, are out of context, etc and are being used purely to a) try and boost the authority of the poster or b) bore the reader or c) obfusticate what is being said.

On the other hand there is also the problem of someone not willing to pray about it to God and seek light on their PERSONAL situation before God.

I suspect that protests will come that one is completely OBJECTIVE and does not want to PRAY on any personal level but only seeks a explanation - distant from themselves as possible.

I am not sure that God will open the eyes of that kind of attitude. I am fearful that sometimes God will not waste truth on the one who has no heart for God Himself.
Are you saying that you cannot explain it, and I must pray about it? It is not very clear.


Throughout the rest of your post, I find no explanation at all of the topic at hand. Instead you appear to be rambling on about something else that possibly relies on the concept of blood being spilt or required, but the key question - why is it required, is not answered in the slightest, nor even touched upon.

Originally posted by jaywill
God will save me righteously in a way that demonstrates His glory, His dignity, His legally right procedure. He will not forgive me at the expense of being involved in unrighteous forgiveness. He will forgive me not based on love alone. His standard must be maintained before the whole universe.

But what you utterly fail to explain, and is the key question in the OP, is why God's legally right procedure involves blood sacrifice.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not particularly seeking to understand it. I merely pointed out that nobody had come close to explaining it to me, and that in my eyes it seems ridiculous.
I am not particularly averse to Bible passages that make sense and are in context. I do however object to whole sale quoting of passages that do not make much sense, are out of context, etc and a ...[text shortened]... the key question - why is it required, is not answered in the slightest, nor even touched upon.

I am not particularly seeking to understand it. I merely pointed out that nobody had come close to explaining it to me, and that in my eyes it seems ridiculous.

You know what kind of man Jesus Christ was. Without understanding too much you can at least gather that His own concept was that He was going to His cross on behalf of sinners.

Now why would that be "ridiculous" ?

I don't know. When me and my brother were kids, I did not understand very much. When my brother made some jokes about the crucifixion of Jesus, somehow I thought within that they were not funny.

I did not understand redemption, atonement, reconciliation, justification or any in depth theology. I just had a sense that the subject matter of Jesus' crucifixion was not ridiculous or the stuff of jokes.

Paul wrote "He loved me and gave himself for me". Paul was not an unintelligent or uneducated person. He made the matter personal here. "He LOVED ME ... He Gave HIMSELF FOR ME ..." .

Mysterious? Yes. Maybe a problem to believe? But ridiculous ?

Maybe "ridiculous" if we were speaking of someone else like Mick Jagger or Benjamin Franklin or Bruce Lee or even Socrates.

But the person is of the quality of Jesus. But it is the teaching of One speaking and behaving as Son of God.

It may be a difficult matter. But given WHO is involved I don't see it as a "ridiculous" matter.

I am not particularly averse to Bible passages that make sense and are in context. I do however object to whole sale quoting of passages that do not make much sense, are out of context, etc and are being used purely to a) try and boost the authority of the poster or b) bore the reader or c) obfusticate what is being said.

Well. I am very prone to quote the Bible. I admit that.

But in my personal experience there is a reason why. I remember in college arguing with a Christian friend many times over the meaning of life and of God and such things. We sat and talked and talked and argued and debated.

To this day, I CANNOT remember the details of those arguments. I would like to have a tape recording of some of those exchanges today. This was 1969 - 70 timeframe.

The only thing I recall is on one day, he said these words -

"Jack, I don't know how many times I have to tell you. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus Christ is the living Word of God."


Did I understant that ? No indeed. I did not. But somehow, maybe subconsciously, the words sunk down deep like a rock down to the bottom of my heart.

I have a kind of suspicion about speaking with unbelievers. I suspect that if years from now they do meet Jesus they will remember primarily something that was said in the Bible.

I think the word of God is like radiation. You know you can disagree with radiation. But it will infuse itself into you just the same. I think the word of God is something like a heavenly radiation.

So I quote the Bible often. If God's word cannot convict the sinner to open the heart, I don't know what will.

Now every Christians is not like me. And if you wanted to discuss God with people who refrain much from quoting a lot Scripture there are such.

If you notice epiphenahaus is sparing with quotations, to my sense. I quote Scripture a lot because I think probably you will not remember arguments. Something deeper took place in me and in the end I only remembered what God said.

On the other hand there is also the problem of someone not willing to pray about it to God and seek light on their PERSONAL situation before God.

I suspect that protests will come that one is completely OBJECTIVE and does not want to PRAY on any personal level but only seeks a explanation - distant from themselves as possible.

I am not sure that God will open the eyes of that kind of attitude. I am fearful that sometimes God will not waste truth on the one who has no heart for God Himself.
Are you saying that you cannot explain it, and I must pray about it? It is not very clear.

I cannot fully explain the plan of Redemption.

I can say something for you.

But we are talking about the center of the universe - the death and resurection of Christ. Can I exhaust this profound matter which impacts eternity with my few poor words ?

No. If you wish me to admit that I am short of words, --- guilty as charged. You're right.

But I can say something about it.

Throughout the rest of your post, I find no explanation at all of the topic at hand. Instead you appear to be rambling on about something else that possibly relies on the concept of blood being spilt or required, but the key question - why is it required, is not answered in the slightest, nor even touched upon.

The life of the Son of God is required.

The blood means that He GAVE His life for you.
He provided what was required - His own life.

I look at it this way - As much as it is POSSIBLE for us humans to understand, God Himself , in a man, gave up His life for us that we could be saved from our sins.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what you utterly fail to explain, and is the key question in the OP, is why God's legally right procedure involves blood sacrifice.

But what you utterly fail to explain, and is the key question in the OP, is why God's legally right procedure involves blood sacrifice.

Acknowledge the limitations that I myself expressed my post would have. That would be fair before you charge me with utter failure.

God requires Christ. God requires PERFECT. God requires the Son to be imputed to those fallen into the Satanic rebellion.

The blood of Christ separated from the body of Christ signals that the Son of God went to the uttermost to provide His life. God accepted it.

I think it is not any blood that will do, for it is not any life with which God is satisfied. So it is not any blood sacrifice.

The many thousands of gallons of blood from the old testament sacrifices were symbols leading up to the ONE atoning sacrifice. So it is not any blood because it is not any life.

There is ONE life that is well pleasing to God. Many good lives have been on earth. All fell short. One life hit the mark. That is the life of Christ. His shed blood informs that He gave to the uttermost that which was required - perfection.

God accepts that on our behalf. Our part is to believe.

In the Passover, the judgment upon Egypt PASSED OVER where the blood of the lamb was on the doorpost and the lintel of the house. The judging angels saw the blood on the outside. Those in the house could not see the blood. They benefitted from the blood in that the judgment PASSED OVER them - the Passover.

Only God knows the full value of that life. Only God knows the full precious worth of that life in Jesus Christ. The blood is there for Him to see primarily. We who are IN CHRIST benefit. But we cannot tell the full value to God of that life, of that absolute life for God.

The blood also shows one and only one is absolute for God. Only the Son of God is absulute for the Father's will. We can identify with Him by being in Him. We can lay our hands on Him. His absoluteness for the will of God justifies us.

The blood separated fromt the body of Jesus Christ speaks of His absoluteness for the will of God. And nothing matters except the will of God.

His absoluteness for the Divine Will is signified in that shed blood, that poured out and sacrificed life in absoluteness for the will of the Father. So the blood of Jesus is meaningful. But it signals that it is because the LIFE of that One is so meaningful.

Before you proceed to pick out weaknesses in this post, I warn you, this will not have the effect to cause me to shy away from talking about the blood of Christ.

Your goal may be reached in pointing out my failure to teach. But that will not make the redemptive act of Christ less believable to those who come to believe in Him.

Originally posted by jaywill
You know what kind of man Jesus Christ was. Without understanding too much you can at least gather that His own concept was that He was going to His cross on behalf of sinners.

Now why would that be "ridiculous" ?

Because it suggests that God requires suffering. Without justification for this suffering, it seems ridiculous. It is the explanation for this requirement that is missing, and is typically stated as obvious by Christians rather than explained.

Originally posted by jaywill
Acknowledge the limitations that I myself expressed my post would have. That would be fair before you charge me with utter failure.

I am afraid I don't understand what you mean. What am I to acknowledge?

God requires Christ. God requires PERFECT. God requires the Son to be imputed to those fallen into the Satanic rebellion.
Once again, you repeatedly state as fact, that God requires blood, but do not explain why.
At best, towards the end of your post you start to suggest that it is symbolic.

Before you proceed to pick out weaknesses in this post, I warn you, this will not have the effect to cause me to shy away from talking about the blood of Christ.
So this to you, is nothing more than an attempt to preach. Actually explaining what was asked, is not that important to you? OK. Preach on. I am sure people will come in droves to listen to you blab on about something you cannot explain.