what did Jesus change?

Originally posted by JoniG
Good point. He would be a good cheater then.

Cheating would be a sin and therefore impossible for him!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Cheating would be a sin and therefore impossible for him!

maybe there was a problem with the law?
edit : the system.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Cheating would be a sin and therefore impossible for him!

ummm... seriously Jesus did cheat death.

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
ummm... seriously Jesus did cheat death.

That is disputable. Of course you would have to define the word death in the context of Christianity as it is used with various different meanings in the Bible.
I dont think he can be said to have cheated death even if you are a Christian and believe in the resurrection as there was really no contest or game being played with death and if there was then why do you think he didn't win fair and square?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is disputable. Of course you would have to define the word death in the context of Christianity as it is used with various different meanings in the Bible.
I dont think he can be said to have cheated death even if you are a Christian and believe in the resurrection as there was really no contest or game being played with death and if there was then why do you think he didn't win fair and square?

He beat the laws God gave us. cheat is the wrong word.

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
He beat the laws God gave us. cheat is the wrong word.

But as I said, he wasnt subject to those laws in the first place.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But as I said, he wasnt subject to those laws in the first place.

Given that you are likely using 'subject' in a different context than it would usually be considered, while Christ may not have been subject to the Law, the humanity of Christ fulfilled the Law.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sentence 1.
Because something is essential for life it does not make it your life source. Many other parts of the body are essential for life. 'Blood is your Life source' implies that life comes from blood not that it is essential. Human lives start as a fetus without any blood.

Sentence 2.
A lot can be learned from blood as can be learned from urine hairs. If you make an all encompasing statement it is false if there is only one exception.

OK, how about some scripture to back me up. In Genesis 9:4 it says that "you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood in it". Here we see life being equated with blood. I realize you probably do not believe the scriptures accurate and meaningless, but this scripture does back up what I was attempting to convey. My attempt was to show why blood atonement is necessary for God to receive us Biblically. My analysis is not directly derived from scripture but is merely deductive reasoning based on what the Bible says and what I know. I am not attempting to form a cult of any kind or preach my opinion as fact. However, from a medical perspective, I continue to hold to my former view despite what you posted before. I will conceed, however, that I was in err saying that everything can tested from a blood sample. What you must realize though is that cellular function is dependent on a blood supply. Even the fetus is dependent on the mothers blood supply. Cardiovascular function is the primary focus of medical treatment. This can be seen with resusitative efforts such as CPR. This revolves soley around the bodies ability to sustain cellular function via our blood supply.

By the way, do you know what you are measuring obtaining a urine sample? Urine is merely the filtration of our blood supply. It is an indirect measurement of the condition of our blood supply.

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
my question is very simple really... when Jesus died what parts of the law did He take from the old testament?

The Sacrificing.

No need for it anymore.

Originally posted by whodey
OK, how about some scripture to back me up. In Genesis 9:4 it says that "you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood in it". Here we see life being equated with blood.

So by the same token anything without blood is not alive?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So by the same token anything without blood is not alive?

Of coarse not. It is what makes us live physically, however. We need a blood sacrifice as a result.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But as I said, he wasnt subject to those laws in the first place.

he was born like us... why wasn't he subject to the laws of death?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is disputable. Of course you would have to define the word death in the context of Christianity as it is used with various different meanings in the Bible.
I dont think he can be said to have cheated death even if you are a Christian and believe in the resurrection as there was really no contest or game being played with death and if there was then why do you think he didn't win fair and square?

death - various different meanings?

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
He beat the laws God gave us. cheat is the wrong word.

Death had no legal right to him. Death should only have a spiritual legal claim to him if he sinned. Since Christ did not sin, he was taken without a legal claim to him. It amounts to a type of theft. In my opinion, this is why death is now his b...tch. so to speak. Death is the one who "cheated". Death now owes a debt to Christ. Now through Christ, death has no hold on us as well. It is all part of death repaying Christ for wrongly taking him.