Hebrews 9
22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
This does not seem to be consistent with the OT, yet this concept seems to be foundational to the beliefs of most if not all Christians.
With that in mind, why is this so widely believed?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe shedding of blood relates to the fact that the shedding of
Hebrews 9
22[b]And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
This does not seem to be consistent with the OT, yet this concept seems to be foundational to the beliefs of most if not all Christians.
With that in mind, why is this so widely believed?[/b]
blood of an innocent and perfect sacrifice was required by the
God of the Old Testament in order for God to forgive the sins
of the people for a short period of time. This was a foreshadowing
of the innocent,sinless, and perfect Son of God shedding His blood
to pay the penalty of all man's sin for all eternity. So that whosoever
believes can obtain forgiveness for all their sins.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. KJV
Hebrews 9
22[b]And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
This does not seem to be consistent with the OT, yet this concept seems to be foundational to the beliefs of most if not all Christians.
With that in mind, why is this so widely believed?[/b]
With a translation like the one you quoted from it's no wonder you're confused.
How can you possibly say that it seems inconsistent with the Old Testament? They slaughtered millions of animals and spilt oceans of blood to 'cover' their sins till Christ came and ended it once for all.
"With that in mind, why is this so widely believed?"
With what in mind? Do you have something in mind? Then spit it out and quit trying to muddle the truth.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOK, this is perhaps TMI, but here goes.
Hebrews 9
22[b]And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
This does not seem to be consistent with the OT, yet this concept seems to be foundational to the beliefs of most if not all Christians.
With that in mind, why is this so widely believed?[/b]
My aunt's suicide note included this passage. She was my dad's fraternal twin.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy do you ask?
Hebrews 9
22[b]And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness
This does not seem to be consistent with the OT, yet this concept seems to be foundational to the beliefs of most if not all Christians.
With that in mind, why is this so widely believed?[/b]
Originally posted by JS357If that was enough for her to commit suicide, then it appears she
OK, this is perhaps TMI, but here goes.
My aunt's suicide note included this passage. She was my dad's fraternal twin.
must of thought your Dad was pretty awful. Is that part of what
you are trying to say?
Originally posted by JS357The only clue you gave to why she commited suicide was that
Please elaborate on why my aunt's suicide would be due to her brother.
"She was my dad's fraternal twin". This seemed to indicate
to me that the fact she was identical to your Dad was hurtful in
some way. If she was proud to be His identical twin, then there
should be no reason to mention this in the suicide note, since
a the reason for a suicide note is usually to inform of the reason
for the suicide. Am I missing something?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by RJHindsRead what I said over to find out if I said her note mentioned being a twin. The passage she mentioned was Hebrews 9:22.
The only clue you gave to why she commited suicide was that
"She was my dad's fraternal twin". This seemed to indicate
to me that the fact she was identical to your Dad was hurtful in
some way. If she was proud to be His identical twin, then there
should be no reason to mention this in the suicide note, since
a the reason for a suicide note is usually to inform of the reason
for the suicide. Am I missing something?
I can see that absolute rock solid clarity is required on this forum.
Originally posted by JS357I do not mean to pry, but it is almost impossible to discern what was going on without knowing: a) the method of your aunt's suicide, and b) the nature of her relationship with her brother (your father).
OK, this is perhaps TMI, but here goes.
My aunt's suicide note included this passage. She was my dad's fraternal twin.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by SuzianneThe title of this thread is: "Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
I do not mean to pry, but it is almost impossible to discern what was going on without knowing: a) the method of your aunt's suicide, and b) the nature of her relationship with her brother (your father).
The OP Said: "Hebrews 9 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
I said: "My aunt's suicide note included this passage."
The passage is Hebrews 9: 22.
I also said "She was my dad's fraternal twin."
I thought readers would get that her note said: "And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
I thought they would get that her suicide involved blood.
I was wrong in the case of two readers at least.
I was 11. It was a shock. She had visited us when I was little and also we had stayed on her family's farm. She was fun to be with. My dad and his sister got along well. I never hear why she did it or many details, but it involved blood, probably cut wrists, and the lake on her family's farm.
Think of this use of a Bible passage as you will. I would say, understand what the people you care about think the Bible says, and tend to the matter if needed.
I will try to be more clear in the future.
There is no forgiveness without sin being judged by God. There is no sin that is not judged by God. God forgives but the sin commited must be judged.
When the Son of God was upon the cross, He prayed to His Father, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
Since there is no forgiveness without the judging of sin, the only way that prayer could be answered is according to God's righteous procedure. The One requesting had to be the object of judgment so that the sinners could be atoned for. Thier sins were judged in His death.
If that One is not perfect but Himself a sinner, He can die for no one's sins but His own. To die for the sins of the world He must be spotless, perfect, sinless as only Jesus Christ of all men was.
Every forgiven sinner can trace his or her forgiveness back to that prayer of Jesus on the cross. God would only answer that prayer of His Son's great love by causing the divine judgment for the sins of the world to fall upon Him.
"Father, forgive them ..." (Luke 23:34) is the prayer of the Son of God answered only according to God's righteous procedure. If we believe in the Son of God substitution takes place. Our sins were judged in Christ on that cross. Our dept was paid in Christ on His cross.
The Father will forgive the believer. And substitution takes place upon the believer's faith in the Son of God.
I think the only virtuous interpretation of this is to see it as an observation, not a moral statement.
When evil occurs, innocent blood is shed.
That innocent blood can be protected by warriors shedding their own innocent blood.
Or it can be protected by people like Rachel Corrie or Jesus, who allow their own blood to be shed without violence.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn the typology of the Bible the lamb of passover was not to be eaten raw or boiled. This eating the lamb raw or boiled, I believe, means to take the death of Christ as the death of a humanistic martyr.
I think the only virtuous interpretation of this is to see it as an observation, not a moral statement.
When evil occurs, innocent blood is shed.
That innocent blood can be protected by warriors shedding their own innocent blood.
Or it can be protected by people like Rachel Corrie or Jesus, who allow their own blood to be shed without violence.
Yes, many innocent people have shed blood. The shedding of the blood of the Son of God was more than just the shedding of innocent blood.
An innocent man is not a sinless man in all regards. Christ was a sinless man. And His death is not that like the death of Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King. His death is not a "boiling" of martyrdom for a good cause.
The lamb was to be roasted. Christ was roasted in the divine fire of God's righteous judgment of justice. Christ's death was not simply an example of a death for a worthy cause, to be imitated.
This Lamb is not to be eaten raw. He is not to be eaten boiled. He is not to be taken in the way of humanism. He is to be taken as the roasted Lamb under the eternal justice of God's judgment against sins.
His resurrection from the dead is the proof that God accepted His sacrifice.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat was this "short period of time" and what OT verses define the the demarcation points?
The shedding of blood relates to the fact that the shedding of
blood of an innocent and perfect sacrifice was required by the
God of the Old Testament in order for God to forgive the sins
of the people for a short period of time. This was a foreshadowing
of the innocent,sinless, and perfect Son of God shedding His blood
to pay the penalty of all man's sin for all eternity. So that whosoever
believes can obtain forgiveness for all their sins.
What OT verses support the concept that "shedding of
blood of an innocent and perfect sacrifice was required by the
God of the Old Testament in order for God to forgive the sins
of the people "?