The Absolute necessity of shedding of blood

[Amy.G]

The OT prophets deny that God requires blood at all.

Could you please supply scripture to back this up? I mean with all your doctorates it should be easy right? :laugh:

 

[jbh28]

Could you please supply scripture to back this up? I mean with all your doctorates it should be easy right? :laugh:

Hebrews 9:22.... oh wait.....

 

[The Biblicist]

But you are skipping over the immeidate context that denies this is true about Christ and demands the second half is what it true about Christ and it is not just stated here but elsewhere about the blood of Christ.

So your "almost" isn't applicable to this sacrifice as this sacrifice the shedding of blood is said to be "necessary" because there is no remission of sins if blood is not shed in this sacrifice.

It was necessary because this sacrifice is directly the fulfillment of what ended in death if the High priest was "without blood" when he entered into the holiest:

Heb. 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Therefore, in this case, the shedding of blood was "NECESSARY" or there could be no remission of sins:

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

So, his words "almost all things" are to emphasize that in this case there can be no remission of sins "without blood".

Again, no response!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Could you be any more condescending DEAR?

I don't care how many doctorates you have. The Holy Spirit enlightens us and He doesn't care if you are a "dr" or not!

I only answered the condescension that you initiated.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Could you please supply scripture to back this up? I mean with all your doctorates it should be easy right? :laugh:

I generally don't respond to insults, but I feel the need to help you out here.

First, I have only one doctorate. Post-doctoral study is not an additional doctorate but rather just what it says: study post-doctorate.

Secondly, so as not to do the work for one who demeans, I'll simply point you to the Book of Jeremiah as a starter. Study of the other prophets would also be beneficial.

It would also be beneficial for you to learn that I don't state anything that I cannot back up.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Again, no response!

More dishonesty from you. I have answered several times.

But you, the Biblicist, the literalist, deny the literal scriptures when they refute your preconceived notions.

You may have the last word, if you must. But the scriptures are clear that God is able and willing to forgive sins without blood spilling. You give a wrong picture of God by claiming otherwise.

 

[The Archangel]

I generally don't respond to insults, but I feel the need to help you out here.

First, I have only one doctorate. Post-doctoral study is not an additional doctorate but rather just what it says: study post-doctorate.

Secondly, so as not to do the work for one who demeans, I'll simply point you to the Book of Jeremiah as a starter. Study of the other prophets would also be beneficial.

It would also be beneficial for you to learn that I don't state anything that I cannot back up.

May I ask, since I'm ignorant of your doctorate, what your doctorate is in? Also, what are you studying in your post-doctorate studies?

The Archangel

 

[The Biblicist]

I generally don't respond to insults, but I feel the need to help you out here.

First, I have only one doctorate. Post-doctoral study is not an additional doctorate but rather just what it says: study post-doctorate.

Secondly, so as not to do the work for one who demeans, I'll simply point you to the Book of Jeremiah as a starter. Study of the other prophets would also be beneficial.

It would also be beneficial for you to learn that I don't state anything that I cannot back up.

The truth is that you have not responded to my answers to your last objections and there is no post by you on record to show you did. So please, don't misrepresent the facts. My previous post answered all your objections and you have not responded - that is fact not fiction. I will repost it again and again I wait for a response.

 

[The Biblicist]

But you are skipping over the immeidate context that denies this is true about Christ and demands the second half is what it true about Christ and it is not just stated here but elsewhere about the blood of Christ.

So your "almost" isn't applicable to this sacrifice as this sacrifice the shedding of blood is said to be "necessary" because there is no remission of sins if blood is not shed in this sacrifice.

It was necessary because this sacrifice is directly the fulfillment of what ended in death if the High priest was "without blood" when he entered into the holiest:

Heb. 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Therefore, in this case, the shedding of blood was "NECESSARY" or there could be no remission of sins:

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

So, his words "almost all things" are to emphasize that in this case there can be no remission of sins "without blood".

Here it is again!

 

[The Biblicist]

More dishonesty from you. I have answered several times.

But you, the Biblicist, the literalist, deny the literal scriptures when they refute your preconceived notions.

You may have the last word, if you must. But the scriptures are clear that God is able and willing to forgive sins without blood spilling. You give a wrong picture of God by claiming otherwise.

The truth is that you have not responded to my answers to your last objections and there is no post by you on record to show you did. So please, don't misrepresent the facts. My previous post answered all your objections and you have not responded - that is fact not fiction. I will repost it again and again I wait for a response.


You owe me an apology for accusing me falsely of being dishonest!

 

[The Biblicist]

But you are skipping over the immeidate context that denies this is true about Christ and demands the second half is what it true about Christ and it is not just stated here but elsewhere about the blood of Christ.

So your "almost" isn't applicable to this sacrifice as this sacrifice the shedding of blood is said to be "necessary" because there is no remission of sins if blood is not shed in this sacrifice.

It was necessary because this sacrifice is directly the fulfillment of what ended in death if the High priest was "without blood" when he entered into the holiest:

Heb. 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Therefore, in this case, the shedding of blood was "NECESSARY" or there could be no remission of sins:

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

So, his words "almost all things" are to emphasize that in this case there can be no remission of sins "without blood".

Thomas has not yet responded to this post, although he accused me of being dishonest in pointing this out. However, the written record of posts are available for all to see that he has never yet responded to this post.

In this post I expose his false claim where he says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Helwys
And apparently you are skipping over the crucially important qualifying word "ALMOST".


And it exposes his false claim where he says in Post#55

Ah, but His written word does not demand it, as I have clearly shown. You demand it, but you are not God.

The important thing is that Jesus lived and died as one of us and redeemed us from sin and its curses, including physical and spiritual death. How he died is not what matters. - TH

My post above absolutely exposes these responses by Thomas to Hebrews 9:22 and its context as completely false!

We still await his response!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The truth is that you have not responded to my answers to your last objections and there is no post by you on record to show you did. So please, don't misrepresent the facts. My previous post answered all your objections and you have not responded - that is fact not fiction. I will repost it again and again I wait for a response.


You owe me an apology for accusing me falsely of being dishonest!

I have more than adequately responded to everything you have posted, and that is the truth.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Thomas has not yet responded to this post, although he accused me of being dishonest in pointing this out. However, the written record of posts are available for all to see that he has never yet responded to this post.

In this post I expose his false claim where he says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Helwys
And apparently you are skipping over the crucially important qualifying word "ALMOST".


And it exposes his false claim where he says in Post#55

Ah, but His written word does not demand it, as I have clearly shown. You demand it, but you are not God.

The important thing is that Jesus lived and died as one of us and redeemed us from sin and its curses, including physical and spiritual death. How he died is not what matters. - TH

My post above absolutely exposes these responses by Thomas to Hebrews 9:22 and its context as completely false!

We still await his response!

LOL! Thanks for posting my quotes. It proves that I have responded to your errors, and it also proves who believes what the scriptures literally say and who does not. Please keep on posting and also quoting my posts; in doing so, you are proving my case without my having to continue repeating myself. :laugh:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Let the objective and fair person read all my posts in this thread, and it can be clearly seen that I have shown how the NT verse in question refers back to the OT sacrificial system, in which God forgave sins without requiring a blood sacrifice. This is confirmed by the Pentateuch and the books of the OT prophets. Those who deny it are arguing against God, not against me. Read the relevant OT books, for God's sake!

So, who is the real "biblicist" and literalist in this case? I am not the one denying what the scriptures say. The word "almost" is in the Hebrews verse for a reason: it refers directly back to the OT sacrificial system in which God could and did forgive sins without the necessity of a blood sacrifice. And the OT prophets confirm this.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

May I ask, since I'm ignorant of your doctorate, what your doctorate is in? Also, what are you studying in your post-doctorate studies?

The Archangel

A. Church history and theology

B. The first 300 years of Christianity

I am reluctant to bring my studies into a conversation, but I will do so in response to insults and condescension.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Tom...why are you so reluctant. I am an Old School Baptist. My understanding of scripture is somewhat different but ixstatexwhat I believe. It is just theology anyway. If anyone on this board has "perfect " truth, than God love them...but I don't think so.

Worse they can do is call you a name, claim you to be a heretic & ban you. No big deal, then you know that the place isn't tolerent. However as of late, ive seen moderator's display great tolerence. Now they may tell you your off base...but as long as you don't let the conversation go to trading insults ..you know...you should be fine.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Tom...why are you so reluctant. I am an Old School Baptist. My understanding of scripture is somewhat different but ixstatexwhat I believe. It is just theology anyway. If anyone on this board has "perfect " truth, than God love them...but I don't think so.

Worse they can do is call you a name, claim you to be a heretic & ban you. No big deal, then you know that the place isn't tolerent. However as of late, ive seen moderator's display great tolerence. Now they may tell you your off base...but as long as you don't let the conversation go to trading insults ..you know...you should be fine.

I really appreciate your support, EWF. I'm not sure what you think I'm reluctant about, though.

I wish we could all state what we believe if we do it respectfully. I don't mind differences, but the word "heresy" is tossed around too much here.

 

[The Biblicist]

LOL! Thanks for posting my quotes. It proves that I have responded to your errors, and it also proves who believes what the scriptures literally say and who does not. Please keep on posting and also quoting my posts; in doing so, you are proving my case without my having to continue repeating myself. :laugh:

Thomas, why play games? Your post that I quoted was the post that I answered and completely repudiated. It is my repudiation that you have yet to respond to. Go ahead and run and play your games as that is all you can do as my post is irrefutable and that is why you are running from it as fast as you can. I will repost my post again so the readers can see why you are running from it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ah, but His written word does not demand it, as I have clearly shown. You demand it, but you are not God.

The important thing is that Jesus lived and died as one of us and redeemed us from sin and its curses, including physical and spiritual death. How he died is not what matters.

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
Yes, he refers back to the Old Testament sacrifical types in order to directly apply it to Jesus Christ and why his blood had to be shed - that is the context! Look at the words preceding and following that text:


Heb. 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us....
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?....18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.......22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

No look at the immediate verses after it

23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these..........10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 ¶ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus

The whole context repudiates your intepretation

Not only does the context demand His literal blood must be shed for the remission of sins it is else stated just as clearly and plainly. The wine in the Lord's Supper represents his blood for remission of sins:

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


There is absolutely no excuse for your false interpetation of this text in light of its preceding and foregoing context and in light of other scriptures that equally demand his blood was shed for remission of sins.

The context makes it clear you are wrong because it says the very opposite. It directly applies the blood shed by old Testament sacrifices directly to Christ.


No, God could not forgive sin if Christ did not actually shed his own blood as it would require God to contradict His own written word that demands it.

Originally Posted by Thomas Helwys
And apparently you are skipping over the crucially important qualifying word "ALMOST".

But you are skipping over the immeidate context that denies this is true about Christ and demands the second half is what it true about Christ and it is not just stated here but elsewhere about the blood of Christ.

So your "almost" isn't applicable to this sacrifice as this sacrifice the shedding of blood is said to be "necessary" because there is no remission of sins if blood is not shed in this sacrifice.

It was necessary because this sacrifice is directly the fulfillment of what ended in death if the High priest was "without blood" when he entered into the holiest:

Heb. 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb. 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Therefore, in this case, the shedding of blood was "NECESSARY" or there could be no remission of sins:

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

So, his words "almost all things" are to emphasize that in this case there can be no remission of sins "without blood".

It is this last response that Thomas never answered!
__________________

 

[HankD]

To deny the literalness of the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood is IMO a serious error.

The necessity of the bloodshedding is indeed shown in the OT.

Leviticus 17

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.​

We cannot live forever with the mortal life of oxygenated blood flowing through our veins and arteries.​

Romans 5
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.​

Christ made the exchange for us. Mortal (subject to death because of sin) life based upon blood versus eternal life of the Spirit as the life force.​

He "undid" what Adam had done to his race.​

As the new Adam He offers this life based upon the exchange of mortal (subject to death because of sin) life for the eternal life of the Spirit by which He Himself now lives having been put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.​

Romans 8

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.​

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

This is why it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin as they are dumb creatures and have no intrinsic power whatsoever to give life but were a shadow of things to come being now justified by His blood, power and authority.​

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.​

HankD​