Featured The Blood of Jesus

"Has anyone else ever encountered this doctrine? It completely took me by surprise. (Granted, the person touting this doctrine went on to spout off some other doctrines that frankly horrified me.)"

Never. I also recently discovered a "Paul's Letters Only" doctrine, they reject all the bible except Paul. The guy even accused Luke and Peter of being liars.

 

John 19:32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

That verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts.

My dad used to have a big problem when preachers would say that Jesus "sweated blood" during this prayer, citing the phrase (as you did) "was as it were..."

I guess I'm not sure what the Bible is saying here. If Jesus was not literally dripping blood, why even make the comparison? OTOH, why does it say "was as it were"?

 

While it is true that superhuman agony - suffering to pay the price for the sins of the world took place in Gethsemane it also continued to the point of death on the cross and nobody at the trial or anywhere else remarks that they were not seeing bleeding.

No text says there was no bleeding rather the report of the incident is as if nothing remarkable at all is going on other than the fact that Jesus refuses to complain. His lack of complaint and the fact that He died so soon after crucifixion were the only things that they remark about during the trial as if it were not normal.

When He is brought before Herod and Pilate both of them ask for a sign or some sort of help to guide them - but Christ offers them nothing. When asked to heal by Herod to prove through some supernatural sign that He was of divine origin - he does nothing. Even though he healed the servants ear in the garden he goes out of his way to show no unusual sign of any kind during the trial.

If scourging and crucifixion were not producing any blood even his enemies would have been talking about it.

If you want to read about the account in a large amount of detail -- then ..http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da74.html
Start reading there --

in Christ,

Bob

 

Jesus Christ bled. He was fully human and without doubt he bled some time before he went to the cross.

He bled when he was whipped. He bled when the crown of thorns was pushed on His head.

Most importantly he bled while on the cross.

Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

That's absurd. Heretical even.

I disagree that Christ's fear and anxiety are caused by the coming beating or the crucifixion. Many believers have suffered equally harsh, if not worse, torture and went to their crosses or stakes to be burned while singing and praising God. I can't believe that the Lord himself was fearful of something that many of his followers embraced almost joyfully. He was fearful and anxious over suffering his Father's anger and wrath against sin - something he had never known before.

Never heard of it in my life. Then again it seems as if new (or rehashed) heresies crop up almost every day.

 

Are these just "10 guys in a room making stuff up" or is it some actual denomination?

 

It started in a chat room, the owner being Paul Only. I did a search and indeed it is growing but it isn't that big yet to be called a denomination or even an organization as yet.

 

The BB poster (Gerhard Ebersoehn) who put forth this doctrine claims 'that the Lord has shown me in great and marvelous ways' and will not identify what denomination or sect he/she is a part of. I have asked him/her on many occasions and have been ignored. The closest this poster gets to identify with any sect or denomination is the listing on the 'about me' link. It says under denomination 'reformed'. Also, under 'Home Church' Gerhard lists a city in South Africa and no specific church. The interest listed is 'Theology of the Sabbath'. If you check out the links he/she has listed you will see some 'bible institute' which it seems from the discussion led by 'GE' that Gerhard is it's founder/leader. Their are many bizzare doctrines being espoused by the site. Teachings of which Gerhard has started threads on BB such as 'Bone Day' and 'All Sunday Resurrectionists' are on the lists of teachings. Most of the threads Gerhard has started on BB don't get much attention. I suspect that is because the posts by Gerhard are very hard to understand. In the blog section you will see discussions on teachings of certain SDA theologians but this sect/denomination is at odds with the mainline SDA church.

This-among other things-leads me to believe this is just another spin off the SDA. There are many. Some very small and very heretical. Some (like David Koresh and The Branch Davidians) are very heretical and dangerous.

http://www.biblestudents.co.za/

 

<<<He claimed that Jesus's physical body was not even marred>>>


Quote, please?

 

<<<the fact that Jesus was very much human, while being divine, and any human body>>>

<<the fact>>, is not completely explained and therefore what further has not been explained but should have been explained—Jesus’ sinlessness—, renders <the fact>, no fact but subterfuge.

“For since by (the first) man came death…” because he <<<was very much human>>>?

God then made man to let him die?
God forbid!
No!
“For since man : SINNED : death came by man”!

“But now: Christ ROSE from the dead”—“HAD to rise from the dead SINCE / BECAUSE”… <<<he was very much human>>>?

No! “SINCE / BECAUSE”… He was very much / absolutely THE SINLESS, THE UNBLEMISHED, THE PERFECT, THE SPOTLESS : THE DIVINE : GOD : the Lamb of God, Jesus ROSE from the dead and death the wages of SIN. “FOR HE KNEW NO SIN!”.

“But now Christ is risen from the dead since through DEATH, He very much OVERCAME death! Death marred Him not; He was marred—formed and fashioned and tried in the furnace of God’s Altar. “I have created the Waster to destroy … I have created the Smith that bloweth the coals in the fire and bringeth forth an Instrument for his work; No weapon that is formed against Thee shall prosper and every tongue against Thee in judgment Thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the Servant of the LORD, in His Righteousness OF ME, SAITH THE LORD” and Father of the Son of God IN HIS SUFFERING LIKE NOWHERE ELSE.

Because (“since”) He was THE SINLESS, THE UNBLEMISHED, THE PERFECT, THE SPOTLESS : THE DIVINE : GOD : the Lamb of God, He was marred, viz., formed and fashioned and tried in the fire of his suffering of his dying the death of all sinners, not that man would adore Him, but that man would despise Him. He was marred so that God exulted in Him; not that men would exalt Him.
So perfectly <<very much human>> as Jesus was, so DIVINE GOD was He.

You see, the problem again with your reasoning is that you make of GOD’S work —Jesus’ having been marred by the pains of death—, the work of wicked men; that you make GOD’S GLORY —Christ in his Suffering—, “the power of darkness”.

 

But where it says "there came out / sagged down / bulged out" - 'eksehlthen'—not 'flowed' like living blood would have ‘flowed’ or sweat would have ‘streamed’—, you say his blood flowed.

And where it says "blood-AND-water came out" in DEAD clout and DEAD watery substance, there you insist it was living, running BLOOD and no water!

Now this, <<<his sweat was as it were great drops of blood>>> is not the text or what it means.
There is no Subjunctive or Conjunctive. The Verb is Indicative, Active. The Subject, “his sweat and blood, became like [‘hohsei’] drops which fell to the ground.”

Here where it is Jesus who while living is bleeding and whose blood is flowing from his real life experience in Divine Agony of “our Passover”, there, you deny it was his life’s blood, and say it was just sweat, the sign of weakness and exhaustion as of a weakling and sinner, and not Jesus, “WHFFERED UP HIMSELF, SACRIFICE” of the Passover of Yahweh.

 

So yes,

<<<any human body subjected to a Roman scourging and crucifixion would bleed profusely.>>>

Jesus' body was not <<any human body>>. His body and flesh and whole Being was also God.

And Jesus' body was not <<any human body>>. His was a SINLESS body, and therefore "did not see corruption" even in death or in the suffering of to die the death of sinners.

 

<<<The scripture even tells us that Jesus was beaten by the soldiers, a crown of thorns was placed on His head, He was whipped (fulfilling the prophecy that 'by his stripes we are healed'), He was smote with rods, His beard was plucked out, and finally nails were driven into His hands and feet and a spear was driven into his side. To say that a human body could be subjected to all of those things and not bleed, simply because the scripture does not explicitly state that He bled, is bothersome.>>>


<<<… and finally nails were driven into His hands and feet and a spear was driven into his side.>>>

<<nails were driven into His hands>> before Jesus was on the cross, lifted up high. Why, but as I said before, for the lust after blood? Received any for that blood, atonement for sins? Found any peace by extracting blood from a carcase? But they shall look up to Him whose side they pierced when TOO LATE for reconciliation.

<<<a spear was driven into his side>>> after Jesus had died on the cross --- 3 to 5 hours after. Blood – even were it blood – shod without being shed --- is that the blood of the Servant of the LORD or of one who not as much as passively could make atonement for sin?


<<To say that a human body could be subjected to all of those things and not bleed, simply because the scripture does not explicitly state that He bled, is bothersome.>>>

Jesus’ was no ordinary <<human body>>!

However <bothersome> to some it may be that Jesus did not bleed while he was subjected to all of those things>>, He did not bleed.
One, because <<the scripture does not explicitly state that He bled>>;
Two, because there is all the rest of the Scriptures like the Psalms, e.g., Psalms 17 and 18 which clearly show that his human body while <<subjected to all those things>>, would not bleed;
Three, According to Scriptures Jesus would not and did not bleed or had his being in any wise hurt or soiled—“corrupted”—, because it had to be according to his sinless Divine nature as well as merit and deserving.

 

I, Gerhard Ebersoehn, have never before the current discussion in BB on <<this doctrine>> heard or read a single sentence of <<Mormonism>> and do not care to hear or read, EVER!

 

Tell us more about yourself; it may take our attention off those horrifying stuff --- so horrifying Jesus announced its advance and assault with the BATTLE CRY,
"THIS IS THE POWER OF DARKNESS! THIS IS YOUR HOUR!” [“hour” of judgment of the wicked men OF THE CHURCH, verse 52].

It took me, <<by surprise>> as it could not anyone else, more.

It confirmed to me that Christ SUFFERED and was TRIED because He was “more than Conqueror”, and able to help in all things them that wait upon the Lord. “For we have not a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities but was in all points in every respect tried and tested, yet without sin”— He conquered the tempter, and put evil men in their place. “Fear and dread shall fall upon them: BY THE GREATNESS OF THINE ARM they shall be as still as a stone.”

 

G.E. states very often his hatred for the Seventh-day Adventist church - and frankly as an actual SDA myself - I recognize very little of G.E.'s teaching as anything I have heard of before.

 

To post 48.....