Magic Blood Theory

[agedman]

Agedman what is your point regarding atonement in quoting from Colossians?
Shall I quote the entire Pentatuech, John, Romans and Hebrews, then say "there ya go!"?

Colossians, Hebrews and Romans each promote an aspect of the work of the crucifixion.

My posting from Colossians is consistent with that of Hebrews and Romans, except the book is far shorter, more compact and can be more easily discerned for context.

Just as in Romans and Hebrews, there is no "wrath" mentioned in relationship to the crucifixion, but the work accomplished as was presented to the earliest believers. Each follows Peter's opening remarks on Pentecost and do not refute his presentation.

Sure I could cite from Galatians, Ephesians, John's works, but by staying primarily with these three pillars concerning the work of the crucifixion it keeps the message focused and concise.

Hope that helps.

Did you notice Colossians 1 was also cited? Of course you did. Again, I am trying to show the consistency of the presentation of the Apostle.

 

[AVL1984]

But that doesn’t mean His blood was holy and pure. Yes He was tempted, yet never sinned. But that doesn’t mean He had holy and pure blood. Words matter in these conversations and we always need to clearly define our words.

If his blood wasn't "holy and pure" as you put it, it wouldn't have been very effectual in covering our sins. Sorry, but I don't think God would have sent Christ to die if the blood weren't pure.

 

[agedman]

If his blood wasn't "holy and pure" as you put it, it wouldn't have been very effectual in covering our sins. Sorry, but I don't think God would have sent Christ to die if the blood weren't pure.

This is so very true.
Though tempted and tried in all points as a human, our Lord was unblemished by the world, both from without and within. He alone was totally pure and totally holy, for "All the fullness of the God dwelt in Him."

When did He receive his first marks? When the ungodly such as myself touched Him. Prior to that we had not and could not for He would "pass through our midst" when we wanted to take Him.

He allowed us to do that which our ungodly hearts desired, had He not He would never have been crucified.

 

[AustinC]

Colossians, Hebrews and Romans each promote an aspect of the work of the crucifixion.

My posting from Colossians is consistent with that of Hebrews and Romans, except the book is far shorter, more compact and can be more easily discerned for context.

Just as in Romans and Hebrews, there is no "wrath" mentioned in relationship to the crucifixion, but the work accomplished as was presented to the earliest believers. Each follows Peter's opening remarks on Pentecost and do not refute his presentation.

Sure I could cite from Galatians, Ephesians, John's works, but by staying primarily with these three pillars concerning the work of the crucifixion it keeps the message focused and concise.

Hope that helps.

Did you notice Colossians 1 was also cited? Of course you did. Again, I am trying to show the consistency of the presentation of the Apostle.

Hmm...do you think this argument is between God's wrath falling on sin, or do you think it's his wrath falling on Jesus himself?

The question for me is: What falls upon the Lamb, whose sacrificial death substitutes for the sins of the people for whom the Lamb is sacrificed?
Or do you declare that there is no substitute, the Lamb just died, but no substitution took place?

Here is where I don't understand your argument.

If Jesus death didn't do anything, then of what value was it?
If his death did something, what did it do?
Surely blood coming out of his body wasn't magic blood. If it was, then only the folks who were at Golgotha and buried him would have been affected.

Was his death a substitution of our sins in exchange for His righteousness?

 

[AVL1984]

Hmm...do you think this argument is between God's wrath falling on sin, or do you think it's his wrath falling on Jesus himself?

Because of sin, and Christ taking our sin upon himself, why couldn't it be both? Christ suffered God's wrath, and separation from the Father because of our sin....My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!

The question for me is: What falls upon the Lamb, whose sacrificial death substitutes for the sins of the people for whom the Lamb is sacrificed?
Or do you declare that there is no substitute, the Lamb just died, but no substitution took place?

It's CLEAR that substitution took place...he died taking our sin upon him....We still suffer physical death, but our spiritual life is assured through his sacrificial blood and death.

Here is where I don't understand your argument.

If Jesus death didn't do anything, then of what value was it?

Seems as if the only one questioning this is you. Of course his death did something, or are you intentionally being obtuse?
If his death did something, what did it do?

His death secured the release from the Old Covenant, and his death, combined with his resurrection secured the New Covenant.

Surely blood coming out of his body wasn't magic blood. If it was, then only the folks who were at Golgotha and buried him would have been affected.

Surely you're joking!?! Magic blood? Does GOD need "magic"? And his blood didn't just affect those at Golgotha.

Was his death a substitution of our sins in exchange for His righteousness?

 

[AustinC]

AVL, I hope you realize that I was asking questions of clarification from agedman, not stating my view. I am attempting to figure out what agedman and Jon actually believe about Jesus atonement and how it differs from others here...so much so that they have spent a minimum of 5 topic threads berating others for allegedly holding a pagan philosophy of atonement while they hold the only biblical thinking on atonement. I have yet to read a simple topic statement by them that exactly states what they actually believe about the atonement and then clearly show how it is any different than what their brothers believe.
When I attempt to get this clear, simple statement, I receive some runaround instead.

 

[JonC]

You know....the only reason given to call @agedman and my view "unbiblical" (other than not believing what some think Scripture "teaches" beyond what is written) was given by @Iconoclast when he called it an error to believe "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross" because this is not in Scripture.

The reason I believe "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross" is because 1 Peter 2:24 says "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross".

I wonder....since some find our view unbiblical, are there any actual passages (what is written) that we reject....or is it all just objecting to the fact we no longer accept your additions and conclusions?

 

[SovereignGrace]

If his blood wasn't "holy and pure" as you put it, it wouldn't have been very effectual in covering our sins. Sorry, but I don't think God would have sent Christ to die if the blood weren't pure.

This reeks of Apollarianism or Nestorianism, or a hybrid of the two.

 

[AustinC]

You know....the only reason given to call @agedman and my view "unbiblical" (other than not believing what some think Scripture "teaches" beyond what is written) was given by @Iconoclast when he called it an error to believe "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross" because this is not in Scripture.

The reason I believe "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross" is because 1 Peter 2:24 says "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross".

I wonder....since some find our view unbiblical, are there any actual passages (what is written) that we reject....or is it all just objecting to the fact we no longer accept your additions and conclusions?

Please explain this passage. Then explain how your interpretation is different from Iconoclast.

1 Peter 2:20-24
For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

 

[AustinC]

Now, interpret what God tells us here.

Isaiah 53:3-5,10-11

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

 

[agedman]

Please explain this passage. Then explain how your interpretation is different from Iconoclast.

1 Peter 2:20-24
For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Why does the passage need “interpreted?”

Why not take it as it is written?


We suffer, Christ suffered as an example. Each by human hands, and neither by the hand of God.

Just as we should trust the God who does not have unequal scales, So did the Christ.

All this is in total agreement with that presented by @JonC and me.

 

[agedman]

Now, interpret what God tells us here.

Isaiah 53:3-5,10-11

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

Again, this has already been done. Did you not read with understanding the posts @JonC and I made?

Does not the Scripture you present clearly state,

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

​

There is no conflict with what either @JonC or I have posted.

However, by you super imposing PSA on this passage it is torn from intent of Acknowledging that just as God saw the OT sacrifice and was satisfied, the death of the animal as cruel as it may seem brought God temporary reconciliation.

Isaiah did not publish the wrath of God. That is your own reading into the passage.

 

[AustinC]

Why does the passage need “interpreted?”

Why not take it as it is written?


We suffer, Christ suffered as an example. Each by human hands, and neither by the hand of God.

Just as we should trust the God who does not have unequal scales, So did the Christ.

All this is in total agreement with that presented by @JonC and me.

Really, you don't think the Bible needs to be interpreted? How can you tell someone what you believe if you cannot answer their questions, but simply say "why does this need to be explained"? You realize Jesus spent most of the 3 years of his ministry explaining scripture to people. Was Jesus wrong to explain and interpret scripture?
I will go through 1 Peter 2 for you.

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

Christ suffered for me. When and where did he suffer for me? He suffered at the hands of mockers and rulers.
Jesus gave me an example as a mentor so I would follow his path.

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

Jesus didn't sin, ever. Jesus didn't try to deceive when he spoke and interpreted the Bible.

When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

Jesus was hated by others. He did not hate back on them.
Jesus suffered. He did not respond back with evil malice.
Instead Jesus trusted God the Father's sovereign plan. He trusted that God the Father would be just in His judgment.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Our sins, all of them, past, present, and future, were placed upon Jesus when he died as the Sacrificial Lamb of God.
Why did Jesus bear the guilt of our sins? Answer: So that we would die to sin and live to righteousness. Paul says in Romans that we went from being a slave to sin to being a slave to righteousness. Paul also tells us in Galatians 2:20 that we were crucified with Christ and now Christ lives within us.
By Jesus death on the cross we were healed. This last phrase is Peter's reference to Isaiah 53, which Jesus also referenced, which Phillip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch. Therefore, it is important.

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
~ Isaiah 53:3-5,10-11

So...it is important to explain and interpret what is said so we see how all of scripture connects to show us Jesus.

Agedman, if you have a different position, you need to show us your interpretation, not just throw your hands in the air and say you don't need to do so...but then tell everyone else that they are wrong. That's simply wrong on your part.

 

[AustinC]

Again, this has already been done. Did you not read with understanding the posts @JonC and I made?

Does not the Scripture you present clearly state,

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

​

There is no conflict with what either @JonC or I have posted.

However, by you super imposing PSA on this passage it is torn from intent of Acknowledging that just as God saw the OT sacrifice and was satisfied, the death of the animal as cruel as it may seem brought God temporary reconciliation.

Isaiah did not publish the wrath of God. That is your own reading into the passage.

What explanation of this passage have you actually posted? Please link me to it.

 

[percho]

He was God robed in flesh. His flesh(including His blood) was exactly the same as ours. If His blood was holy and pure, then He was not flesh and blood just like we are.

I would say the following to be more correct.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: Lev 17:11 KJV
for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; Lev 17:11 Darby
‘For the [fn]life of the flesh is in the blood, Lev 17:11 NASB [fn] Literally soul

And the Word was made flesh, John 1:14 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Rom 8:3 KJV

I would say Jesus, the Son of God, the Word made flesh, was in the likeness of sinful flesh with his soul being/life in the blood of him. Exactly what did God breathed into the nostrils of man made from the the dust of the ground? What did Jesus, the Son of God, the Word made flesh, dismiss unto the hands of the Father?

Magic blood or just blood with Spirit from God resulting in soul/life without spot and without blemish =
Atonement?

 

[JonC]

Again, this has already been done. Did you not read with understanding the posts @JonC and I made?

Does not the Scripture you present clearly state,

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

​

There is no conflict with what either @JonC or I have posted.

However, by you super imposing PSA on this passage it is torn from intent of Acknowledging that just as God saw the OT sacrifice and was satisfied, the death of the animal as cruel as it may seem brought God temporary reconciliation.

Isaiah did not publish the wrath of God. That is your own reading into the passage.

Exactly. Many here believe the passage is vorrect "when properly understood" (the cry of every cultist), or what they feel it "teaches", or when "interpreted properly".....BUT what if it means exactly what is written?

The reason Penal Substitution Theorists cannot accept Scripture as God delivered it is that God's Word is in conflict with their Theory. So something must give. Therefore they vonclude Scripture must mean something other than it states.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

You know....the only reason given to call @agedman and my view "unbiblical" (other than not believing what some think Scripture "teaches" beyond what is written) was given by @Iconoclast when he called it an error to believe "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross" because this is not in Scripture.

Here we see JonC reverting to his old ways.
THE ORIGINAL QUOTE BEING DISCUSSED WAS FROM MT.8 QUOTING iSA 53;4-5.

Here it is; Jonc

We read "Christ bore our sins bodily" and "He shared our infirmity". I understand this to say that Christ bore our sins in His body, He shared in our sickness. You read it to say "Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us"

Notice Jonc does not mention the cross in this post.
I posted this to Jonc;

14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.

16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
He healed them, he removed the problem.

Speaking of the Mt.8 passage.
The scripture says nothing about Jesus
"bore our sins in His body" as you claim.

It says nothing about;
" He shared in our sickness"

No he healed them and none of the sickness was in His body, He did not share our sickness.
You take half a verse explained by The Holy Spirit in MT 8, and you try and fudge it to explain away the atonement verses used elsewhere.
Your use of part of this verse is not correctly using the scripture, but twisting it in an effort to deflect from the other verses employed.


jONC DENIES THAT NOW JUMPING FORWARD TO 1 PET2:24 WHICH IS A PROOF FOR PSA. LOL.

SEE THE POSTS 64-69...JONC DID NOT MENTION THE CROSS BUT GAVE A WRONG VIEWOF iSA.53,4-5

Isaiah 53:4 Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses, and He carried our pains; but we in turn regarded Him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


Jonc said
You are confused here. Scrioture is mot talking about our colds, stomach aches, and coronaviruses.

What Isaiah refers to as "our sickness" or "infirmaty" is our bondage under the consequences of sin and death. Paul says the same in Hebrews.

The reason I believe "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross" is because 1 Peter 2:24 says "Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross".

You did not mention the cross and 1 pet.2:24. You add it trying to misrepresent what took place

 

[Aaron]

So, I go back and look at the link.

Nope - no two Scriptures, only opinions concerning the Scriptures.

Has anyone taken Colossians 2 and refuted what I presented?

Either the Scriptures stand as they are stated in the Bible(s), or opinion is greater then Scriptures.

I try when I post opinion to make it known that it is my opinion. Sometimes I don't, but I do try to remember.

Why don't we all take time to go back over what we posted and see when we spouted opinion and when we quoted Scriptures.

See what Colossians 1 has to present concerning the Wrath poured out upon the Son by the Father:

15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence. 19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross. 21Once you were alienated from God and were hostile in your minds, engaging in evil deeds. 22But now He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence— 23if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
​

Wow!
Do you see the wrath?
Do you see it poured out upon the very one who created all, both the invisible and visible, thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities, the one whom God was pleased to have all HIS fullness indwell Him, and .....

NOPE - no wrath even slightly insinuated!

Surely, if it was true concerning the wrath, then it would have made headline copy in the Scriptures.

Yes, I see the Cross mentioned, where Christ was accursed of God and suffered for sins.

 

[AustinC]

Exactly. Many here believe the passage is vorrect "when properly understood" (the cry of every cultist), or what they feel it "teaches", or when "interpreted properly".....BUT what if it means exactly what is written?

The reason Penal Substitution Theorists cannot accept Scripture as God delivered it is that God's Word is in conflict with their Theory. So something must give. Therefore they vonclude Scripture must mean something other than it states.

What explanation of this passage have you actually posted? Please link me to it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I would say the following to be more correct.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: Lev 17:11 KJV
for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; Lev 17:11 Darby
‘For the [fn]life of the flesh is in the blood, Lev 17:11 NASB [fn] Literally soul

And the Word was made flesh, John 1:14 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Rom 8:3 KJV

I would say Jesus, the Son of God, the Word made flesh, was in the likeness of sinful flesh with his soul being/life in the blood of him. Exactly what did God breathed into the nostrils of man made from the the dust of the ground? What did Jesus, the Son of God, the Word made flesh, dismiss unto the hands of the Father?

Magic blood or just blood with Spirit from God resulting in soul/life without spot and without blemish =
Atonement?

But we have to be careful with how we word things. To say that Christ had holy and pure blood means that there was a blending of His human and divine natures, thereby, torpedoing the Hypostatic Union of Christ. These two natures were distinct and there was no mixing of the two. He is fully God and fully human. He is not a deified human or a humanized deity. He is the God-man.