-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Jesus have Divine or Human Blood?
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
Well at least put in the whole post up so I'm not taken out of context. 
Here it is:
Another way is that once the egg and Joseph's sperm met, the Holy Spirit did appear to Mary and at that time the zygote was regenerated completely to perfection.
Bottom line is that no virgin birth prevented original sin from passing to Christ and his purity and Divinity happened some other way.
To argue that no part of the ova/zygote was from Mary would make Christ a God only and not a Man. Christ had to obtain his man side from somewhere. If God made the whole thing then he didn't really need Mary, he could have just made himself like he did Adam. Then we also have the Seed from David to remember. This last concept would cause the Bible to be dead wrong in too many places. The best explaination is that Joseph and Mary got pregnant and God transformed David's seed into a sinless and Divine creature. God/Man!!!
[ August 24, 2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Here it is:Sorry to break this news, but a mothers blood is mixed with any ova, fetus she carries. Blood from the mother has been in every cell she has in her body including the ova and fetus. So obviously Divinity and some cleansing of the blood is placed onto Christ outside a virgin birth. It could be done in that God simply cleans the the body of Christ and any point up to the age of accountability. However, a case could be made for no sin committed and no original sin by blood at anytime in Christ's life up to and including his baptism.
Another way is that once the egg and Joseph's sperm met, the Holy Spirit did appear to Mary and at that time the zygote was regenerated completely to perfection.
Bottom line is that no virgin birth prevented original sin from passing to Christ and his purity and Divinity happened some other way.
To argue that no part of the ova/zygote was from Mary would make Christ a God only and not a Man. Christ had to obtain his man side from somewhere. If God made the whole thing then he didn't really need Mary, he could have just made himself like he did Adam. Then we also have the Seed from David to remember. This last concept would cause the Bible to be dead wrong in too many places. The best explaination is that Joseph and Mary got pregnant and God transformed David's seed into a sinless and Divine creature. God/Man!!!
[ August 24, 2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Ernie Brazee
<img src ="/ernie.JPG">
Post-it,
RUBBISH
RUBBISH
Um, I don't think so. The fetus has a completely different and separate circulatory system.
My mother's blood type is B- and mine is A+. If our blood had been mingled, both of us would have had problems. The my mother's pregnancy immediately before I was conceived ended very late term because of some mingling of the blood which resulted in the death of the child.
There may be some with some better medical knowledge here, but my basic biology classes and the simple facts of my mother's blood type and mine completely undermine this argument.
Connect the dots
Luke 1
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Matthew 1
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
HankD
[ August 25, 2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
If there is never any blood feeding at least the egg from the mother or feeding the fetus through the placenta through some type of penetration process, then none of us are under original sin, it ended with Eve.
You can't have it both ways! Either we are under original sin through this process, or Jesus did not have to be born from a virgin to be sinless, it happened some other way.
[ August 25, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Why are you assuming, post-it, that sin is passed on physically?
In the meantime, please, PLEASE take a course on basic human reproduction and embryology! Your biology is so far off course as to even be corrected via middle age medical knowledge! If you don't want to take a course go to google on the web and start punching in search words like "human embryology" and such. It's not that hard...
In the meantime, please, PLEASE take a course on basic human reproduction and embryology! Your biology is so far off course as to even be corrected via middle age medical knowledge! If you don't want to take a course go to google on the web and start punching in search words like "human embryology" and such. It's not that hard...
Sex is not the original sin
Christ was tempted as we, the being born of a virgin thing, it was a prophetic key, in order to disqualify false Messiahs.
Christ commited no sin, despite temptation, it is possible in theory for normal man, to live a sinless life, and still have a fallen nature - though without the will of a divine being behind it - I doubt we'll ever see one of those again.
Christ was unique - the point is the birth didnt protect Christ from sin, it merely was an identifier for the Messiah
Christ was tempted as we, the being born of a virgin thing, it was a prophetic key, in order to disqualify false Messiahs.
Christ commited no sin, despite temptation, it is possible in theory for normal man, to live a sinless life, and still have a fallen nature - though without the will of a divine being behind it - I doubt we'll ever see one of those again.
Christ was unique - the point is the birth didnt protect Christ from sin, it merely was an identifier for the Messiah
I'm not going to discuss the blood properties of Jesus... I know it was sinless and not polluted like our federal head Adam... Also I know it was needed to save me and all that the Father gave unto the Son to save. All of that precious blood was all that was needed to save all his BLOOD BOUGHT children!... Since he is God and Man I would say he has Divine/Human blood!... Brethren that worry about these questions are the same ones that try to pick apart the Trinity instead of taking it for what it says by an eye of Faith... Brother Glen
[ August 27, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
[ August 27, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
Serving Him
Member
This is heresy.
tyndale - I do so hope you have never attended tyndale college near me; or I will have to weep for the destruction of good doctrine, and a once decent Bible college.
Were the sheep in the OT divine sheep?
They were normal sheep, save that they had no flaws
Christ was fully Human - with a sin nature - but with NO sin. "Age of Innocence" and all that
Christ was fully Divine - lets face it - we single males tend to sin a lot more in the summertime - it would take a Divine will to overcome that nature
Were the sheep in the OT divine sheep?
They were normal sheep, save that they had no flaws
Christ was fully Human - with a sin nature - but with NO sin. "Age of Innocence" and all that
Christ was fully Divine - lets face it - we single males tend to sin a lot more in the summertime - it would take a Divine will to overcome that nature
Daniel David
New Member
Sularis said:
Christ was fully Human - with a sin nature - but with NO sin.
Preach says:
Christ had a sin nature? Wrong. That is why he had to be born of a virgin. The sin nature passes through the male. Where did his sin nature come from Sularis?
Post-it, pick up a biology book and you will see your theory disproven.
Christ was fully Human - with a sin nature - but with NO sin.
Preach says:
Christ had a sin nature? Wrong. That is why he had to be born of a virgin. The sin nature passes through the male. Where did his sin nature come from Sularis?
Post-it, pick up a biology book and you will see your theory disproven.
Until crucifixion, Jesus' body was fully human of this creation. After the Resurrection, His body was/is fully human of the new creation style.
And the blood? It was spilled on the ground entirely at Calvary. It was fully human blood and did human blood things in His human body.
Remember, flesh and blood cannot inherit heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). Jesus has no blood now, and we will not at the time our receiving of new bodies either.
The fact of the human normalness of Jesus' physical body before crucifixion has nothing to do with the fact that He had two natures. The nature is not passed on through the body, folks. Check in with identical twins anytime you like...
Philippians 2 explains a lot, I think:
Who being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man...
He HAD the nature of God, took ON the nature of a servant, and made Himself, or 'clothed Himself' (if that picture helps) in human likeness.
Here is a question I have asked myself before, though:
Did we, as human beings, need blood before the fall? Blood carries nourishment to cells and takes away waste for disposal. If our originally created bodies were designed to be lasting forever and we were simply to be translated into heaven, was there another method of nourishment or was no nourishment actually needed? We can't imagine it, but that's OK. It's not doctrine -- just a curiosity I have that can't possibly be answered until heaven.
When I will stand corrected on all manner of issues!
And the blood? It was spilled on the ground entirely at Calvary. It was fully human blood and did human blood things in His human body.
Remember, flesh and blood cannot inherit heaven (1 Cor. 15:50). Jesus has no blood now, and we will not at the time our receiving of new bodies either.
The fact of the human normalness of Jesus' physical body before crucifixion has nothing to do with the fact that He had two natures. The nature is not passed on through the body, folks. Check in with identical twins anytime you like...
Philippians 2 explains a lot, I think:
Who being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man...
He HAD the nature of God, took ON the nature of a servant, and made Himself, or 'clothed Himself' (if that picture helps) in human likeness.
Here is a question I have asked myself before, though:
Did we, as human beings, need blood before the fall? Blood carries nourishment to cells and takes away waste for disposal. If our originally created bodies were designed to be lasting forever and we were simply to be translated into heaven, was there another method of nourishment or was no nourishment actually needed? We can't imagine it, but that's OK. It's not doctrine -- just a curiosity I have that can't possibly be answered until heaven.
When I will stand corrected on all manner of issues!
Robert Nicholson
New Member
What does God tell us about his beloved son "in whom was all his delight"?
Forasmuch as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things such as silver and gold...But with the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot" 1Peter 1: 18-19
The Lord Jesus Christ in his perfect is picture in the sacrifices of old. A lamb was chosen for the sacrifice, one without blemish. It was kept for a period of time before the sacrifice to prove it was without spot. The Lord Jesus at his incarnation came into this world as it was prophesied, via the virgins womb. He lived his life in perfection before God and man.
The writer to the Hebrews reminds us "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. or (sin apart) Heb. 4:15"
The Lord Jesus was the perfect man , physically, spiritually and morally. He could not sin, because he is God manifest in the flesh. "...for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" James 1:13
The Lord Jesus experienced the full impact of sin upon Calvary's cross: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." It is here we see the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Our sins were placed on him and he bore the awful judgment due to us. Why? That we who were sinners might be clothed in his righteousness forever.
Forasmuch as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things such as silver and gold...But with the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot" 1Peter 1: 18-19
The Lord Jesus Christ in his perfect is picture in the sacrifices of old. A lamb was chosen for the sacrifice, one without blemish. It was kept for a period of time before the sacrifice to prove it was without spot. The Lord Jesus at his incarnation came into this world as it was prophesied, via the virgins womb. He lived his life in perfection before God and man.
The writer to the Hebrews reminds us "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. or (sin apart) Heb. 4:15"
The Lord Jesus was the perfect man , physically, spiritually and morally. He could not sin, because he is God manifest in the flesh. "...for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" James 1:13
The Lord Jesus experienced the full impact of sin upon Calvary's cross: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." It is here we see the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Our sins were placed on him and he bore the awful judgment due to us. Why? That we who were sinners might be clothed in his righteousness forever.
The Nature of Jesus Blood Was That It Contained The Life of His Body.
Bios for the Human Nature
Zoa For The Devine Nature
The Life Is In The Blood..Jesus "Zoa" Was Sprinkled on The Mercy Seat which is Represented By The Blood
Sinless by Nature. Devine by Nature.
When Jesus Is Speaking of His Blood (covenant meal) He is Speaking of his Life's Nature. (Zoa)
By The By..Jesus Was The Only Human That Had A Sinless Nature..ie Contained A Zoa Nature.
We As Humans Believe By Faith To Be Dead To Sin. We Have This sin Nature till Physical Death.
Me2
Bios for the Human Nature
Zoa For The Devine Nature
The Life Is In The Blood..Jesus "Zoa" Was Sprinkled on The Mercy Seat which is Represented By The Blood
Sinless by Nature. Devine by Nature.
When Jesus Is Speaking of His Blood (covenant meal) He is Speaking of his Life's Nature. (Zoa)
By The By..Jesus Was The Only Human That Had A Sinless Nature..ie Contained A Zoa Nature.
We As Humans Believe By Faith To Be Dead To Sin. We Have This sin Nature till Physical Death.
Me2
Oh...this is where God's sovereign acts come into play. Like already quoted, Christ was a perfect sacrifice for the sin debt of the world.
The Old Testament sacrifices were to be that of a lamb without spot or blemish. No spots...no blemishes would be accepted.
Without rehashing all of the biology lessons, myths, etc. If God would only accept the blood of a spotless lamb in the Old Testament economy, why would it be any different when it comes to the sacrifice made at Calvary?
Jesus was fully human, but He was also fully God. Because of the human sin nature, mankind's blood would never be acceptable. Remember, the yearly sacrifices made by the levitical priests only atoned for one year. Christ paid the debt once and for all.
Again, Christ was not just a man...He was the God-man, and although He had blood, it was not of the same nature as ours. (God's wonderful work that we may never be able to understand)
To say that normal human blood was acceptable, especially given our sin nature, that would be equivalent of the levitical priest offering swine's flesh on the altar.
As already stated we are not redeemed with corruptable things, "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." I Peter 1:19
The Old Testament sacrifices were to be that of a lamb without spot or blemish. No spots...no blemishes would be accepted.
Without rehashing all of the biology lessons, myths, etc. If God would only accept the blood of a spotless lamb in the Old Testament economy, why would it be any different when it comes to the sacrifice made at Calvary?
Jesus was fully human, but He was also fully God. Because of the human sin nature, mankind's blood would never be acceptable. Remember, the yearly sacrifices made by the levitical priests only atoned for one year. Christ paid the debt once and for all.
Again, Christ was not just a man...He was the God-man, and although He had blood, it was not of the same nature as ours. (God's wonderful work that we may never be able to understand)
To say that normal human blood was acceptable, especially given our sin nature, that would be equivalent of the levitical priest offering swine's flesh on the altar.
As already stated we are not redeemed with corruptable things, "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." I Peter 1:19