Magic Blood Theory

[Aaron]

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

Don't hold your breath.

 

[agedman]

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

Yep, and you think one cursed must suffer wrath.

Nope. Humanly speaking, when one is considered cursed, what do w expect?

Is it not they meet with sorrow and death?

A common example is the story of Romeo and Juliet.

Curse does Not mean wrath, rather a manner of life and resulting death.

God said to Abraham, “I will bless those that bless you, and curse those who curse you.” This is an example of curse. Doesn’t mean wrath, it means condemned living and ultimately death.

What then was the curse of the crucifixion? Death.

 

[agedman]

Liar

My friend, this is not good.


What @JonC posted comes from huge amount of posts that He and me have had to deal with folks taking Scriptures and applying some conjured Scheme that departs from the truth.

He and I have posted Scripturally sound responses in which we have made multiple appeals for Scripture proof from others for what they have written.

It is wrong for you to place such a pronouncement upon the work we have delivered in this open forum.

if you don’t agree with our conclusions, fine, but JonC posted the truth.

 

[agedman]

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

Don't hold your breath.

Have we not had over 7 threads in the last couple weeks on this topic which would accumulate over 1000 posts, and you want me to sift back through all those? You couldn’t hold your breath long enough, and my mind would never focus well enough.

However, I will make a good faith effort, if you both will, too.

First ones to find @JonC or my responses to Isaiah 53 wins a smiley. Ok?

 

[agedman]

@Aaron , @AustinC

my pad locked up.

@JonC and I had over 100 posts mentioning Isaiah 53. After page 4, my pad refused to respond, kind of like your accusation of me. So, we all better breath until tomorrow, when I can get to a desktop computer that has more memory then me.

 

[agedman]

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.

Ok, I understand your thinking.

Blood can be from either parent or a mixture.

Imo, I would think the blood was that of God’s choosing rather then Mary, at least that is what the Psalms may hold, for He forms in the womb.

Therefore, I lean that it was blood type “G”. .

Actually, type doesn’t matter, that it was both sufficient and efficient is enough for me.

 

[agedman]

@Iconoclast

to further answer your question in your post, here is a well known passage from Romans:

6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
​

this shows no wrath to us or upon Christ. Redemption by blood and life.

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast

to further answer your question in your post, here is a well known passage from Romans:

6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
​

this shows no wrath to us or upon Christ. Redemption by blood and life.

No..there is no more wrath because He paid it all.
it did not just vanish.....justice was done , then mercy.

Like this;21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Does not say he threw it out. He magnified it by His active obedience

 

[Aaron]

Yep, and you think one cursed must suffer wrath.

Nope. Humanly speaking, when one is considered cursed, what do w expect?

Is it not they meet with sorrow and death?

A common example is the story of Romeo and Juliet.

Curse does Not mean wrath, rather a manner of life and resulting death.

God said to Abraham, “I will bless those that bless you, and curse those who curse you.” This is an example of curse. Doesn’t mean wrath, it means condemned living and ultimately death.

What then was the curse of the crucifixion? Death.

Not death, as you imagine it, but the pains of death.

 

[Iconoclast]

My friend, this is not good.


What @JonC posted comes from huge amount of posts that He and me have had to deal with folks taking Scriptures and applying some conjured Scheme that departs from the truth.

He and I have posted Scripturally sound responses in which we have made multiple appeals for Scripture proof from others for what they have written.

It is wrong for you to place such a pronouncement upon the work we have delivered in this open forum.

if you don’t agree with our conclusions, fine, but JonC posted the truth.

John has intentionally lied about the sequence of events, to make it look as if I denied 1 pet2:24, when that had not been mentioned in discussing Mt.8 which was before the cross. It is not my fault if he cannot properly post a verse.

 

[Iconoclast]

Agedman
on the false doctrine thread, posts 83-97 explain the words used.

 

[percho]

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.

Is he still, today March 11, 2022, the Word made flesh? The man child named Jesus who ascended to the right hand of the Father?

? When Jesus was walking the earth, before his death, was the of the flesh of him in the blood of him?
? What about after the death and resurrection of Jesus in flesh, without soul of him being abandoned to Hades? What in him gave incorruptible life/being to the flesh of him?

“he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. Acts 2:31 NKJV

Relative to this question - What in him gave incorruptible life/being to the flesh of him?
A couple of verses and questions.

Paul, an apostle -- not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who did raise him out of the dead -- Gal 1:1 YLT Is that which I assume was by the Holy Spirit, factual? Consider.
and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you. Rom 8:11 YLT
who through him do believe in God, who did raise out of the dead, and glory to him did give, so that your faith and hope may be in God. 1 Peter 1:21 YLT
at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear; Acts 2:33 YLT

Is it God the Father who did these things to/for the Son of God or not? To date IMHO one and only one man born of woman, Jesus the Son of God has been quickened. True or False? Will it be through the quickened Jesus the Son of God that all others will be quickened?

Therefore:

John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth ----- To date is Jesus the only one born of woman who has experienced that quickening? Did God the Father do it? Did it result in the following?

for, as the Father hath life in himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in himself, John 5:26

I will ask you. Is that truth or not? When did it take place? I do know Son there is in the dative but I do not know what that means relative to the Greek.

 

[Aaron]

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.

Yes. I'm reminded of DeHaan's "Divine Blood" superstitions.

 

[AVL1984]

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.

Aw, I see....I didn't read the whole thread for the past few days or so....Gotchya now. Thanks for that clarification.

 

[JonC]

My friend, this is not good.


What @JonC posted comes from huge amount of posts that He and me have had to deal with folks taking Scriptures and applying some conjured Scheme that departs from the truth.

He and I have posted Scripturally sound responses in which we have made multiple appeals for Scripture proof from others for what they have written.

It is wrong for you to place such a pronouncement upon the work we have delivered in this open forum.

if you don’t agree with our conclusions, fine, but JonC posted the truth.

The frightening part is we have posted Scripture. Not an explanation of what it teaches (it is self explanatory) but the actual Word of God....the text of Scripture.

This is why we should not take offense at the response we receive by others. It is not our opinions, our conclusions, our interpretations, or what we believe is being taught that is bring insulted, trampled upon, and rejected. It is the actual Word of God, the text of Scripture, "what is written" that is being rejected.

You and I are simply pointing to it, literally posting Scripture and asking that Scripture be provided by others as evidence.

 

[JonC]

John has intentionally lied about the sequence of events, to make it look as if I denied 1 pet2:24, when that had not been mentioned in discussing Mt.8 which was before the cross. It is not my fault if he cannot properly post a verse.

I have not discussed Matthew....or Peter. I was not posting verses (verse and chapter divisions were not a part of Scripture).

I was posting what I believed. Not an order of occurrences but what I believe.

The scripture says nothing about Jesus
"bore our sins in His body" as you claim.

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

I did not realize you assumed you thought the entirety of my belief was found in Matthew.

If I took your reply wrong then you have my sincere apology. I was not lying but believed you were saying Scripture did not say that. If you were referring to Matthew....well...I agree. It is not Saud in Matthew. It was in the writings of Peter. But it is all God's Word.

If you assumed I was linking random passages, mashing them up... then you misunderstood my post.

I was simply listing individual truths that I accept. I just did not see fit to post entire chapters (we all have Bibles).

No need to apologize for calling me a liar. You simply misunderstood my post.

Do you have any passages that state Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us, or is this just what you believe is taught by certain passages?

 

[JonC]

JonC,



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


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.





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

Uh....no. You are making assumptions now.

I believe that Christ bore our sins bodily. I never said "not on the cross". I k8nda thought that was what we were discussing......the Cross. I was just responding with passages that I believe without quoting entire chapters.

I admit that I skip over some of the multicolored pasts of your posts. I find the color and font changes distracting. Perhaps if I were on a computer rather than a phone they would be less so. I doubt it (I'm a little OCD on fonts....I don't even like the one I am using now on the phone).

 

[JonC]

@Iconoclast

Let's keep it simple.

First I will give you some information to help you on this forum, something others should have let you know long ago. Something every college student discovers quickly the hard way.

When you highlight everything you highlight nothing. Not only that, but your highlights have the opposite effect - they obscure. IF your intent is to call attention to something, highlight by using the bold feature. But do this sparingly. Never change the font colors (the preferred font for readability is black). The best font is probably Arial (but if you are like me....I have no clue what I'm using on this phone). I still double-space after periods, but this is really incorrect (it was necessary with typewriters).

I'm not saying you have to do this things. But from a member reading your posts, I can tell you they probably look very different than you see them to be.


Now to the topic-

It is not about me. It is not about you. It is about "what is written" in the Word of God.

Are there ANY passages in the text of Scripture that states those things that make up Penal Substitution Theory (they do not have to be in one place).


Is there a passage that states Christ suffered God's wrath?

Is there a passage that states Christ died instead of us?

Is there a passage that states Christ's death appeased God's wrath?

Is there a passage that states God substitutes the innocent for the guilty?

Is there a passage that states God transfers sins from the guilty to the innocent?



Let's stop beating around the bush, talking about theories and what some belueve Scripture teaches and get right to the meat of things - to "what is written" and what is written again. To God's Word.

 

[DaveXR650]

this shows no wrath to us or upon Christ. Redemption by blood and life.

There is no where to go with this. Redemption by blood to me speaks of wrath. "Propitiation" speaks of appeasement of something. If something is transferred to someone else rather than the one it was intended for it is substitution. The Old Testament sacrificial system is valid to look at and compare and the general interpretations of transference and substitution are correct. The instances of God's wrath are against sinners. Justification and forgiveness when done by God must be consistent with his nature. Becoming "in Christ" is based on something. Being by nature a child of wrath means something when combined with knowledge of God's holiness and his view of sin. I don't think we agree on these things even though we are looking at the same verses. That's alright with me but can you site anyone else who uses your view of atonement or are you the only one who correctly views scripture?

 

[JonC]

Actually, type doesn’t matter, that it was both sufficient and efficient is enough for me.