The Absolute necessity of shedding of blood

[Thomas Helwys]

Look, if you all believe I'm a heretic and shouldn't be here, tell me. I'll go voluntarily.

 

[The Biblicist]

It doesn't repudiate anything since that's not what the verse says.

That is explicitly and clearly and unambigously what the text not only says but means - "without the shedding of blood THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS" in context He is applying i to Christ on Calvary. Nothing could be clearer!

Your position is repudiated by those words as your position repudiates precisely what those words demand.

 

[The Biblicist]

Look, if you all believe I'm a heretic and shouldn't be here, tell me. I'll go voluntarily.

I have not called you any names. I have dealt strictly with your position and with the Biblical evidence - Period.

All I ask from you is to do me the honor of honestly and objectively dealing with the Biblical evidence I present. IN CONTEXT the writer of hebrews says "WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS" and that is not contradicted by the first half of the verse as the WHOLE CONTEXT reinforces it over and over again as do all those scriptures provided you from the New Testament from every writer of the new Testament as this is not a LONE statement but repeated elsewhere.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

That is explicitly and clearly and unambigously what the text not only says but means - "without the shedding of blood THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS" in context He is applying i to Christ on Calvary. Nothing could be clearer!

Your position is repudiated by those words as your position repudiates precisely what those words demand.

You try to separate one and the same verse and act like the second part of the verse has absolutely no relation to and nothing to do with the first part. It doesn't work.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have not called you any names. I have dealt strictly with your position and with the Biblical evidence - Period.


Maybe not lately. But you and others have done it, several times.



All I ask from you is to do me the honor of honestly and objectively dealing with the Biblical evidence I present. IN CONTEXT the writer of hebrews says "WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS" and that is not contradicted by the first half of the verse as the WHOLE CONTEXT reinforces it over and over again as do all those scriptures provided you from the New Testament from every writer of the new Testament as this is not a LONE statement but repeated elsewhere.

Since I still apparently can't get the hang of quoting parts of posts, see my first response in purple above.

The OT plainly shows that God did not and does not absolutely require blood spilling to forgive sins. The quoted verse that you use is a direct reference back to that OT sacrificial system, so it also directly disproves your position.

 

[Amy.G]

Hebrews 9
6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.


God commanded Moses to make a copy of the true Tabernacle of God which He showed to Moses. He gave him precise instructions on how to make it and required blood sacrifices to be offered for sin and required that the blood be sprinkled on the altar.

For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin!!

Jesus shed His own blood for our sins.

Matthew 26:28
English Standard Version (ESV)
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

You try to separate one and the same verse and act like the second part of the verse has absolutely no relation to and nothing to do with the first part. It doesn't work.

I am trying to be patient with you as you are charging me with something I am not doing and never have done. Both parts of the verse are true and neither contradict the other BECAUSE EACH DEALS WITH A DIFFERENT TOPIC not to be confused with the other.

The first is an admission that there are bloodless offerings (meal, wine, etc.). The second points out a different fact that has to do with blood and that is THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS apart from the shedding of Christ's blood and it is Christ's blood that the CONTEXT is speaking about.

So don't charge me with pitting one part of the verse against the other part.

The truth is that is exactly what you are doing. You are interpreting the first part to deny the second part. Please be honest here. You have and you continue to repudiate the idea that SHEDDING OF CHRIST'S BLOOD IS NECESSARY FOR REMISSION OF SINS but that verse repudiates your repudation and does so in clear, explicit, unambiguous and absolute terms that no one can possibly misundertand. So pretending that I am pitting the first part of the verse against the last part is exactly what YOU ARE GUILTY OF DOING not me.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Hebrews 9
6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.


God commanded Moses to make a copy of the true Tabernacle of God which He showed to Moses. He gave him precise instructions on how to make it and required blood sacrifices to be offered for sin and required that the blood be sprinkled on the altar.

For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin!!

Jesus shed His own blood for our sins.

Matthew 26:28
English Standard Version (ESV)
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

See the part I bolded in purple: That's not what the Hebrews verse that Biblicist quoted says, and that's not the case in the OT sacrificial system. Why don't you supposed literalists be honest about it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am trying to be patient with you as you are charging me with something I am not doing and never have done. Both parts of the verse are true and neither contradict the other BECAUSE EACH DEALS WITH A DIFFERENT TOPIC not to be confused with the other.

The first is an admission that there are bloodless offerings (meal, wine, etc.). The second points out a different fact that has to do with blood and that is THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS apart from the shedding of Christ's blood and it is Christ's blood that the CONTEXT is speaking about.

So don't charge me with pitting one part of the verse against the other part.

The truth is that is exactly what you are doing. You are interpreting the first part to deny the second part. Please be honest here. You have and you continue to repudiate the idea that SHEDDING OF CHRIST'S BLOOD IS NECESSARY FOR REMISSION OF SINS but that verse repudiates your repudation and does so in clear, explicit, unambiguous and absolute terms that no one can possibly misundertand. So pretending that I am pitting the first part of the verse against the last part is exactly what YOU ARE GUILTY OF DOING not me.

The verse refers back to the OT sacrificial system; that's why the word "almost" is used in the verse. It is thus clear that God did not and does not require blood spilling in order to remit sins, as affirmed and confirmed also by the OT prophets. The clear word of God is against you. Being a "Biblicist", I am surprised that you dishonor His word by not accepting what He has said in it.

Just taking the death of Jesus as a necessity, either because the Incarnation made it so or because you believe it was necessary in order to remit sins, do you think God would not and could not have forgiven sins if Jesus had died in any other way? If so, that's quite astounding.

 

[The Biblicist]

The verse refers back to the OT sacrificial system; that's why the word "almost" is used in the verse.

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;

It is thus clear that God did not and does not require blood spilling in order to remit sins, as affirmed and confirmed also by the OT prophets. The clear word of God is against you. Being a "Biblicist", I am surprised that you dishonor His word by not accepting what He has said in it.

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.

Just taking the death of Jesus as a necessity, either because the Incarnation made it so or because you believe it was necessary in order to remit sins, do you think God would not and could not have forgiven sins if Jesus had died in any other way? If so, that's quite astounding.

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.

 

[Amy.G]

See the part I bolded in purple: That's not what the Hebrews verse that Biblicist quoted says, and that's not the case in the OT sacrificial system. Why don't you supposed literalists be honest about it.

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

NKJV
And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

NLT
In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

NIV
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

ESV
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.


What do you mean that's not what the verse says? It's right there in black and white!

 

[The Biblicist]

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

NKJV
And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

NLT
In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

NIV
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

ESV
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.


What do you mean that's not what the verse says? It's right there in black and white!

There is an old saying that says, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" regardless of the amount of evidence, the clarity, the obviousness of that evidence. Such is the case with Thomas he refuses to accept anything that does not fit his presuppositions.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

There is an old saying that says, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" regardless of the amount of evidence, the clarity, the obviousness of that evidence. Such is the case with Thomas he refuses to accept anything that does not fit his presuppositions.

And I'll say the same about you.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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

NKJV
And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

NLT
In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

NIV
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

ESV
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.


What do you mean that's not what the verse says? It's right there in black and white!

And apparently you are skipping over the crucially important qualifying word "ALMOST". Which makes the crucial point that God did not and does not require blood spilling in order to forgive sins. This verse affirms that, and the verse is a direct reference also to the OT sacrificial system in which God forgave sins for offerings that were not blood sacrifices. Add to this the OT prophets' words on the matter, and it is crystal clear what God requires.

You biblical literalists therefore are denying literal scripture.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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".

 

[Amy.G]

And apparently you are skipping over the crucially important qualifying word "ALMOST". Which makes the crucial point that God did not and does not require blood spilling in order to forgive sins. This verse affirms that,

No, but you are skipping over some very much needed Bible study.

"Almost" is referring to the few exceptions in which things were "purified".

Water, incense and fire were also used to purify (Ex 19:10, Lev 15:5, Numbers 16:46-47, 31:21-24).

If one was too poor to bring even a dove or pigeon for sacrifice, he was allowed to offer fine flour instead (Lev 5:11).

But the blood of Christ is required for sins to be remitted. That is Bible.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No, but you are skipping over some very much needed Bible study.

"Almost" is referring to the few exceptions in which things were "purified".

Water, incense and fire were also used to purify (Ex 19:10, Lev 15:5, Numbers 16:46-47, 31:21-24).

If one was too poor to bring even a dove or pigeon for sacrifice, he was allowed to offer fine flour instead (Lev 5:11).

But the blood of Christ is required for sins to be remitted. That is Bible.

Now see, this is the kind of dribble and insult that forces me to bring education into the equation, which I would normally not do. So, dear, let me gently remind you that I have a doctorate, and even post-doctoral study, so I believe I am sufficiently armed to answer your insults.

The exceptions you mentioned were not just to purify; God forgave sins through these bloodless offerings. So, looks as if it is you who is "skipping over some very much needed Bible study."

And, in reference to the last part I bolded: No, that is your version of "Bible."

The OT prophets deny that God requires blood at all.

I find it amazing that anyone believes that if Jesus had died any other way, that God would not and could not have forgiven sins.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

For people who so strongly hold to a doctrine, I have no desire to tear their belief down, so I think I'll just let this go with saying we should agree to disagree.

But I am glad I studied the atonement views held by the early church and for the first thousand years; this helped me to be able to be a Christian. If I had to believe the views developed since then, I could not be.

 

[Amy.G]

So, dear, let me gently remind you that I have a doctorate, and even post-doctoral study, so I believe I am sufficiently armed to answer your insults.

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!