Why was the Blood of Christ required for Remission of Sin?

And if you keep reading, it tells you what is incorruptible ... the word of God.

Acts 20:28 doesn't say anything about the nature of the blood of Christ.

Sorry ... 0 for 2

 

Thanks Ladyeagle, and only this bizarre, magical, mystical, sorcerous view of Christ blood which is the product of bad theology with continue this thread.

Just believe Hebrews 2:14, which you and your proponets KEEP ignoring and trying to explain away.

 

Blood of a sinful human being won't atone for sin, because then the sinful human being would be dying for his OWN sin and our sin could not be transferred to him.

But human blood from a sinless human being is exactly what does work. It is because Christ is completely human just as we are and yet remained sinless that he can come to our aid by representing us before God as our faithful High Priest propitate for our sins. (Hebrews 2:14-18)

The one who atones for us must be:

1. Like us in every way.

2. Sinless.

 

Actually, once again the text tells us if you read the whole context. It is the word that was preached to you. It is the spoken word, the message of salvation. To my knowledge, "logos" is never used for Christ outside of John. If it was used here for Christ, it would be an exception. This is the way that Paul uses the word, such as the "message of the cross" in 1 Cor 1. What is imperishable is the message of the cross. It is the message that causes us to be born again by the working of the Holy Spirit.

Don't take these verses out of context to support this false notion of "divine blood." You still haven't explained what "divine blood" is since God is spirit and does not have a body in which to contain any blood. You still haven't told us why you ignore the plain teaching of Heb 2:14 in favor this view of "divine blood" which doesn't exist.

As Russell55 pointed out, it is the blood (life) of sinless humanity that is necessary to atone for sin. It has nothing to do with being divine; it has everything to do with being sinless.

 

Jesus' blood was both fully divine and fully human!

I don't see any other way to describe the blood of Jesus other than through Acts 20:28---the blood that pulsated through the veins of the Lord Jesus Christ was God's own blood!!! God is both spirit and flesh! With His spirit--He abides IN us!! With His flesh--He abides in Heaven! Invisible to us on Earth! Visable to those in Heaven!

 

Deity can't die. Deity is eternal. I want to see the actual blood of Christ then. If it is 'divine', then it is still around somewhere. How bizarre.

 

Daniel--Then which part of Jesus wasn't diety???

Colossians 1:19

Notice where scripture says that "In Him should ALL fullness dwell"---ALL--every part---diety and humanity! Jesus is totally God and totally man! And you cannot seperate the God in Jesus from the man in Jesus!! Understand?

Every part of Jesus was Diety!
Every part of Jesus was human

You cannot seperate the two from Jesus---He'll forevermore as the ages roll on be the GodMan!!

 

Then too, read Colossians 2:9

"For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

Every blood cell(both white and red) in Jesus' body, every blood platelet, every ounce of blood plasma belonged to God!

Jesus---fully God! Fully Man!

 

I never said he was. It is helpful to pay attention and actually read the other people's posts and then comment.

 

Blackbird, Christ was God veiled in human flesh. He is 100% God and 100% men.

You can't mix the parts, as you and sheeagle have done. Jesus was God in the flesh. He was absolute deity and absolute humanity. If his blood is different than mine, or any other part of his humanity, then he isn't qualified to be my substitute.

A good dose of Hebrews would do well to rid baptists of this cultic sorcery.

 

Question: Which part of you is not you??

Answer: None! You are all you! The mind, spirit, soul, and body are all you!!

Just so with Jesus!! Which part of Jesus was not God?? No part! Anything less than God and Jesus wouldn't be God!!

His mind was God's mind!
His spirit was God's spirit!
His body was God's body!

 

Blackbird, you tell me how the Christ child grew in knowledge according to Dr. Luke. What exactly is it that God doesn't know?

 

God is flesh??? JOhn 4:24 contradicts you. My friend, God has no blood. The Bible expressly says that Christ's flesh and blood is the same as ours (Heb 2:14). You have yet to address that verse. Why??

ACts 20:28 says nothing about the blood of God. It is the church of God. The blood belongs to Jesus the man. Heb 2:14 which cannot contradict Acts 20:28 (as you make it do) says that the blood of Jesus was the same as ours. Now if you have divine blood, I will grant that Jesus has it. Otherwise, we have no option but to declare your position false on teh basis of Scripture.

 

The "fulness" of Col 1:19 is teh fulness of deity. How do we know this?? By reading the Scriptures: Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

There Paul is explicit. His point is that in the man Jesus Christ, all the fulness of deity resided. He is not here commenting on Christ's humanity. That was not the problem. The false teachers at Colossae fully accepted his humanity. They denied his deity and that is what Paul is addressing.

So "ALL--every part---diety and humanity" is true ... but that is not what Paul is saying.

But more to the point, if every part of deity was in Christ (and it was), that does not include blood since blood is a human thing, not a divine thing. I hate to have to keep pointing out the obvious, but I must since it has not yet sunk in. God is a spirit; he does not have blood. The blood of Christ is the same as the blood of the children (Heb 2:14). Don't deny scriptural truth in your desire to ascribe deity to Christ. He doesn't need your help. He is fully God while having human blood. If he does not have human blood, then he is not fully human.

 

Not one bone in His body was broken:

John 19:[30] When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

[34] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

[35] And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

[36] For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Also...

Jesus is the Passover Lamb and the bones of the lamb were not to be broken:

Numbers 9:2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.

[11] The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

[12] They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it. </font>[/QUOTE]The term "body broken for you" is not gnosticism. It comes from 1 cor 11 in the NKJV and KJV. It may have been what Paul wrote. IN any case, when it is used, it is not a reference to his bones. And it really has nothing to do with gnosticism.

Let's get to the real point that I have asked before ... what in the world do you think Heb 2:14 means???