Did Jesus have Divine or Human Blood?

Here's A Simply Reply..

Lev 17:11 For the Life of the Flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

God The Father Has Decreed That Jesus Die As A Substitute in your Place For The Enmity that Seperated God and Yourself. Providing An Acceptable Atonement For Your Soul.

He Used His Own Blood.....

When You See Jesus In Heaven...What Would You Think About His Blood.
Was It Human or Divine or Both ?

Me2




[ August 29, 2002, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Me2 ]

 

Adam breaking the law of God made his blood polluted and all those that came from his loins. Jesus Christ whose Father was God the blood that ran in his veins was sinless. Not being polluted being of natural but virgin birth. Mary was the vessel that carried the Christ child. Was not Jesus subject to break the law as Adam was to keep it? Did not Jesus keep the law to a jot and a tittle fulfilling all the law and the prophets? That is what made his blood acceptable in that he did the will of the Father. He was subject to sin but didn't and to say he wasn't capable to sin is to miss the point. Was not the same sinless blood running in Adam veins before he broke the law? Until he was tempted and broke the law he could have lived forever. Jesus Christ is also mentioned as the second Adam the Lord from Heaven!... Brother Glen

 

Don't expect to get an answer to this one, because there is no answer for this from Scripture. Instead, when there is no Scriptural answer, expect to get the question reworked. That happens a lot on this Board.

BTW, Amen, Brother Glen, Amen. </font>[/QUOTE]I gave an answer to this. Did you miss it?? How could God accept anything else? The blood of bulls and goats was not sufficient because it was not a like payment. Only human life could pay for human sin. That is why Christ's blood was human.

What happened to Adam's blood when he sinned?? Nothing at all. Sin is spiritual not material. Adam's prefall blood is identical to his post fall blood. If you disagree, then I challenge you to show a scriptural distinction.

Where are the people who will allow their theology to be dictated by teh Bible that says that Christ's blood is teh same as the children's?

This discussion with the blood is missing the point. There is no saving efficacy in teh blood itself, teh red and white corpuscles as it were. The saving efficacy is in the life that ran out with the blood. As Lev 17:11 says, 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' By reason of hte life cannot be omitted. It is not the blood for blood's sake, it is the life that was leaving. Think of it this way. The wages of sin is not blood, it is death.

What is divine blood? Where is the Scripture answer to this?

[ August 29, 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Larry we will start from here... Without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sins... Natural sinless blood!... What if Jesus Christ broke one Law?... Is the blood still sinless?... Brother Glen

 

"Blood" is blood; it does not have properties of sin or righteousness. Sin is a spiritual issue, not a material one. Blood is the life. The life of the flesh is in the blood and teh blood is atoning, only by reason of the life (Lev 17:11). The blood has no power if the life is not perfect. If Christ broke one law, then he is not sinless. If he is not sinless, then his life and death have no atoning power. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. I am not arguing with that. But the wages of sin is still not blood; it is death.

 

But not sinless human life. The book of Hebrews makes it clear that the life is what made the death sufficient. The blood itself ran out into the ground. When teh blood left, the life left and therefore, the penalty of sin could be paid.

No one has yet to show one verse or principle that tells us what the properties of sinless blood are. No one has yet showed one verse that tells us what divine blood is.

The wages of sin is death, not blood (Rom 6:23).

 

Heres Another Tidbit.....

One Life Can Die For Another via representation
One Human Dies With "Pure Sinless Blood"
One Human Life is Worth One Human Life

If Jesus Blood Wasnt Divine (as being worth ALL OF CREATION) Then He Only Substituted one Human Life. Jesus Had To Be GOD Dying for His Creation To Be Valued At Least Equally compared To The Value of All Of Creation.

Me2

 

False. Jesus' righteousness was infinite and therefore his sacrifice was infinite. The merit of the atonement has nothing to do with the blood but rather with the life.

You have yet to tell us what divine blood is. Why?? Tell us the properties of divine blood, how it is different than human blood, what properties sinful blood has, and how God as a Spirit has blood. Why won't you tell us these things??

 

If Christ wasn't fully human, how could he be the second Adam. Or are you now going to say that Adam wasn't fully human?

If Christ's blood wasn't fully human, then what about his other bodily fluids? Was there something not human about them as well?

I can see this trend just going and going until a segment of Baptists starts another Grail Quest!

Oh yes, someone implied in a previous post that the sin nature was genetically based. If that were so, then it should be possible using the techniques of genetic engineering to remove the sin gene from the human genome. The removal of the curse without faith in Christ! Does anyone really belive that is possible. I doubt it. This starts from a flawed view of the the sin nature of mankind.

[ August 31, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Hal Parker ]

 

God The Father Decreed That A Propitiator Be Established For The Sin Of Mankind.
He Also Established The Proof Of A Righteous,Sinless Sacrifice Equal To Creation Be Accepted As a Substitute, Covering over The Curse Of The Disobedience of The Law.
The Proof Of Such A Sacrifice would be its Life's Source Represented By The Blood Of The Sacrifice.

These Things were Decreed Before The curse Actually occured against Gods creation.
...The Lamb Slain Before The Foundation of The World...

Imagine That The Curse Covered Over Every Molecule In The Universe...Death..Entropy
In The Bible There Is A Moment Where The Vision Of The Moon Turning To Blood Is Quoted..
A Vision Of Blood Dripping Over The Moon...Over The Universe..Every Molecule...
Visualizations or Symbolisms of A Decreed Process...Blood Sacrifice for Gods Creation....
And God Decreed That Jesus Blood Be Sprinkled over Gods Mercy Seat...or on Gods Creation.

Man Was Created To Have A Form..Blood Was An Integral Part Of Its Being.

God Is A Spirit...and in Jesus A God / Man.....That Has Divine Blood..Well..... Its Gods Blood.

my own opinion is That I Dont Know Of The Future Plan Of The Environment of Mans Destiny..
That Is...will Our New Bodies Require Blood or Contain Blood...It Is An Integral Part Of Our Curent Existence...and An Integral Part Of Gods Plan Of Salvation or Recreation of His Creation.
Until Then Mankind Will Rely on Gods Faith Of His Continual Activites of The Covering By His Blood For The Remission Of Sins..... by Faith

Can We Call Gods Blood Divine if God Is All In All..at least Thats What Jesus Blood Represented. and Thats What His Blood Covered Over..Everything.

Representative,Symbolic or Real...God Having Blood...Ask Thomas.

Me2

 

This last post lost me. It didn't seem to be coherent in its presentation. So are you saying that you don't know what divine blood is or what the sinful properties of blood are? If you can't tell us about these things, on what basis do you say that there is divine blood and that human blood is sinful?

 

Well Pastor Larry,


Based On Previous Posts ..

My Conclusion is That Jesus Has Divine Human Blood with Eternal Life Giving Properties....

Me2

 

I won't beat this to death but I think you are missing the point. That is a statement that is all fine and well but can you defend it scripturally and scientifically? The answer is no. There is no such thing as divine blood. There is no such thing as sinful blood. Blood is blood. There is no such thing as "eternal life giving properties" to blood. In eternal life we will likely not have blood. Blood is what sustains the body scientifically. It cannot take on spiritual properties such as sin and righteousness.

 

Has anyone mentioned this passage in Acts?

I believe this is the closest thing that could be cited as a proof text for "divine blood".

Acts 20:
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

But what is the point? That is what is unclear to me through out this thread .

HankD

 

See Larry - I can see the divine peoples' point with the divine blood - its a little nutty in my opinion But it has a case of sorts

I agree that Christ had fully human blood - it makes sense to me

However, we have to deal with issue of temptation - in order to properly resolve the issue - God cannot be tempted - man can be - Christ suffered Himself to be.

My belief as heretical as you state it to be is that Christ's body was under the curse of creation (fully man) - but by force of Divine will He did not sin (fully God)

Did Christ fall under cursed creation? Or was His body - pre-fall and thus capable of living for centuries before burning out.

Here's a bunny trail for y'all
Some "way out" scientists point to the Tree of Life as a possibility of immortality for mankind.

 

Except that is not the historic position.

Historically it is held that Jesus is one Person with two natures, without mixture or cofusion. Surely the notion of divine blood mixes and cofuses the two natures of Christ.

Athanasius' big concern versus the Arians was that a Christ anything less than God could not atone, but he was also concerned that jesus be very human. That which is not assumed in the incarnation cannot be atoned for. So if Jesus is not like us in our bodies, including our human physiology, then he cannot bring redemption to our bodies. That is an extension of Athansius' and Chalcedonian theoology. And Chalcedonian theology is historic Christianity.

 

Three things:

1) Chalcedon has been historically affirmed BECAUSE it coheres with what the bible says.

2) You have the burden of proof reversed. Since human blood is the historic position it is incumbent on those who would disagree to provide the proof. What makes you think that Chalcedon does not represent what Scripture says?

3) You place yourself on the side of heresy by affirming something that was denied by Chalcedon.