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

Because the wages of sin is death. As Lev tells us, the life of the flesh is in teh blood. When the blood flowed out, it was a violent sacrificial death.

It was human blood according to Heb 2:14. It was blood just as the children of flesh and blood. To ascribe divine blood to Jesus is to introduce an oxymoron (God is spirit; spirits don't have blood) and to deny the full humanity of Christ.

Because his perfect life and death is to only way to be saved from sin. His blood flowing showed that he paid the price of death for sin.

 

What Larry said.

If he didn't have ordinary human blood, he wouldn't have been completely human, thus making his sacrifice of no affect.

 

I'll echo the other two.

Christ's blood is important because "the life is in the blood". The blood represents the life, and shed blood represents the life given. The "special property" was not in the blood itself, which would have been just like ours, but it the life it represented--the sinless life of the one perfect human being.

Isn't it just as unorthodox to deny Jesus' full humanity by denying the complete humanness of His blood as it is to deny His full divinity?

 

The only answer to this is that this is the means which God chose to redeem those upon whom He will have mercy.

God was not limited to this plan only. All things are possible with Him. This is not to say that a human mind could conceive of how it is possible that another way could accomplish God's plan of redemption. This is simply saying that God was not of necessity "forced" to send His Son to save them that believe.

Any answer other than this would imply that God is not truly sovereign.

 

I think what is important is that Christ came to live as one of us (the Incarnation), that He died as one of us, for us (the Atonement), and that He was raised from the dead as one of us, for us (the Resurrection). Whether or not His blood was spilled is not as important as the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection.

 

"Whether or not His blood was spilled is not as important as the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection."

(1) Could an Old Testament Jew get saved without any blood being spilled?

(2) Were the blood sacrifices offered at the tabernacle and the temple unnecessary?

(3) Could the Romans or the Jews have smothered Jesus or poisoned Him or hung Him with a rope or drowned Him (no bloodshed) and a bloodless sacrifice would have been acceptable?

This doctrine sounds a little like the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass every week - "the offering of a bloody sacrifice in an unbloody manner".

 

YOu don't even have an atonement if he does not shed his blood. To talk of the atonement of Christ is to talk about the shedding of blood.

 

What is divine blood??? What kind of blood does a spirit have???

And what else can Heb 2:14 mean if Christ didn't have human blood??

Sinfulness has nothing to do with blood per se. That was an old myth propogated by DeHaan that was long ago dispelled. The sin state is passed on through normal human procreation, not through blood.

 

Just a lot of opinionated banter.

Since the Blood of Jesus cleanses us from all unrighteousness, to maintain His Blood as "only" human is to propagate that unrighteousness/sin is material having substance and affording mass.

I don't deny the humanity of Christ, but to say His Blood was not Spiritual co-equally and able to wash away the spiritness of sin is nearly blasphemous.

Simply put, if we declare to be cleansed from something spiritual, then it would have to be Spiritual that cleanses us. So in eesence,those who maintain that His Blood was "only" human would have to had an actual bloodbath everytime they sinned, or as some belive, at least one all-covering bloodbath to be cleansed from sin naturally.

The Incarnate Christ : 100% man/100% Divine.

His Blood: 100% human/ 100% Divine.

Of course this is just my uneducated opinion, backed by simple reasoning. I'm sure some of these "Bible" scholars could deny it as factual in some sense or another.

 

Actually, you are backwards on this. To maintain that blood itself can be sinful or not sinful is to make sin a matter of the physical, not the spiritual. Sin is a spiritual matter. It does not inhabit the material part of man (as sinless Adam and Christ shows us), but the immaterial.

What is spiritual blood???? Spirits don't have blood.

Hebrews 2:14 is explicit: since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same,

The same what?? The same flesh and blood. This teaches that Jesus had the same kind of blood we have. Now is your blood spiritual?? Of course not. Therefore, Jesus' blood is not spiritual (whatever that is).

But remember what the wages of sin are. The wages of sin is death. The blood shows teh giving of the life (Lev 17:11). The blood itself, the red and white corpuscles, have no cleansing power. They are indicative of death.

Again, what is divine blood?? There is no such thing.

Both Scripture and science show how the blood of Christ is human blood.

If Christ did not have human blood, then he was not 100% human. That contradicts his full humanity. REmember what the significance of the blood is. It is not a magic liquid to wash away sin. It is the signal that life has left, hence that death has come. The life of the flesh is in the blood. It is the blood by reason of the life that is an atonement for sin.

 

rbrent and Pastor Larry,

In the Old Testament, shedding of blood was not required in every case; God made provision for atonement--forgiveness of sins--without the shedding of blood. He accepted grain offerings, for instance. Correspondingly, the New Testament refers to that.

Was Jesus's blood more efficacious because it was shed than if it hadn't been? Would the atonement have been somehow less effective if Jesus had died by some other means?

The overemphasis on the SHED blood of Jesus is as much a magical view of the atonement as is the Roman Catholic view of the Mass/Eucharist.

 

Holy corpuscles, Batman!

Not only was His blood shed, but His body was broken. Now was there something unnatural about His body too?

(Careful, here. You're on the verge of slipping into Gnosticism.)

It's not about what Adam passes on to us. It's about what he cannot pass on to us--life.

God could have just as easily provided a body for His son in the "family way," if it so pleased Him. The Virgin Birth was given for a sign, it was not of necessity.

 

And you REFUSE to answer Hebrews 2:14. That is a crying shame, especially from someone trying to pass DeHannism on to us.