Sorry, I can't drop it. Maybe it's important!

It's called a nose! LOL!

I'm sorry, but you left yourself wide open....

(Now I'll REALLY be on your list! )</font>[/QUOTE]Open to what? Double standards?


As for the quote you gave...

Well, you have here piety winning out over good biblical exegesis.

The context of Heb. 2:14 actually argues the opposite of what DeHaan argues for. In Heb. 2:10-18, Hebrews argues that Jesus is of the "same family" (actually, it is literally "from one", "ex henos", and means "one origin, or of one stock or father" as those whom are made holy. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call those made holy "brothers".

V.13 is spoken by the Son. Thus the "children" whom God has given Jesus are His "brothers" (cf. v.11).

So the context of 2:14 is Jesus' idenitifying Himself with human beings. Not distinguish Himself from them.

Also arguing for this is the word "paralesios" meaning "likewise, in the same way". So there is a comparison, not a contrast, involved here. And the compariosn is meant to say that what the brothers have, so does the Son.

As for DeHan's Greek...

According to BAGD, a standard lexicon, "kekoinoenken" is from "koinoneo" which means "to share in or have a share in". In both of these glosses, the idea is for all to share in the same thing. There is no hint of the kind of limitation that DeHaan refers to. Vine's agrees.

This is the first time "patake occurs in Heb 2:14.

The seocnd time the word occurs the word is "metesken". It is from "metexo" According to BAGD the gloss is "sahre in, have a share of, participate in". Again, Vine's agrees.

You will note that there is significant overlap in the semantic domains of the two words. So DeHaan's argument seems to rest on the fact that the author of Hebrews means to indicate something by the use of differing words. Specifically, DeHaan means to say that the author of Henbrews wishes to say that the chikldren and the Son partake of humanity in differnet ways.

As I noted there is nothing in the context that would suggest this. The two words have significant semantic overlap. There is thus contextually no good reason to assume that the two words are not used as synonyms. What DeHaan commits is an exegetical fallacy. It is similar to the line of reasoning that sees significance in the fact that Jesus uses two different words for "love" in John 21.

 

Romans 3: 25
Romans 5: 9
Eph 1: 7
Col 1: 14
Heb 9: 22
1 Peter 1: 18-19, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver and gold, from your vain manner of life received by tradition from your fathers, But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

There's just something about that phrase, "the precious blood of Christ"--that rings the Believer's spiritual Liberty Bell!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

This is too deep for me. All I know is that we are to walk by faith, not by sight. Nowhere in the bible, can I find that sin was in the blood...it is by the flesh, that we sin. Jesus was truly 100% man in the flesh, and in his blood. And he was 100% God! If God can take nothing and create something...I'm sure he can pull this off. I'll leave this debate to the theologians of the board.

 

Because there is no reason to thnk the difference is significant.

In v. 15 and 16 th word is "agapao" is used. in v. 17, it is "phileo". It is held by some that the change is significant. But thriughout the gospel of John the two woirds are used in such a way as to be basicaly synonymous. There is no discernible pattern or reaon for choosing one over the other in the rest of John's Gospel. For example both oare used to dsescribe the Father's love for the Son, and Jesus love fro both Lazarus and the "beloved disciple". It seems to be a stylistic quirk and nothing more.

Incidentally (and I know how you love the RCC), Roman catholic interpreters use the same fallacy to justify a Papal reading of this very passage. See, there are two different words for "sheep" involved. They say that there is a distinction, that one words for sheep refers to ordianary believers while the other refers to pastors under the authority of Peter.

So you have the same fallacy applied twice in the same passage generating vastly different results. If you want to endorse the exegetical fallacy, you can. But be prepared to go to Mass this Sunday! (Just kidding!)

That isn't to say that a case can't be made for seeing a difference; one can be made. I just happen to think that, in this particular passage, once you starty splitting those hairs you open a door to a Papal interpretation, and I am not prepared to do that. After all, how can one reasonably argue that the change from agapao to phileo is very significant, while the change from "arnion" to "probaton" means nothing at all when both those changes occur in the same verses? I don't think you can make that argument. Better to say that its a fallacy in both cases and let it be.

 

Sheeagle, with all due respect, spend more time dealing with the biblical passages than you do coming up with cute little comments and maybe then we could get somewhere.

I still haven't seen a passage or anything that remotely teaches that Christ had divine blood (whatever that is).

 

Call me whatever you want. Perhaps I am crabby. I am not sure what that has to do with interacting with biblical texts.

Romans 5:12 is an argument for original sin. That is why Christ was born of a virgin. It has nothing to do with blood properties.

Do you really consider this stuff meat?

How do you feel about UFO's and aliens? Is that steak?

 

Just a thought cuz this (the following) issue seems to still be in question.

I don't see, from the scriptures, how that is possible. God Himself told Noah not to eat blood for "the life is in the blood." Now unless you believe in anihilation(sp?) of the soul (not in the Bible) you would have to say that life is not just human, it goes beyond the earthly life and continues on into eternity. We can say, safely, then that eternal life begins at conception because when you die you start your second life either in Hell or Heaven, you choose.

My point then is that blood, which contains "life" according to God, must have some function that takes place above the physical level that is not able to be understood by us. Consider also the things which Moses was given as a "pattern", of which was the the mercy that had blood sprinkled over it. Every explanation of that word "pattern" I have heard has been that it means a near copy of. If that is true then after the death of Christ, at some point, His blood, in some way, was placed on the mercy seat in Heaven.

I am not saying I understand these things but just pointing to the fact that there is more in operation here than we can comprehend, at least on this side of eternity.

So then either the blood is just some physical goo that flows in our bodies or it is both physical and spiritual in its properties. I think scripture is clear as to the answer here.

SoCM

 

Babies grow their own blood, just like they grow their own hair and skin, and it is grown according to the genetic patterns inherited from both father and mother.

 

SheEagle:

"I think it makes a big difference that in the original Greek there were different words used as in John. And as Dr. DeHaan pointed out in the quote. Otherwise, why would the original Greek NOT have used the same word for "love" in the John passage if they intended it to mean the same thing and the "love" usage was interchangeable?"

Then you agree with the pro-papacy interpretation of the passage as well.

You have an assumption here, that the author MUST use the same word. That is a false assumption. People vary words for a naumber of reasons, amongst which is to simply avoid pointles repetition. You assume that there must be a reason, and that is simething you should first prove, or else you are engaging in circular reasoning. That is a fallacy.

As I pointed out there is nothing in the context of John that suggests a differnece, and in Hebrews ther is a lto that indicates that the point is draw similarities, not point differences. Contextually DeHaan (and you) have no leg to stand on.

But you are welcome to your opinion. But it does lead you to a heresy, I remind you. The one that would lead you to disagree with DocCas. I guess yo are going to have to choose who you want to believe. DocCas or DeHaan. You can'tr belive both here as they disagree.

SoCM,

"My point then is that blood, which contains "life" according to God, must have some function that takes place above the physical level that is not able to be understood by us."

Thjat is correct. But it is not a physical porperty of the blood. It is a property of the character of the person whose blood is under discussion. It is the moral purity of the person. Jesus was sinless. But he was not less human. And to say that his blood was "divine" is simply to make Jesus not like us. If he was not like us then he was unable to atone for us.

 

SheEagle:

"I think it makes a big difference that in the original Greek there were different words used as in John. And as Dr. DeHaan pointed out in the quote. Otherwise, why would the original Greek NOT have used the same word for "love" in the John passage if they intended it to mean the same thing and the "love" usage was interchangeable?"

Then you agree with the pro-papacy interpretation of the passage as well.

You have an assumption here, that the author MUST use the same word. That is a false assumption. People vary words for a naumber of reasons, amongst which is to simply avoid pointles repetition. You assume that there must be a reason, and that is simething you should first prove, or else you are engaging in circular reasoning. That is a fallacy.

As I pointed out there is nothing in the context of John that suggests a differnece, and in Hebrews ther is a lto that indicates that the point is draw similarities, not point differences. Contextually DeHaan (and you) have no leg to stand on.

But you are welcome to your opinion. But it does lead you to a heresy, I remind you. The one that would lead you to disagree with DocCas. I guess yo are going to have to choose who you want to believe. DocCas or DeHaan. You can'tr belive both here as they disagree.

SoCM,

"My point then is that blood, which contains "life" according to God, must have some function that takes place above the physical level that is not able to be understood by us."

Thjat is correct. But it is not a physical porperty of the blood. It is a property of the character of the person whose blood is under discussion. It is the moral purity of the person. Jesus was sinless. But he was not less human. And to say that his blood was "divine" is simply to make Jesus not like us. If he was not like us then he was unable to atone for us.

 

I already said it has to do with original sin. The federal headship of Adam brought damnation upon all of creation. Sin entered through one man and death through sin.

Since this verse offers a multitude of views, please point out where blood is mentioned. My NKJV didn't include it.

The fact is you have been shown to be wrong again and again. You haven't provided anything that even sounds like "divine" blood. Put away the sci-fi study Bible and stop reading into the text.

Out like sound theology in this thread.

[ September 05, 2002, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]

 

This thread reminds me of the words of Stephen Olford regarding the blood of Christ. Olford says that if we had a vial of Christ's blood today the best thing we could do with it is to pour it down the sink.

His reasoning is simple and correct: if we had a vial of Christ's blood, people would worship the blood instead of the sacrifice.

His words ring true in those who attempt to make the blood of Jesus into some magical divine blood.

Quick question for those who maintain the Hylesesque belief in some type of divine blood -- is this blood still around or did it run into the dirt below the cross?

 

I happen to agree with Olford. it isn't the blood initself that atones, but the fact that the blood was shed by a sinlessperson in obedience to the will of the Father ofr the purpose of satisfying the wrath of the Father. IOW "the blood" is really just shorthand for the act of dying on the Cross.

I've heard it said that " just one drop of Christ's precious blood is enough to save 10,000 sinners". What horrible theology!! It isn't the amount of the blood, or the nature of the blood at all!

In case anyone is wondering why I take this so seriously, the answer is simple. I see the idea od Christ's blood as detracting from the majesty of His Person and Work. i know that people think that they are making more of Him with the "divine blood" idea but it actually does the opposite. The Glory of the Incarnation is that God became flesh, real flesh, lilke one of us, a supreme divine condescension, as an act of grace and love and mercy to us. As the authore of Hebrews put it, we can find comfort becuase Christ was like us oin all ways, he is not insensitive to us and our struggles. To say that Jesus was not human as we are is to take that confort away.

The Majesty of Christ is that in the Incarnation true Deity and true Man came together. To say that Jesus had "divine blood" does NOT make Him any more God. It just makes Him less human. And the Bible is very clear about the humanity of Christ.

So IOW, when you demean the humanity of Christ, you're putting down my Lord, my Saviour, and my friend. You demean Him with the best of intentions, but you still demean him. I can't let that go.

Sorry. Sort of.

 

Arguing whether Dr. DeHaan is fundamental is moot. I have no disrespect toward him at all. If what he believes is what you are proposing, he is wrong and he knows now that he was wrong.

Just for the record, I have asked repeatedly in both of these meaty threads to give some scripture about "divine" blood or that the blood of Christ was not truly human. What have I seen? A passage on original sin.

Out like the final blow to this whole theory.

 

Lat, (and others)

Yes. That is what I said. The most critical function of the blood of Christ would have been its spiritual one. Although that did not remove its physical function. This is hard to talk about cuz, while it is obvious, it is not understood fully(just like the trinity). In case there is any question about my stand I do believe that Christ was full in His humanity and divinity.

Also let me add some scripture to the discussion.

Gee that is pretty tough to maintain in the light of Leviticus 17:11 (which also lends itself to my original point)

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make an atonement for your souls: for
it is the the blood that maketh an
atonement for the soul."

And just in case you think that only refers to the Levitical system of offering animals:

"Now when these things were thus ordained,
the priests went always into the first
tabernacle, accomplishing the service of
God. 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: the Holy
Ghost this signifying that the way into
the holiest of all was not yet made
manifest, while as the first tabernacle
was standing: which was a figure for the
time then present, in which were offered
both gifts and sacrifices, that could not
make him that did the service perfect, as
pertaining to the conscience; which stood
only in meats and drinks, and divers
washings, and CARNAL ORDINANCES, imposed
on them until the time of reformation. But
Christ being come an hight 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;
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. For if the
blood of bulls and of goats, and the
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the
unclean,sanctifieth to the purifying
of the FLESH: how much more shall the
BLOOD OF CHRIST, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without spot to
God, to purge your CONSCIENCE from dead
works to serve the living God?"
Hebrews 9:6-14
(emphasis mine)

SoCM

PS - had to quote the whole passage for context

 

Gee that is pretty tough to maintain in the light of Leviticus 17:11 (which also lends itself to my original point)

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make an atonement for your souls: for
it is the the blood that maketh an
atonement for the soul."</font>[/QUOTE]The passage makes it clear that it is not the blood, but the life. The life was in the blood and when the blood flowed out, the life was leaving. It is the blood by reason fo the life. The wages of sin is death not blood. This passage refutes you, not supports you.