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

Give one Scriptural passage sheeagle. You only allude to some issues and include false reasoning.

Give one Scriptural passage that says that blood is sinful.

Christ was perfect.
Christ was the passover lamb.
Christ has to be 100% human to be the sacrifice for humanity.
1 John was written to counter those who did not embrace the full humanity of Christ.

If you want to dig into the meat, start by offering some passage that we can all expound upon.

 

Blood is neither human nor divine. Blood is blood. The historic doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ demands we acknowledge that Christ is both 100% human and 100% divine. Contrary to a lot of silly opinions dating from the 19th century, sin is not passed down in the blood. Blood is not "sinful" or "perfect." Blood is blood. Christ was the perfect Man. Our Substitute. Our sin bearer. When we try to attribute some magic quality to his blood we dismiss the greater import of His substitutianary sacrifice on our behalf. I believe the blood of Christ is in heaven, on the mercy seat, and that it, like He, is perfect and precious, but to try to say more concerning the blood than the bible says, is to make His blood an idol.

 

"I brought it up on another thread, but unfortunately, the thread was hijacked by those who embrace the RCC and other things."

If that refers to me, then it is a false characterisation. I do not embrace the RCC. Either clarify that this is not a refernce to me or retract it as it is not true.

"just the SCRIPTURES which is all I was asking for on the other thread."

Scriptural evidence that Jesus; body was like ours in every way WAS offered on the other thread, and more has been brought forward. You never bothered to deal with it then.

"Perfect sacrifice for sin (spotless without blemish) in the Old Testament."

Youneed to define what perfect means. Does it mean physical perfection wrt Christ only? Moral perfection? Both? Neither? Scriptural support please.

"Christ is the Passover Lamb."

A given.

"He was born of a virgin, thus could not have sinful blood of human passed on through by mankind."

This includes an assumptuion that there is such athing as "sinful blood". That would be false. The idea that matter is sinful is gnostic, not Christian.

"His Blood was righteous enough to be acceptable on the Mercy Seat. How could human blood be an acceptable sacrifice for sin?"

Becuase that is where the life is. God, as God, cannnot die. That is part and parcel of deity. If Christ died, and I beleive there is ample scriptural proof that He did, then it muyst be Christ in His humanity that died, not His deity.

Besides, he whole High Pristhood of Chriost is based on his being like us, sharing all our problems and imperfections. That would include the blood. like it or not, Jesus was like us in every aspect except that He did not sin.
Where is this line of reasoning skewed?

"To me, this is digging into the MEAT of the Scriptures."

Maybe, but it is also going over ground that was discussed and debated ad nauseum from the Scriptures over 1000 years ago. A litle knowledge of history, and historical theology goes a long way towards avoiding the process of re-inventing the theological wheel, and the spinning off into various heresies that inevitably result. Ignorance of the errors of the past dooms us to repeating them. That doesn't mean that all that has been said is all that CAN be said, mind you, but it does mean that there are issues that fall into the "been there, done that, category. We can benefit from that experience.

"Are we up to discussing this as adults with Scriptural Proof for our positions?"

Well, once you respond to this post, we'll certainly be in a better position to answer that question.

Or does everyone just wish I would go away and leave you to milk? [[Eek!]]

See above.

 

Careful Doc, if SheEagle does a google search and finds that the hypostatic union comes from a "Catholic" council she'll say you embrace the RCC!

 

Wasn't it Jesus Christ's lack of sin that made him the acceptable sacrifice for all sin?

 

[ September 04, 2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

That is certainly part of it, for if Christ had sinned his death would have been for His own sins, and no one elses.

But He also needed to be like us in order to represent us. See Hebrews 2:

This is the particular scripture I would like to see those pushing for divine blood interact with. Doesn't it mean Jesus blood was the same as ours? And that if it He wasn't like us in this way, then we are all in big trouble?

[ September 04, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

SheEagle:

You realise that the hypostatic union which Doc referred to comes from, and was defined in, the Council of Chalcedon I hope. He didn't get it out of thin air! So he brought up exactly what I did (what you call incorrectly "that RCC thing"). How will you deal with that fact I wonder?

And please get it straight. Catholic Chalcedon was. Roman Catholic? No. The heretical teachings that define specifically Roman Catholicism were not developed until much later. Remeber that at the time of Chalcedon there was only 1 denomination, 1 church. It was the universal faith, and hence "catholic" (which literally means "universal"). But that does not make it Roman Catholic. Ironically, in speaking as you do, you condede historical turf to RCs that is not theirs by right.

But again, a little knowledge of history would help in avoiding these kinds of misunderstandings.

And I did not call you a heretic. I said, I blieve, that to hold the position that Christ's blood was divine placed one on the side of heresy. I was letting youknow the stakes. I was not calling you a heretic.

Wisdom Seeker,

Yes it was. That does not require "divine blood".

 

I am very much surprised and disappointed at your answer. You said ,"sin is not passed down in the blood." That is an untrue and unbiblical statement. Babies get their blood from their father. This is a medical fact. Romans 5:12 tell us that sin and death came from Adam. Because we are born with our father's blood we are sinners. In Adam all were made sinners and in Adam we all die. If sin is not passed down in the blood then why was the virgin birth necessary? It sounds to me like you have listening too much to John MacArthur.

 

No, it is neither a biblical nor a medical fact. My father had blood type AB-, my mother has o+, and I have o+ blood type! Your "facts" are not facts at all, but silly superstitions. Call your doctor and ask him.

Except Romans 5:12 doesn't mention blood. Nor does it say we get our blood from our fathers. We don't. If what you say is true then I was born sinless for I got my blood type from my mother!

The virgin birth was necessary to break the federal/seminal headship of Adam. It had nothing to do with blood.

 

Really? Which medical textbooks teach that sperm contain blood?

 

Chalcedon occured in 451 AD and is usually refered to as the 4th Ecumenical Council. Roman Catholicism has its roots in the falling away of the mid 3rd century (250 AD), was greatly assisted by the unholy marriage of church and state under Constantine at the 1st Ecumenical Council held at Nice, Bithynia, called by Emporer Constantine in 325 AD. Roman Catholicism reached its present form around the time of Leo I (Leo the Great) who was Bishop from 457-474.

 

For the mst part I would agree with this assessment with the exception that I don't think that the current form of the RCC can be dated so early. The Eastern and Western wings of the Church continued to disagree over the jurisdiction of the the Bishop of Rome for some time thereafter. I would not date the specifically Roman brand of Catholicism until after the Great Schism of 1054, though I would not question that the Bishop of Rome fiuctioned much as he does now in the West well before that.

Oh, and SheEagle: So DocCas says it and its ok? He can bring up Chalcedonian theology and he doesn't embrace Rome, but I bring it up and I do? He mentions the hypostatic union, and its not RCC but if I do it, it is?

Something smells.

 

The old testament sacrfice asked for the best among the herds, along with the fristfruits.
Ther is some belief a bloodsacrifice, was nessary because it was not able to be taken back.
But it still had to be done repeatdly because
the things of the earth were still not as good as those in heaven, so a perfect sacrifice had to be of Heaven, not just earth. My lord is that sacrifice, perfect and spotless, acceptence of this is nessary. For we all I think know Jesus
is the Son of God and perfect
In Christ with love.