Featured Was Jesus Christ a Jew by Blood ?

I never said Jesus had Joseph's blood. I said that in my post. You don't read well. He did have Mary's blood, or else he would not be human in all points such as we are. In very simple terms you have taken up a heresy that denies the humanity of Christ.

 

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Ps 132:11 ¶ The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Heb 2:14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Conception is always of God in any human birth. However, conception is NEVER without human "seed." The Bible explicitly states that Jesus would be of "her seed" (Gen. 3:15) and you explicitly deny Jesus is of "her seed" but was a total creation by God in the womb without "her seed."

The Bible explicitly predicts that the Messiah would be "of the fruit of THY BODY" in regard to King David.

The Bible explicitly says that JUST AS the children partook of "flesh and blood" so did Christ "LIKEWISE" partook of "flesh and blood."

You are teaching damnable heresy and the doctrine explicitly attributed to the Antichrist spirit (1 Jn. 4:2-6).

 

You are right, the whole human system of life including his blood and all other body liquids originated from "her seed" and thus included human blood or her blood. God has no blood, flesh or bones because God is a "spirit."

 

Shedding of blood simply means giving of one's life! The purity is in the LIFE being lived not in any body liquid. Do you believe that when Jesus used the bathroom that his bodily fluids were pure too????

The life was in the blood and shedding of blood did not mean simply providing a drop or two or a gallon or more but in shedding blood until the there was no more life. It is the Lamb that is without blemish and without spot - HIS LIFE HE LIVED. The bodily liquids do not determine His sinlessness or his holiness.

 

1. You are thinking like a RCC here and are almost on the verge of becoming one. That is why they believe in the Immaculate Conception.
2. There is no magical property in the blood. The solider pierced his side. Out came blood and water. It signified that he was dead.
3. The blood is symbolic, not magical. You err in putting superstitious magical power into the blood. There is none. It is symbolic.
4. The blood is evidence and proof of the death of Christ.
5. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The blood is evidence of that death. It is the death of Christ that atoned for our sins. The blood is a startling assurety that his death was very real.
6. God's laws must be kept. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Blood had to be shed. There never was any magical power in the blood. But even in the OT it had "atoning power," if you will.

Leviticus 17:11 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 blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

But the blood never had any superstitious magical quality that you are attaching to it. You are being superstitious here, not realistic.

 

HP: I do not know about this magical statement, but I instantly thought of the corpse/bones of an old prophet..........

Would the literal blood of Christ be less able to enact a miracle than some corpse/bones of a dead prophet?

Did not even the spittle of Christ have power to heal?

 

No. Spit is spit. It is full of germs. Remember Christ was a man just like us. The "spittle" didn't heal him. Christ healed him! Don't be superstitious.

 

The other day I cut myself. It was a deep cut that could have required a stitch, but I deferred rather just to let it heal on its own. However, it did bleed quite a bit. I didn't say to my wife: "Look at the blood of my mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, etc." No, it was my blood that I was dripping all over the floor. It wasn't theirs, but mine. It may have had characteristics that I inherited from them, but it was uniquely mine. And so Christ had blood that was uniquely his. It wasn't Mary's blood, per se, but had some characteristics of Mary for He inherited it from her. He was perfect man. So in essence, yes Christ had his own blood just as I have my own blood.

He had all of his own organs too.
He was so beat up and disfigured that the Bible describes him as unrecognizable. Weren't his other body parts just as precious? Didn't he offer his ALL as a sacrifice? Why, at the Lord's Supper do we celebrate with both bread and juice/wine? What does the bread represent? Are not his bones precious? His flesh? "Unless you eat my flesh...

 

It was the blood of Christ, born of the virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was flesh and blood. His human body was provided via Mary. He was made of the seed of the woman. There is nothing magical about his blood, just as there is nothing magical about any other part of his body.

 

Because Mary was a Jew. She was also of the bloodline of David. It is the only way that Christ could legitimately claim the throne of David. "Christ, Son of David, have mercy upon me," they cried.

Let's not be too mystical. What happened at the cross? His blood was shed. He died. Where did his blood go? It was splattered over the cross, spilt on the ground, and so on. It was absorbed by the earth.

The blood first and foremost is evidence of his death.
Secondly, it is symbolic.
Go to the OT. When the blood of the lamb was applied at the time of the Passover before the Exodus what was it, what did it signify, what happened.
1. It was blood. Physical blood from a slaughtered lamb.
2. It signified that an animal had been killed. The animal had to be an animal without blemish. It looked forward to the cross.
3. The blood was applied to the door posts, and the beam going across. Connect the points and it makes a cross--one of blood--the blood of a lamb.
4. When the angel saw the blood he "passed-over" those houses and they were protected from the plagued. They were saved by the blood. The blood was symbolic. It didn't save. God saved them, but the blood was the sign.
The blood had to be applied in order for them to be saved. If the blood was not applied by faith they could not be saved.

The same is true here. If the blood (symbolically) is not applied by faith one cannot be saved. In the same way the blood saves. The blood of Christ is symbolic of the death of Christ. More than anything it represents his life given for us.
"for the life of the flesh is in the blood." Lev.17:11

 

Ps 132:11 ¶ The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

What is the "fruit" of his "OWN LOINS"?

He did not say this "fruit of his own loins" was "according to the Spirit" as in spiritual Jews but "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" as in the fruit of "THY BODY"!

 

HP: I do not know about being mystical, but I do recognize something that has no Biblical support. The blood line is NOT traced via the mother, but rather through the father. The genealogies of Christ trace the blood line through Joseph to David, not via Mary.