Was Christ's blood divine or human?

[kennethcadwell]

"Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit given by God to those who obey. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, so if we do still sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. That if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

( Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 5:32, Romans 10:10, 1 John 1:9, 2:1 )



Psalm 19:12-13 (prayer for unknown sins committed)

Psalm 51:12-14 (prayer for restoring salvation)

 

[Jason0047]

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16: 12)

Now, am I to think that the Spirit of the Lord is more on Paul when he speaks these words to the Romans than he is on me when I speak out and say: "The days of doom and darkness are yet to come and every faith will be tested by Fire​ (1 Peter 1:7), for our salvation is not just a matter of confession and faith, but a concrete restoration of our lives back to who we were meant to be in the beginning."

Am I less filled with the Spirit of God than Paul? Because I tell you truly, unless these words of his are meant to be taken within the context in which they were originally spoken; they can very much mislead this generation in thinking that all has already been taken care of and that there is only heaven waiting. To quote a few of the 95 Theses of Martin Luther:
"
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty, therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
[...]
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace."

Sorry, my friend. That really does not address (or answer) the words I bolded within the passage I brought up.

 

[Keeper]

Sorry, my friend. That really does not address (or answer) the words I bolded within the passage I brought up.

You're probably right... in which case you're not the one who should say "sorry" but me.

Either way, as much as I like Paul, there are parts of his thinking/preaching that I find misleading and therefore very, very dangerous. I usually try and find some excuses in the "context" in which they were spoken... then other times I consider the fact that He actually became a teacher while He himself was only an infant (in matters of faith and/or salvation)... all that simply to find a way to still accommodate him and his views.

I'll say this again, but only for this once (I've noticed this subject always tends to spiral into a very long thread of opinions and reactions with no clear end in view):

Christ did NOT die to pay the price. He came to show the way, and He did just that while he was still among us, and then He continued to do that even in the final 11 hours of his life... up until he screamed "Father, why have you forsaken me" and breathed his last.

We were sent to make of all the nations his disciples, but it troubles me terribly to see that we always tend to leave things on the dimension of the "Baptism in water"... while very few get to the "Baptism of the Spirit". I have yet to find those of us who speak about the "Baptism of Fire"... with just Martin Luther so far (known to me only from his 95 theses. I wasn't much interested in the rest of his ministry).

That's the reason why I'm here; to speak of the scary, actually terrifying, part of this thing we all call salvation. "The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Acts 2:20-21; Joel 2:31-32)

 

[Jason0047]

You're probably right... in which case you're not the one who should say "sorry" but me.

Either way, as much as I like Paul, there are parts of his thinking/preaching that I find misleading and therefore very, very dangerous. I usually try and find some excuses in the "context" in which they were spoken... then other times I consider the fact that He actually became a teacher while He himself was only an infant (in matters of faith and/or salvation)... all that simply to find a way to still accommodate him and his views.

I'll say this again, but only for this once (I've noticed this subject always tends to spiral into a very long thread of opinions and reactions with no clear end in view):

Christ did NOT die to pay the price. He came to show the way, and He did just that while he was still among us, and then He continued to do that even in the final 11 hours of his life... up until he screamed "Father, why have you forsaken me" and breathed his last.

We were sent to make of all the nations his disciples, but it troubles me terribly to see that we always tend to leave things on the dimension of the "Baptism in water"... while very few get to the "Baptism of the Spirit". I have yet to find those of us who speak about the "Baptism of Fire"... with just Martin Luther so far (known to me only from his 95 theses. I wasn't much interested in the rest of his ministry).

That's the reason why I'm here; to speak of the scary, actually terrifying, part of this thing we all call salvation. "The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Acts 2:20-21; Joel 2:31-32)

Are you saying that some of Paul's written works are not a part of divinely inspired Scripture and should not be believed 100%?

In other words, I know you said you like Paul, but when you say that his thinking and preaching is misleading, this tends to make one think that you might be an Ebionite and or that you might be leaning towards their way of thinking.

Ebionites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, Scripture has a very long list of verses that talk about how Jesus came to save us.

In other words, how are you saved at this very second right now?

Is it by your works? Or is it by Jesus Christ? Or is it Jesus + your works?

Do you not know that God (Christ) does the work within you if have been born again?

Do you not know that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith?

Does not 1 John 5:13 say that those who believe on the name of the Son of God has eternal life?

Now, do not misunderstand me. I do not believe in a sin and still be saved doctrine. Such a thing is evil. I believe that when a person repents of their sins, and accepts Jesus Christ, what He did with his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension has allowed that person to be forgiven of their sins, be born again spiritually (with a new heart and life), whereby God will then live within them. God (Christ) gives a person eternal life because the Lord is the source of eternal life. No Jesus. No life. Salvation is not in what you do. Salvation is a person named Jesus Christ.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

IMO JESUS's blood was human but its because JESUS was the only one that was able to do GODs standard of perfection that his blood was accepted by GOD.

I hope you can see what i'm trying to say with this scripture

Matthew 23:17
king james version

17.)Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

 

[Jason0047]

IMO JESUS's blood was human but its because JESUS was the only one that was able to do GODs standard of perfection that his blood was accepted by GOD.

I hope you can see what i'm trying to say with this scripture

Matthew 23:17
king james version

17.)Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

So Acts 20:28 is just talking about blood that met up to the perfect human standard? However, the passage doesn't say or imply that, though. It just says how we are purchased with God's blood. There is no reason to question this verse. Unless you don't want it to be true.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

So Acts 20:28 is just talking about blood that met up to the perfect human standard? However, the passage doesn't say or imply that, though. It just says how we are purchased with God's blood. There is no reason to question this verse. Unless you don't want it to be true.

could you help me find the verse that says that his blood was divine.My interpretation of that scripture you gave in acts 20:28 is saying and i agree with that in this way (His blood was divine in that it was the blood of JESUS)but IMO his blood was human blood.(physical)

 

[Jackson123]

Is the blood of Jesus Chemically different than regular human blood?

Say 2 human, Bill gate and Beggar.

both of them are human have same blood structure. But in the eyes of stock market manager, they have different value.

If Bill Gate say something about his company, it may effect to his stock value. If a Beggar say something about computer, it doesn't have effect on the market.

I believe is a matter of who own the blood, not the chemical structure of the blood, though it may Jesus blood has different chemical structure than regular human blood.

 

[tourist]

What is the purpose of these polls?

I don't know either. It looks like some sort of paternity test.

 

[ChristIsGod]

Sorry, but HE had human blood or else He wouldn't have a Human body and the pure lineage of David would be missing and there would be some "mystical" substance attributed to His blood and this heresy began with Ignatius, and mixes with ancient Docetic heresy, because the blood feeds every cell of the body and would thus make Jesus' body divine.

Being the Last Adam, He 'had to be' human in every respect in order to fulfill every prophesy regarding the coming son of David - Messiah.

Ignatian Christology has been disputed by scholars since he first came out with this thought. Jesus had the Spirit of God within Him but the body & blood of 'the Representative man" wherewith no human being can say that He had more than His creation to walk as He did [sinless, etc] but He Did Not... in all fairness to us - He became just like us - bodily and as dependent on God as we were shown by Him that we are to be. If there were a drop of divinity in His Body - He would no longer be the representative man - the last Adam - the pure Lamb that obeyed unto death - the seed of Jesse & David nor a fit Example to those that follow Him to 'walk even as He walked".


I don't care to participate in polls where the poll starter had already planned to shoot down all other answers other than their own and isn't just posting a poll for it to open conversation, and not where there's an open mind in the OP and to get a better picture of what others see that could contribute to their own studies.

Believe as you wish - but if anyone cares to research this, they should. I wouldn't post to this type of thread again and see what Soul Weaver meant now. Women's intuition or discernment?

There's no such thing as "mystical blood" because that's what His would be if it was GOD's "blood".... Where did Adam get his blood if Christ is the last Adam?

Christ was fully human except for having the Spirit of God on Him was God in the flesh -- easy for some to get confused by that statement I suppose -- but not if one stays Biblical -- ie. the O.T. Prophesies about Messiah the man.

 

[Jason0047]

Sorry, but HE had human blood or else He wouldn't have a Human body and the pure lineage of David would be missing and there would be some "mystical" substance attributed to His blood and this heresy began with Ignatius, and mixes with ancient Docetic heresy, because the blood feeds every cell of the body and would thus make Jesus' body divine.

Being the Last Adam, He 'had to be' human in every respect in order to fulfill every prophesy regarding the coming son of David - Messiah.

Ignatian Christology has been disputed by scholars since he first came out with this thought. Jesus had the Spirit of God within Him but the body & blood of 'the Representative man" wherewith no human being can say that He had more than His creation to walk as He did [sinless, etc] but He Did Not... in all fairness to us - He became just like us - bodily and as dependent on God as we were shown by Him that we are to be. If there were a drop of divinity in His Body - He would no longer be the representative man - the last Adam - the pure Lamb that obeyed unto death - the seed of Jesse & David nor a fit Example to those that follow Him to 'walk even as He walked".


I don't care to participate in polls where the poll starter had already planned to shoot down all other answers other than their own and isn't just posting a poll for it to open conversation, and not where there's an open mind in the OP and to get a better picture of what others see that could contribute to their own studies.

Believe as you wish - but if anyone cares to research this, they should. I wouldn't post to this type of thread again and see what Soul Weaver meant now. Women's intuition or discernment?

There's no such thing as "mystical blood" because that's what His would be if it was GOD's "blood".... Where did Adam get his blood if Christ is the last Adam?

Christ was fully human except for having the Spirit of God on Him was God in the flesh -- easy for some to get confused by that statement I suppose -- but not if one stays Biblical -- ie. the O.T. Prophesies about Messiah the man.

Actually, providing a poll and letting people share their opinion with Scripture instead of just one posting their current thoughts was not done for me to shoot people down. I did it in this way because I want to hear what people actually have to say first. For I desired to be open to listening what others have to say with God's Word. A normal thread is just one stating their thoughts which then leads into arguments immediately. I didn't want that. In other words, you are judging me unfairly. For you are not God to know my thoughts on this matter. As a matter of fact, I am still open to the idea on this issue with Scripture. I currently believe Jesus' blood is divine because of Acts 20:28, 1 John 1:7, and 1 Peter 1:18-19. I believe his blood was both divine and human. Christ had to have blood that was human blood because he needed to have real blood in order to keep his flesh alive and to pump his heart like us. But I believe his blood was also divine, too. For certain things can be made holy. For example: Both Moses and Joshua were asked to take off their shoes because they were standing on holy ground. This is why I believe Christ's flesh did not see corruption (or decay) because Christ's blood was infused with some kind of holiness or divine aspect from God. His blood was holy, innocent, pure, spottless, and worthy so as to take away the sins of the entire world.

 

[ChristIsGod]

In other words, some people think of Jesus' Incarnation as if He was Hercules. Hercules is a mythological demi god whose body and soul is both divine and physical. I believe the body of Christ was just a shell (A Temple as Christ called it) that was from the product of Mary. As for Christ's blood: Well, I believe this is where the Hercules aspect might come in. For the Scriptures make it seem like Christ's blood was both divine and human. First, we see Jesus displaying human type blood because people could see his actual blood being spilled. It appeared to be real blood like our blood. However, I also believe it was pure blood, unlike man's blood which is tainted by sin. It was also divine blood that could cleanse. How so?

Joel 3:21 For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion.). The blood has to be cleansed because it is not clean.

I believe it is God's blood as Acts 20:28 says. No one has God's blood. Only Jesus has God's blood. Folks can add or twist that passage, but the plain straight foward meaning of Acts 20:28 says it was God's blood. For how can human blood alone cleanse us of all sin if we walk in the Light as He is in the Light? The life of the flesh is in the blood. God breathed the breathe of life into Adam who was mud and clay. For the Scriptures say there are three that agree as one. The water, the blood, and the spirit.

No, you started this thread to post the above.

I don't think you're open to other views by posting this at #27 of this thread.

And why you think that others wouldn't agree with you and there be, as you call them "arguments", if you just started a thread and not with a poll ... I can't figure. Whatever poll we've had, there's always differences in opinions but the ones with the most Scriptural backing or understanding are probably the right answer and if the person started the poll in order to just get their own opinion out there - they don't normally like if you strongly disagree with their view.


Such is life on a forum.

 

[ChristIsGod]

I just wanted to say that, whenever I've said to certain people that we are, through His Spirit, able to do EVERYTHING that He did except die for another's sin, they always come back with - "But He was God!" and then I'll show them the verses that back up that we can do everything that He did if we walk in the Spirit and not our own flesh - but they'll come back with, "But He was God! We can't 'be like Him'!"

Where do they get this? I'll tell you. It's from people teaching things contrary to The Word of God or things that Aren't in His Word - like, that 'Jesus' had MORE than we now have - so it has to be because God was His Father.

Do you see where this teaching goes? God is Spirit. He created Adam out of the dust of the earth.
He can create / beget His son out of the seed of Abraham or anyone else that listed in His genealogy and that's why He gave the two genealogies. The seed [singular] of Abraham, just for one.

Jesus 'had to be' "like us" otherwise, He's talking crazy telling us to walk as He walked and do whatever He did.
He had no more 'advantage' then we have to do what He did. He became like "us" - literally so that we could become like Him.

 

[Jason0047]

No, you started this thread to post the above.

I don't think you're open to other views by posting this at #27 of this thread.

And why you think that others wouldn't agree with you and there be, as you call them "arguments", if you just started a thread and not with a poll ... I can't figure. Whatever poll we've had, there's always differences in opinions but the ones with the most Scriptural backing or understanding are probably the right answer and if the person started the poll in order to just get their own opinion out there - they don't normally like if you strongly disagree with their view.


Such is life on a forum.

Okay. You gotta stop right now. You are going into defensive mode and not believing me. I am telling you. Stop. I want you to stop telling me what I think. I know what I think. So you gotta stop telling me what I think. I am telling you right now... I put up the poll because... I wanted to see what other people thought with Scripture on this topic. If someone came up with a verse that said Christ's blood was not divine and or gave an indication to that effect and it was really convincing, then I would believe it. I wanted to hear what others posted first. I wanted to see what people said. If I didn't care, I would have just posted my views and moved on. But I honestly wanted to see what people knew on this subject. You may not believe me, but that is your choice.

Also, while I may believe Christ's blood is both divine and human, I am not against Scripture suggesting otherwise if you think you can make a good case with Scripture that would say otherwise and that you can explain the passages I provided. Like I said, I am willing to indulge you. It is why we are talking now.

 

[DB7]

For after Jesus told Mary to touch Him not, He ascended to the Father and entered the Holy Temple by His blood. This is important because Jesus was becoming our Heavenly High Priest. He was being our Mediator between God the Father and man. If Jesus blood was merely human, I don't think it would have the power to enter the Holy Temple. Only something that is Holy, pure, and good like God's blood can do something amazing like that. Think about it, my friends. I know I sure will.

May God bless you, and please be well.

My dear friends, blood and divinity is an oxymoron. is there anyone who did not understand that?
Jesus' blood did not quench God's thirst, it did not vitalize God's being and did not purify us from our sins. God did not take Christ's blood and sprinkle over every single human to do so, did he?
Therefore, only Christ's obedience appeased God, nothing else!

 

[Jason0047]

Is the blood of Jesus Chemically different than regular human blood?

Say 2 human, Bill gate and Beggar.

both of them are human have same blood structure. But in the eyes of stock market manager, they have different value.

If Bill Gate say something about his company, it may effect to his stock value. If a Beggar say something about computer, it doesn't have effect on the market.

I believe is a matter of who own the blood, not the chemical structure of the blood, though it may Jesus blood has different chemical structure than regular human blood.

Matthew 1:20
"...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

 

[Jason0047]

My dear friends, blood and divinity is an oxymoron. is there anyone who did not understand that?
Jesus' blood did not quench God's thirst, it did not vitalize God's being and did not purify us from our sins. God did not take Christ's blood and sprinkle over every single human to do so, did he?
Therefore, only Christ's obedience appeased God, nothing else!

No, way, my friend. You would have to take a black magic marker and start crossing out a bunch of passages that would say otherwise.

 

[Jason0047]

For starters, without the blood, there is no remission of sins.

Innocent animal blood couldn't do the job.

It was only God's blood that could take away our sins for good.

 

[Jackson123]

Matthew 1:20
"...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

[h=1]Matthew 1:20King James Version (KJV)[/h]20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Brother Jason,

Seem to me, this verse did not tell about what kind of blood will Jesus has or what kind of physical body will Jesus has.

Seem to me Jesus has human body, if it not human body, how people able to kill Him on the cross?

If He has special blood, He must be has a special body, that can be hungry or thirsty.

Some people believe that even what ever He ever touch will have special power, they call it relic.

But I don't believe it.

 

[Jason0047]

Matthew 1:20King James Version (KJV)

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Brother Jason,

Seem to me, this verse did not tell about what kind of blood will Jesus has or what kind of physical body will Jesus has.

Seem to me Jesus has human body, if it not human body, how people able to kill Him on the cross?

If He has special blood, He must be has a special body, that can be hungry or thirsty.

Some people believe that even what ever He ever touch will have special power, they call it relic.

But I don't believe it.

Actually, this early morning (Pacific Time), I have considered what you said. I considered the possibility that his blood was only human. However, what you proposed is not exactly an iron clad reason or case to prove that Christ's blood was human alone. Christ's blood was indeed human enough in the fact that it was physical, was able to give life to the flesh by pumping blood thru out his veins. It is possible that His blood was not a regenerating agent but a preserving agent. Meaning that in the Incarnation, His bllood could be spilled and His flesh could be cut and not be instantly regenerated ---- Yet his flesh would not decompose while in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights because His blood is a preserving agent and not a regenerating agent. Hence, why the Holy one's flesh did not see corruption while in the grave.

I would say the biggest case for Jesus having human blood would be that he had to be like us in every way in order to be our substitute. But does Jesus have a created soul and a created spirit like us? No. Does Jesus have blood not tainted by sin like us? No. Is it not wrong for man to receive worship? Yet Jesus received worship. Does not the Scripture say that He held all things together by the word of His power when he purged us of our sins? I take this to mean, that Jesus held all things together while he was on the cross. No man can hold all things together. So Jesus was not exactly like us in every aspect or way.

Granted, I am open to exploring that Jesus had only human blood with Scripture. So if this truth is important to God, then surely there would be clues in Scripture for us to believe one way or the other. For at this time, while I am leaning in one partiicular direction on this topic, I am open to what Scripture has to say.

As for your claim about holy objects and or things people touched by Jesus (thinking it was holy):

Well, maybe you should talk to the woman with the issue of blood. She thought that if she could just touch his garment, that she would be healed. Now, if God condemned the idea of things such as cloths or other objects not being acceptable to touch in them being holy, Jesus would have surely rebuked this woman for thinking that there is nothing special about his garment for her to be healed. But that's not what happened. We see that she was healed by touching his garment. In fact, this is nothing new. We see God telling Moses and Joshua to take off their shoes because they were standing on holy ground. Now, how can ground be holy? Paul's garments also healed people. Again, these are objects. If Acts 20:28 was not written, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. But it exists; And I have to take seriously the plain straight forward meaning of what Scrippture says unless other Scripture conflicts with it. Sure, can Jesus who is God say in His Word that His blood is God's blood because He forever joined with the physical? Perhaps. But I need more verses to go on to prove that line of thinking.

Anyways, love, peace, and blessings be unto you.