Was Christ's blood divine or human?
- Thread starter Jason0047
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The whole world agrees on that the blood of Jesus was human... and the reason is that they believe Him when He refers to Himself as the "Son of Man". (as opposed to a son of an animal. So his blood is human, as opposed to "animal" blood... if I may use animal as an adjective.)
However, only few believe that his blood was divine... more specifically those who believe Him when he says that He is God. This is the "new world" in which we (believers) live, the world of Faith; where we see, hear, taste and even touch things we have no evidence about. Things we cannot prove if it came down to it.
Think of a scientist who takes a sample of Jesus's blood into a lab. "Human blood" is what he will find. And when you start saying: "No! His blood is divine!" Everyone will just shake their head and laugh at you.
Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
And how come only us can see that He is God? That's a subject for a whole other conversation... but to sum up: If I was given a poll like this and asked to pick one response, then (b) would be my answer. "Christ's blood was human". Why? Because only humans (well, and animals) carry blood in their veins. i.e. "That which is born of flesh" (John 3). God does not have blood because He's neither a human being nor an animal. God is Spirit. Just think of the wind.
However, only few believe that his blood was divine... more specifically those who believe Him when he says that He is God. This is the "new world" in which we (believers) live, the world of Faith; where we see, hear, taste and even touch things we have no evidence about. Things we cannot prove if it came down to it.
Think of a scientist who takes a sample of Jesus's blood into a lab. "Human blood" is what he will find. And when you start saying: "No! His blood is divine!" Everyone will just shake their head and laugh at you.
Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
And how come only us can see that He is God? That's a subject for a whole other conversation... but to sum up: If I was given a poll like this and asked to pick one response, then (b) would be my answer. "Christ's blood was human". Why? Because only humans (well, and animals) carry blood in their veins. i.e. "That which is born of flesh" (John 3). God does not have blood because He's neither a human being nor an animal. God is Spirit. Just think of the wind.
Last edited:
If one believes Jesus is an amalgam, then that would be a mixed hybrid blood that would be both divine and human. For it was not divine and human (from one's thinking that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human) then how exactly would one describe his blood then? Does it become like some new third thing that is not exactly divine and not exactly human?
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.
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.
Last edited:
Anyways, I wanted to see how folks believed and or what Scripture they might have to back up what they believe. For iron sharpens iron. That is what polls and or thread discussions are all about. Sharing what we believe and then backing that belief up with God's Holy written Word. It is about glorifying Jesus in preaching the truth.
In any event, I voted that Jesus blood was both divine and human when looking at Scripture.
It was divine because only God's pure blood (Not corrupted by sin) can cleanse the entire world of it's sin. For an innocent Lamb who was without spot or blemish was sacrificed on our behalf. If the Lamb was sick, I doubt the Jews would offer it up as a sacrifice. It had to be pure. It had to be innocent. And I don't think animal blood could save us. I don't think human blood alone could save us. I believe only God's blood can do that. God's blood that is both divine and human.
In any event, I voted that Jesus blood was both divine and human when looking at Scripture.
It was divine because only God's pure blood (Not corrupted by sin) can cleanse the entire world of it's sin. For an innocent Lamb who was without spot or blemish was sacrificed on our behalf. If the Lamb was sick, I doubt the Jews would offer it up as a sacrifice. It had to be pure. It had to be innocent. And I don't think animal blood could save us. I don't think human blood alone could save us. I believe only God's blood can do that. God's blood that is both divine and human.
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.
May God bless you, and please be well.
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath accounted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath despised the Spirit of grace?
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (ASV)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (AMP)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]How much worse (sterner and heavier) punishment do you suppose he will be judged to deserve who has spurned and [thus] trampled underfoot the Son of God, and who has considered the covenant blood by which he was consecrated common and unhallowed, thus profaning it and insulting and outraging the [Holy] Spirit [Who imparts] grace (the unmerited favor and blessing of God)?
[h=4]Cross references:[/h]
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (CEB)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]How much worse punishment do you think is deserved by the person who walks all over God’s Son, who acts as if the blood of the covenant that made us holy is just ordinary blood, and who insults the Spirit of grace?
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (CJB)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Think how much worse will be the punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of God; who has treated as something common the blood of the covenant which made him holy; and who has insulted the Spirit, giver of God’s grace!
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath accounted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath despised the Spirit of grace?
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (ASV)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (AMP)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]How much worse (sterner and heavier) punishment do you suppose he will be judged to deserve who has spurned and [thus] trampled underfoot the Son of God, and who has considered the covenant blood by which he was consecrated common and unhallowed, thus profaning it and insulting and outraging the [Holy] Spirit [Who imparts] grace (the unmerited favor and blessing of God)?
[h=4]Cross references:[/h]
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (CEB)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]How much worse punishment do you think is deserved by the person who walks all over God’s Son, who acts as if the blood of the covenant that made us holy is just ordinary blood, and who insults the Spirit of grace?
[h=3]Hebrews 10:29 (CJB)[/h]
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Think how much worse will be the punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of God; who has treated as something common the blood of the covenant which made him holy; and who has insulted the Spirit, giver of God’s grace!
There are 2 POVs from which you can view this blood:
1. From the point of view of WHAT it is (i.e. chemical and/or biological components and so on). And from that angle, it's 100% human.
2. From the point of view of WHO it belongs to... with no care of what it is, what it's made of. And in this instance, because the owner of that blood is GOD, then the blood is DIVINE. ("Divine" being the adjective which means "Of or like God or a god")
1. From the point of view of WHAT it is (i.e. chemical and/or biological components and so on). And from that angle, it's 100% human.
2. From the point of view of WHO it belongs to... with no care of what it is, what it's made of. And in this instance, because the owner of that blood is GOD, then the blood is DIVINE. ("Divine" being the adjective which means "Of or like God or a god")
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. For what is the purpose of Him going to the cross? Why all the talk about the blood if it doesn't matter? For there are verses that talk about how we are cleansed of our sin by His blood. Would not a person have to deny the plain straightforward meaning of such verses in order to make their own personal theology work?
B
Christ's shed blood was never tainted or stained by any form of sin or disobedience (2 Cor 5:21). His own blood was the life of his own flesh as a man, as a human being and the only son begotten Son of God. Christ was the only begotten Son of God, born of a woman through an immaculate conception of the Holy Spirit. He had no sin nature transferred to him through Adam and the blood that came from the marrow of his bones was spotless and clean. He was the only one who was sent by the Father that could take away the sin of the world. When our sins were transferred to his body on the cross, that blood remained unspotted and he became the Lamb of God who taketh away our sins.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Heb 9:22, 10:17,18, Acts 10:43, Rom 3:25). Without the shedding of blood the conscience can not be purged from dead works to serve a living God (Heb 9:13,14). Without the shedding of blood sin can not be cleansed (1 John 1:7). The shed blood of Christ was sprinkled on the mercy seat that we might have fellowship with the living God (1 Pt 1:2, Heb 9:1-15, Heb 12:24). We have peace through that blood (Col 1:20).
Heb 10:17-22
17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 and having an high priest over the house of God;
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Heb 9:22, 10:17,18, Acts 10:43, Rom 3:25). Without the shedding of blood the conscience can not be purged from dead works to serve a living God (Heb 9:13,14). Without the shedding of blood sin can not be cleansed (1 John 1:7). The shed blood of Christ was sprinkled on the mercy seat that we might have fellowship with the living God (1 Pt 1:2, Heb 9:1-15, Heb 12:24). We have peace through that blood (Col 1:20).
Heb 10:17-22
17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 and having an high priest over the house of God;
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Paul can sometimes be quite "emotional" when talking about Christ and his blood. But I personally don't believe that Jesus died to save us... but rather to lead us to our own salvation, each one individually, becoming "sin" himself (just like us) to the point of being forsaken by the Father. (re: "eloi eloi lama sabachthani")
Before Christ, folks used to sacrifice animals for their sins. (re: the innocent Lamb mentioned above). However, these sacrifices of animals had not saved anyone for real. That's why God decided to send his own son, not to be just another sacrifice, but to practically drive/lead us out of the country where we now lived (a country known as "sin").
We were not sinners because we did sins; we sinned because we were sinners; i.e. the nature... and that's what he came for. To "Kill" us (well not to kill us really; coz each one of us must kill themselves) but He came to show us how we must die in order to be born again... dead from the previous life of "flesh" into the new life of "spirit". (John 3).
The scenario is simple:
Part A. We're sent to live in Eden.
Part B. We're kicked out of Eden into another country, a country called "sin".
Part C. We're led back into Eden, by Christ, through the passage of Purification/Repentance (a.k.a. the Road of the Cross, or Baptism of Fire)
And as He says to the woman mourning for Him: "Do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and your own children. [...] For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?"
Obviously Christ knew what He was talking about. Back then the tree was still "green"... i.e. the word "God" still meant something. And how about our generation? Is it "dry" yet? So yes, it will be much worse for us, but how much painful, that's a subject for another conversation. But I will just say this: Anyone who beholds the Lamb of God ahead of us, for anyone who keeps looking at Jesus and never leaves their eyes from Him, this person will make it. (Numbers 21: 4-9)
So back to the "blood" chat:
For me it wouldn't have mattered if they had just injured him and sent him to the doctor afterwards, without spilling any of his blood. He did not buy me with His blood; I followed Him simply because the Father led/drew me to Him.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6: 44)
For some it was because of the bread He fed them, others because of the miracles He performed, but then for few others, it was not for anything He'd done: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, raising the dead or spilling his blood. There are a few who went after Him simply for what we saw in Him (rather than what he did, though still a very impressive résumé). We saw in Him something special, which drove us to say: "Here He is. We'll follow Him." And so we did, and still walking with Him to this day.
In relation to this thread what about this passage?
Philippians 2:6-7
Some translations say "made himself of no reputation" while others say "relinquished divine privilege" and "poured himself empty". The word translated is 'ekenōsen' (ἐκένωσεν) from the root word 'Kenoo' and means "to empty out; to render void; deprive of content". So depending on the context one could argue it means "be made a 'nobody'"..but there's room to argue the more literal meaning too.
Surely our God lowered himself (i.e. deity coming down from heaven), as that's not to be questioned...but did our God literally have to empty himself of divinity in order to become a man (so he could die for us)? We know scripture says that the Father raised him from death (Acts 13:30; Romans 8:11; Colossians 2:12). Christ did not raise himself back to life, as no man can...he needed the Father (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27).
In the prayer just before Christ was to be taken, tried and crucified, he asked the Father (in John 17:5):
So it appears that our God did not have (during his time as a man) what he once had in heaven.
Either way I'm with Notuptome. I think what's most important is that Christ's blood was innocent; free from the stain caused by sinning as he resisted sin all his life.
---
I just thought of something that may make for a good thread: Was Abel's blood corrupt with sin, or innocent? Christ even mentions in Matthew 23:35 that there were many with righteous blood on the earth, particularly calling Abel "righteous".
Philippians 2:6-7
Some translations say "made himself of no reputation" while others say "relinquished divine privilege" and "poured himself empty". The word translated is 'ekenōsen' (ἐκένωσεν) from the root word 'Kenoo' and means "to empty out; to render void; deprive of content". So depending on the context one could argue it means "be made a 'nobody'"..but there's room to argue the more literal meaning too.
Surely our God lowered himself (i.e. deity coming down from heaven), as that's not to be questioned...but did our God literally have to empty himself of divinity in order to become a man (so he could die for us)? We know scripture says that the Father raised him from death (Acts 13:30; Romans 8:11; Colossians 2:12). Christ did not raise himself back to life, as no man can...he needed the Father (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27).
In the prayer just before Christ was to be taken, tried and crucified, he asked the Father (in John 17:5):
So it appears that our God did not have (during his time as a man) what he once had in heaven.
Either way I'm with Notuptome. I think what's most important is that Christ's blood was innocent; free from the stain caused by sinning as he resisted sin all his life.
---
I just thought of something that may make for a good thread: Was Abel's blood corrupt with sin, or innocent? Christ even mentions in Matthew 23:35 that there were many with righteous blood on the earth, particularly calling Abel "righteous".
Romans 5:6-10 -
"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son , much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life".
Last edited:
"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."
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."
Last edited: