How does Blood save?

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Me, for one. Akragon, jmdewey, sacgamer25, just off the top of my head,(my apologies to those I've missed) many and many more.

Each in his own way, each by different means, each according to who they are and where they happen to be in spiritual needs. There is a god at work. Probably working for God, we certainly hope so, because a god working for a god doesn't quite cut it.

edit on 1-6-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here in response to the verses I posted where Jesus is speaking.

Can you elaborate?

maybe this will help you understand?

49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

reply to post by Akragon


Mark 9:39

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

When we put all of these verses together in context, what are you saying that they mean? I still don't follow. What MAN are we talking about?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Akragon

 

Mark 9:39

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

When we put all of these verses together in context, what are you saying that they mean? I still don't follow. What MAN are we talking about?

read the verse after 39...

Basically saying Just because certain individuals don't claim the label "Christian" does not mean said person is against Christ...

Those that are not against me are with me...

reply to post by Akragon


Somehow, I thought we were still on the subject of Paul and what he preached or the O.T. God and I must have misunderstood.

Regarding the verses in Mark 9, Jesus also said that not everyone who cast out demons in his name would be saved either. This might take some deeper digging and study.

Matthew 7:22-23

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

reply to post by Deetermined

You quoted:

John 10:15-16

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

and then you asked:

Who do you think Jesus was talking about in verse 16?

And then I answered the way that I answered, assuming you were asking about "other sheep". If you were asking instead about "one shepherd" then I would assume that Jesus was referring to himself.

In which case, I could be in serious trouble since I'm not quite in any fold, unless the fold is all people. If Jesus is the shepherd himself, then I am in trouble because I think that Jesus is representing the Top Shepherd.

Does that make any sense? I'll have to re-read it.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Akragon

 

Somehow, I thought we were still on the subject of Paul and what he preached or the O.T. God and I must have misunderstood.

Regarding the verses in Mark 9, Jesus also said that not everyone who cast out demons in his name would be saved either. This might take some deeper digging and study.

Matthew 7:22-23

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

What did he say just before that verse?

Know them by their fruit of course...

reply to post by pthena

And then I answered the way that I answered, assuming you were asking about "other sheep". If you were asking instead about "one shepherd" then I would assume that Jesus was referring to himself.

In which case, I could be in serious trouble since I'm not quite in any fold, unless the fold is all people. If Jesus is the shepherd himself, then I am in trouble because I think that Jesus is representing the Top Shepherd.

Does that make any sense? I'll have to re-read it.

Jesus was including the Jews and the Gentiles in his statement. Yes, Jesus is the shepherd of all.

Jesus is God's voice and was the means from which God spoke since the Israelites feared God continuing to come to them in the form of rolling clouds, lightning, thunder and trumpets. They wanted to "speak" to God without the fear of dying from his overwhelming presence. This is where Jesus comes in. This is why Jesus always told them that him and the father were one. That if you saw him (Jesus), then you've seen God.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

O...k?

That doesn't answer this question does it?

This answers the question...

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage." Hebrews 2:14-15

No it doesn't...

I asked you the question not Paul.. or Psudo-Paul.. or whoever wrote Hebrews...

IF you don't want to answer just say so... Don't quote me a bible passage that has nothing to do with the question I asked of you...

Who cares who wrote it ... it is the answer to you question 'How does Blood save?'

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

O...k?

That doesn't answer this question does it?

This answers the question...

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage." Hebrews 2:14-15

No it doesn't...

I asked you the question not Paul.. or Psudo-Paul.. or whoever wrote Hebrews...

IF you don't want to answer just say so... Don't quote me a bible passage that has nothing to do with the question I asked of you...

Who cares who wrote it ... it is the answer to you question 'How does Blood save?'

That isn't what I asked you... that was the question for the thread...

And that's great if you believe that's an answer... I disagree

So why don't you answer the question I asked you specifically?

reply to post by Deetermined

Jesus was including the Jews and the Gentiles in his statement.

I know what you mean by this, and I don't agree. The Gentiles do not need to enter the Jewish fold.

Jesus was speaking to his disciples who were present about other disciples not present.

Jesus is God's voice and was the means from which God spoke

I agree with this. As long as you speak of Real God and not mythology tribal god of Moses.

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Jesus is not the second Moses. Jesus is the Real for the World. Moses is the myth for the tribe..

The question of this thread seems a bit disingenuous considering the revealed perspective of the OP.

Perhaps it would have been better posted as "Does blood save?" not "how" does it save since it seems evidently clear that the OP thinks the concept of saving blood to be nonsense.

If the OP's answer to "Does blood save?" is NO, then the question of "HOW" becomes entirely irrelevant. No answer will suffice because he considers the premise that "blood can save" to be false, thus any discussion of how such nonsense actually takes place is purely for the OP's morbid entertainment.. in my opinion anyways. He is not actually interested in an answer to his question.


HOWEVER,

I would submit that if one did wish to seek understanding regarding "IF" and "HOW" blood can save. One would have to widen ones gaze to consider the following questions as well.

What does the blood represent?
What does a human need to be saved from?
Why does one need to be saved?
From Whom does one need to be saved?

And regarding the Whom,
What are his attributes?
What has he revealed to man kind, if anything?
For what purpose have these things been revealed?

And finally the answer to the above questions, including the OP's question can only be truly perceived on the power of Faith in something, whether it is in ones own deductive powers, somebody elses deductive powers, or acceptance of some sort of divine revelation through some median, be it written, spoken, or directly imprinted on ones mind.

Basically what I'm saying is that one would have to submit themselves to some sort of Authoritative source to accept any answer as truth, unless of course you consider yourself to be an authority and gifted with an unusual grasp of truth beyond the common man and thus put yourself up on a pedestal.... in which case I'm sure you would look down upon anyone elses musings to be utter folly in comparison to your own immense and impressive intellect.

If an authoritative SOURCE cannot be agreed upon... then this will end up a discussion with no agreement for sure... but still not fruitless.

In any case I find the pursuit after the above questions to be quite rewarding.


Soul

reply to post by pthena


I'm just going to have to agree to disagree about the Old Testament at this point.

I'm just glad that you feel that Jesus is the real deal!

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

O...k?

That doesn't answer this question does it?

This answers the question...

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage." Hebrews 2:14-15

No it doesn't...

I asked you the question not Paul.. or Psudo-Paul.. or whoever wrote Hebrews...

IF you don't want to answer just say so... Don't quote me a bible passage that has nothing to do with the question I asked of you...

Who cares who wrote it ... it is the answer to you question 'How does Blood save?'

That isn't what I asked you... that was the question for the thread...

And that's great if you believe that's an answer... I disagree

So why don't you answer the question I asked you specifically?

I have never killed a human child and I can't think of a circumstance where this would be necessary.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Thank you!

See... wasn't that easy?

reply to post by SoulReaper

The question of this thread seems a bit disingenuous considering the revealed perspective of the OP.

So because I gave my own opinion on the subject... all other opinions are irrelevant?

Why ask such a question if I wasn't looking for other peoples perspective on it?

reply to post by Akragon


Irrelevant to you... which is kinda relevant to this discussion.. since you started it...

Soul

Originally posted by SoulReaper
reply to post by Akragon

 

Irrelevant to you... which is kinda relevant to this discussion.. since you started it...

Soul

Perhaps...

But who am I?

Im no authority on anything... im merely asking a question to the faiths that place a value on the blood...

however the bible is an authority to many... including myself... (at least some parts of it)

So the question was asked within the confines of the subject...

Why does an all powerful God require his creation to spill the blood of the innocent?

According to "the" authority in the bible... he doesn't...

Although according to most of said book... God wants blood... but no one knows why...

Theres been a lot of great explanations using various passages within the bible but nothing gives a reason WHY this God wants blood...

And my personal opinion is that Jesus had the right answer... God doesn't want blood.

But my opinion of the issue only matters to myself... so...

reply to post by sacgamer25

Hey sacgamer,

Good news, I'm starting to understand what you meant about pastors.

I was getting ready to argue with you about this:

The only way for the Jews to be saved, because of what they had believed, was to accept forgiveness of sins. But as you can see by the way the disciples scattered even the miracles were not enough for them to feel truly forgiven, it was not until after Christ shed his BLOOD on the cross and was Resurrected that his disciples believed in his new message, forgiveness of sins.

But then I double checked the verse:

Mark 2: 8 Immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, said to them, "“Why do you reason these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your bed, and walk?’ 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”"—he said to the paralytic— 11 "“I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.”"

12 He arose, and immediately took up the mat, and went out in front of them all; so that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”

And then I noticed that this isn't the way it was the first time I read Mark. Before, it said, "they were all amazed, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men." But then I found that wording in Matt 9:8. Now I'm just confused. It's like the Bible is messing with me.

Which brings me to this:

For those of you that absolutely hate the OT. If the Jews would have followed Moses, I imagine Christ would not have been necessary. The Jews were told to spread their religion by love and through love. But instead of doing what they were told they looked down on foreigners and believed that they were the only ones who deserved God's love. But clearly Moses teaches something much different here.

People like you and Jesus may find great good in Moses. Other people like me find it impossible. Whenever I read OT(especially post-exile writing, of which much of Moses is), it's as if my mind hardens and a veil comes over my heart.

It's easier for me to read The Wanderings of Dionysus

As he passed through Thrance he was insulted by King Lycurgus, who bitterly opposed his new religion. Initialy Dionysus retreated into the sea but, he returned, overpowered Lycurgus and imprisoned him in a rocky cave. Dionysus planned to let him reflect and learn from his mistakes. However, Zeus did not care to have the gods insulted, so he blinded then killed Lycurgus.

because I know that the story Zeus is just a story Zeus (and almost all people agree), and isn't the real Zeus. Unless and until more people realize that the tribal OT god isn't real, he's real to me, and I don't want anything to do with him.

Does that make it easier to see where we're coming from?

reply to post by SoulReaper

I would submit that if one did wish to seek understanding regarding "IF" and "HOW" blood can save. One would have to widen ones gaze to consider the following questions as well.

What does the blood represent?
What does a human need to be saved from?
Why does one need to be saved?
From Whom does one need to be saved?

And regarding the Whom,
What are his attributes?
What has he revealed to man kind, if anything?
For what purpose have these things been revealed?

Many of those questions have been dealt with in this thread, albeit, haphazardly perhaps. I think this is not a disingenuous thread as you propose. This thread offers the chance for people who believe in salvation by blood to explain what they mean by that.

I looked up Propitiation in wikipedia, to refresh my memory.

The case for translating hilasterion as "expiation" instead of "propitiation" was put forward by C. H. Dodd in 1935 and at first gained wide support. As a result, hilasterion has been translated as "expiation" in the RSV and other modern versions. Dodd argued that in pagan Greek the translation of hilasterion was indeed to propitiate, but that in the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that kapporeth (Hebrew for "atone") is often translated with words that mean "to cleanse or remove" (Dodd, "The Bible and the Greeks", p 93). This view was challenged by Leon Morris who argued that because of the focus in the book of Romans on God's wrath, that the concept of hilasterion needed to include the appeasement of God's wrath (Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p 155).

Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the Atonement dealing with God's wrath. Critics of penal substitutionary atonement state that seeing the Atonement as appeasing God is a pagan idea that makes God seem tyrannical (Stricken by God?, Eerdmans: 2007).

Other names come in later eg. John Stott, John Calvin, & John Murray. Between 30 and 20 years ago I read C H Dodd, Leon Morris, John Stott, John Calvin, & John Murray. I can't say that much of it stuck in my head however.

They all have something in common: that the Old Testament tribal deity is somehow the One God. It is obvious from the OT that that character has this great wrath that must be appeased. The solution to the wrath problem seems quite obvious by dispensing with the notion that the clan deity is the Universal God.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

Thank you!

See... wasn't that easy?

Do you think it would be different with GMO children?
Think Slice or Nephyl.