There’s a theological question among Christian circles whether it is the blood of Christ that forgave our sins or His death.
Its documented here:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/john_macarthur_exposed.htm
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm
Which do you think the Bible indicates?
Without even clicking on those links, I bet this is about the John MacArthur controversy.
My response to your actual question- Christ’s death. If He’d shed a good portion of His blood but never died, the Atonement would not have been made. However, if He’d died without shedding His blood, it’s at least Biblically debatable whether Atonement would have been made.
I advise getting off jesus-is-lord.com - it has nothing to offer but slanders against fellow Christians & the sort of unprofitable theological disputations that Paul warns against, and you are vulnerable to obsess over such things. Not meaning to sound condescending or paternalistic, but you don’t need to get yourself worried over the tripe of such sites.
Thanks. Its actually jesus-is-savior.com though.
The moment of Christ’s death is the moment Atonement became complete. Blood is the physical cause of the death and a symbol and a reality of salvation (the suffering is the beginning of Atonement) going back to Exodus.
Somehow, as Friar Ted says, if Jesus had died by drowning or poisoning it wouldn’t have been the same. Blood was necessary
Xander: Why blood? Why Dawn’s blood? Why couldn’t it be like a-a lymph ritual or something?
Spike: 'Cause it’s always got to be blood.
Xander: We’re not actually discussing dinner right now.
Spike: Blood is life, lackbrain. Why do you think we eat it? It’s what keeps you going. Makes you warm. Makes you hard. Makes you other than dead. 'Course it’s her blood
[sub]sorry[/sub]
Don’t worry.
Hey, vampire & blood magick lore actually reflect an almost universal primal theological truth.
For the blood is the life!
Leviticus & Renfield both can’t be wrong!
wondering if Curtis knows who Renfield is
Follower: “Messiah…why did you change that water into blood?!”
VampJesus: “I do not drink…wine.”
John’s Gospel draws a clear parallel between Jesus and the Paschal lamb (John has Jesus killed at the exact moment of the slaughtering of the lambs). To those authors, it was very clealy about sacrificial atonement. Jesus as the ultimate Paschal-surrogate.
Paul (I would argue) actuially makes a bigger deal about the resurrection than the death per se, but he doesn’t show any concern at all for the literal blood.
Curtis, you really let yourself get way too caught up in this kind of thing. You should stop tying yourself into knots with this anxiety that you aren’t believing precisely the the right thing. It’s not about that. As the saying goes, just “let go and let God.” If he exists, he doesn’t want you to perseverate on stuff like this and he will guide you. It’s about trying to be a vessel, not about trying to do a chemical analysis on what’s inside it.
When anyone says anything about being saved through the blood of Christ, the blood is symbolic of the death. If He could have saved humanity by going down to the Jerusalem Red Cross every eight weeks, He would have.
(Well, one could argue that giving blood is a good thing to do, and thus Jesus would probably approve)
Actually, that same argument is used by individual donors to encourage people to donate; a friend who is terrified of needles but has “very good blood” according to the local blood bank spends her time in the waiting room reminding herself that “other people went through a lot more and it wasn’t even helping anybody through surgery, you coward”.
First time I hear of any such controversy; any references to being “saved by the blood” are to being saved by the death. The death is the clasp, though: we are saved by his infinite Mercy, but his raising his tent among ours, sharing our lives and ultimately death is a yell saying “this is my Mercy, please accept it”; the death had to be sacrificial because that was the way the whole religious symbolism was built, around sacrifices (and these did not consist of “bleeding a goat and then bandaging it”, they consisted of “bleeding a goat dry”). The ultimate sacrifice takes every other sacrifice off the table.
I’m sure he would, but “Blood donation is good and Jesus approves of it” is not the same as “Jesus saved humanity by donating blood”.
Some things the Bible/Jesus also says, which appear to directly contradict the doctrine of salvation through his death and/or blood:
“Do not worship me.”
“Work out your own salvation.”
“The Kingdom of Heaven is within.”
“Ye are gods.”
“The things I do, ye shall do far greater.”
“By your faith/according to your belief, you have been healed/it has been done to you.”
In my fairly educated opinion, having been raised a Christian and studying the Bible extensively, even according to the Bible, we were/are not saved by Jesus’ death OR blood or any combination of the two.
In studying his teachings (as opposed to the commentary and dogmas added over the years by others) the only conclusion I can reach is that if Jesus existed, he was a great teacher, perhaps an “Avatar” (and one of several) who came to show us our OWN divinity and potential. As usual, we ignored the message and worshiped the messenger.
Just something to consider…I’d be interested in seeing the takes of others on such passages.
Those quotes would be a lot more useful with chapter and verse references, so we could check them for ourselves and see the context for each.