Magic Blood Theory

Don't hold your breath.

 

Yep, and you think one cursed must suffer wrath.

Nope. Humanly speaking, when one is considered cursed, what do w expect?

Is it not they meet with sorrow and death?

A common example is the story of Romeo and Juliet.

Curse does Not mean wrath, rather a manner of life and resulting death.

God said to Abraham, “I will bless those that bless you, and curse those who curse you.” This is an example of curse. Doesn’t mean wrath, it means condemned living and ultimately death.

What then was the curse of the crucifixion? Death.

 

My friend, this is not good.


What @JonC posted comes from huge amount of posts that He and me have had to deal with folks taking Scriptures and applying some conjured Scheme that departs from the truth.

He and I have posted Scripturally sound responses in which we have made multiple appeals for Scripture proof from others for what they have written.

It is wrong for you to place such a pronouncement upon the work we have delivered in this open forum.

if you don’t agree with our conclusions, fine, but JonC posted the truth.

 

Have we not had over 7 threads in the last couple weeks on this topic which would accumulate over 1000 posts, and you want me to sift back through all those? You couldn’t hold your breath long enough, and my mind would never focus well enough.

However, I will make a good faith effort, if you both will, too.

First ones to find @JonC or my responses to Isaiah 53 wins a smiley. Ok?

 

@Aaron , @AustinC

my pad locked up.

@JonC and I had over 100 posts mentioning Isaiah 53. After page 4, my pad refused to respond, kind of like your accusation of me. So, we all better breath until tomorrow, when I can get to a desktop computer that has more memory then me.

 

Ok, I understand your thinking.

Blood can be from either parent or a mixture.

Imo, I would think the blood was that of God’s choosing rather then Mary, at least that is what the Psalms may hold, for He forms in the womb.

Therefore, I lean that it was blood type “G”. :).

Actually, type doesn’t matter, that it was both sufficient and efficient is enough for me.

 

@Iconoclast

to further answer your question in your post, here is a well known passage from Romans:

6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
​

this shows no wrath to us or upon Christ. Redemption by blood and life.

 

No..there is no more wrath because He paid it all.
it did not just vanish.....justice was done , then mercy.

Like this;21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Does not say he threw it out. He magnified it by His active obedience

 

Not death, as you imagine it, but the pains of death.

 

John has intentionally lied about the sequence of events, to make it look as if I denied 1 pet2:24, when that had not been mentioned in discussing Mt.8 which was before the cross. It is not my fault if he cannot properly post a verse.

 

Agedman
on the false doctrine thread, posts 83-97 explain the words used.

 

Is he still, today March 11, 2022, the Word made flesh? The man child named Jesus who ascended to the right hand of the Father?

? When Jesus was walking the earth, before his death, was the of the flesh of him in the blood of him?
? What about after the death and resurrection of Jesus in flesh, without soul of him being abandoned to Hades? What in him gave incorruptible life/being to the flesh of him?

“he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. Acts 2:31 NKJV

Relative to this question - What in him gave incorruptible life/being to the flesh of him?
A couple of verses and questions.

Paul, an apostle -- not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who did raise him out of the dead -- Gal 1:1 YLT Is that which I assume was by the Holy Spirit, factual? Consider.
and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you. Rom 8:11 YLT
who through him do believe in God, who did raise out of the dead, and glory to him did give, so that your faith and hope may be in God. 1 Peter 1:21 YLT
at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear; Acts 2:33 YLT

Is it God the Father who did these things to/for the Son of God or not? To date IMHO one and only one man born of woman, Jesus the Son of God has been quickened. True or False? Will it be through the quickened Jesus the Son of God that all others will be quickened?

Therefore:

John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth ----- To date is Jesus the only one born of woman who has experienced that quickening? Did God the Father do it? Did it result in the following?

for, as the Father hath life in himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in himself, John 5:26

I will ask you. Is that truth or not? When did it take place? I do know Son there is in the dative but I do not know what that means relative to the Greek.

 

Yes. I'm reminded of DeHaan's "Divine Blood" superstitions.

 

Aw, I see....I didn't read the whole thread for the past few days or so....Gotchya now. :) Thanks for that clarification.

 

There is no where to go with this. Redemption by blood to me speaks of wrath. "Propitiation" speaks of appeasement of something. If something is transferred to someone else rather than the one it was intended for it is substitution. The Old Testament sacrificial system is valid to look at and compare and the general interpretations of transference and substitution are correct. The instances of God's wrath are against sinners. Justification and forgiveness when done by God must be consistent with his nature. Becoming "in Christ" is based on something. Being by nature a child of wrath means something when combined with knowledge of God's holiness and his view of sin. I don't think we agree on these things even though we are looking at the same verses. That's alright with me but can you site anyone else who uses your view of atonement or are you the only one who correctly views scripture?