Is Blood The Evidence Of A Christian God?

[jamesbond007]

I may not know enough about blood nor medicine, but it seems to me that it was important to God of the Bible as he wanted blood sacrifices. We know that blood is life, but doesn't that mean it is also death? We love our blood in this life, so we want to keep it clean and positive.

Yet, this is looking post is looking at blood's flip side, too. I'm going to limit the discussion of death to natural death and not accidents. Accidents are supposed to be God's warnings, but not all of you would believe that. Satan tempts. God warns. Those are opposites.

The Bible tells us that after death, the true believers will be resurrected and have new flesh and bone. Wow. This is like the new, perfect spiritual body that Jesus had and I suppose Adam and Eve before their sin.

We know from Jesus that they did not have blood. This is important with Jesus' new body and resurrection. The evidence in the Bible as the Apostles and those who knew Jesus were able to examine his body and wounds. Thus, let's look at our current bodies and what blood does for us. Obviously, blood is life and this is what we are taught. However, doesn't that mean that it's also death. What did Adam's sin bring into this life according to the Bible? Why death, of course. We all must die. This is fact.

Thus, we should examine this blood. AFAIK, the three causes of natural death, i.e. dying of old are are heart attack, stroke, and cancer. They are all related to blood. We do not get blood and the required oxygen it carries, then we die. Finally, we have cancer which is a disease. Obviously, cancers of the blood such as leukemia is related to blood. I think all the other cancers are related to the cell. The cells need blood to live, too. However, could cancer forming be also related to blood? Instead we find that it's related to genetics and from what I understand is that cancer is driven by genetic changes.

Okay, so cancer is the only one cause of natural death that I can't pin definitively to blood as far as what I know today. Blood plays a part, but it's not what causes the coup de grace. That said, we do find that testing blood is how we verify there is cancer; I think it verifies all the cancers (I could be wrong on this, so if anyone knows, then let us know; a quick search states 8 known cancers). Could it be that cancer is related to blood, too?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Frankly, I consider the argument that the resurrection body is "bloodless" to be somewhat weak. It's based on two remarks, one where after Jesus was raised and the disciples think He's a ghost, He says He is flesh and bone, not a ghost. Secondly, St. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians when discussing the resurrection of the dead makes the statement "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom".

From this arises the conjecture that the resurrection body is bloodless.

The problem here is that Jesus' point was that He was solid, "flesh and bone". Further, Paul's statement has nothing to do with what "material" experiences the new life in the Age to Come, but uses the phrase as an idiom to speak of our present, mortal condition. The resurrection is more than simply a resuscitation of the body, it is a transformation of the body. From mortality to immortality, corruptible to incorruptible, "soulish" to "spiritual".

The biblical idea of "life is in the blood" isn't that there is something mystical about blood. It's a pretty simple observation that a living creature bleeds, and without blood a creature is dead. In the same way the breath of life, or nephesh, is the distinction between a lifeless corpse and a living creature. Hence why in Genesis 2 when God forms a lump of dirt and breathes into its nostrils it becomes a "living, breathing creature", from lifeless lump of matter to living thing.

Historically Christianity understands that the cultic sacrifices of Israel served a typological purpose, they pointed toward a greater reality, namely Jesus Christ. Time and again in the Old Testament God is pretty clear that He is not impressed with the blood of bulls or lambs, the aroma of burnt offerings; rather God desires contrition, which is why David writes, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.", and also the Prophet Hosea saying, "For I desire steadfast love (or mercy) and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."

The shed blood of Jesus isn't important because God is a blood-thirsty weirdo. It's important because it Jesus offering Himself in love and humility, to suffer, die, and partake in the fullness of human mortality. Hence the author of Hebrews says Christ "tasted death for everyone". It isn't about blood being mystical, but that Jesus shares in death, dying, bleeding like we bleed, dying a death like we die.

Further: Wouldn't this topic make more sense over in General Theology?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jamesbond007]

Frankly, I consider the argument that the resurrection body is "bloodless" to be somewhat weak. It's based on two remarks, one where after Jesus was raised and the disciples think He's a ghost, He says He is flesh and bone, not a ghost. Secondly, St. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians when discussing the resurrection of the dead makes the statement "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom".

Yes, that's one verse, but there are several others about flesh and blood which is what ultimately is the cause of our death if we live to a ripe old age.

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Ephesians 6:12

Let's examine what you bring up:

"I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50

Jesus tells us the perishable does not inherit the imperishable. Adam and Eve were created imperishable. They had inherited the kingdom of God. Thus, I think they were of new flesh and bone. No bone marrow. No blood. Thus, could our present flesh and blood system be the cause of our deaths barring accident, diseases, or other methods of young or early death?

What Does the Bible Say About Flesh And Blood?

From this arises the conjecture that the resurrection body is bloodless.

Not conjecture. You are getting it from Jesus himself. All of the Bible is inspired.

"And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 16:17

The biblical idea of "life is in the blood" isn't that there is something mystical about blood. It's a pretty simple observation that a living creature bleeds, and without blood a creature is dead. In the same way the breath of life, or nephesh, is the distinction between a lifeless corpse and a living creature. Hence why in Genesis 2 when God forms a lump of dirt and breathes into its nostrils it becomes a "living, breathing creature", from lifeless lump of matter to living thing.

I vehemently disagree. Life isn't in the blood; it is only temporary. We all must die, so our death in the physical world is in the blood and our flesh. Isn't this what Jeus was teaching? We return to dust from which we came. Furthermore, you bring up God's breath which gives us the life spirit. It is the evidence for the supernatural in our physical world. We have the supernatural and the natural in this world. The evidence is right in front of people's noses. Once the life spirit is gone, it's gone and cannot be brought back. Moreover, we know from the scientific method that only life begets life and life cannot be formed outside the cell.

Historically Christianity understands that the cultic sacrifices of Israel served a typological purpose, they pointed toward a greater reality, namely Jesus Christ. Time and again in the Old Testament God is pretty clear that He is not impressed with the blood of bulls or lambs, the aroma of burnt offerings; rather God desires contrition, which is why David writes, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.", and also the Prophet Hosea saying, "For I desire steadfast love (or mercy) and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."

It appears to me that ancient times were different. God did accept blood sacrifice. There was a sacrificial system in place as you said as a typological purpose. It points to the ultimate blood sacrifice that was to come.

God tells Moses as much.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." Leviticus 17:11

A lot of the blood sacrifice of lambs, goats, and calves may have occurred, but it was to be only temporary -- for that of Jesus to come the first time, the only perfect human, i.e. without sin. Jesus took the place of Adam.

"Redemption Through the Blood of Christ

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated awithout blood." Hebrews 9:11-18

 

[Desk trauma]

Nope.

 

[jamesbond007]

Nope.

Well, you can't disprove the Resurrection of Jesus as there were too many witnesses who knew him and he had returned from the dead. They saw and examined his wounds and there was no blood. He was of new flesh and bone. This is what is written in the Bible for those who enter heaven. He had no blood. Furthermore, there was physical evidence of the large stone blocking his tomb that was moved and his body was gone. I don't believe in The Shroud of Turin as evidence as that was disproved.

 

[Desk trauma]

Well, you can't disprove the Resurrection of Jesus as there were too many witnesses who knew him and he had returned from the dead.

So said the documents written decades or centuries after the fact....

Furthermore, there was physical evidence of the large stone blocking his tomb that was moved and his body was gone.

Again, so said the documents written long after the fact.

Still sitting at nope.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So said the documents written decades or centuries after the fact....



Again, so said the documents written long after the fact.

Still sitting at nope.

And a Jesus with a bloodless body is an unwarranted inference from the text.

 

[SLP]

Hey james - remember when you tried to chime in on the coccyx? Hilarious....

 

[jamesbond007]

So said the documents written decades or centuries after the fact....



Again, so said the documents written long after the fact.

Still sitting at nope.

This is sooooooooooooooo ignorant. It wasn't documents decades AFTER the fact, but documents written decades BEFORE the fact. One of the key parts that Moses wrote, first five books of the Bible, was the coming of the Savior. People in the Old Testament had to believe in Jesus' coming.

How does your great ignorance translate to today? If you lived in the ancient times, then you wouldn't believe what Moses wrote. Today, we have Jesus came, was crucified, and was buried, but arose again on the 3rd day. Believe in Jesus and one will have eternal life. This is part of history. If anyone can disprove it, then they would become world famous as destroyer of the Christian religion.

 

[jamesbond007]

And a Jesus with a bloodless body is an unwarranted inference from the text.

The text isn't from just one writer. The resurrection is described by other writers, too. There isn't enough one can say about the ultimate blood sacrifice.

What Does the Bible Say About Resurrection?

Anyway, it shows me how great Adam's sin was. It was so great that the dominion of the world reverted to Satan. Satan ended up claiming tremendous amount of souls from the OT times as God ended up killing the all in order to protect the innocents. The innocents who believed only had a prophecy to hang their hats upon.

 

[jamesbond007]

Hey james - remember when you tried to chime in on the coccyx? Hilarious....

Off topic, but you still believe humans had tails haha? I doubt evos know anything about real science. They've been brainwashed too much. I would toss your vestigial organs in the round file along with aliens, multiverses (disproved now thru new double slit experiment findings), abiogenesis, big bang, billions of years old universe and Earth, singularity, macroevolution, and more. I've even updated this with some new stuff I've discovered. Sorry, you can't participate -- To Believers, Is This Evidence For Satan?.

Anyway, there are ways to improve our blood, which would help us to live in this life. This should help us to live healthier if not live longer. I don't buy the evolutionary thinking of mutated GMO foods are safe and growing them helps the environment.

7 Foods To Increase Blood Platelets

 

[Tinker Grey]

The text isn't from just one writer. The resurrection is described by other writers, too. There isn't enough one can say about the ultimate blood sacrifice.

What Does the Bible Say About Resurrection?

Anyway, it shows me how great Adam's sin was. It was so great that the dominion of the world reverted to Satan. Satan ended up claiming tremendous amount of souls from the OT times as God ended up killing the all in order to protect the innocents. The innocents who believed only had a prophecy to hang their hats upon.

Those references say nothing of a bloodless body.

 

[jamesbond007]

Those references say nothing of a bloodless body.

Ofc Jesus said so. Your denial is not an argument.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ofc Jesus said so. Your denial is not an argument.

Where did Jesus say he had bloodless body?

 

[jamesbond007]

I've had people ignore my arguments before, but had to look this one up. There is something called personal incredulity where a person just cannot believe something happened. What I am familiar in regards to this is, "The culprit of the crime was caught and it turned out to be your (insert name of a person's son or daughter)." The parent cannot believe it or won't believe it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't mean to be insulting, but you've said the same thing about three times. It tells me that I am talking to a putz. What evidence do you want Mr. Putz?

I want a reference in the Bible that has Jesus saying he had a bloodless body. Got it?

 

[jamesbond007]

I want a reference in the Bible that has Jesus saying he had a bloodless body. Got it?

I guess you missed it. I gave an example of

"I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Corinthians 15:50

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Luke 24:39

This is Jesus speaking. He distinguishes the living spirit from his new resurrected physical body.

My apologies. I probably took it for granted that people knew that the resurrected Jesus had a physical body. This is the perfect body that we are supposed to have to enter heaven. It is of new flesh and new bone. There is no blood. There was no more blood in Jesus as he bled out on the cross.

We also have Adam and Eve. They were at creation of new flesh and bone.

'Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”' Genesis 2:23

If they had blood, then they could not be where they were.

Generally speaking, we find in the Bible that the flesh is not good -- What Does the Bible Say About Flesh?.

Generally speaking, we find in the Bible that blood is good -- What Does the Bible Say About Blood?.

This refers to our current flesh and we cannot live without blood. I suppose people associate blood with life and this is true for our fallen world. However, this is not what we want in the afterlife for our perfect bodies. Instead, we have been become imperfect through Adam's sin. Thus, the best we can do is to take care of our blood which is the subject of this thread. Also, not be tempted by the desires of the flesh .

 

[jamesbond007]

One more:

"But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." Phillipians 3:20-21

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed. The Kitchen Sink is not a theology or apologetics forum. ​