The blood of Christ?

[Sovereign Grace]

Was the blood of Christ different than ours? What I am asking is the actual blood that flowed through His body any different than ours?

What say ye blokes?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Was the blood of Christ different than ours? What I am asking is the actual blood that flowed through His body any different than ours?

What say ye blokes?

The blood is the life carrier...

Only Jesus blood carried the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

The blood is the life carrier...

Only Jesus blood carried the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?

Not really. I am debating this with some friends who believe His blood was different(better?) than ours. He was God living in a human body exactly like ours. I don’t believe His blood that flowed through His veins was different than ours.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

The blood is the life carrier...

Only Jesus blood carried the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?

Thanks for your reply. Can you elucidate more?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Was the blood of Christ different than ours? What I am asking is the actual blood that flowed through His body any different than ours?

What say ye blokes?

In the actual elemental structure that makes up blood; I'd say no. Jesus was fully human. So He had red blood cells and white blood cells, hemoglobin and plasma etc. Adam was created in God's (Christ's) image, so Jesus was incarnated in the likeness of Adam. Which means He was fully human in the way Adam was, except without sin.

Now being without sin, meant Jesus's flesh was not subject to corruption on account of sin as ours is. He did "age" though; so if He hadn't been killed any other way, He'd still be alive today because sin is what makes one subject to death. Yet how this decaying creation would have affected Him physically as an elemental participant in it; I don't know. To say He would have had a much more efficient immune system than us sinners, would probably have been accurate. Yet He was capable of being injured and having suffered trials as we do; He probably did get sick on occasion.

The "life is in the blood" and the giving of the breath of life is what makes one a "living soul". The breath of life comes from God and it's what makes life "alive". This doesn't just apply to humans though, it also applies to animals (Genesis 7:22) and by extrapolation plants too (since we consider plants to be life forms). (Job 33:4)

Now the "life in the blood" though seems to only be the application of the breath of life as it applies to the elemental structure of the organism. That doesn't have anything to do with regenerative faith and the Holy Ghost. We know this because even people who will face the wrath of God on account of their sin, still possess "life" (i.e. the breath of life - while alive) and still have blood.

When the Holy Ghost "cleaves" unto an individual to produce redemptive faith though, that cleaving is not of a physical nature; (even though it does affect the body). That "cleaving" is of a spiritual nature. (To "cleave" in the flesh produces baby organisms.)

All life has 3 components to it. Body, soul and spirit (spirit with a small "s" note). The difference between human souls and every thing else though, is that we can contemplate our existence and the choices we make because we are accountable for our sin; which is different from the capacity of any animal. Even the "smartest" animals can't contemplate their existence as to their behavior relating to God. They do what they do as animals based on what they learn in the course of their lives to "get along". This is why animals are (to varying degrees) "domesticate(able)" and trainable. Yet also why "wild" animals (even domesticated ones) still possess the capacity to be dangerous because they still have wills of their own.

Now what "receptacle" does God use to communicate to the living world? He uses the organism's spirit. All life is aware of God to some extent or another and since God is Spirit, He uses the spirit of the organism to communicate with it His intent or desire. (The creation groans and travails awaiting the revelation of the sons of God.) We see examples of this in Scripture with animals in particularly. The animals that were on the ark came to Noah. Balaam's donkey spoke to him. The she bears killed the children who'd mocked Isaiah. The donkey and her colt went with the disciples and cooperated with Jesus riding them. God communicated unto these animals by their spirits.

So how was Jesus different than us, as the only human ever conceived by the Holy Ghost? The nature of the Father / father is passed to the offspring via reproduction. So Jesus being conceived of a Divine nature inseparably joined to a human nature (which He'd inherited His humanity from Mary his mother) makes Him "God/man". So although His human nature was the same as any other human nature except without sin; because it was inherited from a human female and not "the seed of the first Adam"; the whole of what He was (having a Divine nature) makes Him different than any of us. God is Spirit though and the attributes of His Character are what becomes manifest, (although God's other attributes are veiled) in the flesh of Jesus.

Now how do we know His literal blood wasn't different than ours? We can know this because the elemental structure of His body wasn't different than ours. God made everything after its own kind and since humanity is created in God's image; it was possible for Jesus to marry a daughter of the first Adam and produce children. Those children of course would have all had the same Divine nature as their father. And Jesus could have chosen to do that; but that would have eliminated the possibility of redemption for anyone else. (The more likely scenario though would have been a "last Eve" as Jesus was the "last Adam".)

 

[Sovereign Grace]

In the actual elemental structure that makes up blood; I'd say no. Jesus was fully human. So He had red blood cells and white blood cells, hemoglobin and plasma etc. Adam was created in God's (Christ's) image, so Jesus was incarnated in the likeness of Adam. Which means He was fully human in the way Adam was, except without sin.

Now being without sin, meant Jesus's flesh was not subject to corruption on account of sin as ours is. He did "age" though; so if He hadn't been killed any other way, He'd still be alive today because sin is what makes one subject to death. Yet how this decaying creation would have affected Him physically as an elemental participant in it; I don't know. To say He would have had a much more efficient immune system than us sinners, would probably have been accurate. Yet He was capable of being injured and having suffered trials as we do; He probably did get sick on occasion.

The "life is in the blood" and the giving of the breath of life is what makes one a "living soul". The breath of life comes from God and it's what makes life "alive". This doesn't just apply to humans though, it also applies to animals (Genesis 7:22) and by extrapolation plants too (since we consider plants to be life forms). (Job 33:4)

Now the "life in the blood" though seems to only be the application of the breath of life as it applies to the elemental structure of the organism. That doesn't have anything to do with regenerative faith and the Holy Ghost. We know this because even people who will face the wrath of God on account of their sin, still possess "life" (i.e. the breath of life - while alive) and still have blood.

When the Holy Ghost "cleaves" unto an individual to produce redemptive faith though, that cleaving is not of a physical nature; (even though it does affect the body). That "cleaving" is of a spiritual nature. (To "cleave" in the flesh produces baby organisms.)

All life has 3 components to it. Body, soul and spirit (spirit with a small "s" note). The difference between human souls and every thing else though, is that we can contemplate our existence and the choices we make because we are accountable for our sin; which is different from the capacity of any animal. Even the "smartest" animals can't contemplate their existence as to their behavior relating to God. They do what they do as animals based on what they learn in the course of their lives to "get along". This is why animals are (to varying degrees) "domesticate(able)" and trainable. Yet also why "wild" animals (even domesticated ones) still possess the capacity to be dangerous because they still have wills of their own.

Now what "receptacle" does God use to communicate to the living world? He uses the organism's spirit. All life is aware of God to some extent or another and since God is Spirit, He uses the spirit of the organism to communicate with it His intent or desire. (The creation groans and travails awaiting the revelation of the sons of God.) We see examples of this in Scripture with animals in particularly. The animals that were on the ark came to Noah. Balaam's donkey spoke to him. The she bears killed the children who'd mocked Isaiah. The donkey and her colt went with the disciples and cooperated with Jesus riding them. God communicated unto these animals by their spirits.

So how was Jesus different than us, as the only human ever conceived by the Holy Ghost? The nature of the Father / father is passed to the offspring via reproduction. So Jesus being conceived of a Divine nature inseparably joined to a human nature (which He'd inherited His humanity from Mary his mother) makes Him "God/man". So although His human nature was the same as any other human nature except without sin; because it was inherited from a human female and not "the seed of the first Adam"; the whole of what He was (having a Divine nature) makes Him different than any of us. God is Spirit though and the attributes of His Character are what becomes manifest, (although God's other attributes are veiled) in the flesh of Jesus.

Now how do we know His literal blood wasn't different than ours? We can know this because the elemental structure of His body wasn't different than ours. God made everything after its own kind and since humanity is created in God's image; it was possible for Jesus to marry a daughter of the first Adam and produce children. Those children of course would have all had the same Divine nature as their father. And Jesus could have chosen to do that; but that would have eliminated the possibility of redemption for anyone else. (The more likely scenario though would have been a "last Eve" as Jesus was the "last Adam".)

Thanks for that detailed response. I grasped the thrust of it.

The reason I asked this is ppl want to make His blood different than ours. To me, that would be like saying His hair, nails, even skin would be different than ours, as they come from dead cells. Well, hair and nails do...thinking skin does too.

 

[rnmomof7]

The blood is the life carrier...

Only Jesus blood carried the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?

Where does scripture teach the Holy Spirit in in the blood?

 

[rnmomof7]

Not really. I am debating this with some friends who believe His blood was different(better?) than ours. He was God living in a human body exactly like ours. I don’t believe His blood that flowed through His veins was different than ours.

Jesus was fully human 100% So He had the same "kind" of blood that courses through our veins.. .. Scripture says "life is in the blood" The humanity of Jesus required that same life giving blood..

I always think it is interesting that The risen Christ, in His glorified body told the apostles

"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

I always think that His blood was poured on Calvary ...

 

[Albion]

Was the blood of Christ different than ours? What I am asking is the actual blood that flowed through His body any different than ours?

What say ye blokes?

No. It is an article of faith among Christians that Jesus was fully God, but also fully human. Both natures were complete. Therefore, his blood had to be the same as ours.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Jesus was fully human 100% So He had the same "kind" of blood that courses through our veins.. .. Scripture says "life is in the blood" The humanity of Jesus required that same life giving blood..

I always think it is interesting that The risen Christ, in His glorified body told the apostles

"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

I always think that His blood was poured on Calvary ...

The problem I see with this theory though; is Jesus was not resurrected in a glorified state. He could not have been because God's glory can not "coexist" in a corrupted universe without destroying the corrupted universe. This is why when Jesus returns it is a recreated universe.

As per this idea of Jesus being resurrected with no blood. (I've heard this too.) That can't be so if He was "raised to life" again. If the "life is in the blood" and He's raised to life; He has to have blood. If He doesn't then the resurrection is a sham because all Jesus would be at that point was an animated corpse.

 

[rnmomof7]

The problem I see with this theory though; is Jesus was not resurrected in a glorified state. He could not have been because God's glory can not "coexist" in a corrupted universe without destroying the corrupted universe. This is why when Jesus returns it is a recreated universe.

As per this idea of Jesus being resurrected with no blood. (I've heard this too.) That can't be so if He was "raised to life" again. If the "life is in the blood" and He's raised to life; He has to have blood. If He doesn't then the resurrection is a sham because all Jesus would be at that point was an animated corpse.

He as able to appear and. disappear .. that was a glorified body

 

[The Righterzpen]

He as able to appear and. disappear .. that was a glorified body

Did He really "appear" and "disappear" or is that just people's perception of what the text says?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Righterzpen wrote as follows...

"The "life is in the blood" and the giving of the breath of life is what makes one a "living soul". The breath of life comes from God and it's what makes life "alive". This doesn't just apply to humans though, it also applies to animals (Genesis 7:22) and by extrapolation plants too (since we consider plants to be life forms). (Job 33:4)

Now the "life in the blood" though seems to only be the application of the breath of life as it applies to the elemental structure of the organism. That doesn't have anything to do with regenerative faith and the Holy Ghost. We know this because even people who will face the wrath of God on account of their sin, still possess "life" (i.e. the breath of life - while alive) and still have blood."

I note that the Jerusalem council forbade the drinking of blood as it was the practice of some to imbibe the life of the animal by this means. This practice results in deep spiritual contamination as does formication.

I think you rightly ask me to think a little more about this as I believe there is a God shaped space in the human spirit from Him to dwell and you rightly point out that this is not the same as the life in the blood.

When Jesus breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit this would result in the indwelling presence unique to the New Covenant and such an indwelling would be in the human spirit not the blood.

Thank you for pointing this out R7...

 

[Albion]

Did He really "appear" and "disappear" or is that just people's perception of what the text says?

The text strongly suggests it, but it's not iron-clad.

That Jesus, in his resurrected body, looked normal but yet couldn't be recognized as Jesus by friends is not in doubt, though.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The text strongly suggests it, but it's not iron-clad.

That Jesus, in his resurrected body, looked normal but yet couldn't be recognized as Jesus by friends is not in doubt, though.

It seems from the texts that they often didn't recognize Him from what they lacked in faith. And here is where those texts come in that Jesus "appeared" and "disappeared". I don't think it was His physical presence that altered; but more their ability to maintain "recognition" of Him that waxed and wained. Which seems to indicate that when their sight "waxed dim", He just simply walked away unto the next group of people. Which wasn't anything miraculous.

Ironic too, i noticed how Mary Magdalene recognized His voice; before she recognized "Him". So many passages talk about "the voice of God". There must be some connection there!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The blood is the life carrier...

Only Jesus blood carried the Holy Spirit.

Does that help?

Did you mean to say the the Holy Spirit is/was contained in blood?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Righterzpen wrote as follows...

"The "life is in the blood" and the giving of the breath of life is what makes one a "living soul". The breath of life comes from God and it's what makes life "alive". This doesn't just apply to humans though, it also applies to animals (Genesis 7:22) and by extrapolation plants too (since we consider plants to be life forms). (Job 33:4)

Now the "life in the blood" though seems to only be the application of the breath of life as it applies to the elemental structure of the organism. That doesn't have anything to do with regenerative faith and the Holy Ghost. We know this because even people who will face the wrath of God on account of their sin, still possess "life" (i.e. the breath of life - while alive) and still have blood."

I note that the Jerusalem council forbade the drinking of blood as it was the practice of some to imbibe the life of the animal by this means. This practice results in deep spiritual contamination as does formication.

I think you rightly ask me to think a little more about this as I believe there is a God shaped space in the human spirit from Him to dwell and you rightly point out that this is not the same as the life in the blood.

When Jesus breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit this would result in the indwelling presence unique to the New Covenant and such an indwelling would be in the human spirit not the blood.

Thank you for pointing this out R7...

You're welcome.

And I agree with what you say about the whole drinking animal blood thing and the Scriptural prohibition of this practice; (which I think is in the context as you describe it, of trying to bring some vitality to self by "taking" another's "life"). It's a Satanic idea and it's pretty twisted.

Still happens today...... Yuck!

 

[rnmomof7]

Did He really "appear" and "disappear" or is that just people's perception of what the text says?

What does this mean?

 

[rnmomof7]

Just remembering that the blood of the passover lamb was to be placed on the door posts.. and that kept the jewish boys safe

 

[The Righterzpen]

What does this mean?

Refer back to post #15