The significance of blood

3,895 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by dds08
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We live in a reality, or world, where blood must be shed in order for sins to be pardoned. What is it about blood, death, and/or the taking of life that seems to atone for sins?

Is it just the way the good Lord designed life to be experienced?

Why was it designed this way?

What is it with sacrifice? Why is it so important?
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
life isn't like that. I don't require shed blood to forgive someone.

if you're only referring to how god forgives, then I guess it's because he can't just forgive people like we are instructed to do.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is just an excuse to quote Buffy
Quote:


Xander: Why blood? Why Dawn's blood? I mean, why couldn't it be, like, a lymph ritual?
Spike: Because 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. Of course it's her blood.


Quote:

Spike: You'll be in love till it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains, children, it's blood...blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may be love's *****, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lev 5:11 "'If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.'"

Seems like in some cases grain was a perfectly good offering for the absolvement of sins. No blood required.

It's also seemed to me that the entire purpose of a sacrifice was to show sincerity. You may not feel bad about committing a sin, but you definitely feel bad about losing a flawless bull. Same thing with a peace offering or any other kind of sacrifice. Offering something at great cost to yourself shows you really mean your words. That's the reason engagement rings are always expensive. It's supposed to be a sacrifice that no one would make unless they had overwhelming feelings.

It's the same reason I'm a big fan of fasting or charity as an adjunct to prayer. It costs you nothing to ask God to do something for you. However, when you deny yourself or sacrifice your own wealth, then at the very least it shows God that you are serious and sincere about the prayer you are making.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shouldn't God be able to tell you are sincere without "proving it" with a material gift?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

life isn't like that. I don't require shed blood to forgive someone.

if you're only referring to how god forgives, then I guess it's because he can't just forgive people like we are instructed to do.

God can learn a lot from you!
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

life isn't like that. I don't require shed blood to forgive someone.

if you're only referring to how god forgives, then I guess it's because he can't just forgive people like we are instructed to do.

God can learn a lot from you!
he could learn a lot from jesus. I see a lot of jesus telling people to forgive, but not a lot of him saying that shed blood is required.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

Shouldn't God be able to tell you are sincere without "proving it" with a material gift?
Now that's a fascinating question. Is it the material loss that verifies the sincerity or is it the sincerity that compels the material loss? Back to the wedding ring analogy, shouldn't the bride already know the groom loves her with all his heart? If so, what's the point of spending 2 months wages on a ring to drive the point home? To me the two are as hard to disassociate as the chicken and the egg. If you aren't willing to sacrifice then you aren't sincere, and if you are willing to sacrifice then you are sincere. Whether or not the sacrifice gets made is inconsequential at that point.

In the Bible, sometimes God does stop people from sacrificing once He knows they are sincere. The most notable case is Abraham and Isaac. For His own reasons though, God is not quite so interventionist in the lives of everyone
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

he could learn a lot from jesus. I see a lot of jesus telling people to forgive, but not a lot of him saying that shed blood is required.

This is very strange statement. Jesus went around telling everyone he was God and sacrificed himself to fulfill this blood requirement.

He also said crazy stuff like gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin and anyone who loves their family over him aren't worthy of heaven.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Blood is not required to forgive sins. A personal sacrifice by the sinner is also not required. Some men brought Jesus a paralytic - others did the work here! - and He forgives the sins of the paralytic.

Christ Jesus becomes sin, takes away the sins of the world - "while we were yet sinners" - unilaterally, before we repented, even. 1 John 2:12 says our sins are forgiven on account of His name.

This doesn't change the reality of the need of the sacrifice on the cross, for what its worth.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

he could learn a lot from jesus. I see a lot of jesus telling people to forgive, but not a lot of him saying that shed blood is required.

This is very strange statement. Jesus went around telling everyone he was God and sacrificed himself to fulfill this blood requirement.

He also said crazy stuff like gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin and anyone who loves their family over him aren't worthy of heaven.
i'm talking only about the passages regarding forgiveness attributed to him.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dds08 said:

We live in a reality, or world, where blood must be shed in order for sins to be pardoned. What is it about blood, death, and/or the taking of life that seems to atone for sins?

Is it just the way the good Lord designed life to be experienced?

Why was it designed this way?

What is it with sacrifice? Why is it so important?

Life is in the blood.

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. Lev. 17:11
americathegreat1492
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Spike is the best.
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
americathegreat1492 said:

Spike is the best.


Definitely the character that I associate with the most. He's my favorite characters in all of television.
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Heb 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, AND WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS.

By the way K2, what are the physical dimensions of the altar you burn the incense? And how many ingredients? Does your archbishop light the coals only once at the beginning of his tenure?

Do tell
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Blood is not required to forgive sins. A personal sacrifice by the sinner is also not required. Some men brought Jesus a paralytic - others did the work here! - and He forgives the sins of the paralytic.

Christ Jesus becomes sin, takes away the sins of the world - "while we were yet sinners" - unilaterally, before we repented, even. 1 John 2:12 says our sins are forgiven on account of His name.

This doesn't change the reality of the need of the sacrifice on the cross, for what its worth.


"That which has not been assumed cannot be healed"
jrico2727
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood the of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiedad20 said:

Heb 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, AND WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS.
Hebrews 9:22 says that under the Law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Are we under the Law?

What blood did Jesus shed when He told the sinful woman her sins were forgiven in Luke 7:48? What blood was shed when Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic?



Quote:

By the way K2, what are the physical dimensions of the altar you burn the incense? And how many ingredients? Does your archbishop light the coals only once at the beginning of his tenure?
We don't burn incense on an altar, and we don't follow the Mosaic prescriptions for incense burning, because I'm not Jewish.

When does your church anoint people with oil?
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jesus had power to forgive sins on earth. Remember the thief on the Cross? And yes, we are under the law of Christ.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiedad20 said:

Jesus had power to forgive sins on earth. Remember the thief on the Cross? And yes, we are under the law of Christ.
This is quite my point. Jesus forgives sins without the shedding of blood in the NT. Ergo, the assertion "bloodshed is required to forgive sins" is false.

Forgive, when Hebrews 9:22 speaks of Law it is referring to the Mosaic Law, not the "law of Christ". My point was we are not under the Mosaic Law as Christians.
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What? You make zero sense
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What don't you understand?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For Catholics... enter the bloodless sacrifice of the Lamb of God - namely the Eucharist. The blood flowing from the Temple was not cool. However, God knows us well, we need a physical dimension to our worship. "Take and eat.. this is my body.." When I was younger, it kinda grossed me out. I was hung up on the words. Once the "appearances" and "transubstantiation" were better understood (not completely, but better than before) - I get it.

Why wouldn't God want to be "here" - present in the Eucharist for us to consume? As a visual learner, I needed to see something. I better understood with a diagram.. sacred geometry none the less. Vesica Piscis.

Surely a Catholic thing.

+Pablo
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

23 For the wages of sin is death

19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for usfor it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"

18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiedad20 said:

Heb 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, AND WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS.

By the way K2, what are the physical dimensions of the altar you burn the incense? And how many ingredients? Does your archbishop light the coals only once at the beginning of his tenure?

Do tell
I wonder if this has a universal application.

Is this the way it is universally, everywhere?

Does the way in which the Lord interacts with us here give us a glimpse of how he may interact with his creation elsewhere?
commando2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiedad20 said:

Heb 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, AND WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS.
You know that incident when King David sent his soldier Uriah on a suicide mission in order to bone his wife? And in 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan called him out on it?
Quote:

"I've sinned against the Lord!" David said to Nathan.

"The Lord has removed your sin," Nathan replied to David. "You won't die.
So, if "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness", why would Nathan say that? Shouldn't he have told David "Go to the Temple and sacrifice a lamb or a bull, and then the Lord will remove your sin"?
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

So, if "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness", why would Nathan say that? Shouldn't he have told David "Go to the Temple and sacrifice a lamb or a bull, and then the Lord will remove your sin"?

There's is where a comprehensive Genesis through Revelation of Biblical understanding is needed.

The Blood of bulls and lambs was an inadequate but symbolic symbol of a future once for all sacrifice for sin.
Jesus/God can forgive verbally at any moment in time.

The blood of God in Jesus was payment that seals one's forgiveness BC and AD.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith. At the moment of faith, the payment Jesus made for sins is applied to ones account BC and AD.


21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a good question. I accept that it's required as a serving of justice, that sin and evil require punishment, otherwise justice is not served.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a mystery to me, but I have contemplated it quite a bit. Sometimes I wonder if part of this equation is that without the blood, our stubborn race would never had gotten the point of Jesus' message about unselfish love.

Jesus changed the world, more than any man has ever done. He did so in a window of time where his word could spread like wildfire, in a way that it might not have been able to ever again.

It is in our nature to be suspect of people who ask us to believe their faith if it is clear that they are profiting from it selfishly.

Has anyone ever speculated that without the sacrifice of Jesus, without the death of God's son, the world would not have been so changed? That any teaching not followed by that act would have failed to have the same impact on the world? Is some of the power of Jesus sacrifice the ultimate teaching of unselfish love to a wicked generation? Could not all of the OT sacrifices be pointing forward in time to that sacrifice?

I'm not discounting the atonement or justice parts of the equation, but I will say that Jesus' willingness to die for his purpose was an important part of my adult commitment to Christ. I know I am not alone there.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I remember reading awhile back somewhere how most likely blood sacrifice came from human or humanoid relationships with predatory animals far before religion ever started popping up around the species.

If a tribe or group of humans were living around predatory animals, they learned that by giving up their weakest or oldest to the predators, the rest were able to escape and survive. Similar to how stragglers are picked off of herds by predators like lions. Whereas if the entire group all fought the predators to save a member, then many would be gravely injured and far more damage to the group would occur.

This type of living ingrained a culture of sacrifice in order to thrive and it grew from there.Perhaps they learned to capture other animals to use to sacrifice to the predators in order to stay safe.
7nine
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

I remember reading awhile back somewhere how most likely blood sacrifice came from human or humanoid relationships with predatory animals far before religion ever started popping up around the species.

If a tribe or group of humans were living around predatory animals, they learned that by giving up their weakest or oldest to the predators, the rest were able to escape and survive. Similar to how stragglers are picked off of herds by predators like lions. Whereas if the entire group all fought the predators to save a member, then many would be gravely injured and far more damage to the group would occur.

This type of living ingrained a culture of sacrifice in order to thrive and it grew from there.Perhaps they learned to capture other animals to use to sacrifice to the predators in order to stay safe.


Maybe they fed their murderers to the predators. This is about punishment for wrong doing, not survival of the fittest.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bmks270 said:

Texaggie7nine said:

I remember reading awhile back somewhere how most likely blood sacrifice came from human or humanoid relationships with predatory animals far before religion ever started popping up around the species.

If a tribe or group of humans were living around predatory animals, they learned that by giving up their weakest or oldest to the predators, the rest were able to escape and survive. Similar to how stragglers are picked off of herds by predators like lions. Whereas if the entire group all fought the predators to save a member, then many would be gravely injured and far more damage to the group would occur.

This type of living ingrained a culture of sacrifice in order to thrive and it grew from there.Perhaps they learned to capture other animals to use to sacrifice to the predators in order to stay safe.


Maybe they fed their murderers to the predators. This is about punishment for wrong doing, not survival of the fittest.
It's more nuanced than that obviously. I can easily see how a tradition born over tens of thousands of years of living in the wild and "sacrificing" the weaker of the tribe or animals to predators could transform into sacrificing to a "deity" that judges and punishes once man became more organized and lived in large groups where constantly being under threat of predators went away. The concept of spilling blood in order to appease a more powerful thing isn't that difficult to come up with, given how humans evolved.
7nine
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bmks270 said:

Texaggie7nine said:

I remember reading awhile back somewhere how most likely blood sacrifice came from human or humanoid relationships with predatory animals far before religion ever started popping up around the species.

If a tribe or group of humans were living around predatory animals, they learned that by giving up their weakest or oldest to the predators, the rest were able to escape and survive. Similar to how stragglers are picked off of herds by predators like lions. Whereas if the entire group all fought the predators to save a member, then many would be gravely injured and far more damage to the group would occur.

This type of living ingrained a culture of sacrifice in order to thrive and it grew from there.Perhaps they learned to capture other animals to use to sacrifice to the predators in order to stay safe.


Maybe they fed their murderers to the predators. This is about punishment for wrong doing, not survival of the fittest.
it's about the rationalization for why some think blood must be spilled in order for wrongdoing to be forgiven.
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texaggie7nine said:

bmks270 said:

Texaggie7nine said:

I remember reading awhile back somewhere how most likely blood sacrifice came from human or humanoid relationships with predatory animals far before religion ever started popping up around the species.

If a tribe or group of humans were living around predatory animals, they learned that by giving up their weakest or oldest to the predators, the rest were able to escape and survive. Similar to how stragglers are picked off of herds by predators like lions. Whereas if the entire group all fought the predators to save a member, then many would be gravely injured and far more damage to the group would occur.

This type of living ingrained a culture of sacrifice in order to thrive and it grew from there.Perhaps they learned to capture other animals to use to sacrifice to the predators in order to stay safe.


Maybe they fed their murderers to the predators. This is about punishment for wrong doing, not survival of the fittest.
It's more nuanced than that obviously. I can easily see how a tradition born over tens of thousands of years of living in the wild and "sacrificing" the weaker of the tribe or animals to predators could transform into sacrificing to a "deity" that judges and punishes once man became more organized and lived in large groups where constantly being under threat of predators went away. The concept of spilling blood in order to appease a more powerful thing isn't that difficult to come up with, given how humans evolved.


You're framing it as a sacrifice just because, or just to 'survive.'

I'm framing it as serving of just penalty for misbehavior, sort of like repayment of debt or karma.

Justice isn't sacrifice. If you steal something, but then lay it back, it's not a 'sacrifice,' it's a restoration of the victim.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.