Blast From The Past - BLOOD

subllibrm

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,603
Reaction score
201
Points
63
I mentioned Shiloh's "blood" debate to some friends this weekend. They had never heard such a thing.
 
subllibrm said:
I mentioned Shiloh's "blood" debate to some friends this weekend. They had never heard such a thing.

I have some vague recollection of what he thought, but remind me anyway. lol
 
Evelyn said:
subllibrm said:
I mentioned Shiloh's "blood" debate to some friends this weekend. They had never heard such a thing.

I have some vague recollection of what he thought, but remind me anyway. lol

The idea that Jesus was 100% human except that He didn't have human blood. Shiloh had some seriously twisted knickers when folks didn't agree with him on the issue.
 
subllibrm said:
Evelyn said:
subllibrm said:
I mentioned Shiloh's "blood" debate to some friends this weekend. They had never heard such a thing.

I have some vague recollection of what he thought, but remind me anyway. lol

The idea that Jesus was 100% human except that He didn't have human blood. Shiloh had some seriously twisted knickers when folks didn't agree with him on the issue.

OH YEAH!!!!  I remembered something about pure blood as opposed to human blood, but forgot how it all applied.  Should we invite him here to explain himself again? lol
 
Well we all know that Shiloh was a heretic and an idiot with his "divine blood" theology.  Blood is a human aspect not a divine one...blood is a created thing and God is not of flesh & blood, but He took on flesh and blood.  Shiloh also believed that none of Jesus' blood remained on the earth but was all taken to heaven and put on the mercy seat.  I asked him who gathered it at the foot of the cross and he said it didn't actually fall on the ground and stay at the foot of the cross.  You know, I kinda miss Shiloh...what a maroon!
 
Evelyn said:
subllibrm said:
Evelyn said:
subllibrm said:
I mentioned Shiloh's "blood" debate to some friends this weekend. They had never heard such a thing.

I have some vague recollection of what he thought, but remind me anyway. lol

The idea that Jesus was 100% human except that He didn't have human blood. Shiloh had some seriously twisted knickers when folks didn't agree with him on the issue.

OH YEAH!!!!  I remembered something about pure blood as opposed to human blood, but forgot how it all applied.  Should we invite him here to explain himself again? lol

Steve something or other if I remember correctly. Give him a call tell him we miss him!  ;D
 
T-Bone said:
Well we all know that Shiloh was a heretic and an idiot with his "divine blood" theology.  Blood is a human aspect not a divine one...blood is a created thing and God is not of flesh & blood, but He took on flesh and blood.  Shiloh also believed that none of Jesus' blood remained on the earth but was all taken to heaven and put on the mercy seat.  I asked him who gathered it at the foot of the cross and he said it didn't actually fall on the ground and stay at the foot of the cross.  You know, I kinda miss Shiloh...what a maroon!

Jack Hyles believed and taught that Christ's blood was taken and applied on the mercy seat in heaven. This is what led to a lot of the "fundamentalist" crowd condemning John MacArthur as a heretic back in the late 80's.
 
BALAAM said:
T-Bone said:
Well we all know that Shiloh was a heretic and an idiot with his "divine blood" theology.  Blood is a human aspect not a divine one...blood is a created thing and God is not of flesh & blood, but He took on flesh and blood.  Shiloh also believed that none of Jesus' blood remained on the earth but was all taken to heaven and put on the mercy seat.  I asked him who gathered it at the foot of the cross and he said it didn't actually fall on the ground and stay at the foot of the cross.  You know, I kinda miss Shiloh...what a maroon!

Jack Hyles believed and taught that Christ's blood was taken and applied on the mercy seat in heaven. This is what led to a lot of the "fundamentalist" crowd condemning John MacArthur as a heretic back in the late 80's.

You are most  correct. Bro. Hyles got this theory from Ian Paisley when he was at out church in the 60's. He also picked up the KJVO theory from him too.
Turns out Johnny Mac was the orthodox one and Bro. Hyles was the heretic. I hate to admit it. The facts are out there and they're irrefutable.
 
Of course it was human blood. There's no such thing as divine blood. The question is where did his blood come from? He didn't have a human father. He had a human mother but it doesn't say that he got his blood from Mary or even his flesh from her. The "seed of the woman" was conceived of the Holy Ghost which in my view means his body was created by God without anything from Mary. But I'm not being dogmatic about it. The incarnation is a mystery.
 
If Jesus' flesh did not come from Mary, then he has no connection to the human race. If in some way his body came from Mary but his blood did not, then he is not fully human.

Either one does violence to orthodox Christology.
 
Don't forget. Every little drop of blood on the cross, nails, ground ... all disappeared as some point and is now stored in heaven. Some folks believe this stuff, others don't.
 
Timothy said:

Don't forget. Every little drop of blood on the cross, nails, ground ... all disappeared as some point and is now stored in heaven. Some folks believe this stuff, others don't.

Catholics, mostly:

angel-collecting-blood-from-the-wounds-of-christ-1543.jpg


It's just another one of those goofy Catholic superstitions that's found its way into the fundy mainstream. Just as apostolic succession became the Trail of Blood, Catholic hooey about angels collecting Christ's blood in chalices on Calvary has become fundamentalist haemolatry.
 
Timothy said:
Don't forget. Every little drop of blood on the cross, nails, ground ... all disappeared as some point and is now stored in heaven. Some folks believe this stuff, others don't.

Stored for what purpose?  Who told you this?  Are you saying there is big jar up in heaven with Jesus' blood in it?  Really?
 
Ransom said:
If Jesus' flesh did not come from Mary, then he has no connection to the human race. If in some way his body came from Mary but his blood did not, then he is not fully human.

Either one does violence to orthodox Christology.

For Jesus to be human exactly like us he would have genes from two parents. He would have genes from the seed which would come from God (in the miraculous way not the perverted Mormon way) and genes from Mary if that is what Scripture implies. However Adam didn't have a mother yet he is still human.  How then do we define humanness? Also what is a sin nature and where does it come from? David said 'in sin did my mother conceive me". Was David saying his sin nature came from his mother (as well as his father)? Was Jesus the unblemished Lamb because he is God and couldn't sin or because he didn't have the sin nature which we inherited from our parents - btw I don't see in Scripture how our sin nature only came from Adam. All it says is that by one man (Adam) sin came into the world and death by sin and death passed upon all men (this would include Eve).
 
I seem to recall that someone (was it Kenneth Copeland?) taught that Eve gave birth out her side until the curse made birth painful.  Also, there are actually three trinities, making God nine-fold.  I rank those on par with the magic blood. 

Where do these people discover these secret truths? 
 
brianb said:
Ransom said:
If Jesus' flesh did not come from Mary, then he has no connection to the human race. If in some way his body came from Mary but his blood did not, then he is not fully human.

Either one does violence to orthodox Christology.

For Jesus to be human exactly like us he would have genes from two parents.

Jesus is human "exactly like us", only He has never sinned.

[quote author=brianb]He would have genes from the seed which would come from God (in the miraculous way not the perverted Mormon way) and genes from Mary if that is what Scripture implies. However Adam didn't have a mother yet he is still human.[/quote]

I don't try to figure out the mechanics just so. Trying to explain the hypostatic union is like trying to explain the Trinity...some things are simply beyond our understanding. That isn't to say that we shouldn't strive to understand because those doctrines (and others) teach us facsinating things about God.

[quote author=brianb]How then do we define humanness?[/quote]

Image-bearer.

[quote author=brianb]Also what is a sin nature and where does it come from? David said 'in sin did my mother conceive me". Was David saying his sin nature came from his mother (as well as his father)?[/quote]

We do not become sin. Sin is a disease...a cancer that infects us. One does not become cancer. One has cancer. Jesus never had "cancer" because He was conceived by the Spirit, not of man.

[quote author=brianb]Was Jesus the unblemished Lamb because he is God and couldn't sin or because he didn't have the sin nature which we inherited from our parents[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=brianb]- btw I don't see in Scripture how our sin nature only came from Adam. All it says is that by one man (Adam) sin came into the world and death by sin and death passed upon all men (this would include Eve).[/quote]

I don't think Paul was making a point either way.
 
T-Bone said:
Timothy said:
Don't forget. Every little drop of blood on the cross, nails, ground ... all disappeared as some point and is now stored in heaven. Some folks believe this stuff, others don't.

Stored for what purpose?  Who told you this?  Are you saying there is big jar up in heaven with Jesus' blood in it?  Really?

Um ... when Shiloh started that subject regarding the Blood of Jesus I did some reading, asking questions, and participation with the threads under one of my past IDs, and I learned that some believe (and I believe Shiloh agreed to this belief as well) that the blood was transported to heaven to be used on a heavenly altar. There is a container in heaven where the Blood can be taken to this altar and be applied to take away our sins. A search on Google brings up some articles and the like about it.

A more basic approach (and widely accepted) is the single idea that the sacrifice for sin was conducted in heaven and not on the cross. They take parts of Hebrews very literal, and assume that when Jesus told Mary not to touch Him that somehow that proves the doctrine.

I am sure someone on this forum believes this to some degree - maybe they can enlighten us.
 
Timothy said:
T-Bone said:
Timothy said:
Don't forget. Every little drop of blood on the cross, nails, ground ... all disappeared as some point and is now stored in heaven. Some folks believe this stuff, others don't.

Stored for what purpose?  Who told you this?  Are you saying there is big jar up in heaven with Jesus' blood in it?  Really?

Um ... when Shiloh started that subject regarding the Blood of Jesus I did some reading, asking questions, and participation with the threads under one of my past IDs, and I learned that some believe (and I believe Shiloh agreed to this belief as well) that the blood was transported to heaven to be used on a heavenly altar. There is a container in heaven where the Blood can be taken to this altar and be applied to take away our sins. A search on Google brings up some articles and the like about it.

A more basic approach (and widely accepted) is the single idea that the sacrifice for sin was conducted in heaven and not on the cross. They take parts of Hebrews very literal, and assume that when Jesus told Mary not to touch Him that somehow that proves the doctrine.

I am sure someone on this forum believes this to some degree - maybe they can enlighten us.

Actually the Bible says that women did touch him (Matthew 28:9) . What he meant in John was Don't cling to me. Touch in the Bible doesn't just mean laying a finger on someone. Why would he allow himself to be in the presence of any one if he had to go to heaven first? There is no record of a private ascension. Luke says he ascended after he had given commandments to the apostles whom he had chosen. And why is it considered worse to touch him after his resurrection than when he lived on earth and died? To me it's silly to think you can defile God in human flesh by touching him.

This is the picture that people imagine when they misinterpret that touch me not passage.
200px-Noli_me_tangere_detail_-_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg


Silly isn't it?

One more thing. Some believe that Jesus became high priest only after his resurrection but Hebrews 7:26-27 refutes that - he offered up himself as a sacrifice while he was a high priest. He was also a (high) priest after the order of Melchisedec however which has no prohibition to touch. It was the Aaronic high priests you couldn't touch - they were high priests under the law. Jesus is our High Priest under grace. When you rightly divide the word you won't come up with silly ideas.
 
Castor Muscular said:
I seem to recall that someone (was it Kenneth Copeland?) taught that Eve gave birth out her side until the curse made birth painful.  Also, there are actually three trinities, making God nine-fold.  I rank those on par with the magic blood. 

Where do these people discover these secret truths?

That was Benny Hinn about birth out of the side...he also said Adam flew around the garden.  In his book "Good Morning Holy Spirit" is where Hinn declared "there are actually nine of them".
 
Back
Top