Why didn't Jesus preach "the blood" in his ministr

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri May 17, 2019 9:22 am

If the doctrine of Jesus' martyrdom as a blood atonement has it's roots in the teachings of Jesus himself, why doesn't Jesus mention "the blood" during his ministry in any of his sermons? Instead, Jesus preaches repentance and proclaims Father's mercy with no mention of blood sacrifice in his sermons or parables.

Why is that?

MosesY · Post by **MosesY** » Thu May 23, 2019 1:49 am

The Jews were all very well aware of blood atonement for sin long before Jesus came on the scene. Blood sacrifice was a very important part of the temple ritual. You could not be forgiven of sin without a blood sacrifice. The reason that Jesus' teaching focused on the condition of the heart is because the Jews were being outwardly holy and inwardly they were whitewashed sepulchres. They lusted they envied, they were proud, etc. The Old Testament talks in sever places about the circumcised heart but the Jews had missed that part. They did not need to be taught about blood sacrifice for sin, they were well aware of that. They needed to learn about the circumcised heart so that is what Jesus taught them.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Thu May 23, 2019 7:41 am

MosesY wrote: The Jews were all very well aware of blood atonement for sin long before Jesus came on the scene. Blood sacrifice was a very important part of the temple ritual. You could not be forgiven of sin without a blood sacrifice. The reason that Jesus' teaching focused on the condition of the heart is because the Jews were being outwardly holy and inwardly they were whitewashed sepulchres. They lusted they envied, they were proud, etc. The Old Testament talks in sever places about the circumcised heart but the Jews had missed that part. They did not need to be taught about blood sacrifice for sin, they were well aware of that. They needed to learn about the circumcised heart so that is what Jesus taught them.

Welcome to the site, MosesY.

Very thoughtful reply. But here's the thing. Yes, it may have been unnecessary for Jesus to have reinforced the notion of blood sacrifice, animal blood sacrifice. * But notice Jesus didn't preach his own blood either. That would have been unthinkable for a Jew of any era had he done so, and would have amounted to human sacrifice, which is an abomination.

-----------------

* (And besides, Jesus did preach against the Temple, and blood sacrifice. He quoted the Prophet Hosea for one, when he said "I desire mercy, not sacrifice. )

MosesY · Post by **MosesY** » Thu May 23, 2019 3:39 pm

I agree with the gist of what you are saying, Jesus did not preach "The Blood". Jesus' blood is symbolic to Christians of His sacrifice on the cross and all that entails. The Blood is not an essential part of my belief as a Christian nor of many Christians. I would say that to any Christian who really understands salvation the blood of Christ means nothing. We talk about it because "The Blood of Christ" is a mantra, a symbol, and nothing more than that. If you watch "The Passion of the Christ" you see his blood poured out all over during his torture. This is a precious image to a Christian, Jesus pouring out His blood to pay for our sins. It tugs at our heart. The symbol that we call "The Blood" brings us to worship.

Checkpoint · Post by **Checkpoint** » Thu May 23, 2019 6:51 pm

MosesY wrote: I agree with the gist of what you are saying, Jesus did not preach "The Blood". Jesus' blood is symbolic to Christians of His sacrifice on the cross and all that entails. The Blood is not an essential part of my belief as a Christian nor of many Christians. I would say that to any Christian who really understands salvation the blood of Christ means nothing. We talk about it because "The Blood of Christ" is a mantra, a symbol, and nothing more than that.

If you watch "The Passion of the Christ" you see his blood poured out all over during his torture. This is a precious image to a Christian, Jesus pouring out His blood to pay for our sins. It tugs at our heart. The symbol that we call "The Blood" brings us to worship.

Welcome, MosesY.

When I read your post it confused me because you seemed to be contradicting yourself.

I have split it in two to highlight the difference.

On reflection, you could well be saying the symbol means nothing but the reality means everything.

Are you saying something like that?

MosesY · Post by **MosesY** » Fri May 24, 2019 12:26 am

Checkpoint wrote:
MosesY wrote: I agree with the gist of what you are saying, Jesus did not preach "The Blood". Jesus' blood is symbolic to Christians of His sacrifice on the cross and all that entails. The Blood is not an essential part of my belief as a Christian nor of many Christians. I would say that to any Christian who really understands salvation the blood of Christ means nothing. We talk about it because "The Blood of Christ" is a mantra, a symbol, and nothing more than that.

If you watch "The Passion of the Christ" you see his blood poured out all over during his torture. This is a precious image to a Christian, Jesus pouring out His blood to pay for our sins. It tugs at our heart. The symbol that we call "The Blood" brings us to worship.
Welcome, MosesY.

When I read your post it confused me because you seemed to be contradicting yourself.

I have split it in two to highlight the difference.

On reflection, you could well be saying the symbol means nothing but the reality means everything.

Are you saying something like that?

Yes, something like that. The reality is the blood of Jesus means nothing. But when believers talk about "The Blood" they are talking about Jesus' sacrifice as a whole and that means everything.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Fri May 24, 2019 1:45 pm

My point in all this is that the Synoptics best represent the real, historical Jesus in contrast to the Gospel of John which is heavily infected with theological statements placed on the lips of Jesus. Jesus was a preacher, not a theologian.

Not that the Synoptics are perfect when representing the HJ. But Jesus' teachings and preaching as recounted in the sermons and parables of his ministry are far more reflective of what a first century Jewish preacher would likely say than even the Synoptic passion narratives. (The Last Supper blood-covenant ransom stuff sound to me like revisionist theological insertions, though I can't prove it.) And certainly more reflective of the Historical Jesus than the theological meanderings of the letters of Paul with all his blood/ransom theology.

Far more likely that the real Jesus, the historical Jewish Jesus preached simple repentance, the necessity of interior devotion from the heart, YHVH as Father and the Father's merciful nature. No good Father needs or desires blood in order to forgive.

I think the absence of any notion human blood sacrifice for forgiveness during Jesus ministry is strong evidence that this is so.

MosesY · Post by **MosesY** » Sat May 25, 2019 1:55 am

[quote="Elijah John No good Father needs or desires blood in order to forgive.

I think the absence of any notion human blood sacrifice for forgiveness during Jesus ministry is strong evidence that this is so.[/quote]

You state that as a claim but you do not provide any evidence. "No good Father desires blood". This is an assumption from the human viewpoint. Define "good". A good father would be just and courageous and loving, a good leader, etc. THere are many parts to being "good". According to the Bible the forgiveness of sin requires blood; it always has and always will. I note that you differentiate between animal blood and human blood; why is that? I believe there is no real difference between animals and humans. Our bodies work essentially the same way, are made of the same stuff. I believe humans have a soul but I don't believe that makes us better than animals. What if a good Father needs blood in order to forgive sin? How would you know without reverting back to the text? Let's take myself as an example. I have two daughters. Do I require blood to forgive their sins? No, I do not. Am I a good father? No, I am not.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Sat May 25, 2019 8:22 am

[Replying to post 17 by MosesY]

Jesus makes the assumption that the average father is good to his children.

Luke 11:11

What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?

And he goes on to say, "how much more" about our Heavenly Father. Jesus teaches us that our Heavenly Father is even better to us than are our earthly fathers. Jesus compares YHVH to human fathers, favorably.

If we continue with the metaphor that God is Father, we can reasonably conclude that since no good father requires blood from his children in order to forgive them, then our Heaven Father certainly doesn't need blood either.

The notion of God as Father is completely at odds with a god who needs or requires blood.

And yes their IS forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. The Bible itself demonstrates this. Over the years I have provided many verses which support this claim, and refutes the unknown author of Hebrews. I don't have time to compile them all right now, but here are a few for starters:

Proverbs 16.6:

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by fear of YHVH men depart from evil.

Just one verse is enough to refute your claim and the claim of the unknown author of Hebrews. But there are many more. Consider for now:

Micah 6.6-8

6 Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? 7 will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?

The Prophet Micah contrasts justice, mercy and humility as far more desirable to God than blood sacrifice.

And this from Hosea (and Jesus)

I desire mercy NOT sacrifice.

And

Psalm 79.9

Help us O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake.

For everyone who calls upon the name of the LORD will be saved.

And there are a good number of others which refute the necessity of blood sacrifice.

Why do the disciples of Paul insist on clinging to notions of blood appeasement when the Bible itself offers clear and more enlightened alternatives?

Checkpoint · Post by **Checkpoint** » Sun May 26, 2019 12:24 am

MosesY wrote: [quote="Elijah John No good Father needs or desires blood in order to forgive.

I think the absence of any notion human blood sacrifice for forgiveness during Jesus ministry is strong evidence that this is so.

You state that as a claim but you do not provide any evidence. "No good Father desires blood". This is an assumption from the human viewpoint.

Define "good". A good father would be just and courageous and loving, a good leader, etc. THere are many parts to being "good".

According to the Bible the forgiveness of sin requires blood; it always has and always will.

I note that you differentiate between animal blood and human blood; why is that? I believe there is no real difference between animals and humans. Our bodies work essentially the same way, are made of the same stuff. I believe humans have a soul but I don't believe that makes us better than animals.

What if a good Father needs blood in order to forgive sin? How would you know without reverting back to the text?

Let's take myself as an example. I have two daughters. Do I require blood to forgive their sins? No, I do not. Am I a good father? No, I am not.

Interesting post. Thanks.

You will note I have bolded and separated some parts.

I did this to give them emphasis as they are insightful and speak truth.

Grace and peace.

MosesY · Post by **MosesY** » Sun May 26, 2019 4:21 am

Human fathers are not good examples of fathers. Many of them actually sexually molest their daughters. If not physical abuse then many more provide mental abuse. I myself was mentally abused and this prevented me from having a good relationship with my daughters, I didn't know how, I was socially inept and I didn't fight for my family, I ended up llosing them. My daughters won't even talk to me. This is the case all around the world in many instances. To say that a human father is a good father is a gross misstatement. Yes, I love my daughters and want the best for them but that does not mean I am a good father.

I often see the Bible interpreted from a human point of view. In Romans 1:22 Paul writes "Professing to be wise, they became fools." You have to take the Bible as a whole. If you want me to I will post verses detailing that blood is required for the forgiveness of sin. They are fairly easy to find and there are a lot of them.

I believe God communicates with us through the Bible. One of the things I read in the Bible is that blood does no good if your heart is not right. My father severely abused me as a chilld. For years I was bitter and angry at him, I felt that he robbed me of my life. As a Christian I knew that I needed to forgive him. I would pray "Father GOd I forgive him" and then I would walk away bitter and angry. Sprinkling some blood on my head would not have helped, it would not have absolved my sin of unforgiveness; my heart wasn't in the right place. A year ago or so some things happened and in my heart I forgave my father. Now my heart is right and I am at peace.

Can my sins be forgiven without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? According to the Bible they cannot. WIll my sins be forgiven because of the Blood if my heart is not right? According to the Bible they will not.