"Thanks to the blood of Christ

[Elijah John]

A preacher on TBN said yesterday,

Thanks to the blood of Christ, his Father becomes our Father.

Didn't Jesus teach his listeners to call God " our Father" even before "the blood" was part of the equation?

So is it really "Thanks to the blood of Christ" that God is Father? Or is God "Father" whether or not Jesus died to "pay for" our sins?

Are we children of God through faith that this is so? Or only because we are adopted by virtue of the "blood of Christ"?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 23 by Elijah John]

JW wrote

To say that YHWH is above sacrifice implies to me that you are trying to say that God does not value sacrifice, however Mark 12:33 sayys that love is "more important" than burnt offerings and sacrifices" meaning that they were indeed important (albeit less so than love). Thus we can conclude that sacrifice is indeed important to God.

You opined

That is certainly one interpretation, that love is more important, but since that is the case, then doesn't that make blood sacrifice unnecessary?

Not at all.

It is not merely one interpretation we can take or leave, but the interpretation Jesus gave, the one the Father admonished us to "listen to"[him].

I recall that Jesus quoted Hosea when he said "I desire mercy NOT sacrifice". And Jesus taught forgiveness based on simple repentance, returning to the mercy of the Father, many times, and in many ways. Not tying it to blood in any of these cases:

-The LORD'S prayer
-The beattudes
-The Parables..

Which taken together, constitute the bulk of Jesus teachings.

It was Paul who taught human, blood sacrifice, not Jesus.

So yes, I listen to Jesus not Paul. Why would anyone need Paul to interpret Jesus for them?

I too listen to Jesus, who does not contradict himself.

I listen especially to all he said about himself, including these two plain statements:

Matthew 20:28

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.�

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed.

[Elijah John]

I recall that Jesus quoted Hosea when he said "I desire mercy NOT sacrifice". And Jesus taught forgiveness based on simple repentance, returning to the mercy of the Father, many times, and in many ways. Not tying it to blood in any of these cases:

-The LORD'S prayer
-The beattudes
-The Parables..

Which taken together, constitute the bulk of Jesus teachings.

It was Paul who taught human, blood sacrifice, not Jesus.

So yes, I listen to Jesus not Paul. Why would anyone need Paul to interpret Jesus for them?

I too listen to Jesus, who does not contradict himself.

I listen especially to all he said about himself, including these two plain statements:

Matthew 20:28

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.�

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed.

Perhaps Jesus is not contradicting himself. But how do these verses harmonize with the many instances where Jesus teaches forgiveness by virture of simple repentance, one's return to the merciful Father? I don't see it.

And how do the verses you provide address the topic of the OP which holds that Jesus preached the Fatherhood of God, before his crucixion was even a question?

How does the preacher's positon that by virtue of the blood of Christ we are children of God, square with the fact that Jesus taught the Fatherhood of God, without tying it to being "washed in the blood"? He does this many times, in many ways.

Seems a shaky foundation upon which to build an entire complex theology,just a few select verses, (the one's you have provided) or the opinion and theological meanderings of one man (Paul). This position ignores the many instances where Jesus teaches the simplicity of forgiveness by repentance, one's return to the merciful Father.

Is mercy intrinsic the the Father's nature? Or something that needs to be bought with blood? Does YHVH need to be appeased like some Pagan deity?

I doubt it.

[2timothy316]

Seems the prophets of Israel did not get the memo. They envisioned a YHVH who was above sacrifice. See Micah 6.6-8, Hosea 6.6, Mark 12.33, Jeremiah 7.20-23, etc. Blood sacrifice was a superflous vestige of a barbaric past.

MARK 12:33 (NIV)
To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.�

To say that YHWH is above sacrifice implies to me that you are trying to say that God does not value sacrifice, however Mark 12:33 sayys that love is "more important" than burnt offerings and sacrifices" meaning that they were indeed important (albeit less so than love). Thus we can conclude that sacrifice is indeed important to God.


JW

The root meaning of to 'sacrifice' is to 'make sacred'.
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 1-0109.xml

Legally making things sacred to a God of perfect justice is certainly important. So for Jesus to give us the opportunity to make ourselves legally sacred to Jehovah by washing ourselves in the blood of the Lamb, meaning the Word of God, this is certainly a very loving and kind act.

[Elijah John]

The root meaning of to 'sacrifice' is to 'make sacred'.
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 1-0109.xml

Legally making things sacred to a God of perfect justice is certainly important. So for Jesus to give us the opportunity to make ourselves legally sacred to Jehovah by washing ourselves in the blood of the Lamb, meaning the Word of God, this is certainly a very loving and kind act.

Loving and sacrificial perhaps by Jesus, but how is this line of thought in any way loving by Jehovah?

How is offering His Son to be slaughtered as an offering to Himself in any way an "act of love"? For us, perhaps in a twisted way. But as Fatherly, loving act towards and for His Son? I sure don't see it.

How is the legalism your sect promotes in any way compatible with the love and mercy of Father Jehovah, as Jesus taught?

What does this supposed need for blood say about Father Jehovah?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]

I would say the way to summarize this is, There is a price to pay or blessing to receive from every action we take. It maintains equilibrium in the universe. In others words, our action can have equal and opposite reactions or compliments. It all depends on our choice. Or lack of a choice. Because, you still have made a choice.

[Checkpoint]

I recall that Jesus quoted Hosea when he said "I desire mercy NOT sacrifice". And Jesus taught forgiveness based on simple repentance, returning to the mercy of the Father, many times, and in many ways. Not tying it to blood in any of these cases:

-The LORD'S prayer
-The beattudes
-The Parables..

Which taken together, constitute the bulk of Jesus teachings.

It was Paul who taught human, blood sacrifice, not Jesus.

So yes, I listen to Jesus not Paul. Why would anyone need Paul to interpret Jesus for them?

I too listen to Jesus, who does not contradict himself.

I listen especially to all he said about himself, including these two plain statements:

Matthew 20:28

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.�

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.
22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed.

Perhaps Jesus is not contradicting himself. But how do these verses harmonize with the many instances where Jesus teaches forgiveness by virture of simple repentance, one's return to the merciful Father? I don't see it.

Seems a shaky foundation upon which to build an entire complex theology,just a few select verses, (the one's you have provided) or the opinion and theological meanderings of one man (Paul). This position ignores the many instances where Jesus teaches the simplicity of forgiveness by repentance, one's return to the merciful Father.

Is mercy intrinsic the the Father's nature? Or something that needs to be bought with blood? Does YHVH need to be appeased like some Pagan deity?

I doubt it.

What the passages I quoted are in harmony with is Genesis to Revelation, especially those parts you question or reject.

Jesus questioned or rejected none of the Tanakh.The two passages confirm his acceptance of the principle of ransom/redemption, and of the historicity and validity of the Passover.

He had no hesitation in seeing their application to himself and his death.

They were thus the given backdrop to his teachings so there was no need to state the obvious.