The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[Runningman]

Acts 20:28- Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

This literally translates to "the blood of his own [Son]" It's in numerous commentaries and found in the footnote for this verse in several versions/translations.

Heb 9:12-He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption

Heb 9:16-18- In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

Heb 9:22- According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Eph 1:7- In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Matt 26:28- for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Rev 1:5- and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood,

Summary and Conclusion: nothing but the blood of Jesus can suffice @Pancho Frijoles

1- His blood purchased/ ransomed the church
2- His blood provided eternal redemption
3- His blood was necessary for the New Covenant
4- The OT Covenant was based on blood sacrifice
5- Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for ones sins
6- His blood provided redemption and forgiveness of our sins
7- His blood makes the New Covenant providing forgiveness of sins
8- His blood releases believers from their sins

hope this helps !!!

You forgot to mention the part where the blood of the Lamb is not the blood of God.

Revelation 5
9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[civic]

This literally translates to "the blood of his own [Son]" It's in numerous commentaries and found in the footnote for this verse in several versions/translations.

You forgot to mention the part where the blood of the Lamb is not the blood of God.

Revelation 5
9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

The focus of my post is not the Trinity but the absolute necessity of Jesus blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins.

Was His blood necessary for the forgiveness of sins ?

Yes or nn

Let’s see if you answer my question.

 

[TibiasDad]

This literally translates to "the blood of his own [Son]" It's in numerous commentaries and found in the footnote for this verse in several versions/translations.

“His own” refers back to “Theos”/God.

There is no specific mention of the Son, but the implications of the “blood” of God is that the Son is God.


Doug

 

[civic]

“His own” refers back to “Theos”/God.

There is no specific mention of the Son, but the implications of the “blood” of God is that the Son is God.


Doug

Amen !!!

 

[Runningman]

“His own” refers back to “Theos”/God.

There is no specific mention of the Son, but the implications of the “blood” of God is that the Son is God.


Doug

It's a bit more than that, which is why many Greek experts don't really translate it as literally God's blood because God doesn't have blood.

I pulled up some info on Acts 20:28 from Bible Hub to look at. The idea is that the blood being talked about is the blood of God's own family member, i.e., His son.

G2398. idios
Strong's Lexicon
idios: own, private, personal, peculiar
Original Word: ἴδιος
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: idios
Pronunciation: EE-dee-os
Phonetic Spelling: (id'-ee-os)
Definition: own, private, personal, peculiar
Meaning: one's own, belonging to one, private, personal; one's own people, one's own family, home, property.

Word Origin: A primary word

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The Hebrew equivalent often used in similar contexts is "בַּעַל" (ba'al - H1167), which can mean owner, master, or husband, emphasizing possession or relationship.

Usage: The Greek word "idios" is used to denote something that belongs to oneself, is private, or is peculiar to an individual. It often emphasizes personal possession or association, distinguishing what is one's own from what belongs to others. In the New Testament, "idios" is used to highlight personal responsibility, ownership, or relationship.

Cultural and Historical Background: In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of personal ownership and identity was significant. The use of "idios" would resonate with the cultural understanding of property, family, and individual rights. In a society where lineage and personal honor were highly valued, distinguishing what was "one's own" was crucial for maintaining social order and personal dignity.

source: https://biblehub.com/greek/2398.htm

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

if His blood He gave for the forgiveness of sins was unimportant and not necessary so was His death. For the life of the soul resides in the blood.

One cannot choose what they like about the bible and disregeard what they don't like in the bible regarding the Atonement of Christ. It all fits together and every aspect of His death was necessary. It was a fulfillment of Prophecy. It was also necessary for Messiah to die in the exact way He did for the Atonement of sins. The blood of Christ cannot be left out or there is no forgiveness of sins.

The notion that "it was also necessary for Messiah to die in the exact way He did for the atonement of sins" has no support in reason or scripture.
No lamb or bull was crucified in the tabernacle.
Death by crucifixion was not produced by blood shedding. It was produced by asphyxia.
So, if Jesus had died by strangulation or poisoning with cyanide, instead of by crucifixion, his sacrifice would still have been equally precious for all. Authors of the NT would years later not have referred to his blood but to his death. They would have used other metaphors or analogies.

Furthermore, if there had been a single way in which the Messiah should have died to be as close as possible to the sacrifices of the OT, Jesus should have been killed by beheading, since as I say, animals were not crucified.

What am I trying to say with all this? Do not focus on the blood. Focus on the meaning of the blood.

Dear Readers

The statement from our brother @civic bring an important lessons for all of us:
Wherever we fail to understand what a symbol is, and adjudicate to the symbol intrinsic value as an object, we fall into superstition.
We have seen this with the water of baptism. We have seen this with the host and the wine in Lord´s supper.

When the Bible says that the "blood" of Christ erases our sins, this is as symbolic as when King David used the symbol of hyssop:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; (Psalm 51:7)

God does not need an hyssop, inasmuch as He does not need the water of baptism, a live coal, a fire descending from heaven or the blood of an innocent being.
The purpose of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is to lead us to OUR OWN crucifixion and resurrection. The mission of Jesus is YOUR OWN death to the old man and rebirth into a new man. Isn't this the way we are reconciled with the Father and bought from slavery? By being forgiven and then transformed into a new person?

*****

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE SPIRITUAL RELEVANCE OF OUR OWN CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION

• “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me" (Matthew 16:24)
• "you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5)
• I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal 2:20)
• buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Col 2:12)
• even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:5,6)

 

[Johann]

The notion that "it was also necessary for Messiah to die in the exact way He did for the atonement of sins" has no support in reason or scripture.
No lamb or bull was crucified in the tabernacle.
Death by crucifixion is not produced by blood shedding. It is produced by asphyxia.

So, if Jesus had died by strangulation or poisoning with cyanide, his sacrifice would still have been precious for all.

Dear Readers

The statement from our brother @civic bring an important lessons for all of us:
Wherever we fail to understand what a symbol is, and adjudicate to the symbol intrinsic value as an object, we fall into superstition.
We have seen this with the water of baptism. We have seen this with the host and the wine in Lord´s supper.

When the Bible says that the "blood" of Christ erases our sins, this is as symbolic as when King David used the symbol of hyssop:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; (Psalm 51:7)

God does not need an hyssop, inasmuch as He does not need the water of baptism, a live coal, a fire descending from heaven or the blood of an innocent being.
The purpose of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is OUR OWN crucifixion and resurrection. It is YOUR OWN death to the old man and rebirth into a new man. Isn't this the way we are reconciled with the Father? By being forgiven and then transformed into a new person?

 

[Dizerner]

He literally says "if you ask ME."

Lol, debate over.

 

[Dizerner]

What am I trying to say with all this? Do not focus on the blood. Focus on the meaning of the blood.

The meaning of his blood is his suffering the punishment our sins deserved.

Dear Readers

Yeah, Jesus just symbolizes our own self-empowerment and "Christ consciousness" that we are the "I am."

We get it.

 

[civic]

The notion that "it was also necessary for Messiah to die in the exact way He did for the atonement of sins" has no support in reason or scripture.
No lamb or bull was crucified in the tabernacle.
Death by crucifixion was not produced by blood shedding. It was produced by asphyxia.
So, if Jesus had died by strangulation or poisoning with cyanide, instead of by crucifixion, his sacrifice would still have been equally precious for all. Authors of the NT would years later not have referred to his blood but to his death. They would have used other metaphors or analogies.

Furthermore, if there had been a single way in which the Messiah should have died to be as close as possible to the sacrifices of the OT, Jesus should have been killed by beheading, since as I say, animals were not crucified.

What am I trying to say with all this? Do not focus on the blood. Focus on the meaning of the blood.

Dear Readers

The statement from our brother @civic bring an important lessons for all of us:
Wherever we fail to understand what a symbol is, and adjudicate to the symbol intrinsic value as an object, we fall into superstition.
We have seen this with the water of baptism. We have seen this with the host and the wine in Lord´s supper.

When the Bible says that the "blood" of Christ erases our sins, this is as symbolic as when King David used the symbol of hyssop:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; (Psalm 51:7)

God does not need an hyssop, inasmuch as He does not need the water of baptism, a live coal, a fire descending from heaven or the blood of an innocent being.
The purpose of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is to lead us to OUR OWN crucifixion and resurrection. The mission of Jesus is YOUR OWN death to the old man and rebirth into a new man. Isn't this the way we are reconciled with the Father and bought from slavery? By being forgiven and then transformed into a new person?

*****

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE SPIRITUAL RELEVANCE OF OUR OWN CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION

• “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me" (Matthew 16:24)
• "you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5)
• I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal 2:20)
• buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Col 2:12)
• even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:5,6)

The symbol is the reality . You are equivocating. Jesus is both the symbolic and literal lamb who was slain. He is both the symbolic Adam and the literal 2nd Adam. He is both the symbolic resurrection and the life and the literal resurrection and life giver as its very source. His blood is both symbolic and literal.

You’re arguing a false dilemma.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The meaning of his blood is his suffering the punishment our sins deserved.

Do our sins deserve a punishment of, say, 6 hours on a cross?
Or actually perpetual torture in hell? ...Or annihilation? What punishment do our sins deserve?

As you see, the sentence "the punishment our sins deserved" should never be interpreted literally, because you preach that those who reject Jesus deserve to be either tortured day and night for eternity ( a punishment that Jesus did NOT get) or annihilated (a punishment that Jesus did NOT get).

The Bible presents us a deeper, spiritual meaning:

You and me must take our own cross and follow Jesus. You and me must be crucified and raised (born again).

Yeah, Jesus just symbolizes our own self-empowerment and "Christ consciousness" that we are the "I am."
We get it.

Is this what Jesus means for you? It is not what it means for me.
So I gently ask you to retract your statement as this is a strawman fallacy.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The symbol is the reality . You are equivocating. Jesus is both the symbolic and literal lamb who was slain. He is both the symbolic Adam and the literal 2nd Adam. He is both the symbolic resurrection and the life and the literal resurrection and life giver as its very source. His blood is both symbolic and literal.

You’re arguing a false dilemma.

No dilemma at all. For salvation, this is all ONLY symbolic.

When you read that the blood of Jesus erases your sins, you, civic, consider this symbolically.
Otherwise, you would be drinking or spreading in your body's surface the content of an aliquot with the literal blood of Jesus.
God would have preserved those aliquots in a kind of blood bank for billions of people to profit from it.

In fact, you don't seem to care that Jesus was not killed by beheading, so that his blood could have poured abundantly.
You don't seem to care that, by dying crucified, Jesus died of asphyxia, so it wouldn't have mattered at all if Jesus had been killed by strangulation or cyanide poisoning, like Socrates.

So, this is not a literal vs symbolic dilemma neither for you nor for me, my brother. It is symbolic for both of us.

*****

When you read that Jesus is "the Lamb of God", you, civic, consider this as an allegory.
You believe God incarnated in a human body, not in the body of an animal. Indeed, would it have been different if Jesus had been called "The Bull of God" or "The Goat of God"? Those were also sacrificial animals. The fact that it wouldn't matter if Jesus were called "The Bull of God" or "The Goat of God" proves that you consider all this as symbols.

So, this is not a literal vs symbolic dilemma neither for you nor for me, my brother. It is symbolic for both of us.

So, in soteriology, all statements about the blood of Jesus, or atonement, or price paid, or lamb, or priesthood, etc. are symbolic... for you and for me.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

So, dear readers:

Which gospel appreciates more the sacrifice of Jesus?

GOSPEL A, by which Jesus had to die in a certain way, because God demanded blood in exchange of mercy
GOSPEL B, by which Jesus could have died in multiple ways, because God expects repentance in exchange of mercy

Gospel A will focus on the cross and the blood, the lamb and the purchase. His followers will cling to those symbols as if they had any intrinsic value They will expect all men to cling along to these symbols, or otherwise suffer a well-deserved torment in hell.

Gospel B will focus on love and submission, forgiveness and renewal. They will cling to the grace of God and expect all men who take their cross, follow Jesus, get crucified with Him and resurrected with Him to a new life of love of obedience, to enjoy paradise.

 

[civic]

No dilemma at all. For salvation, this is all ONLY symbolic.

When you read that the blood of Jesus erases your sins, you, civic, consider this symbolically.
Otherwise, you would be drinking or spreading in your body's surface the content of an aliquot with the literal blood of Jesus.
God would have preserved those aliquots in a kind of blood bank for billions of people to profit from it.

In fact, you don't seem to care that Jesus was not killed by beheading, so that his blood could have poured abundantly.
You don't seem to care that, by dying crucified, Jesus died of asphyxia, so it wouldn't have mattered at all if Jesus had been killed by strangulation or cyanide poisoning, like Socrates.

So, this is not a literal vs symbolic dilemma neither for you nor for me, my brother. It is symbolic for both of us.

*****

When you read that Jesus is "the Lamb of God", you, civic, consider this as an allegory.
You believe God incarnated in a human body, not in the body of an animal. Indeed, would it have been different if Jesus had been called "The Bull of God" or "The Goat of God"? Those were also sacrificial animals. The fact that it wouldn't matter if Jesus were called "The Bull of God" or "The Goat of God" proves that you consider all this as symbols.

So, this is not a literal vs symbolic dilemma neither for you nor for me, my brother. It is symbolic for both of us.

So, in soteriology, all statements about the blood of Jesus, or atonement, or price paid, or lamb, or priesthood, etc. are symbolic... for you and for me.

So your salvation , redemption , sins forgiven are symbolic . Heaven is not a place it’s symbolic. Hell is not a place it’s symbolic. Creation is symbolic , Adam is symbolic, the law is symbolic,

Carry on

 

[civic]

So, dear readers:

Which gospel appreciates more the sacrifice of Jesus?

GOSPEL A, by which Jesus had to die in a certain way, because God demanded blood in exchange of mercy
GOSPEL B, by which Jesus could have died in multiple ways, because God expects repentance in exchange of mercy

Gospel A will focus on the cross and the blood, the lamb and the purchase. His followers will cling to those symbols as if they had any intrinsic value They will expect all men to cling along to these symbols, or otherwise suffer a well-deserved torment in hell.

Gospel B will focus on love and submission, forgiveness and renewal. They will cling to the grace of God and expect all men who take their cross, follow Jesus, get crucified with Him and resurrected with Him to a new life of love of obedience, to enjoy paradise.

More nonsense with unbiblical thinking and a non existent gospel presented above. It’s your philosophy not the Bible’s above.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

More nonsense with unbiblical thinking and a non existent gospel presented above. It’s your philosophy not the Bible’s above.

I disagree.
I am supporting the spiritual understanding of crucifixion and resurrection with several biblical texts.
So, you cannot say that Gospel B is "non-existent".
Furthermore, Gospel B seems to me much more rational, while Gospel A seems to me irrational.
Gospel B leads me to embrace my brothers of all religions. Gospel A leads me to approve genocide.
Gospel B leads me to love a God who is truly merciful, so that I can be truly merciful to others. Gospel A leads me to tie mercy with answering some questions of a quiz on Theology, and that is both absurd and evil.

Why would any person with no religion, listening to a preaching, want to convert to Gospel A and not to B?
What Gospel would truly change his heart to loving God and his neighbors?
Just think.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

So your salvation , redemption , sins forgiven are symbolic .

No. They are literal.

Heaven is not a place it’s symbolic.

That's correct

Hell is not a place it’s symbolic.

That's correct. And let me add: Satan is symbolic.

Creation is symbolic ,

No, it is literal... but the methods described in Genesis 1 are symbolic.

Adam is symbolic,

As described in Genesis 1, yes. It is an archetype.

the law is symbolic,

No, but it also carries symbols. Many of them. Dozens.

Carry on

OK, I'll carry on:

Religion without reason is superstition.
Scripture without reason is mythology and idolatry.
A god who demands blood in exchange of mercy is a false god.
A god who exterminates or tortures forever religious groups is committing evil.
Those who approve the extermination or physical and psychological damage of religious groups, support genocide. It doesn't matter if such extermination or damage is inflicted here or in the hereafter. It is all the same. It is evil.

 

[civic]

I disagree.
I am supporting the spiritual understanding of crucifixion and resurrection with several biblical texts.
So, you cannot say that Gospel B is "non-existent".
Furthermore, Gospel B seems to me much more rational, while Gospel A seems to me irrational.
Gospel B leads me to embrace my brothers of all religions. Gospel A leads me to approve genocide.
Gospel B leads me to love a God who is truly merciful, so that I can be truly merciful to others. Gospel A leads me to tie mercy with answering some questions of a quiz on Theology, and that is both absurd and evil.

Why would any person with no religion, listening to a preaching, want to convert to Gospel A and not to B?
What Gospel would truly change his heart to loving God and his neighbors?
Just think.

Nothing you said is supported in scripture as the gospel in your previous post. It’s just your own opinion with no references

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Nothing you said is supported in scripture as the gospel in your previous post. It’s just your own opinion with no references

I provided the references. Not just in my last post, which were references on the spiritual meaning of crucifixion and resurrection.
I provided 30 references on the lack of any mentioning of atonement in key passages that explain forgiveness and renewal.
So I strongly disagree with you.

What I have posted is heavily supported by Scripture.

 

[civic]

I provided the references. Not just in my last post, which were references on the spiritual meaning of crucifixion and resurrection.
I provided 30 references on the lack of any mentioning of atonement in key passages that explain forgiveness and renewal.
So I strongly disagree with you.

What I have posted is heavily supported by Scripture.

Zero scriptures were quoted