The Blood of Jesus

[Cow Poke]

How different is the Blood of Jesus from human blood?

[tabibito]

How different is the Blood of Jesus from human blood?

His was the best of all universal donor bloods?

[Cow Poke]

His was the best of all universal donor bloods?

Besides that.

[Esther]

The blood of Jesus was sinless.

[alaskazimm]

The blood of Jesus was sinless.

Blood can sin?

[mossrose]

Blood was significant in both old testament and during the human life of Christ as a sacrifice. Humans were not to be sacrificed as offerings to God, because we are sinful, and human sacrifice was practiced by the pagans, but the blood of pure, spotless animals was acceptable to the Lord until the death of Christ,

Christ was the ultimate, spotless Lamb of God, and His blood was the only sacrifice to satisfy the wrath of a holy and just God for sin.

[Sparko]

Physically? I don't think it was any different than any other human being. At least while he was on Earth. I have no idea how a glorified body's blood is different than a mortal's. I have heard that we won't have blood in the resurrection, but mostly because of the verse about flesh and blood can't inherit Heaven, which I find is silly and illogical and terrible argumentation. eisogesis.

[Cow Poke]

Physically? I don't think it was any different than any other human being. At least while he was on Earth. I have no idea how a glorified body's blood is different than a mortal's. I have heard that we won't have blood in the resurrection, but mostly because of the verse about flesh and blood can't inherit Heaven, which I find is silly and illogical and terrible argumentation. eisogesis.

OK, that --- I had made that statement - that it wasn't anything particularly different about Jesus' blood, except that it was His. It was because it came from the "spotless lamb", not because it was unique blood in and of itself.

Then somebody very politely told me that, because Jesus had a mother and not a physical father, His blood would be unique. Trying to find out how.

[Cow Poke]

Blood was significant in both old testament and during the human life of Christ as a sacrifice. Humans were not to be sacrificed as offerings to God, because we are sinful, and human sacrifice was practiced by the pagans, but the blood of pure, spotless animals was acceptable to the Lord until the death of Christ,

Christ was the ultimate, spotless Lamb of God, and His blood was the only sacrifice to satisfy the wrath of a holy and just God for sin.

But because it was His blood, yes? Not because there was anything particularly different about the blood.

Like the "spotless lamb" in the OT - that blood was offered because of the nature and character of the lamb, not the blood.

[Sparko]

OK, that --- I had made that statement - that it wasn't anything particularly different about Jesus' blood, except that it was His. It was because it came from the "spotless lamb", not because it was unique blood in and of itself.

Then somebody very politely told me that, because Jesus had a mother and not a physical father, His blood would be unique. Trying to find out how.

His DNA might be unique but I would think his blood would be perfectly human.

Half of a person's DNA comes from their father. I would think God had to just create that half miraculously.

[Sparko]

But because it was His blood, yes? Not because there was anything particularly different about the blood.

Like the "spotless lamb" in the OT - that blood was offered because of the nature and character of the lamb, not the blood.

That's what I think.

[mossrose]

But because it was His blood, yes? Not because there was anything particularly different about the blood.

Like the "spotless lamb" in the OT - that blood was offered because of the nature and character of the lamb, not the blood.

Yes, it was because of who He is. And thinking about it more, it’s not even that the blood was special or different. Scripture says He was fully man and fully God, which to me means that even without an earthly father his blood would have been the same in makeup as yours and mine. It refers to His death and the shedding of blood which was required for the sacrifice for sin.

So perhaps when scripture refers to the blood of Christ it means simply that the perfect sacrifice was made and the death itself, with the shedding of blood, becomes our salvation.

[mossrose]

That's what I think.

Isn’t that what I said initially?

[One Bad Pig]

Blood was significant in both old testament and during the human life of Christ as a sacrifice. Humans were not to be sacrificed as offerings to God, because we are sinful, and human sacrifice was practiced by the pagans, but the blood of pure, spotless animals was acceptable to the Lord until the death of Christ,

Christ was the ultimate, spotless Lamb of God, and His blood was the only sacrifice to satisfy the wrath of a holy and just God for sin.

Blood has been significant in every sacrificial system, ever. Human sacrifice is wrong because humans are made in the image of God, not because we are sinful; the latter is an Augustinian concept. All of creation was affected by the Fall, not just humanity. God made provision for the sacrifice of spotless clean animals (pagans also sacrificed pigs) under the Mosaic covenant. Jesus' self-sacrifice on the Cross inaugurated a new covenant (as Hebrews explains). The blood of Jesus is simply a metonym for Jesus' self-sacrifice.

[rogue06]

OK, that --- I had made that statement - that it wasn't anything particularly different about Jesus' blood, except that it was His. It was because it came from the "spotless lamb", not because it was unique blood in and of itself.

Then somebody very politely told me that, because Jesus had a mother and not a physical father, His blood would be unique. Trying to find out how.

That sounds more like an argument regarding DNA rather than blood.