Holy Blood

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 01:45 PM 2/27/98 +0000, Bro Drost wrote:

[snip]

>Let us be careful or we end up denying his humanity, without sin 
>yes, but human. He was and is 100% God but he also is 100% human but 
>without sin.

[snip]

I only wrote the above based on the premise of *Holy Blood* that
is pure from the stain of man's sinful blood.  If God were to 
make sure Jesus had *Holy Blood*, then the Holy Ghost would have
had to provide all of the human genetic material and absolutely
none of it could have been contributed by any other human being.

It wasn't written to deny to complete humanity of Jesus either.
Just speculating as to *how* it happened, *if* the blood is indeed
*Holy* and without the stain of mankind.

I think the thought of *Holy Blood* brings to mind the sin-erasing
characteristics that our plain old human blood can't accomplish
by it being spilled.  You know, a *washed by the blood type statement".
After all, my blood doesn't wash away any sin and neither does yours.
Other than the chemical makeup of my- and yours- blood, there's zero
difference.

Was God's blood (in the person of Jesus) considered *Holy* because 
it was through this blood that Jesus was set aside for a holy purpose?
Was it for this reason (holiness == separation) that Jesus was Holy 
(because there's no other perfect sacrifice)?

What's the *holy* of Holy Blood mean?

Bro Tyler

--                                            
 ______ ___   __ _____ __    __   __  __ tnally@iquest.net
|_    _|   \ |  |  _  |  |  |  |  \ \/ / tgnally@prairienet.org
  |  | |  |\\|  |  _  |  |__|  |__ |  |  T. Nally - "A M.I.M.E. is a
  |__| |__| \___|_| |_|_____|_____||__|  a terrible thing to waste."