| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: Pleading the Blood | | Stever responds to crsschk in regards to pleading the blood.
[b]It truly seems that everyone has their own opinion on this matter[/b]. The post has shifted to other subjects: The Blood covenant; The Passover; and the Seed of the Woman; as well as the encampment of the Israelites, and a comparison to the original passover, to the final passover of Jesus Christ's shed blood, death and resurrection from the dead.
A little off subject, to say the least. But by the number of people who have followed this thread, it seems to have aroused interest to those that have taken the time to follow it.
I take it by the response from crsschk, that this thread is nearing its end.
I would like to post a defense of pleading the blood by Joyce Meyers. I do not agree with everything Joyce has to say and teach, but I do agree with her on this one.
Here goes:
Pleading the Blood
Uncompromisingly righteous and just are You, O Lord, when I complain against and contend with You. You let me plead and reason the case with You: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are all they at ease and thriving who deal very treacherously and deceitfully? Jeremiah 12:1
I want to say something about the phrase "pleading the blood", because some people think it is wrong to teach people to plead the blood of Jesus.
A woman came to me one night after a meeting in which she had heard me use the phrase "pleading the blood". She told me that it was wrong to plead the blood, that we are not beggars but children of God and therefore we should "apply" or "put" the blood, not "plead" it.
If the word "plead" were only a beggar's term, then she would be correct, because we are God's children and cerainly not beggars. But "plead" used in this sense is a legal term and has nothing to do with begging.
You and I have a legal right to use the blood of Jesus, just as we have a legal right to use the name of Jesus. It has been given to us, and we have a right to use it.
First, let's look at the word "plead" in Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary. This is what it says in part: "To appeal earnestly,...To put forward a plea of a specific nature in a court of law,...To address a court as a lawyer or advocate,...To assert or urge as defense, vindication, or excuse,...To present as an answer to a charge, indictment, or declaration made against one".
Let me say here that Satan certainly wants to accuse us; as a matter of fact, he is called the accuser of our brethren (Rev. 12:10). Our only defense is the blood of Jesus. We cannot offer our own righteousness or perfect record of good behavior, but we can offer the blood of Jesus. In truth, we dare not offer anything but the blood!
When you try to pray, the devil may attempt to accuse you, reminding you of past sins and mistakes. There is no point in arguing with him, or trying to defend yourself. Sometimes I simply say to him, "Oh, thank you, Mr.Devil, for reminding me of my sins; now I can remember again how precious Jesus' blood is that has already cleansed me from them". Or when the devil brings up some sin, if it is one that I have not yet repented of, it just reminds me to do so-and therefore he loses once again.
The devil is a legalist to the maximum degree, and you and I had better use all our legal rights in dealing with him. We have a legal right to the blood of Jesus, and when we plead the blood we are exercising that legal right, not begging in the sense that most people understand the term in a nonlegal sense.
A study of the Greek words translated "beg", "beggar", or "beggarly" in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words reveals that the verb form means "to ask...intensively,...to ask earnestly, to importune, continue asking". A milder form of this same verb is translated simply "to ask".
When I pray, I don't consider myself begging, but I am pleading my case before God and telling Him that I am expecting His help and intervention. Jeremiah considered himself to be pleading his case before God as he prayed in Jeremiah 12:1. When I pray, using the name of Jesus, or pleading the blood of Jesus, I am merely exercising my legal rights. I am setting forth my case that Jesus has shed His blood and died for me; therefore Satan has no right to rule me, accuse me, condemn me or do anything else to me or to anything that belongs to me.
Whatever phrasing you decide to use is up to you, but the main point is: "use" the blood. Pray it, or put it, or apply it, or appropriate it or plead it-but for your own sake, do something with it!
This quote can be found at:
http://theswap.com/BBS/DCForumID11/469.html#4
God bless,
Stever :-D
P.S. This is the 1828 definition of Plead, from Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English language:
PLEAD, v.t. To discuss, defend and attempt to maintain by arguments or reasons offered to the tribunal or person who has the power of determining; as, to plead a cause before a court or jury. In this sense, argue is more generally used by lawyers.
1. To allege or adduce in proof, support or vindication. The law of nations may be pleaded in favor of the rights of embassadors.
2. To offer in excuse.
I will neither plead my age nor sickness in excuse of faults.
3. To allege and offer in a legal plea or defense,or for repelling a demand in law; as, to plead usury; to plead a statute of limitations.
4. [i][b][color=0000FF]In Scripture, to plead the cause of the righteous, as God, is to avenge or vindicate them against enemies, or to redress their grievances. Is.51.[/color][/b][/i]
|
|  2006/7/1 12:39 | |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | | Hi Stever,
I hope you don't mind, I couldn't wait any longer for you to edit your last post on p15. You wrote it like this:
dorcas wrote:
Quote:
WOMEN DO NOT HAVE SEED!
(NKJV) Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Hi Stever,
Please could you explain what makes you say women don't have 'seed'?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[color=0000CC]Stever's response to Dorcas:
Men have seed, and women have eggs. Women require the seed of men to have children.
The reference here is to a virgin, who will conceive without a man.
The reference here is to the Messiah, the Seed of the Woman, Jesus Christ, who will be born of a virgin by immaculate conception.
Now, take out your NIV and consider the same verse you quoted:
Genesis 3:15
"an I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers"
We can see the intent of Origen and other infidels when we look at the above changing of God's word. The intent of Origen was to empower man, any man, to fulfill the prophecy.
Genesis 3:15 in the KJV states:
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
The "seed" referred to here is Jesus Christ, and is specific to entail a virgin birth by immaculate conception, for the restoration of fallen man back to Himself.
God bless,
Stever
_________________
Bond Servant[/color]
So, for those reading this properly for the first time, let me clarify, the quote 'WOMEN DON'T HAVE SEED!' was all that I had extracted from a longer part of one of your previous posts, (top of p15) which says:
Quote:
Stever's response:
You miss the whole point here. WOMEN DO NOT HAVE SEED! MEN ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE SEED. The seed of the Woman is Jesus, who was fathered by the Holy Ghost, and prophesized in the Book of Genesis.
Mary was only a vessel to bring about this one and only virgin birth.
God bless,
I then quoted Isaiah 7:14 and said:
Quote:
Hi Stever,
Please could you explain what makes you say women don't have 'seed'?
Above in blue, you see Stever's response. |
| | 2006/7/1 15:00 | |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | | Hi Stever,
I don't know if you noticed MikeB commented on the confusion which arises when the main text of a response is written in the quote format... that's why I tried to lay it out more clearly.
In your response you said:
Quote:
Men have seed, and women have eggs. Women require the seed of men to have children.
My response:
And if I may be so bold, [b]men need the seed of women to have children[/b].
The fact that the female reproductive cell has become known as an 'egg', because of what can be observed of similarities between it and the process in other egg-bearing creatures, does not detract from the [b]fact[/b] that it is as much a 'seed' as the male reproductive cell - which incidentally bears far [i]less[/i] resemblance to 'a seed', than the female cell does to 'an egg'. They are equal both in DNA [i]and[/i] chromosomal influence on the fertilised egg (zygote), which forms when they ... let's call it - 'join'.
It would be far more remarkable for Genesis 1 to refer solely to 'seed', and Genesis 3 to suddenly call the 'seed' of the woman 'an egg', than it is for the record to use the same very clear, simple, comprehensible terminology in both references to reproduction .... don't you think?
The rest of your response is baffling, in that it is presented in Roman Catholic terminology - 'immaculate conception' - which apart from the first sentence in your post at the top of this screen page, is the first time this has been overtly stated as your doctrinal stance - or, borrowed by you - in an attempt to appear to present a balanced discussion.
If I may say most directly, it appears disingenuous to state:
Quote:
We can see the intent of Origen and other infidels when we look at the above changing of God's word. The intent of Origen was to empower man, any man, to fulfill the prophecy.
as if this somehow clears up your previous assertion that the blood of Jesus Christ was God's 'own blood', such that I felt compelled to draw attention to the [i]humanity[/i] of Jesus Christ, by referring to the Seed of the woman (The woman was Eve at the time.) when God first made the promise of a Saviour.
(It is slightly concerning that you refer to God's word to the serpent as 'the prophecy', rather than the 'word of God'. Athough there were many prophets who foretold the coming of Christ, I would not put the Creator in their category, rather, I would put them in His.) |
| | 2006/7/1 16:14 | |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | |
The humanity of Jesus Christ has [u]nothing[/u] to do with a [i]human father[/i], as you appear to be implying imperfectly. The humanity of Jesus Christ has everything to do with the creative power of God through the Holy Spirit, and the [u]human[/u] [i]mother[/i] God the Father chose for His Son.
It is worth mentioning here, that Mary did go on to have normal married relations with Joseph, and bore other children to him.
John 7:5
For even His brothers did not believe in Him.
Notice the unbelieving humanity of the children of Mary and Joseph?..... If there was one thing designed to draw a comment from Jesus about certain people, it was their faith or lack of it. He Himself did not doubt. He believed all the time, unswervingly, in the power He could exercise at His Father's instruction.
Matthew 13
55 "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this [Man] get all these things?"
Note in these verses in Matthew, that the context of the comments of those quoted, is again the humanity of the Lord's brothers and sisters. His humanity was remarkable to them, because of His teaching: v 54 'And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were [b]astonished[/b] and said...' (See above.).... because He seemed to them much more than an [i]ordinary[/i] man.
|
| | 2006/7/1 16:16 | |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | | Stever, you also said:
Quote:
Now, take out your NIV and consider the same verse you quoted:
Genesis 3:15
"an I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers"
Unless we know whether the word 'offspring' is plural and not singular, the NIV doesn't materially alter the pronouncement by God, that a 'man' would overcome Satan....
Rather surprisingly, you don't quote the rest of verse 15 which says:
"..He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
This is even more surprising since you yourself referred to the bruising of His heel on the cross, earlier this afternoon, in a long post on p13.... Gen 3:15 is the first mention of it in the Bible.
Quote:
When Balaam went up on the mount to try and curse the Israelites, this is what he saw--a Cross. Their encampment was a picture of the Savior to come, the Seed of the Woman, who would have his heel bruised! Crucifixion is the only form of captial punishment that incurs teriffic bruising of the heel. On the cross, the victim is suffocating to death. In order to breath, he has to push with his heel into the cross, in order to push his body upward, to continue to breath.
However, I see this could be taken as human interpretation, as while it is physically true, it doesn't acknowledge the form of words quoted by John, from the Old Testament, (which make the reference of God the Father to the bruising of His heel, even more meaningful).
John 13:18
"I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.' (Psa 41:9) |
| | 2006/7/1 16:34 | | lyndon
Member
Joined: 2003/12/8
Posts: 65
Manitoba, Canada
| | Re: Pleading the blood | | Stever
I would just like to point out the article by Joyce Meyer is more of a defence on using the word plead rather than apply or something else. This is not what most of the brothers and sisters who have been part of this thread were commenting on.
As far as I can see, and I have been following this thread from the beginning, the point of contention is the practice of pleading the blood for all sorts of things. Such as protection, healing etc... As I have seen in scripture the blood is primarily Godward, even in exodus the blood was for God to look upon. Or the angel of death, unless you want to claim that the angel of death was some sort of demon or something.
Scriptually you'll find that shedding of the blood of Christ was for the remission of sin. It was so that God could look upon us and be justified in justifying us. It was not to give us power over the devil and demons and sickness. Though that power may be given to some as a consquence of God having applied the blood to their lives.
Just one question for you on a somewhat related topic, but do you generally end your prayers with 'in Jesus name'? If so, why?
Lyndon |
| | 2006/7/1 16:48 | Profile | crsschk
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA
| | Re: | | Quote:
I take it by the response from crsschk, that this thread is nearing its end.
That's interesting ... could but pray for if anything an end to this "using" of all this as it has now gone from bad to worse.
This is a terrible article and for what it's worth think there are some things from Joyce that have been a help to many ...
Now it's "Rights" ? and even more enforcement of the big "[b]I[/b]" ..Quote:
A woman came to me one night after a meeting in which she had heard me use the phrase "pleading the blood". She told me that it was wrong to plead the blood, that we are not beggars but children of God and therefore we should "apply" or "put" the blood, not "plead" it.
Apply, put, plead, use... this is just awfulQuote:
You and I have a legal right to use the blood of Jesus, just as we have a legal right to use the name of Jesus. It has been given to us, and we have a right to use it.
This sentiment of cockiness that has pervaded the landscape of the church, this prideful presuming upon so much ... Where does this idea come from?
Quote:
Whatever phrasing you decide to use is up to you, but the main point is: "use" the blood. Pray it, or put it, or apply it, or appropriate it or plead it-but for your own sake, do something with it!
Yes, for the Lord's sake, leave it alone. It's not yours ...
Oh, this is horrible
_________________
Mike Balog
|
| | 2006/7/1 17:08 | Profile |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | |
Hello again Stever. I refer to your first post above.
After MikeB's eloquent comments on the need to fully apprehend the way we should take the Name of Jesus Christ as we are exhorted in scripture, you said:
Quote:
[b]It truly seems that everyone has their own opinion on this matter[/b].
[color=0000CC][b]This simply is not true![/b][/color]
I am not going to rehearse the course of the whole thread for new readers, but they will find that it is you who has held out for the phrase 'pleading the blood', against [i]all[/i] the scriptural evidence which was brought to bear on your inability to answer this basic challenge: that the apostles did not 'plead the blood', nor did they exhort others to do so.
There have been some excellent posts in this thread, but the list of topics you mention above, were all in response to those you [u]refused to concede in the light of scripture[/u].
Also, it appears you ignored the explanation given by philologos on Rom 5:12, only to present the same chapter a little later, as if you were bringing something new to the conversation.
And you appear to have missed what might have been his prophetic allusion (p13), with regard to your later post to me today:Quote:
The Catholics got themselves into this theological mess and extricated themselves by inventing the 'immaculate conception'; the notion that Mary was without sin at the time of Christ's conception. O what a tangled web we weave when we build human speculations into divine revelation!
It is not only about receiving the written word of God as the word of God, but also about allowing the Holy Spirit to teach us how to understand spiritual truth which may appear to defy humanly-discerned explanation.
You said:
Quote:
I take it by the response from crsschk, that this thread is nearing its end.
I didn't get that in what he said.
Quote:
This is the 1828 definition of Plead, from Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English language:
Since joining SI, I've discovered the great truth in philologos' observation that we cannot take our theology from a dictionary. (He said this early in the thread 'Matt 5:32')
Quote:
From Webster's dictionary:
In Scripture, to plead the cause of the righteous, as God, is to avenge or vindicate them against enemies, or to redress their grievances. Is.51.
This is slightly alarming, since I don't find any permission to 'avenge' against enemies... quite the reverse in the New Testament.... nor of 'vindicating the righteous'. [b][color=FF6666]God does both these functions - not us[/color][/b].
I think [b][color=FF6666]this[/color][/b] is Mike's point - that God in us - that is [i]Christ in us[/i] - gives us permission to bear and use His Name. This covers everything, if we are walking in the Spirit with Him. |
| | 2006/7/1 17:11 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
Mary was only a vessel to bring about this one and only virgin birth.
Was Christ of the substance of Mary?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/7/1 17:23 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
Romans Chapter 5:
12. When Adam sinned, SIN ENTERED THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. His sin spread death throughout all the world, so everything began to grow old and die, for all sinned.
Have you never noticed that while Eve's transgression did not have an immediate effect on Adam, Adam's transgression had an immediate effect on Eve and on the rest of creation? Adam's sin made Eve a sinner but Eve's sin did not make Adam a sinner. Have you thought why this might be?
edit: Eve could not possibly have received her 'sinnerhood' by inheritance.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/7/1 17:26 | Profile |
|
