SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : concerning baptism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Philogos writes:
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” (Rev. 1:5-6, KJVS)
The metaphor here is clearly the exodus and the covenant at Sinai. The people of Israel, of course, were never 'washed in blood', but they were 'redeemed by blood' which was struck onto the door posts and lintels. This is a familiar metaphor of the NT that the Church is God's Israel 'blood bought' and 'separated to Him'.

Stever's response:

The above is only your opinion. We are all saved by His Blood, not just the Jews at the first Passover in Egypt.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/9 18:05
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Stever writes

Quote:
The above is only your opinion. We are all saved by His Blood, not just the Jews at the first Passover in Egypt.


but this does not make sense. The Jews were not saved from Egypt by His death. If you had read a little more carefully you would have seen that my reference was not to 'the Jews' but to the Church as the Israel of God. Are you saying that the 'exodus' is not used as a metaphor for the Church?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/9 18:10Profile









 Re:

Philogos said:
I think we need to say something more about the Blood of Christ before we slip into superstition. The Bible language relating to Christ's blood is a synonym for His death at Calvary. There was nothing magical or mystical about the physical 'blood' of Christ. Those who nailed Him were probably spattered with it and he who pierced Him was probably awash in it. So far as we know none of these were benefited in any way by the 'blood of Christ'.

The Blood of Christ is 'bible-shorthand' for Christ's life poured out in death. The consequences of this death are many and far reaching, and stever's list is relevant here, but neither the Blood of Christ nor the Cross of Christ has any intrinsic value; that is, the physical blood and cross even if they had been preserved, as Catholicism used to proclaim, they would have had no power in or of themselves. The phrases are synonyms for the sacrificial gift of the Son of God in the redemption secured at Golgotha.

Stever's response:

The Importance of Christ's Blood
John 6:53-56



I. The Provision of the Blood
1. It was the Plan of the Sovereign
(1 Pet 1:18-20)
2. It was Pictured in the Sacrifices (Gen. 3:21, Ex. 12:1-13)
3. It was Provided by the Savior (Heb. 10:12,14)

II. The Properties of the Blood
1. It Covers (Rom. 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 4:10)
2. It Cleanses (Rev. 1:5, 1 John 1:7)
3. It Consecrates (Heb. 10:19-20)

III. The Preaching of the Blood
1. Preach it for Salvation
(1 Pet. 1:2)
2. Preach it for Separation
(Rom. 12:1-2, 1 Cor. 6:19-20)
3. Preach it for Service
(Phil. 2:5-8)

God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/9 18:16
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Stever writes

Quote:
The Importance of Christ's Blood
John 6:53-56


“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56, KJVS)

This passage proves beyond all possible doubt that it is not the physical blood or flesh of Christ which is in view, but Christ's death. The Catholic church has got itself into the nonsense of transubstantiation as a result of interpreting this to mean the physical blood of Christ.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/9 18:27Profile









 Re:

Philogos said:
but this does not make sense. The Jews were not saved from Egypt by His death. If you had read a little more carefully you would have seen that my reference was not to 'the Jews' but to the Church as the Israel of God. Are you saying that the 'exodus' is not used as a metaphor for the Church?


Stever's response:

The Jews were saved before the Cross, the same as we are saved after the Cross---By our belief in the Messiah. They believed in the Messiah to come, and we believe in the Messiah that came.

The Passover was a "picture" of the final sacrifice. By placing the blood on the door posts and the lentil, they were doing nothing more than proving their faith, by believing God and the instructions He gave them through Moses.They were also creating a picture, stick diagram of the Cross that Christ would be crucified on, with the blood (His blood, eventually) on the sides and the top of the doorway, and the bottom, in the basin!

The blood of goats and animals does not save us, only the blood of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the God Man:
Hebrews 9:8-14
8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

They, before the Cross are saved by their faith in Him, and we, after the cross are saved by our faith in Him.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/9 18:37









 Re:

Philogos said:

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56, KJVS)

Stever’s response:

What the above refers to is the Sacrifices of Leviticus, as well as His final sacrifice where He was offering Himself. The only Sacrifice that the sinner gave, that provided him flesh to eat, was the Peace Offering.

These were the following sacrifices in the Old Testament, the Old Covenant:


Sin offering---mandatory—for my sin nature.
Trespass Offering—mandatory- for my specific sin, both known and unknown
Burnt Offering-Voluntary (Sweet Savor)
Meal Offering-Voluntary
Peace Offering- Voluntary (a. Thank; b. Vow; c. Freewill)

The first two offerings (Sacrifices) were mandatory if you were a Jewish believer. The other 3 were all voluntary.

The Jewish Sacrificial system was wide open. Then, like today, some only do what is required while others, who want a closer walk with God, are willing to go all of the way. The deeper that you went into the system, the more time and money it cost to go there. The only way to ever eat the sacrifice was to go all of the way, for a deeper walk. Also, drinking the blood of the covenant partner in the blood covenant ritual always involved sharing a glass of wine together, not actual blood. If the Jews hearing these words from Christ knew the Jewish Sacrificial system, set up by God Almighty at Mt. Sinai, they would have known what Christ was talking about. He himself was the sacrifice!:

S= SIN
T= TRESPASS

Name of Nature of Offers Priests God’s Priest Offers Scripture
Offering Offering Work Work Portion Portion Portion
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Mandatory Work of Christ Work of Christ

SIN Fine Flour Lay on Puts blood Fat of If Blood NONE Lev 4:5-13
Bull, Lamb hands to on the Altar the inner taken taken into 6:24-30
Goat, Dove become parts, kidneys Tabernacle,
Or Pigeon one with & liver (within- flesh burned
Kills Without) t outside the camp.
Otherwise flesh
Was the Priests

TRES- Ram Lay on Puts blood Fat of REMAINDER NONE Lev 5:14-19
PASS hands to On the the inner 6:1-7; 7:1-10
become Altar parts, kidneys
one with, & liver
kills
Mandatory Work of Christ Work of Christ
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Voluntary Person of Christ Person of Christ
Burnt Bull, Lamb Lay on hands Puts Blood BURN ALL SKIN NONE Lev 1, 6:8-13
(Sweet Goat, dove to become On the altar ON THE 8:18-28
Savor) one with, ALTAR
Kills animal

MEAL Fine flour Brings it to Offers hand- HANDFUL REMAINDER NONE LEV 2, 6:14-23
Oil, salt & the Priest ful by Fire

PEACE Bull, Lamb Lay on hands Puts Blood Fat of the WAVE SKIN + Lev 3, 7:11-36
Goat-no Bird to become On the Altar inner parts, BREAST REMAINDER**
One with, kidneys & & Lev 22:18-30
Kills animal liver HEAVE ALL SACRIFICES
SHOULDER SALTED
(CREATING Lev 2:13; Ezek 43:24
A CROSS) Mark 9:5
HAD TO BE
EATEN BY
3RD DAY.


God bless,

Stever

P.S, This looked great in the post from my computer, but I guess your server does not keep the spacing between letters. I have this entire diagram (The Sacrifices of Leviticus) in Excel format if anyone is interested.

 2005/7/9 21:58









 Re:

Philogos said:

Each of these editors has had a different philosophy and anyone with a copy of the Interlinear Greek NT based on Stephens (created by Thomas Newberry) will have an brief introduction to some of these. Strictly speaking the 'Received Text' is that produced by Elzevir in 1624 which used the phrase in the preface. (the KJV, by definition, was not based on the 'Received Text' which was created later!?! Funny old world we live in!!)

The text in question is
Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Of the above editors for this verse, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford (margin), Wescott and Hort, Nestle-Aland do not have the word 'washed' but have the word 'loosed' instead; why?

The Greek word for 'washed' here is 'lousanti' (louO) while the Greek word for 'loosed' would be 'lusanti' (luO); a difference of a single letter. This would give us 'who loosed us from our sins in (by) his blood'. I reject the conspiracy theory of textual criticism. An error has taken place here in the copying, but in which direction?

Is there any other verse of scripture which has this image of 'washing in blood'? No. In the OT the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled and by that process the efficacy of the sacrifice was applied to the sprinkled ones. This OT pattern would link in well with a family of Greek words which is very important in NT doctrine. They are words linked to 'luO' which means to release.
lusis, meaning to loose or divorce.
lutron, the ransom price
lutroO, to ransom or redeem
lutrOsis, redemption
lutrOtes, a redeemer
antilutron, the redemption price
you will see the idea by now. a price is paid to secure the release. This is actually a much more biblical concept than that of being 'washed in blood'. The price is the life poured out in the death of the cross. In fact, it fits much better with the context too;

Stever’s response:

I have such difficulty with your defense of Westcott and Hort, and the rest of their ilk. My Interlinear Greek English New Testament –3rd Edition by Jay P. Green, Sr. that relies on the Textus Receptus only DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR "SLANT" ON WHAT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ACTUALLY SAYS, IT REFUTES WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED (AGAIN).

Literal Translation of Rev 1:5

“even from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him loving us and WASHING US FROM OUR SINS BY HIS BLOOD,”

A word for word translation from this same work, Rev 1:5

“and from Jesus Christ, the witness faithful, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To the (One) loving us, AND WASHED (3068) US (2248) FROM THE SINS OF US IN THE BLOOD OF HIM”

King James Translation:

5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SIN IN HIS OWN BLOOD,

We are indeed washed by His Blood from our sins! I definitely feel that this is also the element that the Baptism of Salvation (the indwelling)takes place in.

God bless,

Stever

P.S.

Strong's Number: 3068
Transliterated: louo
Phonetic: loo'-o

Text: a primary verb; to BATHE (THE WHOLE PERSON; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): --wash.

Strong's Number: 2248
Transliterated: hemas
Phonetic: hay-mas'

Text: accusative case plural of 1473; us: --our, US, we.

 2005/7/9 22:39









 Re:

Philogos said:
I think we need to say something more about the Blood of Christ before we slip into superstition.

Stever's response: Sounds like the work of Bishop Westcott himself, methink!!!

God bless,

Stever

 2005/7/10 1:20
Petertutu
Member



Joined: 2005/7/10
Posts: 7


 Re:

I believe the answer to baptism can be summed up in Matthew 3:11, "He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire." This is in all 4 gospels.

 2005/7/10 2:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Stever's response: Sounds like the work of Bishop Westcott himself, methink!!!


which I take as an indication of your ignorence of both Westcott and myself. :-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/10 4:21Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy