Why didn't Jesus mention "the blood"

[Elijah John]

Why did Jesus so often teach forgiveness without mentioning "the blood", or without tying it to "the blood"?

Examples,

-The LORD's prayer
-The Beattitudes
-The Parables.

If forgiveness is tied to "the blood" (as the author of Hebrews claims) why didn't Jesus go around preaching this, and instead preach simple repentance and the Father's mercy? Without tying that forgiveness to "the blood"?

[Elijah John]

Why did Jesus so often teach forgiveness without mentioning "the blood", or without tying it to "the blood"?

Examples,

-The LORD's prayer
-The Beattitudes
-The Parables.

If forgiveness is tied to "the blood" (as the author of Hebrews claims) why didn't Jesus go around preaching this, and instead preach simple repentance and the Father's mercy? Without tying that forgiveness to "the blood"?

Well, he DID mention the blood, tying it in with forgiveness.

-The Last Supper

"Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: 'This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.' Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying, 'This cup means the new covenantby virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.'" (Luke 22:19,20)

Fair enough. But why didn't he go around preaching "the blood"? Instead the bulk of Jesus preaching concerned repentance and the Father's mercy. No blood in the LORD's Prayer, the Beattitudes and the Parables. Forgiveness with no mention of the blood in the bulk of Jesus teachings. The whole "ransom" thing almost seems like an afterthought, when he was approaching his day to be martyred.

[onewithhim]

Why did Jesus so often teach forgiveness without mentioning "the blood", or without tying it to "the blood"?

Examples,

-The LORD's prayer
-The Beattitudes
-The Parables.

If forgiveness is tied to "the blood" (as the author of Hebrews claims) why didn't Jesus go around preaching this, and instead preach simple repentance and the Father's mercy? Without tying that forgiveness to "the blood"?

One has to wonder if the connection between blood and forgiveness wasn't a late addition. Perhaps Jesus never intended to be crucified, but once he was, his followers had to add blood sacrifice to the story.


Tcg

Do you remember that the Law was "a tutor leading to Christ?" The unblemished sheep and bulls pre-figured the coming Messiah who would take their place in bringing forgiveness to the people. Their blood was spilled in very precise ways, and it was necessary for the offering to be satisfactory. (Leviticus 4:16-20) Blood has always symbolized life, and has been sacred to God. When the animals that were sacrificed spilled their blood, it was a fore-gleam of what the Messiah would do to neutralize all of the sins of mankind (should they accept it).

To accuse Jesus of being a weak, ineffective, naive, clueless individual, you are negating what he accomplished for the world of mankind. You are minimizing his heartfelt obedience, to do his Father's will, and the unimaginable suffering he experienced when he was impaled. He said, in the garden on his last night, that his people could have rescued him from being arrested but he told them no because he was determined to carry out his Father's will.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 9 by Overcomer]

Not just "my beliefs". I didn't make this stuff up. There is support for my position in Scripture itself. But you ignore this and emphasize other passages. The bloody ones.

And you still haven't accounted for those more humane passages. How do you account for the many places Jesus preaches forgiveness without connecting it to "the blood". Again, the LORD's Prayer ( a very Jewish prayer) the Beattitudes and the Parables. Answer the question, councilor.

These contradict the book of Hebrews claim that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin." Jesus, John the Baptist and the Prophets all taught forgiveness without tying it to the "shedding of blood".

Was Jesus blood-sacrifice central to his message? Or not. If so, why didn't he go around preaching this? Why only in a few places towards the end?

And you are ignoring historical, cultural and religious context. No Jew would preach his own blood as a means of atonement. No good Jew would preach human sacrifice.

But context favors the interpretation that a good Jew would preach repentance, and the Father's mercy. Period.

Or are you saying that Jesus was not a good Jew?

And simply pointing a few other passages where Jesus seems to teach blood sacrifice does not account for the ones where he does not. I.e, the bulk of his teachings.

Weigh it, the few verses where Jesus seems to preach "the blood" vs. the bulk where he preaches the sufficiency of simple repentance and the Father's mercy instead.

Why are you, and the disciples of Paul so tied to "the blood" when Scripture itself provides less barbaric alternatives?

[Elijah John]

Why did Jesus so often teach forgiveness without mentioning "the blood", or without tying it to "the blood"?

Examples,

-The LORD's prayer
-The Beattitudes
-The Parables.

If forgiveness is tied to "the blood" (as the author of Hebrews claims) why didn't Jesus go around preaching this, and instead preach simple repentance and the Father's mercy? Without tying that forgiveness to "the blood"?

One has to wonder if the connection between blood and forgiveness wasn't a late addition. Perhaps Jesus never intended to be crucified, but once he was, his followers had to add blood sacrifice to the story.


Tcg

Do you remember that the Law was "a tutor leading to Christ?" The unblemished sheep and bulls pre-figured the coming Messiah who would take their place in bringing forgiveness to the people. Their blood was spilled in very precise ways, and it was necessary for the offering to be satisfactory. (Leviticus 4:16-20) Blood has always symbolized life, and has been sacred to God. When the animals that were sacrificed spilled their blood, it was a fore-gleam of what the Messiah would do to neutralize all of the sins of mankind (should they accept it).

To accuse Jesus of being a weak, ineffective, naive, clueless individual, you are negating what he accomplished for the world of mankind. You are minimizing his heartfelt obedience, to do his Father's will, and the unimaginable suffering he experienced when he was impaled. He said, in the garden on his last night, that his people could have rescued him from being arrested but he told them no because he was determined to carry out his Father's will.

No one is minimizing the pain of Jesus martyrdom. We are simply rejecting the Paul's human blood-redemption theology, his theological interpretation of the event.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

Yes, EJ, Tcg said that Jesus may not have even wanted to die but just kind of fell into it. He minimized Jesus' purpose, obedience, and suffering.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Intervention

Overcomer and Eloi (and anyone else to whom it applies)

Kindly cease and desist making personal remarks directed toward other members.

The idea here is to debate ISSUES, not personalities.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

Yes, EJ, Tcg said that Jesus may not have even wanted to die but just kind of fell into it. He minimized Jesus' purpose, obedience, and suffering.

How does that minimize Jesus suffering? Are you saying martyrs do not suffer?

Also, Jesus martyrdom being somewhat unexpected seems a reasonable explanation of why he shifted emphasis towards the end, (if indeed he did this) from the Father's mercy to the blood-atoning merits of his own impending death.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Elijah John]
EJ, asking where ELSE in the Bible it is talked about something is a genuine question, and I think is Ok to ask ... but you must understand that there are some things in the Bible that only appear in one passage, like for example, the event of the earthquake by the time of Jesus' death ... It is enough for some of us that something appears in only one place, cause even if the Bible is a collection of books, all of them constitute the Word of God as a whole.

Nevertheless, this matter of the blood of Jesus appears in the Evangels, as it is been said before, and appears in the Hebrew Scriptures, and appears in Revelation, this last inspired book written by John but, as you may know, was a revelation given by Jesus directly. You can read this in Revelation:

Rev. 5:6 And I saw standing in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the elders a lamb that seemed to have been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, and the eyes mean the seven spirits of God that have been sent out into the whole earth. 7 At once he came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne. 8 When he took the scroll, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb, and each one had a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense. (The incense means the prayers of the holy ones.) 9 And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.�
11 And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 and they were saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.�

Have you asked yourself why in Revelation Jesus is called "the Lamb of God"? Don't you think that this matter in Revelation has all to do with the blood of Jesus being poured as a sacrifice to pay a ransom, etc?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

Yes, EJ, Tcg said that Jesus may not have even wanted to die but just kind of fell into it. He minimized Jesus' purpose, obedience, and suffering.

How does that minimize Jesus suffering? Are you saying martyrs do not suffer?

Also, Jesus martyrdom being somewhat unexpected seems a reasonable explanation of why he shifted emphasis towards the end, (if indeed he did this) from the Father's mercy to the blood-atoning merits of his own impending death.

I am saying that Jesus suffered the most of any martyr. He set out from the beginning(Matthew 3:11,12; John 1:29) to prepare people and himself for the most important event in the history of mankind (according to the Bible). He knew what he had to do, and he didn't just "find himself" in that predicament as some suggest. He was taking the place of every single human that was ever born, if they would accept that fact, so that they would not ever have to be annihilated. He also had to put up with being called a blasphemer and a criminal and a seditionist. The most hurtful was that he was being accused of speaking and acting against his Father, God, and that was what caused him to sweat blood when praying in the garden before his last hours. He knew he had to die that awful death and resisted any tendency to give in and try to save himself. He was faithful to the end, and because of what he did we can be assured of the prospect of never having to have our everlasting lives terminated.

[Overcomer]

tam wrote:

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28

Yes! I hadn't thought of that one! Thank you for posting it.