What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"God Blood"?

Bull of the Woods

Bull of the Woods

Member
In a bible study this past weekend we were discussing the blood of Christ. The pastor was leading and stated that Christ's blood was "God Blood" not human blood. I had never heard that idea in my 41 years as a believer.
I brought it up with my wife who hadn't heard of that either.
The pastor is a KJV man. I did some googling and it seems much of this ideal comes from Acts 20:28

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Since Jesus isn't named in this verse the proponents of this view the "he" and "his" as God, in effect "God has purchased with His own blood.

Advocates of "God blood" say human blood couldn't atone for our sins.

What say you all?
Did Jesus have human or "God blood " ?
 
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 John 6:53,54 KJV

These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb Revelation 7:14 KJV
 
I have never personally considered that Christ's blood was anything but human blood, albeit, without sin as we say of His flesh.
I would think the idea of Him having "God blood" contradicts Him being fully God and fully man. His humanness is just that, fully man. He isn't a hybrid.
 
I would have to say the concept of God's blood would be metaphorical, not physical. When He became a man, He took on the physical attributes of a human, including actual blood pumping through the vessels of His earthly body. It has to be referring to how Jesus was part of God in the spiritual sense, as God is a spirit. He has no physical form that we could understand.
 
Since I had never heard of such a thing I have been googling around. I may be wrong but my impression is it is an idea more likely held in KJV only, or strongly KJV folks.
Not exactly sure why yet.
I believe Adrian Rogers held this view and preached from the KJV.
 
It kind of smacks of RCC doctrine to me. Along with the immaculate conception, and how the elements used during communion are actually Christ's body.
 
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

We know Jesus was fully God and fully man when He walked the earth. In a sense it was God's blood that flowed through Him as life is in the blood and it is God who gives it.
 
Whatever happened to investigator Ron Wyatt's research? He supposedly recovered Messianic blood from the Ark of the Covenant (where it had been sprinkled) and had it analyzed. With astonishment, they found that:

1. Although definitely human blood, it contained only 24 chromosomes instead of the normal 46: the usual 23 from the mother, but only 1 sex-determining Y chromosome from a male source that could not have been human.

2. After reconstitution with normal saline and examination microscopically, was found to be still alive (chromosome counts can only be taken on live blood.)

 
Bull of the Woods said:
Since I had never heard of such a thing I have been googling around. I may be wrong but my impression is it is an idea more likely held in KJV only, or strongly KJV folks.
Not exactly sure why yet.
I believe Adrian Rogers held this view and preached from the KJV.
Click to expand...
No he didn't ,funny when you,listen to pastor Rodgers ,know that his first teo churches are close to my house .i plan to photo both .Parkview and fellsmere Baptist church
 
jasonc said:
No he didn't ,funny when you,listen to pastor Rodgers ,know that his first teo churches are close to my house .i plan to photo both .Parkview and fellsmere Baptist church
Click to expand...

This is the sermon outline for the recorded message my pastor had us listen to by Adrian Rogers.

Section 1 of the introduction, part E

Here is Dr Rogers' sermon

See at minute 3:20

Around that time on the video he also makes the categorically false statement that a baby's blood type is solely determined by the father. It's part of his argument about Jesus blood.
 
Last edited:
Bull of the Woods said:

This is the sermon outline for the recorded message my pastor had us listen to by Adrian Rogers.

Section 1 of the introduction, part E

Here is Dr Rogers' sermon

See at minute 3:20

Around that time on the video he also makes the categorically false statement that a baby's blood type is solely determined by the father. It's part of his argument about Jesus blood.
Click to expand...
Ok,I will have listen to him at home
 
jasonc said:
Acts 20:28
Click to expand...
Yes I know that verse is the primary one used. I don't know what proponents of non human blood in Jesus do with the many references to Christ's blood. I think the issue is Acts 20:28 may be one of those sentences that had a different meaning as far as the grammar goes. Rather than "His own blood" and God as the subject it's "the blood of His own" as in the blood of His own dear one, Jesus.

And I am not sure how they square this cincept of Jesus having non human blood with the long held doctrine that as far as His humanity goes, He is FULLY man not some hybrid.
 
Last edited:
Bull of the Woods said:
Yes I know that verse is the primary one used. I don't know what proponents of non human blood in Jesus do with the many references to Christ's blood. I think the issue is Acts 20:28 may be one of those sentences that had a different meaning as far as the grammar goes. Rather than "His own blood" and God as the subject it's "the blood of His own" as in the blood of His own dear one, Jesus.

And I am not sure how they square this cincept of Jesus having non human blood with the long held doctrine that as far as His humanity goes, He is FULLY man not some hybrid.
Click to expand...
I,agree .its rather odd
 
KevinK said:
Whatever happened to investigator Ron Wyatt's research? He supposedly recovered Messianic blood from the Ark of the Covenant (where it had been sprinkled) and had it analyzed. With astonishment, they found that:

1. Although definitely human blood, it contained only 24 chromosomes instead of the normal 46: the usual 23 from the mother, but only 1 sex-determining Y chromosome from a male source that could not have been human.

2. After reconstitution with normal saline and examination microscopically, was found to be still alive (chromosome counts can only be taken on live blood.)

Click to expand...

He could not have gathered any samples from the Ark of the Covenant as no one can literally touch it and live as it's in violation of God's divine law. When David sought to bring the Ark back to Jerusalem the oxen stumbled and Uzzah reached out and grabbed the Ark and God slew him for touching that it as the Ark of the covenant was an embodiment of God's presence with the Israelites, 1 Samuel 6:19; 2 Samuel 6:1-7.

No one knows what happened to the Ark of the covenant that was stored in the Temple of Jerusalem before the Temple was destroyed in 70AD. The one that is found in Ethiopia is not the original Ark. For more on this go to: rationalchristianity.net/ why did God kill people who touched or looked into the Ark.
 
for_his_glory said:
He could not have gathered any samples from the Ark of the Covenant as no one can literally touch it and live as it's in violation of God's divine law. When David sought to bring the Ark back to Jerusalem the oxen stumbled and Uzzah reached out and grabbed the Ark and God slew him for touching that it as the Ark of the covenant was an embodiment of God's presence with the Israelites, 1 Samuel 6:19; 2 Samuel 6:1-7.

No one knows what happened to the Ark of the covenant that was stored in the Temple of Jerusalem before the Temple was destroyed in 70AD. The one that is found in Ethiopia is not the original Ark. For more on this go to: rationalchristianity.net/ why did God kill people who touched or looked into the Ark.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but he also claimed to have obtained blood samples from an "earthquake crack" beneath the actual crucifixion site.
 
I have found a lot of this confusion in my circles is the pastor and some folks are relying on a pamphlet written by a Christian doctor, M.R. DeHann, in 1943 and some of his conclusions are what we now know is very faulty science and logic. He didn't even understand that half the DNA that dictates the baby's blood chemistry comes from the mother.
 
KevinK said:
Fair enough, but he also claimed to have obtained blood samples from an "earthquake crack" beneath the actual crucifixion site.
Click to expand...

If I can't believe him on the first I certainly am not going to believe him on that one either.
 
Bull of the Woods said:
In a bible study this past weekend we were discussing the blood of Christ. The pastor was leading and stated that Christ's blood was "God Blood" not human blood. I had never heard that idea in my 41 years as a believer.
I brought it up with my wife who hadn't heard of that either.
The pastor is a KJV man. I did some googling and it seems much of this ideal comes from Acts 20:28

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Since Jesus isn't named in this verse the proponents of this view the "he" and "his" as God, in effect "God has purchased with His own blood.

Advocates of "God blood" say human blood couldn't atone for our sins.

What say you all?
Did Jesus have human or "God blood " ?
Click to expand...
God is Spirit - blood has to do with the human body in this case
The sinless Son of Man who came from above was the more perfect sacrifice that entered into the true tabernacle in heaven by His blood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top