DavidM wrote: >> Rather than belabor our discussion, please just >> look at the following verse. Doesn't it prove it >> once and for all that Jesus had the same blood as >> the rest of humanity? >> >> Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh >> and BLOOD, he also himself likewise took part of the >> SAME. (Hebrews 2:14 KJV) Judy: > The above tells me that Jesus partook of flesh and > blood which I have never disputed. It is the kind > of blood that flowed in his veins that we are > discussing
I feel that we are wrangling over words to no profit, so my response will be brief. In this passage, you seem to be doing everything humanly possible to dodge the clear message of the passage. It does not just say that he partook of flesh and blood. It speaks of the kind of flesh and blood which he partook of. It was the SAME as ours. It is written, "FOREASMUCH THEN AS the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise TOOK PART OF THE SAME." Green's literal translation reads: "Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, IN LIKE MANNER He Himself ALSO SHARED THE SAME THINGS." Jesus shared the same kind of flesh and blood as we do. He was descended genetically from Adam, Abraham, and David. This is the testimony of Scripture. You can deny it all you want, but the Bible is clear on this matter. There is no need to argue it away. Judy wrote: > and this is because if he had blood from the > family of man that is through the first Adam > then just like the Levitical priests - he would > need a sacrifice for his own iniquities which > still would not have been enough for him to > enter the Holy Place once and for all.... and > be accepted. What is this foolishness? What do you mean by saying, "It still would not have been enough for him to enter the Holy Place once and for all"? If the high priest could enter the holy place offering the blood of animals, could not Jesus also enter it offering his own blood? Surely you are aware that the Scriptures tell us of the animal sacrifices that were offered for Jesus Christ when he was born (Luke 2:24). Why was that done from your perspective? Something else to consider is that if Jesus was not born of a woman, of the same flesh and truly descended physically from Adam, Abraham, and David, then he would not be subject to the law and sacrifices that were commanded. Think about that. Was Jesus under the law or not? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
