Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means much more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement. Trying to make literal every reference to Christ's blood can lead to serious error. The Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation, for example, teaches that communion wine is miraculously changed into the actual blood of Christ, and that those who partake of the elements in the mass literally fulfill the words of Jesus in John 6:54: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Those who have attacked me seem to be espousing the same kind of mystical view of the blood that led the Catholic Church to embrace transubstantiation. They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. They insist on literalizing
No one in the article that exposed JM said or taught that, despite his claims. Note that he gives zero examples.
I was asked to define what I disagreed with in JM's letter in post #52 and I did so.
I will repeat it here.
"When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death."
He's wrong.
>> You're cherry picking. The whole statement thatPmarlowe posted says more, i.e. <<
I mean, after all, it's totally unfair to quote anyone, without including a completely gratuitous slander on Catholicism! :^P :^D
Actually, the quote was going pretty accurately until it tripped over this outrageous statement:
>> They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. <<
Many Catholics died at the hands of Roman persecution (eeven after the supposed ecclesial take-over of Constantine) defending the assertion that Christ was fully human, blood and all.