“because the flesh of Jesus is untouched by Original Sin”
Actually, the opposite is true.
1 Peter 2:24
who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.
But I do know what you are referring to. He was unblemished. As the head of a new human race, He was untainted by the original sin. But our sins were placed on Him. He carried them bodily. His blood washed them away.
“Scripture tells us nothing about what would happen to each shed skin cell and each shed drop of blood.”
I did not say that it tells us specifically what happened. The scripture tells us His body and blood were incorruptible. His body and blood were physical and not just a form or appearance of flesh and blood. Their never going through any kind of corruption is a physical attribute. One of the passages I cited earlier contrasts Christ’s blood with gold which IS corruptible. Gold is resistant to rust, but it does oxidize (tarnish). (See James 5:3.) In contrast, Peter stated that Christ’s blood was not corruptible.
1 Peter 1:18-19
knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
“the Scriptures are not making the trivial, silly, and magical prediction”
The same sort of mocking language might be used by those who reject the virgin birth or resurrection.
It appears from a careful reading of Hebrews 9 that Christ presented His own blood to the Father as a sacrifice in the temple in Heaven.
Do you deny this? If not, how was His blood transported there?
1 John 1:7b
the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Hebrews 9:11-14
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
The blood of Christ is precious. It’s worth is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. Would God allow the most precious substance in the universe to be discarded as refuse? If God ordained for Christ’s blood to be presented as a sacrifice in Heaven, would it be unreasonable to believe every drop of His blood is either part of that offering or in some other fashion efficiating the atonement of sins?
It appears from a careful reading of Hebrews 9 that Christ presented His own blood to the Father as a sacrifice in the temple in Heaven.
Do you think Hebrews means that Jesus has this tank or vat full of blood, and presents that to the Father? First of all, the Father is pure spirit.
Jesus, for all eternity, in some manner, constantly presents to the Father the perfect act of his divine and human wills, acting in perfect accord, by which he offered his entire self--in particular his human life--on the cross. This is the meaning of "Christ presents his blood to the Father."
You seem to interpret every statement in Scripture, even those that clearly are using physical things or images of physical things to represent spiritual realities, as bald statements of physical events.
And, no, what I am saying is NOT Docetism. The body and blood of Jesus, united hypostatically to the Word, are as physical as yours and mine.
Christ had no Sin, bearing sins does not mean he had sin. THat is an expression to convey he bore our sins on the Cross, it does not mean his Humanity was tainted by Sin, either Original or Personal sin. To posit that Christ had sin would be defacto heresy.