Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

In a previous thread it was stated that our resurrected bodies will be bloodless because blood is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Is this idea based entirely on 1 Cor 15:50 which says "that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God"? Are there more Scriptural "proof texts" for this idea?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

Not that there needs to be more text that states this.,but there are other things that make this understanding clear.

Mark 14:24 tells us that Jesus poured out His blood at the cross. And Rev. 5:9 tells us that Jesus purchased men for God with His blood.

If I purchase a new dress with money--do I still have that money after the purchase?

If I pour out my coffee down the sink--do I still possess that coffee in my cup?

We know that in life--blood does corrupt. That is why we embalm people after they die--to slow the decaying process. The blood is removed and a antiseptic type perfume is used.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.


I disagree with the statement that blood corrupts. The Jews used blood in their sacrifices to purify the priest before he entered the Holy of Holies. If blood corrupts, why was it required as a means of purification? Why do we need to "wash" ourselves in the blood of the Lamb (Jesus), if blood corrupts and cannot enter heaven?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 28, 2004.

That all takes place here--not in heaven.

But you can't ignore this: I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

And I would add Andy., That we wash our sins away with His sacrifice..He poured out His blood to cleanse us--so that we may enter into heaven. This is because sin or anything impure cannot enter. I know it sounds strange that red blood might wash us clean and white as snow--but here is that symbology again.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 28, 2004.


Faith,

All the passages you quoted were great, but the only one I saw that implied specifically that "blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" is the first one from Corinthians. And that also says "flesh". In my opinion, you're misinterpreting that passage by ignoring that it says flesh and blood. If I were to tell you Judy and Joe cannot enter my house, would you think I meant that Joe could enter but Judy couldn't?

I think that the Holy Spirit (through St Paul) is telling us that our corruptible bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God (flesh and blood). When we are resurrected, our glorified bodies will be different than our corruptible bodies. They will be incorruptible. The term "flesh and blood" is used in the Bible in many places to indicate the natural rather than the supernatural. "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in Heaven," for example.

I don't see that 1 Cor 15:50 tells us that our glorified bodies will not have blood (or flesh). I think the answer to that is we don't know the exact nature of our glorified bodies except that they will be incorruptible and pure. Will we still sweat or have digestive juices in our stomachs after our resurrection? Jesus did eat fish after His resurrection.

In Hebrews Paul tells us that the old sacrifices were a shadow of the things to come in Christ. Almost everything is purified in blood in the Old Covenant. In Hebrews 9, Paul tells us the high priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year with blood. He uses this to explain what Jesus has done for us. Christ's blood purifies us. He sacrificed Himself for our sins. We are purified by His blood. "For Christ has entered not the sanctuary made with hands...but into heaven itself...Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the High priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own...Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the bood of Jesus..."

Do we physically enter heaven with Christ's blood on us? I don't think so, but we don't physically wash our bodies in His blood either. Though I suppose a case could be made for those who believe in the Real Presence, that we are being truly and in a very real way washed in His blood during Communion. I'll have to think about that one a little more.

At any rate, I don't think we can say definitively what the exact makeup of our glorified bodies will be, except that it is physical as well as spiritual. I guess the details don't really matter all that much. The bottom line is the same. Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will raise us up on the last day. And Christ will come again. Then we'll know for sure.

The part I still have trouble with, is basing your argument on the idea that blood cannot enter the kingdom because it is "corruptible." Again, blood was used to purify and Paul uses this example in his letter to the Hebrews. I think that both flesh and blood and bone and bile, etc. are all corruptible. It's our sinful nature due to the consequences of Adam's sin. Nothing that is sinful or weak like our current state will enter Heaven. We must be remade spiritually now, and physically in the resurrection.

I've said my peace. Thanks for hearing me out.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 29, 2004.



Hi Andy--

I think we need to consider all of Scripture as a whole when determining what is being revealed.. Like the saying goes--Scripture interprets Scripture.

While one verse alone may not be clear enough--I think it becomes crystal clear in light of other revelation.

For example--we can get an idea of what the resurrected body is like when we consider that Thomas stuck his fingers inside Jesus wound to discover that there was no blood. He also discovered that there was nothing ghostly about the risen body. Jesus says he is made of flesh and bone. This eliminates the idea that there is blood in the resurrected body when you couple it with the verse in Corinthians that clearly says that blood is corruptable and that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven.

As to your analogy about Joe and Judy--I would need to do the same sort of further investigating. If that were the only thing I had to go on--I would have to assume that it was both Judy and Joe who were unwelcome. But if further remarks from you indicated that Joe had done some pretty bad things in the past and it was he who was the problem--and if in other remarks you said that Judy and Henry come to your house often--then I could surmise what you mean about Judy and Joe--and I could recognize that it is only Judy and Joe who can't come--but Judy is welcome with Henry.

And you are right--we don't literally wash ourselves in the blood of Christ--but we are renewed--born again [baptised by the Holy Spirit] when we receive Christ as our Savior. By His blood--we are healed, saved from the penalty of sin. He poured out His blood so that we could live--all spiritually speaking of course [eternally].

Personally--I don't think a resurrected body needs blood.

Blood was used to purify us by being shed for us--in our place--for forgiveness of that one debt we all incured at the time of the fall. This blood purifies us because it paid for our sin. So we become sinless as our debt was paid. The blood has been shed--spent--poured out.

On a physical note--blood is corruptive. It causes decay., much like sin. The Bible says it cannot enter the kingdom of God. That is clear.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 29, 2004.


Hi Faith,

You said, when we consider that Thomas stuck his fingers inside Jesus wound to discover that there was no blood.

Where does it say there was no blood? Blood isn't mentioned, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any blood. Unless you're basing it on your interpretation of 1 Cor 15:50 again. I mentioned elsewhere why Jesus said "flesh and bone" instead of "flesh and blood" regarding His resurrected body. He was illustrating to the assembled Apostles that He was physically solid, not just a spirit. Flesh and bone are the solid parts of the body. I don't see where it says there is no blood in Jesus' body. I think you have to read more into that passage than is there to get that conclusion. You first have to interpret 1 Cor 15:50 the way you do, to draw the conclusion that Jesus' resurrected body does not have any blood at all.

I like your analogy of the Judy and Joe example. I see your point.

You said, Personally--I don't think a resurrected body needs blood.

I agree it doesn't need blood as we know it in this life either.

You said, On a physical note--blood is corruptive. It causes decay., much like sin.

Actually, blood doesn't cause decay, bacteria do. Bacteria feed off dead flesh as well as blood. Blood keeps us alive. It is life. Without blood we can't live. If anything, the analogy of blood in a physical sense, is the opposite of sin in the spiritual sense. Blood to the physical body is like grace to the spirit.

You also said, The Bible says it [blood] cannot enter the kingdom of God. That is clear.

I think you're still basing this on a misinterpretation of 1 Cor 15:50 again. That is just my opinion though, and I admit to being wrong numerous times. Just ask my wife ;)

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 29, 2004.


Okay Andy--

Thanks for the dialogue.

I can't force you to see things my way.

My understandings glean from overall Scripture--something that I study on a daily basis. But I can't prove anything. No one can. That is because it is about faith.

I think that as long as we believe in Jesus Christ., and that He has done what He has said--then these issues are just a matter of theology. I only think that the doctrine of Transubstantiation hurts because it denies the effectiveness of Christ's one time sacrifice. I just think that the Catholic Church is under the impression that it has to keep renewing the sacrifice for it to continue to be effective on new sins or something. But since I think this sacrifice is not about such new sins--I come to different understandings.

God Bless--I am off to Church, again, today. More painting to do : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 29, 2004.


Thanks for the dialogue too Faith.

I do believe that you have a misunderstanding of the Eucharist in Catholic teaching and what it is all about. We've been through this before in other threads so I won't start it up again. As you said, "I can't force you to see things my way... I can't prove anything. No one can. That is because it is about faith."

God bless, I learned a lot from this discussion on blood and the Kingdom. Happy painting with the kids.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 29, 2004.


The Eucharist, instituted by Christ Himself, is the means He provided for His one time sacrifice to become timeless, to be present to all men in all times and places. I am saved not just by something Christ did 2,000 years ago in the presence of the Apostles, and that was the end of it; but rather by a one time sacrifice that He has chosen to extend until the end of time, so that all men may know it not just as an ancient historical event, but as something truly present and real to us here and now.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2004.


That's right Paul. His sacrifice, while made once, is eternal. When we partake of his precious body and blood we reenter time and space, and participate in the mystery of all ages, uniting ourselves most intimately with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. WHAT A GIFT!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 30, 2004.


Yes Paul--

In the spiritual [not literal] sense of course.

No one denies that communion is something we do to keep His sacrifice alive in our hearts--but Transubstantiation is merely a false doctrine. It developed because John 6 is misunderstood--entirely. For some reason--you miss the symbolic meaning--and become absurdly literal.

Why don't you do that with all of John's gospel and demand that only sheep are really saved and that Jesus is a door, a gate and a good shepherd-- in the same absurdly literal sense? Peculiar indeed.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 30, 2004.


Faith,

The Real Presence of Christ isn't based solely on John 6. Taken with John 6, the narrations of the Last Supper from the Synoptic Gospels, 1 Cor 10:15-19, 1 Cor 11:23-32, and the testimony of early Church writings one can at least see there is a basis to it. I know you disagree with the Scriptural interpretations, but the doctrine has a foundation other than John 6. Just wanted to point that out.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 02, 2004.


Andy..

Only after one reads the other Last Supper references having already been indictrinated with the Catholic interpreatation of John 6--could anyone think that Jesus was speaking about literally eating His body and literally drinking His blood.

But as a biblical Christian who does not start with that premise--the Last Supper and John 6 work themselves out to be a symbolic message pointing to the real sacrifice at Calvary...and then the rememberance of that sacrifice.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


Actually Faith, and as I'm sure has already been pointed out to you, your view is shared by early disciples, true, but they are the ones who STOPPED FOLLOWING CHRIST!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 02, 2004.


I think that the Church stopped following Christ at the time of Constatine. Protestants recognized it and did something about it.

You'll have to work out your own conscience about it.

I have made the right choice according to revelation from the Scriptures.

I remember feeling guilty for leaving the Catholic Church. But then God answered my concerns and my prayers about it when He said this:

"Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.

Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.

Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.'

Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


"Actually Faith, and as I'm sure has already been pointed out to you, your view is shared by early disciples, true, but they are the ones who STOPPED FOLLOWING CHRIST!" - Gail

They didn't stop because of the "eucharist" though. ;) It wasn't even institued yet.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


Uh...that's "instituted"

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.

David, I'm sure you are not denying that the early church, (1st generation, 2nd generation, 3rd generation) did believe in the real presence of Christ and/or transubstantiation at communion, right?

I mean, whether you believe it now or not it certainly was not deemed to be just "symbolic" even as early as 1st generation, evidenced by the writings of the very earliest writings we have.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 02, 2004.


"David, I'm sure you are not denying that the early church"

I believe it is wrong to read something back into history. "real presence" does not mean "transubstantiation" in the early church writings. The early church (some) did believe in the "real" presence, but not in the way RC's do today. E.g. Irenaeus- he believed in something like the Lutheran view consubstantiation (sp?)

The transubstantiation view didn't come up until the 9th century.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


I agree David.

Those early writings that Gail is talking about--that she has posted before--do not prove the pagan doctrine of Transubstantion.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


Transubstantiation started when God presented Himself to man throught the man named Jesus. Tell me that this isn't transubstantiation. We can also call Him the Incarnate Word.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


rod,

No.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


Then explain how the man Jesus was also God? That is transubstantiation to me. God took the form of a human. Jesus was God-man.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


Are you also rejecting the doctrine/theology of the Incarnate Word? Jesus is the Word. He is the Word made flesh for all man to see and receive His gift to us of Salvation.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


rod..,

We are not talking about God being incarnate...there is no argument there.

We are arguing that a piece of bread did not become God incarnate

-- (faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


David, maybe you can tell us, since you read the fathers, which ones believed the bread and wine were symbolic ONLY Yes, I know there is a difference between the real presence and transubstantiation, though that is REALLY hard to distinguish by their writings.

Faith, you have no idea in the world what you are talking about as always, but are merely regurgitating what you have heard from some anti-Catholic bigot. Are you capable of an independent thought?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 02, 2004.


Gail..,

Are you capable of not being so insulting and sticking to the topic.

Clearly if you have to resort to attacking an author that I didn't even mention--then you are at a loss for any argument.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


David proposed the idea that Transubstantiation was an after thought devised by the Catholic Church. I simply made the factual point that Christ is the Transubstantiation of God as Jesus, a man, was also God in the flesh. That pretty much answers to David's earlier post.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


Faith, you are the one that went off topic when you posted the cite earlier that began with this:

"I think that the Church stopped following Christ at the time of Constatine. Protestants recognized it and did something about it. ...."

What does that post have to do with what we are talking about?

***

Then in a later post, you use the term "pagan doctrine" in a post to me which clearly was meant to incite a response from me.

What kind of dialogue do you hope to achieve using this type of inciteful rhetoric, Faith?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 02, 2004.


rod,

You make no sense whatsoever. We are talking about a teaching the Roman communion holds to.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


Faith says, "Clearly if you have to resort to attacking an author that I didn't even mention, . . ." How I can attack an author you didn't even mention? What, did you post someone else work again somewhere?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 02, 2004.

I make no sense to you, David. I'm always making no sense to you, Daivd. That's the story of my life in this forum, David. Does that make sense??

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


Connect the dots, David. God, the Word, becomes incarnate. This is the precursor to the Catholic doctrine/theology of Transubstantiation in the Holy Eucharist. It is all connected. This is my view, whether it makes sense to you or not. Do you get what I'm saying???

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


David,

I think my question to you may have gotten lost. Do you know of any church fathers, from the 1st generation up until the reformation that believed only in the symbolic meaning of communion.

And secondly, you mentioned consubstantiation earlier, would you mind elaborating on that. I really am not familiar Luther's view at all. Wasn't there some big brew-ha-ha between Luther and Zwigly over the meaning of communion, or was it something else?

Thanks!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 02, 2004.


Faith and Gail,

Stop this fighting.

rod,

No one is discussing the incarnation.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


David. You mentioned the Catholic doctrine. Are you saying that the Incarnation has nothing to do with Transubstantiation as the universal meaning of the Holy Eucharist?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


You know what? I give up. There is no two-way about this. I can't bring in my views without being told that my views are inconsistent with this discussion, when in reality they are! You mentioned the Catholic doctrine and then proceed to limit my views to your limits. I give up, David. Let's all become Calvinists and say that we aren't. Let's say, "you don't make sense" when we can't or won't debate an issue. I've been told that I shouldn't argue a point unless I understand your (Max) doctrine. Yet, I can't argue my views because you (David) don't understand my doctrine. Amazing! I give up.

I need to go find a Satanic forum and go mess with them!

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


"I've been told that I shouldn't argue a point unless I understand your (Max) doctrine. Yet, I can't argue my views because you (David) don't understand my doctrine. Amazing! I give up." - rod

Do you even understand your own doctrine you are trying to defend?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


David,

rod is right, the incarnation does relate to the Eucharist in Catholic theology. The mass is, in its essence, a picture of Jesus. You can see this from something I posted previously on the Catholic forum:
--------------
A little wisdom from my Mom regarding the Ark of the Covenant:

God's presence was in the Ark of the Covenant, as a foreshadowing specifically of Jesus. The contents of the Ark were:

1. Ten Commandments = Word of God
2. Manna = Bread of Life
3. Aaron's Rod = Priesthood and Miracles

In Numbers 17, when people wanted to declare themselves priests, God set up a way to show who was the true priesthood. A representative from each tribe put a rod in the Holy of Holies, and only that of Aaron budded. This showed the legitimacy of the Levitical priesthood, and not that of other tribes. This is how the rod signified miracles, and miracles were performed with it.

So regarding the contents of the Ark of the Covenant, God was present in three different ways. What is Jesus? The Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the Great High Priest. --------------
This is the exact picture of the Catholic Mass! We have the Scripture readings (Liturgy of the Word) and Communion (Liturgy of the Eucharist), all performed by the priest, a representative of Jesus. How could the picture of Christ be any more clear?

In the Old Testament, the Jews anticipated the Messiah's coming through the Passover Lamb and the Consecrated Bread, among other things. God was actually present with them then. Jesus came and fulfilled these prophecies, and is now physically present with us everday all over the world, at every mass. The mass is truly a picture of Jesus, just as He was shown to the Israelites in the Ark.

Christ becomes present to us as a precious gift from God, and this is in anticipation of His Second Coming, just as the Jews anticipated His coming in the OT.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


No. This place has messed me up. Thanks! You too can call me incompetent. Is that your victory? Fine. I hope Elpidio will be able to reinstate me when you ban me. That is next. I dreamt it.

When do you leave this forum? If need be, I'll post after you leave. I don't like the climate right now, anyway.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


rod,

Is this because of James?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


Gail..,

You first said that the early disciples who I share my view with-- stopped following Christ. So I pointed out that your Church stopped following Christ when it began following Constatine. So I was right in keeping with the conversation. Here was your comment:

Actually Faith, and as I'm sure has already been pointed out to you, your view is shared by early disciples, true, but they are the ones who STOPPED FOLLOWING CHRIST!

Here is where you attacked an author--even though none was mentioned:

Faith, you have no idea in the world what you are talking about as always, but are merely regurgitating what you have heard from some anti-Catholic bigot. Are you capable of an independent thought?

Am I not suppose to know that you are attacking Dave Hunt?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


I haven't banned you rod.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.

Faith,

If you'd read some posts on the Catholic forum, you'd know that anyone who speaks out against Roman doctrine is labeled an anti- catholic bigot.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.


Thanks for your intercession, Emily. I really wish I could change my handle. It seems that my faith has pegged me as an easy target, but, in way, it would be like denying my Catholicism (even if it is not up to parr).

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


change it rod, I am updating the rules right now.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.

No, David. It isn't because of James' banning. It is because of Giordano Bruno. Bruno would not have lasted in this forum either.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


Yes, I'm a mean nasty forum dicator. Everything will be better once I leave. It will be like coming out of the Dark Ages. Oh well, I'm off to buy a pizza.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.

rod--trust me.,

If you changed your handle., you would give yourself away in no time. That is--if you are true to your character.

I could never get away with it for long. I was recognized every time I tried.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 02, 2004.


Finally! It's unanimous! We finally agree, David. [sinister little smirk on my face]

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


Early in this forum I had 3 handles going at one time. The only way David could detect that it was me........the ISP.

I had to recon the forum before I would post. I got my answers.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


David

You say that I can't even defend my faith. How can I defend my faith against someone who rejects those justifications of my faith? That article you sent me is saying the same things. There is no way out. One side of the coin cannot see the other side, yet they are hopelessly joined by a common necessity. The necessity need not be a hopeless situation, though, especially when that necessity is God.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 02, 2004.


What is flesh? What is blood?

Both will be transformed into something supernatural yet still very physical and personal.

Since when can blood own anything anyway? Blood may not be able to own (inherit) the kingdom of God, but that doesn't mean it can't enter it in a resurrected form. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ