Innocent Blood

[sheep wrecked]

I ran across a teaching that has been prevalent in some evangelical circles that is called "Innocent Blood". The premise is that Jesus had "God's Blood" or Divine blood, not human blood. Therefore; it was through this Divine blood that Jesus was "innocent" in order to be the perfect sacrificial lamb.

This teaching goes on to state that blood comes through the father, not the mother. Because Jesus had "God's blood", He was physically God, in the flesh.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree?

[Emjesown]

I once heard some medical stuff about pregnancy
It seems that the blood of the mother does n t come in contact with the baby.
Not directly anyway.
And i heard that the egg after being attached to woomb, has all it needs in itself to grow and make all the organs, including blood.
The baby does get food throught the mother(spinalcord?) bit sifted or something.
Not sure it was long ago i read that.

But when the angel Gabriel told mary the Holy spirit would overshadow her and she would bare a Son.......
God put n complete baby ther i reckon.
No seed of the man, wich is neccesary normally.
So wheter He used an egg of mary or just put a complete baby there , we don t know.
If the last is the case, it is His blood
and we don t "get"the whole idea anyway, that's why its called a miracle!!!

EMJE

EMJE

EMJE

[sheep wrecked]

According to medical science, blood is manufactured in the bones. So as the baby grows in the womb, blood is produced. Jesus had human blood and He grew naturally in Mary's womb. God started the process miraculously, but Jesus was still fully human, just like us in the flesh, when He was born. Cool, huh?

coolsign

[LindaR]

sheep wrecked,

I think we have discussed this topic on your blog. I think I may have found excerpts from Dr. M.R DeHaan's book, "The Chemistry of the Blood" online.

---

sheep wrecked...

I emailed you the web address of some of the excerpts from Dr. M.R.DeHaan's book "Chemistry of the Blood". You will be surprised to see that what you posted on your blog match some of those excerpts. I believe that is where this teaching on "Innocent Blood" comes from.

Hope this helps!

:hands:

[sheep wrecked]

(03-30-2009 12:12 AM)LindaR Wrote:  I think we have discussed this topic on your blog. I think I may have found excerpts from Dr. M.R DeHaan's book, "The Chemistry of the Blood" online.

I emailed you the web address of some of the excerpts from Dr. M.R.DeHaan's book "Chemistry of the Blood". You will be surprised to see that what you posted on your blog match some of those excerpts. I believe that is where this teaching on "Innocent Blood" comes from.

Well actually, that's where I got the whole theory from. I don't like to post authors specifically on my blog as people get the idea that I am out to "crucify" them. I like to take the teachings and expose them, because DeHaan is not the only one who teaches it.

Thanx for the quotes :flowers: I did find the article on line and will be working on presenting further ideas of his and refuting them!!

[Strefanash]

Innocence therefore comes not from the moral state of the person but as a reified essence of the blood itself.

This turns the blood of christ into a magical essence, the cross into a totem. Thus the effectiveness and the meaning of the death of christ becomes obscured with a superstitious grovelling reverence fore the physical components of the thing

This is pure idolatry.

Mind you, I have seen this one many times. The question "have you been brought to understand and accept that the death of christ is a sacrifice whereby you are no longer required to be punished for your sin?" becomes "have you been washed in the blood, brother?", twisted in a naively literalistic and superstitous manner. (of course if we are of a superspiritual mindset we would prefer to answer "amen" to the second question rather than think and realize we have never grapsed the significance implied in the first)

All of this makes me wonder why they despise medieval catholics, for this teaching is a pure example of medieval catholic superstition

[sheep wrecked]

(05-19-2009 02:28 PM)Strefanash Wrote:  Innocence therefore comes not from the moral state of the person but as a reified essence of the blood itself.

This turns the blood of christ into a magical essence, the cross into a totem. Thus the effectiveness and the meaning of the death of christ becomes obscured with a superstitious grovelling reverence fore the physical components of the thing

This is pure idolatry.

Mind you, I have seen this one many times. The question "have you been brought to understand and accept that the death of christ is a sacrifice whereby you are no longer required to be punished for your sin?" becomes "have you been washed in the blood, brother?", twisted in a naively literalistic and superstitous manner. (of course if we are of a superspiritual mindset we would prefer to answer "amen" to the second question rather than think and realize we have never grapsed the significance implied in the first)

All of this makes me wonder why they despise medieval catholics, for this teaching is a pure example of medieval catholic superstition

Sometimes people don't think through logically what they are taught. If it sounds "new" compared to the "same old" they have heard, it's easy to snap it up coming from a "teacher" who seems to know something they don't.

Deception is a tricky thing. In this case there are enough "Christian" concepts to make it seem "real", so people suck it in, thinking they are being taught the truth. This is definitely not a new problem. As Solomon said - "there is nothing new under the sun".

[Strefanash]

I think there is also a rewaction against reason here. I have been told many times that as there is such as thing as the carnal mind therefore the mind is the seat of carnality. They therefore reject reason as being carnality, so anything that has a christian gloss and is as crazy as it comes, the crazier the better, to them must be spiritual.

that the carnal mind resists spiritual truths is correct, but the fact something is resisted does not make it spiritual.

they also resist their own thinking, putting it down to "the mind". The thing is if their thinking is wrong they wil never acknowledge it as their own and be brought to repent of it. therefore their anti intellectualism destroys faith, implicitly states that unbelief is rational and faith is crazy. and it is for thinking like this that the psych wards have a very high proportion of christians in them

Something a person resists might in fact be resistged because it is error, or even totally insane. But of course because I beleved them and listened to their anti intellectualism (being fully aware of the sins of intellectual pride but having responded to it totally wrongly ), rather than accepting that I had already examined the case, whatever it was, on its own merits and found it bankrupt, I also went insane

[Donin Kansas]

I heard this assertio again this weekend - I had not heard it in years - I am curious as to the origin of the teaching.
I wish to clarify a few points from the medical science / biology perspective.
Each and every human being manufactures his/her own blood - we do this in our own bodies - Blood does not "come through" either the father or mother. The baby is not exposed to the father's blood at any time - but will likely be exposed to the mother's blood in the birth canal.
For the first 2 weeks after conceptio the baby in fact has no blood (remember we start as a single cell and that is a fertilized egg not a blood cell), from 2-6 weeks we develope blood cells (there are several types of blood cells)

The genetics (chromasomes) of both parents contribute equally to our blood types.


Hope this adds some clarity to the discussion

I have not read DeHans book and have no idea where his ideas come from, or whether he has a medical degree - if he does he knows that his statements are false.

(02-16-2009 10:16 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  I ran across a teaching that has been prevalent in some evangelical circles that is called "Innocent Blood". The premise is that Jesus had "God's Blood" or Divine blood, not human blood. Therefore; it was through this Divine blood that Jesus was "innocent" in order to be the perfect sacrificial lamb.

This teaching goes on to state that blood comes through the father, not the mother. Because Jesus had "God's blood", He was physically God, in the flesh.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree?

[sheep wrecked]

(08-09-2010 12:58 PM)Donin Kansas Wrote:  I heard this assertio again this weekend - I had not heard it in years - I am curious as to the origin of the teaching.
I wish to clarify a few points from the medical science / biology perspective.
Each and every human being manufactures his/her own blood - we do this in our own bodies - Blood does not "come through" either the father or mother. The baby is not exposed to the father's blood at any time - but will likely be exposed to the mother's blood in the birth canal.
For the first 2 weeks after conceptio the baby in fact has no blood (remember we start as a single cell and that is a fertilized egg not a blood cell), from 2-6 weeks we develope blood cells (there are several types of blood cells)

The genetics (chromasomes) of both parents contribute equally to our blood types.


Hope this adds some clarity to the discussion

I have not read DeHans book and have no idea where his ideas come from, or whether he has a medical degree - if he does he knows that his statements are false.

The original idea came from M R DeHaan - he was a medical doctor, but passed away in 1965. His book was called "Innocent Blood" and is still thought to be theologically correct in many Christian circles. He was the editor and publisher of "Our Daily Bread" of Grand Rapids, Michigan and the founder of the "Radio Bible Class" broadcast out of Detroit in the 1940s+. He still revered by many Christians internationally. "Our Daily Bread" is still published and given away freely all over the USA.