I am looking for the answer to a question that is central to the Christian faith. If anyone has the answer.

I want to know if there is anything in the Bible about it, so if you are familiar with the Bible maybe you can direct me to the scripture or post the scripture that may have the answer.

The question assumes the premise that we (mankind) were purchased by the blood of Christ.

The question is this: From whom were we purchased and why?

I don’t understand the purchase.

No specific purchase as I understand through blood has been the paying price for all salvation from old testament to the new one from Abraham being asked to slaughter his son as payment to every thing through bible the blood is the currency
If you will

We were not purchased. The bible states (in older versions) that we are afforded an opportunity to forgiveness by the blood. We still have to make a choice, but we have been given a currency to pay off the debt of our sins. The blood isn't a purchase of us... it's a gift to allow us to pay off our debt.

Well, at least if you read back into KJV or earlier.

The blood of Christ was shed so that we could be forgiven for our sins.

I have a theory that might actually hold water.

The Christians won’t like it of course,… It suggests that Jesus was just a highly compassionate man.

It goes as follows,…

Jesus was born into an oppressed society. He saw the hopelessness in the faces of everyone he met.

He was a very bright boy at a very young age and become interested in religion. He wanted to instill hope in the hearts of his brothers. So he began to teach from the existing doctrine, and he spoke with authority, so much so that his own kinfolk accused him of blaspheme.

He finally left the area, and went to the far east to study with the Zen Buddhist Priests. He learned the ways of Buddha and of the oneness of all humankind. All the while, he also studied the religious doctrines of his own culture, and learned them well. He could see that there was a prophesy of the coming of a savior to save his people from their plight of oppression.

When he returned to his homeland at about the age of 30, he saw that there were many rumors that the Savior predicted in their doctrine was coming (just like there are rumors today that the end days are coming).

He also saw that no one was stepping up to the plate to fulfill that prophecy, everyone was merely preaching of the ‘coming’ of the messiah, but no one was actually claiming to be the messiah. So he stepped up to the plate to fulfill the prophecy for his brethren.

He didn’t do this in malice. On the contrary he did it out of pure love. He saw that his people were desperately oppressed and in dire need of new hope. So he gave them precisely what they were seeking.

I realize that many Christians will bulk at this hypothesis, and even claim that such a deed would have been fraud and evil. But I don’t think Jesus would have seen it that way at all. After all, he was about to give his very life for the cause, and the cause was to give his brethren hope – something to believe in – something to lift their spirits from the abyss of total hopelessness and unfulfilled expectations.

He claimed to be the messiah, in very subtle ways at first. And much of what he said was, in fact, not a lie at all. He merely allowed his brothers to believe that he was the messiah for their sake, and encouraged their belief, because it bright light to their eyes and spirit to their hearts.

Keep in mind that he understood the pantheistic view, and may have even seen reflections of that in the Old Testaments that he had studied. So tying all his beliefs and understandings of these religious doctrines together he could easily have claimed to be “God” without it feelings as a lie to him in the slightest. In fact, Jesus even said, “Ye are also gods”, and that is the pantheistic view! Jesus could even use the Old Testament to support this view.

However, he knew that to fulfill the prophecy he would need to be publicly crucified. His death was no accident. After he had preached to the masses what he needed to preach (most of which is more in line with the 12 laws of Karma than with what the Old Testament had taught), he knew it was time to become the religious martyr that his people so desperately needed. A fate that no other rabbi was willing to sacrifice for his people.

Jesus went to the Roman temple and made a spectacle of himself, knowing full well that the Romans would need to confront him. They could not allow a Jew to get away with what he did. So they arrested him, and probably did give him an opportunity to denounce that he was the “King of the Jews”. They knew of his religious claims because he had been preaching them from the mountaintops. His ministry was well-known.

However, it was Jesus mission to fulfill the prophecy so that his brethren would have their Savior and their faith in their God would be rekindled. So Jesus refused to denounce the claims that he was in fact the messiah. He did it in such a way that he didn’t even have to lie. He never claimed to be the messiah, he merely refused to denounce the claims that he was the messiah.

So the Romans had no choice but to crucify him publicly. And in this way Jesus gave his life so that other’s may be born again in spirit.

For me, this is a very plausible scenario. And if this is in fact the truth, then I admire the man greatly for what he had done. Ironically there are very popular Christian ministers who have claimed that if this was indeed the truth, then Jesus was a fraud and a liar, and they would have him crucified themselves for such an act of fraud.

But to me that’s totally missing the point. The man gave his life so that his brethren could be born again in spirit. Nothing could be more valiant.

In fact for me, I think I would actually revere him more if he was just a mortal man who did indeed give his life for the spiritual well-being of his brethren, rather than being an incarnation of the very God who demands blood sacrifices. This latter scenario makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It reeks of the kind of fantasies that pervades Greek Mythology.

Like I say, the Christians won’t like it. And the reason they won’t like it, is because they need the very faith that Jesus gave his life to inspire within them! They need a Savior!

Just look at how powerful the concept is!

Jesus was no fool. He knew the power that a belief in a Savior would bring to his people! What he probably didn’t have a clue about is that people would still be leaning on him for spiritual support even 2000 years into the future of a modern technological civilization!

Wow! What a rush! All from the LOVE of a mortal man who was willing to give his life so that others may believe!

He is the ultimate martyr in all of humanity. But only if he was indeed just a mortal man.

If he was actually an incarnation of God that came specifically to appease his own thirst for blood sacrifices, the whole scenario suddenly becomes an extremely demented picture of a bloodthirsty God who is at war with a fallen angel.

I actually prefer the image of Jesus as a mortal man myself. But then I don’t need someone to be nailed to a cross just so I can have faith in a God. I already have faith in God without that.

Jeannie.......some reading here , that will help explain the scriptures that speak about the blood of Jesus....

http://www.tscpulpitseries.org/english/1990s/ts960415.html


http://www.earstohear.net/Price/gg-the-blood-and-why-it-is-
precious.html


http://www.crossroad.to/HisWord/verses/topics/blood.htm

Abracadabra... won't say you are right, won't say you are wrong. I will simply say that putting yourself on the line for someone you care for is one of the two highest forms of love. Putting yourself on the line for someone you don't know or don't like is the other.
He may not have been the messiah... he may have been. That is something that everyone has to decide for themselves, and that is why we have a word called faith.

Jeannie...here are the scriptures that speak on the blood of Jesus.....




"For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls:
for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Leviticus 17:11




I. From Genesis to Revelation can be traced man's need for an acceptable
substitutionary sacrifice for sin – and God's provision for it in Calvary.


II. Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin.

Hebrews 9:22

A. The life is in the blood.

Genesis 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof..."

Leviticus 17:11, 14 (cp. Deuteronomy 12:23) "For the life of the flesh
is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an
atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement
for the soul.... For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life
thereof ..."

John 6:53, 54 "... Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, hath eternal life..."

B. Throughout the scripture, the picture is given of a lamb, spotless and without
blemish. Jesus is this Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Genesis 22
Exodus 12:3, 13, 23
Leviticus 16:22
Isaiah 53:11
John 1:29
1 Corinthians 5:7
1 Peter 1:18, 19
Revelation 5:6; 22:1


III. "The blood" appears often in Old Testament typology.


A. The blood on the doorposts – The Passover.

Exodus 12:13, 23
1 Corinthians 5:7

B. Rahab and the scarlet thread – The destruction of Jericho.

Joshua 2:14, 18; 6:22-25
Hebrews 11:31

C. The tabernacle – The blood of the altar.

Leviticus 16:1-4
Hebrews 9:7, 25


IV. What was accomplished for us by the blood of the cross?

Jesus Christ conquered sin and death (Hebrews 13:20), providing us
free access to the Father (Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 10:19-22) by His blood.

A. Redemption and justification.

Acts 20:28
Romans 3:9, 24, 25; 4:7; 5:9
Ephesians 1:7
Colossians 1:14
Hebrews 9:12
1 Peter 1:18, 19
Revelation 5:9, 10; 7:14

1. Forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:22 "Without the shedding of blood, there is
no remission of sins."

1 John 1:7"... the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth
us from all sin."

Revelation 1:5 "... Unto him that loved us, and washed us
from our sins in his own blood."

2. Protection from judgment.

Exodus 12:13 "... and when I see the blood, I will pass over
you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you,
when I smite the land of Egypt."

3. Victory over Satan.

Revelation 12:11 "And they overcame him (Satan) by the blood
of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony ..."

4. Deliverance from guilt.

Colossians 1:20 "And you, that were sometime alienated and
enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled ..."

Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,
purge your conscience ..."

Hebrews 10:19, 22 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter
into the holiest by the blood of Jesus ... Let us draw near with a true
heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an
evil conscience ..."

5. Peace with God.

Colossians 1:20

B. Sanctification.

Exodus 29:37 "Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for
the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy..."

Hebrews 10:10 "... we are sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Hebrews 13:12 "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify
the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate."


V. What is necessary to know the power of the blood of Jesus and to
experience personally the rewards it has bought us?

A. The operation of its power is conditional upon our obedience to
the Word of God.

1 John 1:7 ("If ...")





© Copyright 1998 Diane S. Dew All Rights Reserved

Morningsong sent me to a web page with this following scripture:

Acts 20:28, "Take heed, there-fore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you over-seers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood."

Therefore you appear to be wrong.

JB

Abra,

If the crucification was a fraud enacted by one who had been mistaken for the messiah, then how did he rise again after dieing? Was his death a fraud also? If so, it was an elaborate one.

There was written, in another scripture, (not included in the Bible,) that it was someone else who died in his place and not the rabi Joseph (called Jesus) at all. (I think they said it was Simon and I think it was in the gospel of St Peter. I'm not sure about that ~~or where I read it.)

In any case the question I asked has not yet been answered.

My question is if mankind was purchased by the blood, who were we purchased from and why were we purchased? Are we a commodity?

Are we owned, and bought and sold?

If so, for what purpose?

JB

I absolutely agree with you. And even though I said it was a 'theory' of mine, that doesn’t mean that I believe that’s the way it happened. It’s just an idea,… one that I certainly feel has plausibility at least.

And if people need to have faith in something, then I certainly don’t want to take that away from them. But at the same time I can’t see people (like modern day Americans) being desperate to have faith in something. It’s not like they are living under the oppression of the Roman Empire. On the contrary we are living high on the hog. We are the biggest spoiled brats on the face of the planet, about as far form oppression as a people can be. Hardly any need to be desperate for faith. Although, with someone like George Bush in the Whitehouse and idiots running to take his place I suppose there is reason to have some desperation.

For me personally, to see Jesus as just a mortal man giving his life so his people can have faith is extremely noble.

On the other hand, the idea of a God sending his son to be butchered on a pole so he could be appeased by the bloodshed is nothing short of absurdity to me.

This was a huge question that no one has ever been able to answer. Who was being paid by the crucifixion of Jesus? Sure, you can turn to the bible and it claims that blood is the currency that pays for sin and all that, but ultimately that reduces to an archaic God that is appeased by bloodshed.

I can’t believe that the creator of this universe is appeased by bloodshed.

It’s like God is pissed at mankind for sinning, so he says, “Ok, here’ my Son, nail him to a poll in a grotesque fashion and then I can forgive you of your sins”.

What????

I’m sorry but this makes absolutely no sense to me.

In fact, the whole idea that the creator of this universe is having a war with a fallen angel call Satan is utterly absurd. And that’s a big part of this whole thing. Jesus’ death is also said to have somehow beaten the devil and won that war. Well if that’s the case then why the hell wasn’t the war over with when Jesus died? Why are we still being tormented and tempted by the devil today?

The story makes absolutely no sense no matter how you cut.

But the idea that a mortal man would have allowed himself to be crucified to give hope to his oppressed brothers does make sense. Men have done similar things. Gandhi threatened suicide by fasting to restore peace. Martin Luther King Jr. risked being shot and killed to preach his message, and he finally was shot and killed. He gave his life for his cause too.

Many mortal men have given their lives for their cause. To believe that Jesus was a mortal man who gave his life to instill hope in his people is not at all far-fetched. On the contrary, it’s extremely plausible.

But the idea that the creator of this universe is in a war with a fallen angel and that this God is also appeased by bloodshed??? So much so that he had to send his own son to be butchered just so he could forgive man of his sins????

To me, that’s not even plausible in my mind. That’s no less outrageous than any other mythology I’ve ever heard.

I feel sorry for people who are so distraught with life that they actually need to believe in something as archaic as this just to have faith that there is a God. To me, that seems more sad than anything.



A God that can't forgive unless blood's been shed?

This is archaic superstition!

I thought that with God all things are possible?

In order for that to be true, then it must be possible for God to forgive without any need for bloodshed.

This whole scenario isn't even self-consistent.

So it appears that judgment must be a judgment from a lower court which rules over mortals in the lower worlds, and rather than using the power of office a higher God simply pays the fine to the lower court where judgment is handed down to mortals, by offering to sacrifice a higher god in exchange for the sins of mortals.

Does that sound about right?

JB

Again, older version versus newer. Most newer translations use alternate wording such as this which may not mean the same thing as the original or older versions.

Please note: Also, the scripture stated he bought the church of god with his blood. This could be a major theological debate (with multiple sides)... but I would say that it means he gave of himself to establish the church (the modern church was founded by Christ and his death...). So yes, in a way he did buy the modern church of god with his blood.

That work better for you?

Well, like I say, that’s one of my theories. The resurrection and the virgin birth both could have easily been added on as rumors after the fact. Just icing on the Cake that made the story seem even more credible to many people and it became so popular.

Let’s not forget there were many stories of divine men being born of virgins during that time period and before.

http://www.pocm.info/index.html

Any one of them could have stuck. The story of Jesus stuck, probably because he was associated with the Old Testament which already had it’s own momentum.



I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone was bought or sold. All I see is a story about a bloodthirsty God who can’t forgive sins unless blood is spilled, and evidently he doesn’t even care who spills it!!!

A God who is appeased by bloodshed makes no sense to me. That would be a sadistic demented picture of a deity who is appeased by bloodshed I would think.

A lot of ancient civilizations made up religions of Gods who were appeased by deaths and blood. That’s because of the obvious fact that when men bleed profusely they die! It’s a natural superstition. Even the Mayans believed that and they had nothing to do with the bible. The Greek Gods were appeased by blood sacrifices too.

In fact this is evidence beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is nothing more than manmade myth as far as I’m concerned. It’s no different that all the other religious myths that men made up all over the world. Why would God just coincidently happen to be the same as what all the manmade myths claim???

Either all those religions are correct and we should worship Zeus and Apollo and all the rest. Or they are all wrong, including all the ones that are based on Mediterranean folklore, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They are all based on the same fundamental regional folklore.

But I don’t see where anyone is claiming that anyone was bought or sold via a blood payment.

Where do you get that???

So far the only Biblical reference I have found is Acts 20:28

Acts 20:28 "…to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (The church was purchased with the blood of God)

Also from a link given to me by Morningsong that had the following paragraph:

****************************************

By Dr Charles S. Price
John Carver Ministries


We Were Purchased By The Blood

Acts 20:28, "Take heed, there-fore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you over-seers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood." This is a Pauline warning to the elders. It is a charge to the ministers of the gospel, given with all of the authority and power of the Holy Spirit. The flock that is entrusted to the care of the minister is not HIS flock at all. I once interrupted a preacher who began to talk a great deal about "my flock" and "my people." "But they are not your people," I declared, "and that is not your flock." I told him that they were God's people and that they were the flock of the Good Shepherd of the sheep. Such a thought should make us feel our responsibility. In the passage of scripture I have just given you, Paul is reminding the ministers that in the providence of God, the Holy Ghost has made them overseers of the flock that be-longs to Jesus Christ. Did the minister purchase them? If so, what did he pay for them? Such a thought is outside the bounds of reason. My brother minister, the next time you enter your pulpit look into the faces of the people of your church and say to your-self: "These are the people that Jesus purchased with His own precious blood." That ought to make you feel the tremendous responsibility of your position.


***********************************************

Well, that certainly does raise questions from whom the people were purchased.

Although to me, it just implies that there are too many different stories going on here.

Was Christ’s death to pay for the sins of mankind? If so who was appeased? God himself?

Was his death to purchase followers? If so who was these followers purchased from? And why was it necessary to purchase them if they whole idea is that people are supposed to have free will to chose, or not chose, to follow him?

To many story lines,… not enough explanations.

I give up.

Maybe this is as senseless as asking who will be Aphrodite's next lover?¿?¿?

For Jeannie..

"....When we redeem something, we buy it back! When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they sold themselves and all who came after them to Satan. With the shedding of His blood, Jesus nullified that act and bought us back from Satan...."

We were not actually bought.

We were freed from sin though.

I think what is meant by "the purchase" is Gods forgiveness of our sins.

Totage...

Jesus with His Blood

Purchased Us

and

Paid Our Debt

in Full.


That's Why You Also Hear Jesus called ,"Our Redeemer".