Without bloodshed there can be no forgiveness of sins. This simple to understand but essential rule as a prerequisite for forgiveness through Jesus Christ is persistently denied by the Roman Catholic Church.
Inhalt / Content
A tear from Jesus would have been enough
Roman Catholic teaching denies the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the associated blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins. While this church teaches that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for us, the blood (and water) obviously plays no role at all.
Actually, Jesus’ sacrifice was not necessary at all for the forgiveness of our sins, according to “Saint” Alphonsus Liguori, moral theologian and appointed teacher of the Church. A tear or a prayer would have been enough to save the world, said Liguori (Info).
The rejection of the blood sacrifice of Jesus, at least withheld from believers, is also evident in the ritual of the Eucharist. Only priests partake of the wine, while believers remain excluded from the symbol of the blood of Christ (Info).
Nonsense eliminated by nonsense
The Catholic “enlightenment magazine” catholic.com has taken up the topic of “sacrifice of Jesus Christ” and explains to readers that it was not a “human sacrifice” in which God sacrifices himself for himself (Source). According to the magazine, a misconception has become fashionable. Many believers claimed that God sacrificed Himself to save you from His punishment. This is a way that “seems somehow arbitrary and crazy.” Sometimes the theology of the cross is communicated in a way that is like someone hitting themselves in the face in anger.
First, classify the sin correctly
In order to better understand the cross, sin must first be properly understood, according to the author of this enlightenment story. Accordingly, sin is not just a violation of a “random set of rules,” but also includes various types of behavior. Those who could harm ourselves and those around us. The author quotes Titus 3:3:
“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.“
Let that be the face of sin. She becomes a slave to her passions and joys. The person harbors envy, hatred and malice.
God responded to that. In response, God the Son entered our world, took on human nature and became like one of us. He did not go through humanity angry and punishing, but rather like a good shepherd who collects lost sheep and brings them home full of joy.
A “saint” should enlighten
Now the question remains open as to why Jesus went to the cross. There are five reasons for this. However, to demonstrate these reasons, the author did not use the Gospel, but rather the “wisdom” of “Saint” Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, III.46.3).
- So we can know how much God loves us and be stirred to love him in return. We can look at the cross and we know that is God pouring himself out for us.
- As an example for us. If you want to know what humility, obedience, constancy, justice, and the like look like, look to the cross.
- To win for us not only salvation, but also sanctifying grace. Christianity is about a lot more than just not going to hell. It’s about being transformed in the divine nature, and the cross plays a really important part in that.
- To deter us from sin.
- Finally, because it gives us greater dignity. Sin entered the world through a man, Adam; and rather than abandoning humanity, God defeats sin through a man, Jesus Christ. That gives humanity a greater dignity than it had before.
The author summarized it. Jesus did not go to the cross out of “some twisted idea of human sacrifice”, but to show us the height, depth and breadth of his love for us; that he loves us enough to die for us and that he is strong enough “to overcome the power of death.”
Persistent denial
The author of the Catholic “Enlightenment Magazine” therefore agrees with the statements of the “wise man” Alphonsus Liguori. Jesus wanted to demonstrate His love to us. A love that was so great that He wanted to illustrate this dimension with His own death. Likewise his strength, which allows him to overcome death.
Did the author and this “saint”, Thomas Aquinas, mention anything about blood (and water)? Nothing, not even remotely. It doesn’t happen at all. Why is blood so essential? There is a clear statement about this in the Gospel, Hebrews 9:22:
“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.“
Blood is not viewed by the Lord as any bodily fluid within the framework of general anatomy, but as the source of life for each person. Leviticus 17:11:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood:“
Therefore this automatically also applies to the animal, because in this field man has no advantage over the animal, as in Ecclesiastes 3:19:
“For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.“
Interjection: The soul
This is, by the way, a clear “hint with the fence” that humans do not have a separate soul that separates from the body after death and “loves itself”. The living person IS the soul. The widespread belief that body and soul are separate is one of the most massive heresies (Info).
Blood plays THE central role
Anyone who looks at the sacrifices within the framework of the ceremonial laws in the Old Testament will find that the blood of the sacrificial animals played the central role. The blood had to fall to the ground and seep away. Some of the blood was applied to the horns attached to the altar of burnt offering. The priest brought part of the blood into the tabernacle (or temple) up to the veil of the Holy of Holies (Info). Once a year the high priest brought the blood into the Holy of Holies to unite it with the Ark of the Covenant (with the tablets of Moses). The blood of the sacrificial animals spilled in the courtyard of the Jerusalem Temple was washed away with water and flowed together into the Kidron stream.
The blood was and is holy. Accordingly, the blood of animals was not allowed to be used as food, Genesis 9:4:
“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.“
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ had to be bloody
The shed blood, symbol of the shed life. Just as the blood of the animal (lamb) sacrificed as a substitute for the sinner symbolized life and was brought into conformity with the law of God for the forgiveness of sin (in the Holy of Holies), the shed blood of the final self-sacrificer is also absolutely necessary Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of people’s sins. “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness,” says Hebrews 9:22.
The blood of Jesus Christ on the cross was also mixed with water as it fell to the ground, as in the court of the temple, as in John 19:34:
“But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.“
The testimony of God about His Son
Blood and water in connection with the forgiveness of sin is immensely important. There are no alternatives and no compromises or even omissions. This is particularly illustrated by God’s testimony about His Son, found in 1. John 5:6-8:
“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.“
Anyone who takes a look at this Bible passage in their Bible will probably find something different. Most of the verse above may be missing. This is a peculiarity of the “modern Bible editions” according to the basic text from Nestle-Aland. Hardly any other passage in the Bible is more controversial than 1 John 5:6-8, the so-called “Comma Johanneum”. “Biblical scholars” are of the opinion that this passage was added incorrectly.
But this special group of “scientists” can turn themselves upside down and dance within a 5-pointed star formed with burning candles; it doesn’t change the fact that the “textus receptus”, i.e. the majority text, corresponds to the truth. The easily identifiable, thousands(!) Bible changes in modern Bible editions speak against this “science” (Info).
Part of Roman Catholic blasphemy
No bloodshed, no forgiveness. It’s that simple. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church deny the necessity of Jesus’ blood sacrifice and instead talk about “heroic acts of love.” Of course, it is the love of God for His creatures that He gave His only Son so that man can be saved (can! Not saved across the board, John 3:16), but if the necessary blood is left out, that is plain and simple an exclusion criterion.
The Catholic priests keep the blood symbol of Christ, the wine, for themselves. In addition, there is a clear statement in the Bible that what offense is considered heresy (blasphemy), Mark 2:7:
“Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?“
It is the priesthood of this church that presumes to be able to forgive people’s sins. This, and the denial of the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is a characteristic of this institution that was inherent in it at the time of its founding – Info.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Ephesians 1:7
Bible verses from King James Version
