denying the power of the blood

7/30/2019 Denying the Power of the Blood

1/24

Denying the POWER of the BloodBy Watchman Dean

November 23, 2012 There's an old hymn that I have always loved from my youthit was written by Lewis E. Jones in 1899.

Would you be free from the burden of sin?Theres powr in the blood, powr in the blood; Would you oer evil a victory win?Theres wonderful powr in the blood.

Refrain:There is powr, powr, wonder-working powrIn the blood of the Lamb;There is powr, powr, wonder-working powrIn the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you be free from your passion and pride?Theres powr in the blood, powr in the blood;Come for a cleansing to Calvarys tide;

Theres wonderful powr in the blood.

Would you be whiter, much whiter than snow?Theres powr in the blood, powr in the blood;Sin-stains are lost in its life-giving flow;Theres wonderful powr in the blood.

Would you do service for Jesus your King?Theres powr in the blood, powr in the blood; Would you live daily His praises to sing?Theres wonderful powr in the blood.

As much as I love this old hymn there are problems with it.The same problem the Spirit has with this hymn, notsurprisingly is the same problem the Spirit has with themajority of Christendom and their handling of the gospel of


2/24

the "blood of Jesus." You can find this problem in thefollowing phrase in the lyrics:

"Come for a cleansing to Calvary's tide; There's wonderful pow'r in

the blood."

The Christian religion nearly UNANIMOUSLY speaks of "cleansing" from sin or "atonement" when preaching the"power" of the BLOOD of MESSIAH (CHRIST). This shouldnot be a problem for indeed, Messiah is the "lamb" of Godand the shedding of his blood does indeed provide for"atonement" (cleansing from) our sin! There are so many scriptures to back this up I will not endeavor to quote themall. Christ indeed died, shed his blood as the "Passoverlamb" (he died on the High Passover) for this very reason.Christ died at the exact moment the Passover lamb was slainin Jerusalem for the HIGH Passover (few realize this).Indeed, the power to "atone for" or "cleanse from" sin is theRESULT of Messiah's death and this death was "once" ratherthan having to be repeated every year! Where as, thePassover lamb of the Old Covenant could not "take away"

sins but could only "atone for" them, the people who came tothe law for atonement (Passover lamb) then went out thefollowing year and continued in sin. There was no "power"to "overcome" sin and walk HOLY under the law of Passover(neither was there a promise of it). The Christian religion,however, has stopped at "atonement" (cleansing). It's allthey talk about. They then have created "proxy righteousness" whereby, he who is "cleansed" and "atonedfor" by Christ's blood now has "Christ's righteousness"counted as their own. Many Christians go so far as to say that from then on when God looks at the believer of this"atonement" he does NOT SEE THEIR SIN but only sees the"blood of the Lamb" covering them. They correlate the"Passover" message whereby the lamb's blood was placed


3/24

upon the threshhold of the door posts and the angel of death"passed over" that house.

Their exegesis on this subject is flawless. When it comes to"atonement" and "cleansing" power of Messiah the Christianreligion truly gets it! For, truly, the blood of Christ bars thedoor of our hearts, so that DEATH cannot enter and must"pass over" us! Yet, the Christian religion has ERRED intheir execution of this exegesis and the error is colossal in itsscope and damning in its effect! They do not perceive theFULL POWER of this blood. Their error is twofold andexposes a lack of faith in Messiah that is both heart rending

and at the same time infuriating!Christianity (the religion) has failed in it's "blood covering"exegesis in that they make it a "covering" of sin only. In theChristian world of interpretation the blood of the Lamb,sprinkled on the door posts of their heart means that DEATHcannot enter, but if death COULD ENTER he would not finda "cleansing" in the house at all! He would find all manner of sin and consupiscence! Their weak and watered downinterpretation is that is why the lamb's blood was shed, sothat the house could remain FILTHY inside and ONLY THEDOOR POSTS are cleansed, thus barring death from comingin and taking out the occupants for their SINS!

Have I oversimplified it? Have I twisted what Christiansunanimously regard as the "significance of the atoning bloodof Christ?" Not at all. There is no MENTION of a TRUE

CLEANSING of the house, whereby, even if death could getpast the sprinkled BLOOD on the door posts, he would findno sin in there! In the Christian exegesis of Passover, thehouse is not TRULY CLEANSED, only the blood is sprinkledon the door posts, barring death access. The "blood" then becomes an ESCAPE from punishment from sin and not a


4/24

cleansing! Indeed, under the OLD LAW that is INDEED what atonement was. There was no promise of the believerin Passover lamb under the old law of being "free" from sinonly free from the PENALTY of that sin. That is why thePassover was repeated year after year, to atone for the new sins which accumulated.

Now, this is where the Christian religion goes from ERROR into damnable heresy! They make the blood atonementoffered by the Lamb of God (Messiah) to be the SAME"escape from punishment" for sin as was offered under theOLD LAW and the ONLY difference between the lamb of the

old law and the Lamb of the New Covenant, according toChristianity, is that the atonement (escape frompunishment) under the New Covenant offered "once and forall sins." In other words, according to Christian exegesis, theatonement under the New Covenant does not "clean thehouse" and "cleanse the body from sin" any more than the blood covering did under the Old Law, it merely provides a"covering" of the door posts whereby death cannot enter andthe inhabitants "escape" the punishment for their sins.

Why is this a damnable heresy? It should be obvious. ItDENIES the TRUE POWER of the blood of Messiah which is"able to make one perfect." It replaces the CLEANSING and"the taking away of sins" with a SYMBOLIC imagery of "covering" and CALLS that covering "cleansing."

The old law of Passover NEVER promised a "cleansing" or a

"taking away of sins" but only a "washing" or a "covering."The New Covenant offers both a "washing" and "covering" AND A COMPLETE CLEANSING.

Notice in the hymn above it begins "would you be free fromthe burden of sin," the wording is not that we are "free from


5/24

the sin" but rather, the "burden" or "punishment" that oursins exact upon our lives! This common theme plays out inChristian dogma without exception (yes even in Catholiccatechism, where it is harder to spot, Catholic tradition beingfar more complex, but it is there nonetheless). The "power"of the blood of Christ to Christians speaks of cleansing onefrom sin by "red washing," (clean by the covering of blood).Sins are paid for but not eradicated. Justification means a believer is "justified" even though his life is "unjust.' How does one "justify" an unjust existence, by receiving the"justification" which comes by faith in Christ's just life and inChrist's work "on the cross" which was SOLELY to pay for

our sins so that HIS righteousness could be "imputed" to us(despite our sins). I call this "the proxy righteousness" of Christianity, whereby, even though his followers have "norighteousness" as is defined by the Apostle John when hesays "be not deceived he that DOES righteousness isrighteous even as he is righteous (1 John 3:7).

Under the atonement of the law (sprinking of the blood of aLamb for the forgiveness of sins) there was no promise of "remission" or "cessation" of sin, there was no true cleansing whereby the comers thereto had their sins "taken away."This old atonement was a "stop gap" whereby the lamb paidthe penalty for the sins of he who offered it without spot or blemish to the priest. Christian dogma is simple. Christ isthe Lamb, his blood provides the same thing but the sacrificeis performed ONCE rather than year after year (day afterday).

The question that looms, therefore, is was the shedding of Christ's blood necessary, being that the blood of Lambsunder the old law provided this same forgiveness, and if thisshedding of blood was necessary, why? Christians areadmant in their interpretation. They conclude that the blood


6/24

of Lambs shed on an altar didn't really work, it couldn'tatone! In other words, when God instituted the shedding of blood through Moses, he either made a mistake, or he lied toprove a point! If you are a Christian, you can take your pick because both views are found abundantly within the variousreligious teachings on the subject.

Yes, the blood of Lambs was "not truly atonement" and GodKNEW IT when he created it (according to Christianthinking). God knew that CHRIST would have to die to bring"true atonement!" Why? Because the people still felt"guilty" for their sins after the blood of the lamb was shed!

This is clearly what is taught among the religions of Christianity. They get this from the following:

Hebrews 10: 1-4

1 For the law having a shadow of good thingsto come, and not the very image of the things,can never with those sacrifices which they

offered year by year continually make thecomers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to beoffered? because that the worshippers once

purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is aremembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bullsand of goats should take away sins.


7/24

What is most telling about Christian teaching on the subjectis their handling of verse 4 above. As I've already observed,they don't believe the old law of atonement through the

shedding of animal blood was real! When asked the question"why did God institute a failed system" their answer willusually be "so that God could lead us to the true atonementoffered by the shedding of blood by the Lamb of God,Christ." So, when God told Moses to have the people shed blood for atonement, God was lying, knowing full well that"it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats" could"atone" (take away sins). God felt that lying to the people of

Israel all of those years was a means justified by the ends!Furthermore, they place within the power of the shedding of Christ's blood a new element, that is the removing of theconscience. Under Christ atonement, Christianity unanimously agrees that it's greatest power is the ability for asinner to live "guilt free" (even though that person is still asinner). Christians reason that the flaw within the old law was that, if it had truly worked, the people who sacrificed would have had a "seared conscience" knowing that theirsins were now paid for, and would no longer feel guilty andthus would feel no compunction to have to REPEAT thesacrifice the next year.

This is most definitely the Christian take on this subject. Toprove this we only need look at the modern translations of these same verses:

Amplified Bible

2 For if it were otherwise, would [thesesacrifices] not have stopped being offered?Since the worshipers had [a]once for all been


8/24

cleansed, they would no longer have any guilt or consciousness of sin.3 But [as it is] these sacrifices annually bring a

fresh remembrance of sins [to be atoned for],4 Because the blood of bulls and goats is powerless to take sins away.

Look what the translators did here. In verse 2 they ADD thephrase "once for all" been cleansed. This is CRITICAL tonote for it reveals their mind! They take this phrase from alater passage in Hebrews 10 (once and for all) and inject it in verse 2 to drive home their contrast between the shedding of blood of Christ and the shedding of animal blood. Namely,that Christ's blood is more powerful because it cleanses"once and for all." This is a very important thing to look at because in all reality the phrase "once and for all" is not inthe original text of Hebrews 10 ANYWHERE! They took thisphrase from Hebrews 10: 10

"By the which will we are sanctified throughthe offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Notice the italics in the above verse. What most people don'trealize is that italic words in the King James denoted thatthey were ADDED by the translators and did not exist in theoriginal text. So what we find in verse 2 of the amplifiedBible is the ADDITION of an ADDITION it is an

ALTERATION of an ALTERATION! Whereas the originalKing James translators added "for all" just to CLARIFY animplied context the translators of the amplified Bible havetaken that addition and inserted it in verse 2 for a morenefarious reason, namely, to insert their own thinking intothe holy text! To make verse 2 to say what Christians


9/24

everywhere have been teaching, that the only difference between the blood atonement of old and Christ's atonementis that Christ's blood was shed "once" and the blood of old was shed continually!

Other than that, the blood of the animal shed on an altarunder the Old Covenant and the blood of the shed Messiahaccomplish the SAME THING, according to Christianity! So,they reduce the need for the crucifixion of the living Christ tothat of convenience, for us. Christ died (on the cross they say) so that we would be spared the inconvenience of shedding animal blood on altars, other than that, according

to Christian dogma the shedding of the blood is the same.They, however, add an extra blasphemy here by saying in verse 4 "because the blood of bulls and goats is powerless totake away sins."

I submit, their insertion of "once and for all" into verse 2reveals their thinking, because it points to "taking away sins"as ATONEMENT only! How so? Because Christians do notteach, neither do they believe that when Christ shed his blood he LITERALLY "took away" sins (so that sin no longerexists in the believer). If they taught this they would beflying in the face of reality itself. Christians do not believethat Christ died "once" and now their sins no longercontinue. If they did believe that why create confessionals?There would be no sins for the believer to confess, being thatChrist's shed blood "took away" the sins of the believer. The believer would have no sins! This is common sense really.

Christians interpret "take away sins" in verse 4 above as"take away the penalty of the sin." This is the ATONEMENTof which they say the blood of Christ offers and it is theSAME that was offered under the OLD LAW but Christiansconclude (in verse 4) that "the blood of bulls and goats is


10/24

powerless to take away sins." Now, either "take away sins"means that sins are LITERALLY removed and are no more,or, "take away sins" means that the PENALTY for those sinsis removed. Those are the only possible meanings to thetext! If Christians settle on the former meaning, then why are they still sinners after they receive the atonement? Theirsins should have been "taken away." If they settle on thesecond, they call God a liar and they call the writer of Hebrews a liar, and they state that the writer of Hebrews notonly called God a liar but contradicted himself completely forthe writer states earlier that the blood of animals indeedCOULD "wash away" the penalty for sins!

Hebrews 9: 13-14

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, andthe ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ,who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your consciencefrom dead works to serve the living God?

The atonement of the sacrifice indeed could "cleanse"through sanctification and purifying of the flesh according tothe author of Hebrews. Why then would he say only a few verses later that such a thing is "impossible?' Some have

taken issue with the author of Hebrew's employment of the word "if" in verse 13. They attempt to make the case that hisuse of "if" does NOT denote a FIRM statement of factconcerning the sanctifying power of sprinkling animal blood.They do not perceive that, while by itself the verse does notsupport a FIRM statement of fact, but coupled with the


11/24

affirmation of the power of the blood of Christ found in verse14.

If the statement in verse 13 is found to be UNTRUE then theaffirming statement of the power of the blood of Christ in verse 14 is in doubt!

Let's look at it another way. Read the following:

If a carriage drawn by two horses can carry men and goodsfrom point a to point b much faster than walking, then how much faster can a carriage powered by a 200 hp internal

combustion engine get men and goods to where they aregoing?

You do see that if the first statement is NOT true then thesecond statement is NOT affirmed? Logic dictates that if wedecide the first conclusion is UNTRUE then the secondconclusion is in DOUBT and cannot be proved by the first.Let's look at it using a logical equation, employingfundamental algebra.

If 2 + y= 4 then y=2.

Do you see that if we conclude that 2 + y does NOT equal 4 but rather equals 5, then y CANNOT equal 2. The same goesfor what the author of Hebrews states in 9: 13-14.Christianity has concluded that the animal blood, shed onthe altar and sprinkled on the unclean COULD NOT really sanctify to the purifying of the flesh (quoting Hebrews 10:4 which says "it's impossible" for animal blood to "take away sins" and concluding that take away sins is the same as"sanctification"). Thus, they have decided that the "if" inHebrews 9: 13 can be resolved with "it does not." I submit,therefore, that according to the author, IF the blood of


12/24

animals does NOT sanctify to the purifying of the flesh (andChristians say it does not and that's why we needed Christ's blood) then the "how much more shall the blood of Christ"found in verse 14 has NO meaning.

Actually, Christians seek to REWRITE Hebrews 9: 13-14 sothat it says this:

" 13 Even though the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling theunclean, could NOT sanctifieth to the purifyingof the flesh:

14 The blood of Christ does, for through theeternal Spirit He offered himself without spot to God so that he could purge your conscience,so that even though you live in dead works youcan still serve the living God.

I probably shouldn't retranslate scripture (even in jest) this way because there is a VERY real danger someone inChristendom could LIKE the way I have reworded it andinclude it in a future translation!

Clearly there is a difference between being "sanctified" and"cleansed" of iniquity through atonement and the "takingaway" of sins being offered by Messiah's shed blood!Otherwise, the author is confused and God is a liar, for Godpromised Moses they who came to this sacrificial altar of blood would be "cleansed" and "sanctified." Yet, ChristiansUNANIMOUSLY interpret "take away sins" to mean thesame thing as it meant under the OLD law, whereby theirsins are "atoned for," they are "purified" to approach God,their sins are forgiven and they are "sanctified," in order to


13/24

be in the "presence of God."

Again, the only conclusion, therefore is that Christ's shed blood is ONLY better to the Christian because it was done"once" and "for all" (sins)! They teach this from the pulpit.That is why the amplified Bible inserts the phrase "once andfor all" into verse two! It's the ONLY explanation why they would insert the phrase!

Let's look at some other translations:

Hebrews 10

Common English Bible (CEB)Christs once-for-all sacrifice

10 The Law is a shadow of the good things that are coming, not the real things themselves. It never can perfect the ones who are trying todraw near to God through the same sacrificesthat are offered continually every year. 2Otherwise, wouldnt they have stopped beingoffered? If the people carrying out their religious duties had been completely cleansedonce, no one would have been aware of sinanymore. 3 Instead, these sacrifices are areminder of sin every year, 4 because itsimpossible for the blood of bulls and goats totake away sins.

Hebrews 10New International Version (NIV)Christs Sacrifice Once for All


14/24

10 The law is only a shadow of the good thingsthat are comingnot the realities themselves.

For this reason it can never, by the samesacrifices repeated endlessly year after year,make perfect those who draw near to worship.2 Otherwise, would they not have stoppedbeing offered? For the worshipers would havebeen cleansed once for all, and would nolonger have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls andgoats to take away sins.

Hebrews 10New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)Christs Sacrifice Once for All

10 The law is only a shadow of the good thingsthat are comingnot the realities themselves.For this reason it can never, by the samesacrifices repeated endlessly year after year,make perfect those who draw near to worship.2 If it could, would they not have stoppedbeing offered? For the worshipers would have

been cleansed once for all, and would nolonger have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,4 because it is impossible for the blood of bullsand goats to take away sins.


15/24

The Message BibleThe Sacrifice of Jesus

10 1-10 The old plan was only a hint of thegood things in the new plan. Since that oldlaw plan wasnt complete in itself, it couldnt complete those who followed it. No matter howmany sacrifices were offered year after year,they never added up to a complete solution. If they had, the worshipers would have gonemerrily on their way, no longer dragged downby their sins. But instead of removingawareness of sin, when those animal sacrificeswere repeated over and over they actually heightened awareness and guilt. The plain fact is that bull and goat blood cant get rid of sin.That is what is meant by this prophecy, put inthe mouth of Christ:

There is a reason I have herein presented all of these varioustranslations of the same scripture. They paint a very dark and scary picture of the mind of the modern Christian on thesubject of ATONEMENT through the blood sacrifice of Jesus! Notice, most repeat the phrase "once and for all." We've discussed the "motivation" of this insertion of a nonexistent phrase INTO the text of scripture. Yet, not how allof the above translations bad mouth the old covenant! Withstatements like "those sacrifices were only a reminder of their sins" and how the translations unanimously make Goda liar (who promised that the shedding of animal blood onthe altar would sanctify them that came to that altar).Notice, too, how they focus on the GUILT being removed,not the sin itself, just the GUILT! These translations all


16/24

reason that if the blood of animals truly sanctified (likeChrist's blood sanctified) then the comers thereunto thosesacrifices would "no longer be dragged down by their sin"and "no longer feel guilty for their sins."

According to Christianity, it is CLEAR, the blood of Christdoes NOT "take away" sins but only takes away theFEELINGS OF GUILT for those sins. All of thesetranslations reason that if the OLD SACRIFICES worked, thepeople who relied upon them would NO LONGER FEELGUILTY for their sins and therefore would not keeprepeating the sacrifices EVERY YEAR! It's MORE than

implied in ALL of these translations that under Christ's blood there is NO MORE GUILT for sins and those whofollow Christ do NOT HAVE A CONSCIENCE!

The Apostles actually saw this deception coming early and warned of it.

1 Timothy 4: 1-2

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that inthe latter times some shall depart from thefaith, giving heed to seducing spirits, anddoctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Modern psychologists have a word for them who have "noconscience" for the wrong they do to others. They are called"sociopaths," or "anti social personality disorder."

The World Health Organization's International Statistical


17/24

Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems,tenth edition (ICD-10), defines a conceptually similardisorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2)Dissocial personality disorder.[4]

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility anddisregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, thoughhaving no difficulty in establishing them;

Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold fordischarge of aggression, including violence;Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit fromexperience, particularly punishment;Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausiblerationalizations for the behavior that has brought the personinto conflict with society.

Christianity teaches that Christ's blood does not take away the SIN, it takes away the believer's "feelings of guilt" forthose sins. It turns the first four verses of Hebrews 10 intoan indictment of the OLD COVENANT shedding of blood,stating that where it lacked was that it could not take away the people's "guilt" for their sin (whereas, the converse thenmust be true and the Christian "blood of Christ" DOESremove guilt, which is why Christians feel it is better). In theChristian mind, the problem with the old law was that the

people still felt guilty for their continual "sin nature" andthey offer as PROOF the fact that the people would have toREPEAT the sacrifice again and again.

Notice how their logic crumbles, though, when you examinethe statements of Hebrews and scrutinize the Christian


18/24

handling of "the blood" of Christ. Christians state that Christdied "once and for all." By the reasoning of their owninterpretations of Hebrews 10: 1 - 4, this should mean thatthere is "no more guilt" or "no more consciousness" of sin!The author of Hebrews is telling the Christian that Christdied once and for all and now their GUILTY FEELINGSshould be gone! They should not even "remember" their sinsfrom year to year. So, why do Christians have confessionals?

That is a common sense question. If having your sins atonedfor "once and for all" removes ALL FEELINGS of guilt, then why do Christians teach that we must "confess our sins"

before God? Every Christian has the saving, sanctified,atoning blood of Christ from the moment they believe! According to their own interpretation of Hebrews 10, thereSHOULD BE NO MORE GUILT for SIN!

Do you see how the Christians have painted themselves intoa corner here? Why would any Christian have to "confess"their sins, or apologize for their sins being that "Christ diedonce and for all" and according to their interpretation of Hebrews having your sins "taken away" means having thesacrifice "once and for all" and after that there is "no moreguilt" for sin?

It makes no logical sense whatsoever does it?

Clearly, "taking away sins" (under the New Covenant) and being "cleansed or purified" from sins (under the old law) are

two completely different things. The old law never promisedto "take away sins." It only promised that the sinner would be "cleansed," "purified," and "sanctified" again! Yet, theChristian view of Christ's blood is the SAME. They use thesame words for both and point out that Christ's blood isBETTER because it was done "once and for all" and now


19/24

Christians don't feel GUILTY for their sins! That is whathaving your sins "taken away" means to the Christian. Notthat the sins are GONE, not that they don't sin anymore, butthey don't feel GUILTY about their behavior anymore. Thisthey call the good news but any sociologist or psychologist will tell you there is NOTHING more dangerous than ahuman being who cannot feel remorse for their bad,undesirable behavior!

As I've pointed out, the Christians don't really believe thatChrist removed their guilt for ALL of their sins (many say past, present, and future sins). If they believed this they

wouldn't have "confession" after one receives Christ! They don't even believe their OWN interpretations of Hebrews foreven THOSE interpretations say that he who has had theirsins paid for "once and for all" has "no consciousness of sin"has no "feelings of guilt" for them (and if they do that isevidence their sins weren't really paid for once and for all,according to Christian translation).

So what did the writer of Hebrews REALLY mean? Hemeant what he plainly said. Namely, that the blood of animals cannot take away sins (even though they could atonefor them and sanctify and purify the flesh). The authorstates that IF the blood of animals could take away sins thenthe offerings would have ceased (for there would be NOMORE SINS for which to sacrifice). Why do the Christiansseek to complicate this simple message? Because they'd haveto ADMIT that there is POWER in the BLOOD OF MESSIAH

to literally "take away sins." In other words, that the comersto Christ have been given the power to STOP sinning!

That is why the blood of Christ is more powerful than the blood of animals! The blood of animals cannot bring about"sinless perfection" but Christ's sacrifice can and WILL but


20/24

how? How is the blood of the Lamb of God more powerfulthan the blood of a lamb? That part is simple. The Holy Spirit.

Galatians 5: 14-16

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, evenin this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour asthyself.

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take

heed that ye be not consumed one of another.16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and yeshall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

The New Covenant (in Christ's blood) is centered upon theHoly Spirit for this very reason. In fact, it was the very purposes of the sacrifice to begin with.

John 16: 5-7

5 But now I go my way to him that sent me;and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?

6 But because I have said these things unto

you, sorrow hath filled your heart.

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It isexpedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;


21/24

but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

There was NO promise of receiving "power from on high"contained within the animal blood sacrifices of the old law!This is the power of LOVE which is able to fulfill the WHOLELAW in us! It's the very purposes of the sacrifice of theLamb of God and he stated so openly, saying it is "absolutely necessary" that I "go away" (speaking of his crucifixion) for if I go not away the "comforter" (Holy Spirit) shall not come to you, but if I go away I will send him to you. The purposesand power of "the blood" are far greater than is beingpreached in the Christian religion, for they preach

ATONEMENT and SANCTIFICATION only (which is what was available under the OLD law) and the Apostles preachedPOWER. The power of love. The power of the Holy Spirit, whom, if we walk therein will "keep us from falling."

Jude 1: 24

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from

falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

When they attempt to rewrite Hebrews 10, to make thetaking away of sins merely the removal of "guilty feelings" forour sin they DESTROY the very purposes of Christ! This isno small matter ladies and gentlemen! No small matter atall. They are DENYING the POWER of the blood!

2 Timothy 3

King James Version (KJV)

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous


22/24

times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves,

covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers,false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep intohouses, and lead captive silly women ladenwith sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to theknowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses,so do these also resist the truth: men of

corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their'salso was.


23/24

10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine,manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering,

charity, patience,11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came untome at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what

persecutions I endured: but out of them all theLord delivered me.

12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worseand worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thouhast learned and hast been assured of,knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known theholy scriptures, which are able to make theewise unto salvation through faith which is inChrist Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect,


24/24

thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The power of the blood is in its power to "make us perfect" to where there is NO CONSCIOUSNESS of sin, because weHAVE no sin for which to feel guilty! Anyone who DENIESthis is denying the Lord who bought them for this very purpose. It's not that we don't have ATONEMENT andSANCTIFICATION when we receive the Son of God. We do! Yet, if that is ALL that is offered by the "cross" then Christdied in vain for we had that under the OLD LAW!

The promise remains for us that we can OVERCOME sin

completely and be "perfect" and that is something theshedding of animal blood on the altar could never offer,never promised, and THAT my friends is why Christ's bloodis more powerful, not just because it was done "once and forall" rather than every year!

denying the power of the blood

Documents