**I ask Reformed Protestants** because at a time of worship with Reformed Protestants two days ago, I heard the preacher twice say that “Christ perfectly kept the law on our behalf”. Once during his prayer, and again during his sermon, making the claim that when believers do sin, Jesus having perfectly kept the law means that we will be pardoned due to that. I have searched the phrase “the blood of Christ” (and what it does for believers), but **nowhere can I find any phrase about Jesus perfectly keeping the O.T. law to ensure forgiveness for their later sins**. I list 12 verses on the blood of Christ to illustrate the importance the Bible gives to it: Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14 & 20; Hebrews 9:12 & 14 & 22, & 12:24; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5 & 7:14. (Not an exhaustive list.) But nowhere do I read anything about Jesus keeping the law perfectly so that we can have (daily?) sins after conversion ‘covered over’. So, ***can anyone give me any such scriptures***, please? I am concerned in case such an idea implies that the blood of Christ is not entirely sufficient.

For those that believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, why were there no schisms concerning this within the Early Church IF this is what they believed and taught? The Noahide Covenant and the Mosaic Law not only both expressly forbid the consumption of blood - with the penalty of being cut off from Israel - but it is one of the few commands deemed essential for Gentile converts to follow as well, despite not being under the Mosaic Law. It is thus not simply a matter of ceremonial cleanliness at stake; but an ex-communicable offense. The early church itself was composed of Jewish converts who carried with them their previous beliefs. This led to controversies like demanding that Gentiles get circumcised and to those who claimed within the church that there was no resurrection (like the Sadducees) as well as to controversies over what food they were permitted to eat amongst Gentiles. Such concerns are clearly reflective of Jewish religious life back when. Now, if the disciples and apostles had gone around preaching that the Eucharist literally was flesh and BLOOD - do you not think that this would have caused not a little controversy amongst the Jewish Christians? Would not Paul have to defend why he was not cut off from Israel - let alone how Gentiles are grafted onto Israel - if they routinely committed an excommunicatable offense? And even if fellow Christians could be convinced of the matter - it surely would have been a point of objection from those Jewish authorities that sought to persecute the Church; like Paul prior to his conversion. Yet the biblical testimony is absolutely silent on such a controversy. Nor, again, do the Church Fathers record such a controversy; even in their lengthy volumes recording actual or fictional conversations with Jews. The closest we get are apologies against those who assert that Christians were cannibals - a valid claim IF the Eucharist is literal flesh and blood.

I understand the blood and flesh are symbolic, to some, but still, the same spiritual implications are there, I presume. Life is in the blood/it is sacred, do not consume it, Jesus' blood is a gazillion times more so, definitely drink it? Is it a contradiction?

Are there any scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles? If there are, please provide sources / references (papers, articles, etc).

[***Anima Christi***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_Christi) , the famous prayer of St Ignatius Loyola has this verse: > "Blood of Christ, inebriate me". Clearly, it is not the physical inebriation, but the spiritual one that Loyola had in mind. This prayer is found in the very first page of his famous [*Spiritual Exercises*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Exercises) book (1522-1524). [English translation by Louis J. Puhl, S.J.](https://archive.org/details/spiritualexercis0000loui/page/n17/mode/2up) (1959): >Soul of Christ, sanctify me Body of Christ, save me **Blood of Christ, inebriate me** Water from the side of Christ, wash me Passion of Christ, strengthen me O good Jesus, hear me Within Thy wounds hide me Permit me not to be separated from Thee From the wicked foe defend me At the hour of my death call me And bid me come to thee That with Thy saints I may praise Thee For ever and ever. Amen. My question is: **Did Loyola borrow his idea of spiritual inebriation from the Scriptures?**

What does "I plead the blood of Jesus Christ" mean? Is this something Christians say? Supposedly "I plead the blood" is a legal term.

When a Protestant congregation meets together and claim to eat the Bread and drink the Wine of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, how does the Eastern Orthodox Church view and understand such eating and drinking of Protestants? When Protestants do so and claim to participate in "Communion," what does the EOC believe is really taking place? What does it mean and signify to the EOC? Is it valid "Eucharist/Holy Communion" when Protestants do so? Is it a sham? Is it something in-between?

I've heard people say this phrase in prayer many times. A simple [Google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22plead+the+blood+of+jesus%22&oq=%22plead+the+blood+of+jesus%22) for the exact phrase *"plead the blood of Jesus"* confirms that this is the case, returning about 280,000 hits (as of April 2021). My superficial understanding is that people usually plead the blood of Jesus expecting some kind of special spiritual protection against the dark forces, maybe it has something to do with spiritual warfare, I'm not sure. Questions: 1. What do Christians mean when they plead the blood of Jesus in prayer? Is there a canonical definition of the phrase? What do they expect will happen when they say it? 2. What is the biblical basis? Are there scriptural examples in which an apostle or a disciple pleaded the blood of Jesus for protection or any other purpose?

**Hebrews 9:23,** speaking of Moses purifying the earthly tabernacle and Jesus the heavenly home with blood, says, > It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens > should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with > better sacrifices than these. I thought the blood cleansed of sin. If so, then why was it applied to heavenly things? Or was the blood applied for a different reason to these two places?

This question deals with pouring the wine into one chalice instead of many individual small cups for the congregants to consume. In my experience, I've observed that the wine is **always** poured into a single chalice, never into individual cups. Is it to conserve resources, or is there a theological reason behind this practice?

A [related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27259/why-dont-catholics-divide-the-blood-of-christ-into-individual-cups) asks about Catholic practice (of using a common cup). In some Protestant Churches — I’ve experienced this myself in both Baptist and Free Churches — the wine at the Communion service is poured into small glasses and distributed amongst the congregation. Everyone drinks their glass at the same time. The Biblical account tells us that Jesus used a single cup at the Last Supper. While it seems many Protestant Churches attach paramount importance to the Biblical account, why do they not follow suit in using a common cup?

Luke 22:44 talks about Jesus Christ's experience while he was in the Garden of Gethsemane. During a time when an angel visits him to strengthen him he begins to sweat blood. I would like to understand better the significance of this verse: 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. * Did he literally bleed through his pores as could be interpreted from this verse? * What would cause him to sweat blood during a prayer to his Father? * What is the spiritual meaning behind this sweat of blood that came from his body in the Garden of Gethsemane? * Was he feeling pain that required an angel to strengthen him in order to bear what he was feeling?

This question is related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56667/was-god-the-sons-blood-divine-and-infinite-or-human-and-finite-protestant-inte , but I didn't realize there may be different interpretations. My question concerns whether God the Son's blood is human or divine. If human, then I don't understand how it was infinite enough to be an acceptable sacrifice, why he needed to be God, and how this is not an abomination. If divine, then it must carry the supposed qualities of divinity (infinite, eternal, and unchangable) so that he was not a real human. According to Western Catholic trinitarianism, when God the Son's blood was shed, was this a shedding of human, finite blood, or was it divine, infinite blood?

Something I hear a lot is "Jesus has to be God because it took an infinite sacrifice to appease the infinite anger of an infinite God", or something like that. My question concerns whether God the Son's blood is human or divine. If human, then I don't understand how it was infinite enough to be an acceptable sacrifice, why he needed to be God, and how this is not an abomination. If divine, then it must carry the supposed qualities of divinity (infinite, eternal, and unchangable) so that he is not a real human. According to Protestant trinitarianism, when God the Son's blood was shed, was this a shedding of human, finite blood, or was it divine, infinite blood?

I'm new to this site, but I'm as well searching for answers of several questions I've been facing. Last Monday, I had a question involving the relationship of Jesus and Joseph. So far I know, Joseph has been a long-descendant of David. and I believe Jesus was also supposed to have David's blood, because that was the reason why Joseph became his 'mortal father' But since Maria was pregnant without involving intercourse with Joseph, then Joseph would theoretically have adopted Jesus as his son, breaking the connection of David's blood. So, to repeat my question again, Is it true that Jesus has the blood from Joseph and finally, also David?

Originally: St. Thomas Aquinas on salvation by a drop of Christ's Blood I heard on Relevant Radio a year or so ago something perplexing, I think it was a priest saying it, but it may have been a layman, regardless, he seemed very smart, and seemed to know a lot about the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Somewhere, I know not where, St. Thomas said that the Crucifixion was not necessary for salvation and that only a drop of Jesus' blood needed to be spilled. Where and why did he write/say this and what is the reason for this. Is it accepted Catholic Doctrine and how much more does the Crucifixion do for us than a single drop of Christ's Precious Blood?

In contemporary times the best known, studied and discussed relic attributed to Jesus is the Shroud of Turin, currently kept in Turin and personal possession of the Pope. According to tradition, the Shroud is the sheet that had wrapped the body of Jesus in the tomb. The fabric is linen and measures 442x113 cm. It has the double image (front and back) of a man with a beard, mustache and long hair laying on the body the signs corresponding to the description of the passion: scourging, crowning with thorns, his hands and feet pierced by nails, spear wound in his side. The picture is not painted but comes from a gradual yellowing of textile fiber, as if it were a negative impression of a photographic film. In correspondence with the deepest wounds are traces of blood type AB. The history of the Shroud is documented with certainty only from 1353, when the French Knight Geoffroy de Charny, who had fought in the Middle East, declared its possession. The Church has never officially ruled on the authenticity of the Shroud, but highly exalts the Shroud. Are there other studies collaborating with the Shroud's results for Jesus' blood type? Are there any other similar scenarios that indicate what Jesus' blood type was?

According to these verses and others, God/Jesus purchased/redeemed us with his blood > **Revelation 5:9** > > And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, > and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed > us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, > and nation; > > **Acts 20:28** > > Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit > has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he > bought with his own blood Who was the receiving party - I mean the blood?