The Fountain Filled with Blood

@sonship said
The burden is yours to prove that he never referred to fountain filled with blood. The positive truth claim is yours. Shoulder the burden of proof that your claim is true. How do you know ?

Don’t be silly, how can I prove to you that something doesn’t exist in his books. It’s not there, google it, it’s not. Nee NEVER mentioned a fountain of blood, it’s made up nonsense which contradicts scriptural descriptions of the blood being applied.

Telling me the burden of proof is on me is like telling an atheist to prove god doesn’t exist! No YOU brough Nee into this, you are interning that Nee spoke about a fountain of blood.

He didn’t. If he did, then show me and I will apologise.

@sonship said
In my opinion you are overreacting. A few phrases related to redemption can be put together poetically by those who adore Jesus. So "fountain filled with blood" is the creation of poetry enjoyed by some who love Christ's redemption.

No it is a claim that there is a fountain of blood and it’s erroneous both literally and metaphorically.

The blood in the old and New Testaments was SPRINKLED and the sprinkling is administered and applied by the high priest in both cases.

A random fountain flowing with blood is foul error, foul. Jesus our high priest sprinkles the atoning blood in our hearts. THAT is what scripture says.

@sonship said
Knee jerk protest - "That's not in the Bible" is not that impressive. One can be "dead right" spiritually. And one can be livingly wrong spiritually.

No.

I have given you both old and New Testament scriptural precedent and protocol demonstrating why “fountain of blood” is error. It is your responsibility as a servant of the Lord to apply that insight, irrespective of your personal feelings for me, to your own understanding and acknowledge it’s truth.

It’s up to you. I don’t need to hear about it, I don’t seek to hear you acknowledge it, I just ask you to stop defending error.

@kevin-eleven said
Nope, not me. This is a bad analogy, but that would be like be confusing the room that contains the aquarium with the magic crystals.

Sonship is scripturally correct. The body of Christ is the ecclesiastical “body” of spirit filled believers. Also known as the bride of Christ. The body and the bridge are the same thing.

Interesting isn’t it.

@divegeester

He didn’t. If he did, then show me and I will apologise.

You don't know if Watchman Nee never mentioned that song the phrase.
You can say you couldn't find it mentioned in any of the books online.

I am not interested in an apology. I am interested in being realistic.
Most of the books under his name were notes taken by people present who
wrote down what he said.

@divegeester said
No.

I have given you both old and New Testament scriptural precedent and protocol demonstrating why “fountain of blood” is error. It is your responsibility as a servant of the Lord to apply that insight, irrespective of your personal feelings for me, to your own understanding and acknowledge it’s truth.

It’s up to you. I don’t need to hear about it, I don’t seek to hear you acknowledge it, I just ask you to stop defending error.

Let's not lose track of where we are.

1.) I didn't ever say "fountain filled with blood" is exactly stated that way in any Bible passage.

2.) Ground for the putting together of a couple of passages to arrive at the poetic phrase found in a classic hymn I will defend.

Those two passages being Zech. 13:1 and John 19:34.

If the "error" you say I am defending is the the exact phrase "fountain filled with blood" is located in the bible, that is not what I am defending.

I am defending the right for thankful Christians to write a hymn using the poetic expression.

The fact of the matter is that water, wine, or some other substance or liquid it probably not what the Spirit of God had in mind when the prophet Zechariah wrote of -

"a fountain opened for sin and impurity". I am pretty sure that the wounds of Christ the Redeemer is what is meant.

And shortly before in Zech 12:10 in the same book of Zechariah God speaks of Himself as having been pierced. This has to point to Christ, God incarnate, being crucified for the redemption of man's sins.

" . . . and they will look upon Me, whom they have pierced; and they will wail over Him with wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son." (See Zech. 12:10)

"Me" is God speaking.
In crucifying the Jesus the executioners pierced God - God who in Christ become a pierceable man.

Israel will eventually realize that this was their Messiah and wail over His being persecuted by them as if wailing over a firstborn son.

The greater weight of evidence is upon the an open fountain for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and impurity" means the blood shedding of the Son of God for redemption and salvation.

@sonship said
@divegeester

He didn’t. If he did, then show me and I will apologise.

You don't know if Watchman Nee never mentioned that song the phrase.
You can say you couldn't find it mentioned in any of the books online.

I am not interested in an apology. I am interested in being realistic.
Most of the books under his name were notes taken by people present who
wrote down what he said.

Well don’t infer that Nee did mention “fountain of blood” it’s dishonest. He didn’t and that’s that.

In fact no one talks about it, except you!

@sonship said
I am defending the right for thankful Christians to write a hymn using the poetic expression.

It’s error, and you are an expert in defending error.

You carry on.

@divegeester said
It’s error, and you are an expert in defending error.

You carry on.

The "error" as I understand it is that Christians should not celebrate the redemption of Christ with a phrase "fountain filled with blood."

If you don't want to sing such a song, you have that right.
I don't agree that it is an "error" for some adorers of Jesus to so celebrate with this poetic expression.

Not now.
Not forever.

The blood that flowed out like a fountain can still be sprinkled.
The fountain is not VERSES the sprinkling.

@sonship said
The "error" as I understand it is that Christians should not celebrate the redemption of Christ with a phrase "fountain filled with blood."

No, that is not something I’ve said.

@sonship said
If you don't want to sing such a song, you have that right.

Thanks for pointing that out 🙄

@sonship said
The blood that flowed out like a fountain can still be sprinkled.
The fountain is not VERSES the sprinkling.

No. There is no mention in the bible, literally nor metaphorically, of a “fountain of blood”.

Blood it administered by sprinkling, by the high priest, in both the old and the new testaments. It is not randomly distributed via a fountain.

Accept that “fountain of blood” is a mistake and move on.

@divegeester said
No. There is no mention in the bible, literally nor metaphorically, of a “fountain of blood”.

Blood it administered by sprinkling, by the high priest, in both the old and the new testaments. It is not randomly distributed via a fountain.

Accept that “fountain of blood” is a mistake and move on.

A fountain opened for the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and impurity is not random. (Zech. 13:1).

And the wounds inflicted in the Redeemer - the Son of God, is the best interpretation of the meaning of "an opened fountain for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity."

But I have moved on.

@divegeester said
Thanks for pointing that out 🙄

No problem.