The Fountain Filled with Blood

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

Yes, yes, but NOT a “fountain of blood is it”?

@divegeester

So around in circles you go.
What do you imagine it is a fountain of then?

What removes man's sin and impurity?

@sonship said
@divegeester

So around in circles you go.

What “circles”?

I’ve been saying exactly the same thing since you first mentioned this made up erroneous metaphor about a year ago.

@divegeester

What does interpretation of the metaphor the fountain opened for sin and impurity make more sense to you then the redeeming blood of the Redeemer - the Son of God?

@sonship said
@divegeester

What does interpretation of the metaphor the fountain opened for sin and impurity make more sense to you then the redeeming blood of the Redeemer - the Son of God?

I don’t understand your question.

Is the "precious blood" a biblical phrase?

"Knowing that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were redeemed from your vain manner of life . . . But with precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ." (1 Pet. 1:19)

How precious is precious?

If "the precious blood of Jesus" is NOT so precious as to prompt a song about "a fountain filled with blood?" Is that amount of believers' appreciation for the preciousness of Christ's redeeming blood erroneous?

If so, says who?

@sonship said
Is the "precious blood" a biblical phrase?

Actually yes it is, and if you really knew your Bible (instead of copy pasting other people’s thoughts on it), you would instinctively know it was in the Bible.

1 Peter 1,19
“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

“Fountain of blood” is NOT in the Bible.

@sonship

After that somewhat embarrassing moment of your own making sonship, I again point out why “fountain of blood” is more than just missing from the Bible, it is also quite badly wrong...

The atoning blood was applied in the Old Testament by the high priest and sprinkled on the holy seat.

The atoning blood of Jesus Christ is applied in the New Testament by the high priest (Jesus) and sprinkled in our hearts to cleanse our conscience from sin.

The blood is administered by a high priest and “sprinkled” deliberately. It is NOT randomly flowing grotesquely from a fountain from which we apply it ourselves.

As I said before, I’m not interested in your acknowledgment that you are wrong, I only ask that you stop defending error, look at the scripture, accept it and move on.

@divegeester

After that somewhat embarrassing moment of your own making sonship, I again point out why “fountain of blood” is more than just missing from the Bible, it is also quite badly wrong...

There is no embarrassment of my making.
It is glorious that a hymn was written about the fountain filled with blood drawn from Emanuel's veins. And sinners (like myself) plunged beneath the flood and lose all their guilty stains.

What a wonderful thought and truth.
"And the blood of Jesus Christ God's Son cleanses us from every sin." (1 John 1:7)

Its really true. Poetry about the total efficacious redemption Christ accomplished is welcomed by millions of us believers.

The atoning blood was applied in the Old Testament by the high priest and sprinkled on the holy seat.

That is right.
That pointed forward in time to Jesus Christ. In fact the New Testament says that Christ is the propitiation place where God and man can meet.

He is not only the propitiatory sacrifice - hilasmos [Greek]
He is also the PLACE of propitiation - hilasterion.

Life Study of Romans by Witness Lee has a good note on these two words. [my bolding]

https://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=230FE84EA2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Redemption in the New Testament
1. The Propitiation
The expiation in the Old Testament was a type of the propitiation in the New Testament. Propitiation is mentioned at least five times in the New Testament. In 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 we are told that Christ, the Son of God, is Himself the propitiation for our sins. In both places the word propitiation actually means a sacrifice and should be rendered “propitiatory sacrifice.” The Greek word in these verses is hilasmos, which means “that which propitiates,” that is, a propitiatory sacrifice. In 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 the Lord Jesus is the propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Another Greek word regarding propitiation, hilasterion, is found in Hebrews 9:5 and Romans 3:25. Hilasterion means the place where propitiation was made. The proper reference books indicate that the word hilasterion in these two verses means the place of propitiation, and the King James Version renders it as “mercy seat.” In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, hilasterion is the word for the term “mercy seat” in Exodus 25 and Leviticus 16. Thus, hilasterion is the place of propitiation. Furthermore, in Hebrews 2:17 is the word hilaskomai, the verbal form of the noun hilasmos. The King James Version translates hilaskomai as “make reconciliation for”; however, it should be translated “propitiate.” Christ propitiates for our sins.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The atoning blood of Jesus Christ is applied in the New Testament by the high priest (Jesus) and sprinkled in our hearts to cleanse our conscience from sin.

I fully agree. But this is simply not VERSES that He opened up His body in death to pour out His redeeming blood for us.

Your point about the sprinkling is great. But because it is true, I don't think it makes the fountained opened . . . for sin and impurity from Jesus not true.

I don't think a dichotomy exists.

The blood is administered by a high priest and “sprinkled” deliberately. It is NOT randomly flowing grotesquely from a fountain from which we apply it ourselves.

If you think about it the blood of any sacrificed animal had to FLOW out of that creature BEFORE the high priest could sprinkle it. Right?

If you are able to take it, the blood of Jesus had to flow out of Jesus before it could be sprinkled on our hearts freeing us from an evil conscience and cleansing us from dead works.

"For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who are defiled sanctify to the purity of the flesh, How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:13.14)

It is not too much of a stretch to see it. Christ as the antitype of all those bulls and goats poured out His own blood. The fountain was opened from His body for the pouring out of His blood for our sin and impurity.

Having been poured out it is now available to sprinkle our hearts from an evil conscience.

As I said before, I’m not interested in your acknowledgment that you are wrong, I only ask that you stop defending error, look at the scripture, accept it and move on.

I understand. However by asking me to stop defending that wonderful song you ARE requesting that I admit it is an error. However AMPLE ground for the imagery for that hymn is found in the entire Bible. It doesn't matter if it is not all found in one place. The plenary revelation of the matter gathered from two or more verses is ground for the poetic expression.

At best I think you can just say that you do not like the imagery.

Since the peace and cleansing from Christ's redemption can be moment by moment and so effective instantly and constantly the appreciative hymn writer imagined it as a fountain constantly available.

There is no error in this.
There is deep appreciation for the moment by moment cleansing of the blood of Christ just as a fountain ever flowing.

The blood is administered by a high priest and “sprinkled” deliberately. It is NOT randomly flowing grotesquely from a fountain from which we apply it ourselves.

You don't like the imagery and find it "grotesque".
Well someone else may find sprinkling with blood grotesque as well.

This is rather subjective.
When I realize how awfully our sins damage ourselves, and others and offend God's holiness, righteousness, and glory, a fountain filled with the redeeming blood is welcomed imagery to me.

And I don't mind imagining plunging beneath the flood.
It is enough redemption for the whole world.
Sprinkled blood - YES.
But the fountain opened for the sin and impurity of the whole world is
welcomed imagery to my thankful heart.

@sonship said
@divegeester

After that somewhat embarrassing moment of your own making sonship, I again point out why “fountain of blood” is more than just missing from the Bible, it is also quite badly wrong...

There is no embarrassment of my making.

How can you not know that “precious blood” in in the Bible?

@divegeester said
@sonship

After that somewhat embarrassing moment of your own making sonship, I again point out why “fountain of blood” is more than just missing from the Bible, it is also quite badly wrong...

The atoning blood was applied in the Old Testament by the high priest and sprinkled on the holy seat.

The atoning blood of Jesus Christ is applied in the New Testam ...[text shortened]... u are wrong, I only ask that you stop defending error, look at the scripture, accept it and move on.

@sonship

Every rebuttal required to address your made up erroneous phrase “fountain of blood” is in this post of mine which I’m replying to.

I suggest printing if off and pinning it on your wall to help you come to terms with being mistaken.