Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
·
Follow
Studied at University of California, Berkeley7y
My belief is that the blood of Jesus discovery is truthful, albeit difficult to demonstrate to those who are unsympathetic to Ron’s overall archaeology.
Many questions first arise about the nature of the blood claim, and the consistency with Bible belief.
First, Jesus would have to be the Messiah and his blood would have to be very special Acts 20:28, Acts 13:34–37, Acts 2:27.
Second, it is helpful to accept the doctrinal imperative that the blood of the Messiah must land on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant for atonement. As the greater New Testament one time fulfillment of the earlier yearly blood of goats. Lev 16:15.
Third, you should be willing to accept that the lack of the human father would be a part of the nature of the sinless Messiah, the sin nature being passed through the man (see e.g. Arthur C. Custance.) And this was actually reflected in the chromosomes of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Few are comfortable with the above, and they will look for objections to the claim, quite understandably.
Then you should simply listen to Ron Wyatt speaking on the topic, which you can find on YouTube. I also suggest the 3-part interview with his two sons, who were very much involved in the digs. And read on it, including at times the back-and-forth on forums that discuss the topic.
Then you can question many elements, such as which lab in Israel did the testing, were the lab results presented to Ron, and if so, who has seen that test and where is it today?
Then you can work with the various objections, of which we see a sampling above. Some are very easy to answer, others may require more consideration.
Having done much of the above, my conclusion was that Ron Wyatt was truthful about the blood of Jesus being on the Ark of the Covenant, and the special nature that showed up during the testing of that blood.
YMMV
Steven Avery