The Blood of Christ (cont.)

[dwmoeller1]

so if Scriptures never say that Jesus entered with his blood, why teach it? The Bible does teach the trinity. I'm not saying that you must supply one passage that directly says it in one neat package(that obviously is not there). My point has been that the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus took his blood into heaven, but people teach that He did. My question originally was where is this in the Bible, something I have yet to see.

I understand your point. Was Jesus right handed or left handed. We don't know. Maybe he used both equally. Maybe he was right. I cannot say either. But what if I told you he was left handed, you would demand Scripture wouldn't you from me to prove it.

Actually I probably wouldn't care.

But if you argued that He could only be a pure sacrifice for our sins if He were left-handed, then I certainly would.

I am willing to put up with doctrinal oddities as long as they don't rise to the level of doctrinal necessities.

 

[Winman]

You did not refute any argument. The word "by" often means "with". I showed you the definition of this very word from Strongs and one of the synonyms was the word "with".

Was it necessary for the OT high priest to take the blood into the holy place?

If the OT high priest had to take the blood into the holy place, why wouldn't Jesus?

 

[Winman]

The Bible does teach the trinity.

No it doesn't if we are held to your standard. It must say it directly or it cannot be so according to your standard.

But the fact is, I have provided numerous verses that strongly imply Jesus took his own blood into the holy place and offered it before his Father in heaven. The OT sacrifices were simply a figure of the true.

 

[jbh28]

You did not refute any argument. The word "by" often means "with". I showed you the definition of this very word from Strongs and one of the synonyms was the word "with".

No, the word "by" doesn't often mean "with." And the word used for "by" is never translated as "with." You showed as synonym of the word "with" but which definition of "with" did you give. Did you mention it was "within" that it was referring to. It's not the definition of taking something with you.

Was it necessary for the OT high priest to take the blood into the holy place?

If the OT high priest had to take the blood into the holy place, why wouldn't Jesus?

Lambs blood, no. It's a contrast. Goats blood yes, lambs blood no. Goats blood many times, Christs blood once. Christ's blood was shed on the Cross for the atonement.

The question is was it necessary for the Lamb of God to take his blood to heaven? My answer: no. I see no Scripture supporting it. Lambs blood was never taken anywhere but the alter the sacrifice was on

 

[jbh28]

No it doesn't if we are held to your standard. It must say it directly or it cannot be so according to your standard.

But the fact is, I have provided numerous verses that strongly imply Jesus took his own blood into the holy place and offered it before his Father in heaven. The OT sacrifices were simply a figure of the true.

Yes it does teach it to my standard thank you very much. I believe in the trinity. The Bible teaches. I didn't say you had to have one verse to prove your point.

not, back to the issue

 

[Winman]

No, the word "by" doesn't often mean "with." And the word used for "by" is never translated as "with." You showed as synonym of the word "with" but which definition of "with" did you give. Did you mention it was "within" that it was referring to. It's not the definition of taking something with you.
Lambs blood, no. It's a contrast. Goats blood yes, lambs blood no. Goats blood many times, Christs blood once. Christ's blood was shed on the Cross for the atonement.

The question is was it necessary for the Lamb of God to take his blood to heaven? My answer: no. I see no Scripture supporting it. Lambs blood was never taken anywhere but the alter the sacrifice was on

You are stubborn to a fault. Here is an entry from the dictionary on the word by.

Synonyms
11. By, through, with indicate agency or means of getting something done or accomplished. By is regularly used to denote the agent (person or force) in passive constructions: It is done by many; destroyed by fire. It also indicates means: Send it by airmail. With denotes the instrument (usually consciously) employed by an agent: He cut it with the scissors. Through designates particularly immediate agency or instrumentality or reason or motive: through outside aid; to yield through fear; wounded through carelessness.

You know, debating with you is like debating with a teenager. I've got better things to do, believe what you want.

 

[jbh28]

You are stubborn to a fault. Here is an entry from the dictionary on the word by.



You know, debating with you is like debating with a teenager. I've got better things to do, believe what you want.

Which dictionary. Also, the Greek word doesn't mean "with" but for now, which dictionary so we can see which definition of "with" it is referring to. And you can cut out the name calling and stuff. You act like a teenager with you tactics.

also, just because a word has a definition, you can't just switch them in and out. Words have multiple definitions, but a word doesn't use all of them at once.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You did not refute any argument. The word "by" often means "with". I showed you the definition of this very word from Strongs and one of the synonyms was the word "with".

I agree with this. What I disagree with is your fallacious use this fact. In short, the sense of "with" that the Greek word translated "by" can mean is NOT the same meaning of "with" that you are attempting to have it mean. Fallacy of equivocation. For more details see post 20.

Here is an example for fun in the meantime:
"Bank" can refer to the edge of a river. "Bank" can also mean a financial institution. So, when someone said my money will be safe in the bank, I went and buried it by the river. After all, "bank" can mean either, right?

Was it necessary for the OT high priest to take the blood into the holy place?

Yep, but that fact is not in view in verse 9. The Greek word translated "by" can mean "with" (as in, I bought the car with my money), but it never ever means "with" (as in, I brought my money with me). Fallacy of equivocation.

So, in this passage, "by" refers simply to the fact that blood was the means by which entry was made. It does not reference the fact that taking blood with him was necessary. In fact, when explicit mention is made of the need to take blood with him, this is compared to Christ's offering himself as a sacrifice.

Draw the parallels where the author draws them and no where else.

If the OT high priest had to take the blood into the holy place, why wouldn't Jesus?

Because He had already obtained redemption before entering heaven (again, deal with this please).

 

[jbh28]

I agree with this. What I disagree with is your fallacious use this fact. In short, the sense of "with" that the Greek word translated "by" can mean is NOT the same meaning of "with" that you are attempting to have it mean. Fallacy of equivocation. For more details see post 20.

Here is an example for fun in the meantime:
"Bank" can refer to the edge of a river. "Bank" can also mean a financial institution. So, when someone said my money will be safe in the bank, I went and buried it by the river. After all, "bank" can mean either, right?

Yep, but that fact is not in view in verse 9. The Greek word translated "by" can mean "with" (as in, I bought the car with my money), but it never ever means "with" (as in, I brought my money with me). Fallacy of equivocation.

I would agree that the English word "by" can mean "with." What I said is that the Greek word used as "by" doesn't mean "with" like I took something with me.

The fallacy of equivocation is what I had said already about winman's use of the term, but he would rather resort to name calling and cheap shots.

 

[dwmoeller1]

You are stubborn to a fault. Here is an entry from the dictionary on the word by.

11. By, through, with indicate agency or means of getting something done or accomplished. By is regularly used to denote the agent (person or force) in passive constructions: It is done by many; destroyed by fire. It also indicates means: Send it by airmail. With denotes the instrument (usually consciously) employed by an agent: He cut it with the scissors. Through designates particularly immediate agency or instrumentality or reason or motive: through outside aid; to yield through fear; wounded through carelessness.

You know, debating with you is like debating with a teenager. I've got better things to do, believe what you want.

Ummm....that definition your provide illustrates my point perfectly. The word in vs 9 indicates agency. So the Greek word can be translated as "with" but ONLY if "with" is being used to indicated agency (ie. cut something "with" the scissors). I don't dispute this. However, you are using a different meaning of "with". The meaning you are trying to use is that of accompanying or taking along (ie. running with the scissors). It is a fallacy of equivocation to argue that...
- "by" can mean "with" in the sense of agency - ie. cutting with scissors True...although its rarely translated using "with" in the KJV.
- "with" can also carry the sense of accompanying or brought along - ie. running with scissors. True...but thats a different Greek word.
- Therefore, "by" can mean "with" in the sense of something brought along. False conclusion. This is the fallacy of equivocation (in Bible linguist circles known more specifically as "Illegitimate Totality Transfer")

Its a fallacy. Go find someone you accept as an authority on translation and/or logic if you don't accept my word for it.


And name call all you want...just deal with the arguments put forth honestly.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I would agree that the English word "by" can mean "with." What I said is that the Greek word used as "by" doesn't mean "with" like I took something with me.

Yeah, we are making the same point.

 

[HankD]

NKJV Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.​

Winman the NKJV agrees with your view (which is mine as well).​

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

NKJV Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.​

Winman the NKJV agrees with your view (which is mine as well).​

HankD

???!! No one disagrees that the word can be translated as "with". Thats not the point of disagreement. The question is what meaning of "with" is meant. The Greek word never means "with" in the sense of "accompanies or taken along". The meaning of the Greek word (ask any Greek scholar, look in any lexicon, ask any authority you wish to confirm this) is that of agency or means. So regardless of which word the NKJV chooses to render it as, the meaning is still not "bringing with, or carrying along with". Don't just look at how the NKJV renders it in this verse, look at how the Greek word is used in the rest the NT.

Adding one fallacy on top of anther doesn't make the first go away.

 

[HankD]

???!! No one disagrees that the word can be translated as "with". Thats not the point of disagreement. The question is what meaning of "with" is meant. The Greek word never means "with" in the sense of "accompanies or taken along". The meaning of the Greek word (ask any Greek scholar, look in any lexicon, ask any authority you wish to confirm this) is that of agency or means. So regardless of which word the NKJV chooses to render it as, the meaning is still not "bringing with, or carrying along with". Don't just look at how the NKJV renders it in this verse, look at how the Greek word is used in the rest the NT.

Adding one fallacy on top of anther doesn't make the first go away.

We have already been through this and I disagree with your prepositional assessment because of other scriptures particularly 1 John 1:7 where we are told "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin".

In addition I have found other prepositional passages where the blood of Christ is the object. In particular:

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.​

Here we are told that we enter into the holiest place by the blood of Jesus.​

The preposition is en which is used in the following passage:​

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:​

Admitedly this could be locative or instrumental, however 1 John 1:7 uses the definite article for "the blood" along with present active indicative for "cleanseth us" from all sin.

The very blood of Jesus exists in present tense time and is actually and continually cleansing us from all sin.​

I believe that blood is where Hebrews 10:19 declares: in the Holiest place (the Holy of Holies) which was waiting for the blood of the lamb.​

That is why lamb's blood was not previously taken into the holy of holies because there was only one blemish free and spotless lamb whose blood was worthy and precious enough to be taken into the holiest pace.​

Hebrews 9
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;​

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us

"having obtained" thus indicating completed action, I had attributed to
(The meaning of which we also have disagreement):

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.​

Hebrews 10
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;​

Matthew 27
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.​

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.

His glorified body of flesh and bone is there, John says His blood exists in the present tense and is actually and continually cleansing us from sin.

Hebrews 10:19 indicates the location of that blood is the holy of holies.

The details of how that works without being able to see or touch that blood or how it is that I am sprinkled with that very blood, I don't understand and have admitted that it invloves metaphysics which are beyond my comprehension as are some/many/most/all (take your pick) of the works of our God but it is what I personally believe the Scripture to teach.


HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

We have already been through this and I disagree with your prepositional assessment because of other scriptures particularly 1 John 1:7 where we are told "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin".

As I pointed out, this passage in no way disagrees with my prepositional assessment. Not w/o begging the question at least.

In addition I have found other prepositional passages where the blood of Christ is the object. In particular:

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.​

Here we are told that we enter into the holiest place by the blood of Jesus.​

The preposition is en which is used in the following passage:​

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:​

Admitedly this could be locative or instrumental, however 1 John 1:7 uses the definite article for "the blood" along with present active indicative for "cleanseth us" from all sin.

All of which I recognize and agree with. None of which supports your take on the "by" in Heb 9:12. All of which only confirms that "by" in Heb 9:12 is meant to indicate agency, not that it was carried along with. You may have more to your reasoning, but these passages do nothing to support your claims about the preposition in Heb 9:12.

The very blood of Jesus exists in present tense time and is actually and continually cleansing us from all sin.​

I believe that blood is where Hebrews 10:19 declares: in the Holiest place (the Holy of Holies) which was waiting for the blood of the lamb.​

Except Heb 10:19 doesn't say the blood is in the Holy of Holies. It says that we have the power to enter the Holiest by (agency) the blood of Christ. Regardless of whether or not the physical blood of Christ is literally meant here, the verse still doesn't say that it is in the Holiest.

Now yes, if you conclude that references to Christ's blood must be literal then it stands to reason that the most likely place it resides is in Heaven. But thats very different from Scripture actually saying that it is there, much less that Christ carried it there, much less that Christ had to carry it there. Even if I agreed that Christ physical blood resided in heaven, there are many ways it could get there w/o Christ carrying it.

Hebrews 10:19 indicates the location of that blood is the holy of holies.

Please explain. The prepositions "by" indicates agency, not location.

The details of how that works without being able to see or touch that blood or how it is that I am sprinkled with that very blood, I don't understand and have admitted that it invloves metaphysics which are beyond my comprehension as are some/many/most/all (take your pick) of the works of our God but it is what I personally believe the Scripture to teach.

It is the insistence on the literal physical on one hand and the dependence on the metaphysical on the other hand which makes your view suspect. Such a position violated Occam's razor. A much simpler explanation exists which doesn't rely on this grinding of gears when reading passages on Christ's blood.

 

[HankD]

As I pointed out, this passage in no way disagrees with my prepositional assessment. Not w/o begging the question at least.

All of which I recognize and agree with. None of which supports your take on the "by" in Heb 9:12. All of which only confirms that "by" in Heb 9:12 is meant to indicate agency, not that it was carried along with. You may have more to your reasoning, but these passages do nothing to support your claims about the preposition in Heb 9:12.

Except Heb 10:19 doesn't say the blood is in the Holy of Holies. It says that we have the power to enter the Holiest by (agency) the blood of Christ. Regardless of whether or not the physical blood of Christ is literally meant here, the verse still doesn't say that it is in the Holiest.

Now yes, if you conclude that references to Christ's blood must be literal then it stands to reason that the most likely place it resides is in Heaven. But thats very different from Scripture actually saying that it is there, much less that Christ carried it there, much less that Christ had to carry it there. Even if I agreed that Christ physical blood resided in heaven, there are many ways it could get there w/o Christ carrying it.

Please explain. The prepositions "by" indicates agency, not location.

It is the insistence on the literal physical on one hand and the dependence on the metaphysical on the other hand which makes your view suspect. Such a position violated Occam's razor. A much simpler explanation exists which doesn't rely on this grinding of gears when reading passages on Christ's blood.

All this would be fine except that it doesn't address the present active reality of the blood of Christ cleansing us from sin in 1 john 1:7.

Can you explain how we can be seated in heavenly places yet still located here on earth as well without the Lord's metaphysics?

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

What would Occam's Razor say about the Virgin Birth?
Jesus walking on water?
Feeding 5000 men with five loaves and two fish?
Raising Lazarus from the dead?
Turning water into wine?
Etc...

Call it a razor if you want. I call it the Sword of the Lord.

Anyway brother Moeller, the two views are there for all to see.

HankD

 

[Winman]

NKJV Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.​

Winman the NKJV agrees with your view (which is mine as well).​

HankD

I don't know what to say, you know I am a King James only fellow. :tongue3:

But you are correct, the NKJV does render this word "with". The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the Weymouth New Testament and several others translate this word to mean Jesus literally took his blood with him when he entered the holy place in heaven. So many disagree with dwmoeller1 that this word can never mean "accompanied with".

I also agree with you that there are somethings we cannot understand. When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, he told Nicodemus that he was in heaven. How could Jesus be on earth speaking to Nicodemus and in heaven at the same time? He is God is the only answer I can give.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

 

[jbh28]

I don't know what to say, you know I am a King James only fellow. :tongue3:

But you are correct, the NKJV does render this word "with". The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the Weymouth New Testament and several others translate this word to mean Jesus literally took his blood with him when he entered the holy place in heaven. So many disagree with dwmoeller1 that this word can never mean "accompanied with".

Who are the "so many" that disagree that the Greek word "dia" never means accompanied with? Are you talking about here or outside examples. Also, could you give any passages where the Greek word "dia" is used and it's translated as "with" meaning "accompanied with"? This would help your case out if you could find an example of "with" meaning "accompanied with" that was translated from the Greek term "dia."

 

[dwmoeller1]

So many disagree with dwmoeller1 that this word can never mean "accompanied with".

You posted the question. You got two responses. The first demonstrated that it is not used that way in the rest of Hebrews. The second did not disagree with my claim, he merely refrained from making the absolute claim himself because he felt there might be an outside chance he was wrong. IOW, he knew of no case where the word ever means "accompanied with".

So, two examples which couldn't support your claim that it every means "accompanied with", and none that negated my claim.

So where are these "so many"? Where is one Greek scholar who agrees with you that it *ever* means accompanied with? The best you have is one person saying that, to the best, of his knowledge it never is. So unless I am missing something, you are just engaging in intellectual dishonesty over this subject. You evidently won't engage in honest discussion.

 

[Winman]

You posted the question. You got two responses. The first demonstrated that it is not used that way in the rest of Hebrews. The second did not disagree with my claim, he merely refrained from making the absolute claim himself because he felt there might be an outside chance he was wrong. IOW, he knew of no case where the word ever means "accompanied with".

So, two examples which couldn't support your claim that it every means "accompanied with", and none that negated my claim.

So where are these "so many"? Where is one Greek scholar who agrees with you that it *ever* means accompanied with? The best you have is one person saying that, to the best, of his knowledge it never is. So unless I am missing something, you are just engaging in intellectual dishonesty over this subject. You evidently won't engage in honest discussion.

The question didn't get much response. I know there are more than two people who study Greek on this forum. Perhaps it was simply not a challanging question.

It is clear that the word "by" (dia) can mean "with" from the scriptures, look at this verse.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Here the word "by" means "with" as shown by the following phrase which says "and without him was not any thing made that was made".

You can't remove Jesus from the act of creation, he is the creator. Nothing that was made was made without him.