The Blood of Christ (cont.)

[dwmoeller1]

Where does it say this? Please explain.

Heb 9:12Neither 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.

The tense indicates that redemption was obtained before He entered heaven.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Is this a joke on your part? It is you that is trying to argue the two occurances of the word "by" in Hebrews 9:12 have different meanings, when they use the same exact word in the Greek.

Nope not at all. By means exactly the same thing in both uses. But in neither case does it mean "with". The fact that one case includes "with blood" does not mean that such a detail is a point of comparison. "By" references ONLY that blood was necessary for entry - it makes no implications that the details of this "transaction" are necessarily the same in both cases. Insisting that it does is fallacious...and contradictory to the end of the verse.

You know for a fact that the OT high priest wasn't "enabled" by the blood to enter the holy place, he had to have the literal blood with him when he entered. And then this verse makes a direct comparison to Jesus. The contrast is animal blood versus Jesus's blood, it is not saying whatsoever he could enter without blood.

That in both cases blood was the means by which entry was made is true.
That it enabled the priest only if he carried it with him is true.
That this must also mean that Christ had to make entry in the same exact way is a false conclusion. You are trying to extract more meaning than the word "by" or the comparison in the verse can carry.

In fact I showed in Hebrews 8:3 that it was necessary Jesus have a gift to offer when he entered the holy place.

The verse doesn't say or imply this. This is only about the details of the priests entry. There is nothing in the passage or the verse to indicate that this is a point of comparison.

It is obvious you will not listen no matter how much scriptural evidence has been shown you, believe what you want.

Your evidence relies on numerous fallacies.

 

[jbh28]

You are just plain wrong here. By can mean with and often does. That is why I showed you the definition from Strongs confirming that. It is you that is insisting it cannot mean with when indeed it can.

Sorry, but it doesn't. Strongs doesn't say it either if you read the definition. And regardless if it did, that doesn't mean i means that here. When you have mulitple definitions, words don't have ALL of them in one place, but only one. If I say I set the table, that doesn't mean the table went down like if I said the sun sets. Different contexts made different definitions. you don't just change them to suit your argument.

This word dai in the Greek is found many times in the NT and often means with. A few examples:

Matt 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

The word by here is the same word used in Heb 9:12. Of course it means through, but it also means with. You can't say that Isaiah was not involved here, he certainly was.

Doesn't mean with here. It was spoken by someone. It doesn't say that it was spoken with someone(like I spoke with you) it means it was spoken by someone(like what was said to you was spoken by me) The first means the object spoken to(with) and the latter who spoke(by).

And I am saying that about the blood. It is not simply saying Jesus was able to enter because of the blood, because it was forbidden for the high priest to enter without real literal blood. He had to have blood "with" him.

What you believe contradicts the scriptures and God's commandments, because the scriptures say the high priest could not enter without blood.

Doesn't say it Winman. You keep refusing to realize that Scripture doesn't say that. Also, lambs blood NEVER went anywhere but the alter.

Acts 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

This is the same word. Are you trying to say they didn't use their mouth to tell these things?

You are not just being ridiculous by your ignorance of the English language. Here is one example where you possible could exchange the English word "with" for "by" but "with" doesn't have the same meaning here as what you are trying to make it in Hebrews. "With" like most English words has more than one definition. Again, you error in the fallacy of equivocation.

But that is exactly the kind of argument you are trying to make. Yes, the blood did enable Jesus to enter in the holy place, because you had to have blood to enter the holy place.

It doesn't say that at all. Please share where it says Jesus had to do that.

Turn your argument around and you will see the error. If Jesus did not have literal blood when he entered the holy place, and the OT was a figure of the true, then the OT high priest would not have needed to take real literal blood into the holy place either.

Can you see the error now?

Nope, because you lack the Scripture to show me the error. Lambs blood never went to the holy place.

 

[HankD]

Lambs blood never went to the holy place.

It was waiting until Jesus brought it there.

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

Nope, because you lack the Scripture to show me the error. Lambs blood never went to the holy place.

I totally missed that before. Thanks for pointing it out. That pretty much slams the coffin lid shut on the idea that Heb 9:12 means that Christ must have taken His blood to heaven. He was the Lamb of God, the priests took only the blood of bulls and goats into the Holy. It makes as clear as one could want that Heb 9 is not attempting to draw any sort of exact parallel.

Add to that the fact that the blood in the OT which was used to cleanse a person was also never the blood taken to the Holy place.

 

[Winman]

I totally missed that before. Thanks for pointing it out. That pretty much slams the coffin lid shut on the idea that Heb 9:12 means that Christ must have taken His blood to heaven. He was the Lamb of God, the priests took only the blood of bulls and goats into the Holy. It makes as clear as one could want that Heb 9 is not attempting to draw any sort of exact parallel.

Add to that the fact that the blood in the OT which was used to cleanse a person was also never the blood taken to the Holy place.

Well, neither of you is a careful reader. Hebrews 9:12 directly says that Jesus did not enter the holy place with either the blood of goats or a bull, but his own blood.

Heb 9:12 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.

You fellows will not acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say. The OT high priest did have to enter the holy place with the blood of either a goat or bull, but Jesus entered in with his own blood.

And then it says if the blood of bulls and goats purified us (which had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat to do so), how much more shall Jesus's blood purify us?

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

You are correct, it was the blood of bulls and goats that was taken into the holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat, and here Jesus's blood is compared directly to them.

 

[jbh28]

Well, neither of you is a careful reader. Hebrews 9:12 directly says that Jesus did not enter the holy place with either the blood of goats or a bull, but his own blood.

Heb 9:12 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.

Doesn't say he entered "WITH" his own blood. You add to the Scriptures to support your view. So no, it is a false statement to say that the "Hebrews 9:12 directly says" that Jesus entered with his own blood.

You fellows will not acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say. The OT high priest did have to enter the holy place with the blood of either a goat or bull, but Jesus entered in with his own blood.

Again, doesn't say "with" his own blood.

And then it says if the blood of bulls and goats purified us (which had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat to do so), how much more shall Jesus's blood purify us?

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

You are correct, it was the blood of bulls and goats that was taken into the holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat, and here Jesus's blood is compared directly to them.

Actually contrasted. Jesus though is the lamb of God. Lambs blood never went to the holy place but was always at the alter. The Bible NEVER says Jesus brought his blood into heaven. All you have is changing Scripture to support your view. Also, notice it says "offered himself" not offered his blood.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Well, neither of you is a careful reader. Hebrews 9:12 directly says that Jesus did not enter the holy place with either the blood of goats or a bull, but his own blood.

Heb 9:12 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.

You fellows will not acknowledge what the scriptures clearly say.

Again it doesn't clearly say this. Your "clear" is based on fallacious reasoning - on drawing a parallel more exact than the passage says and more exact than can be supported by the passage, on drawing a parallel that contradicts other parts of the passage. We are failing to acknowledge what it clearly says, you are failing to recognize the fallacious nature of your reasoning.

The OT high priest did have to enter the holy place with the blood of either a goat or bull, but Jesus entered in with his own blood.

The first part is true, but the second does not logically follow from what the passage says. Logical leaps do equal what a passage clearly says. The passage draws one parallel only - that blood was needed for redemption. The passage draws two explicit contrasts - blood of bull and goats vs. Christ's blood, and often vs. once. What it does NOT do is make any other parallels. The parallel you insist is there is not stated, not implied by the language or logic of the passage. You are creating a parallel which the author does not.

Now IF the two incidents were to be considered essentially the same event with some changes, THEN it stands to reason that more parallels exist between the two events than the passage states. This is the assumption you seem to be making. I have pointed out in many ways that the passage clearly won't support such an assumption. Instead, Hebrews treats the two events and shadow and reality - that there are similarities such that a compare and contrast is useful and enlightening. However, drawing more parallels than the passage actually states is taking it further than is warranted.

So instead of claiming what is "clear" when it is not (this fact is shown by your doctrine being a distinctly atypical one) stick with what the passage actually says - the parallels it draws and no more.

And then it says if the blood of bulls and goats purified us (which had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat to do so), how much more shall Jesus's blood purify us?

Again, drawing the parallel further than the passage states. It points out that blood purifies in both cases (although in the latter case, much more so), but it does NOT say that in both cases this is accomplished by sprinkling on the mercy seat. You are drawing the parallel further than the author actually states. What you think is clear is really an assumption based on a fallacy of composition.

I again point out that end of vs. 12 *contradicts* your conclusion. Unlike the OT event where the blood had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat, vs 12 says that Christ act of redemption was accomplished BEFORE He went to the holy. The parallel you attempt to draw not only goes further than what the author actually says, it contradicts what the author says.

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

If your parallel were meant by the author then one would expect that the passage would point to the taking and sprinkling of His blood. Instead, it focuses back on Christ's sacrifice - ie. the act that vs 12 indicates was sufficient for redemption.

You are correct, it was the blood of bulls and goats that was taken into the holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat, and here Jesus's blood is compared directly to them.

Yes, a parallel is drawn in vs. 13,14 - blood in OT, blood in NT, both purify. But the only thing the author does here is to contrast the two types of blood - that of animals vs. that of the perfect Lamb of God who offered Himself. His logic is not that just as the blood of animals purifies, so Christ's blood purifies in the same manner, using the same methods. Instead, the main point is the *contrast* - the purification that comes from the blood of dumb animals vs. the purification that comes from the blood of the perfect Lamb of God who offered Himself. There is nothing in the verse to suggest that the parallel extends further than that.

So yes, there is a compare/contrast going on, but it is limited to what the verse actually says. You are assuming that if they are parallel in one way, then they must be parallel in all other ways (unless specifically stated otherwise). This is a fallacious assumption! What you think is clear is a result of holding to a fallacious piece of reasoning. Its not that I can't see what you say is clear - I see it and recognize it for what it is. An assumption based on fallacious reasoning.

And again, you pass over the last part of the verse 12 altogether. Christ did not have to take blood to Heaven because His work of redemption was already accomplished.

 

[Winman]

The first part is true, but the second does not logically follow from what the passage says

That's ridiculous, of course it does. It is directly comparing Jesus's blood to the blood of goats and calves (bulls).

If your parallel were meant by the author then one would expect that the passage would point to the taking and sprinkling of His blood. Instead, it focuses back on Christ's sacrifice - ie. the act that vs 12 indicates was sufficient for redemption.

The scriptures do speak of the sprinkling of Jesus's blood.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 

[jbh28]

That's ridiculous, of course it does. It is directly comparing Jesus's blood to the blood of goats and calves (bulls).

I wonder sometimes if you only pull the portions out that you read.

The first part is true, but the second does not logically follow from what the passage says. Logical leaps do equal what a passage clearly says. The passage draws one parallel only - that blood was needed for redemption. The passage draws two explicit contrasts - blood of bull and goats vs. Christ's blood, and often vs. once. What it does NOT do is make any other parallels. The parallel you insist is there is not stated, not implied by the language or logic of the passage. You are creating a parallel which the author does not.

The scriptures do speak of the sprinkling of Jesus's blood.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Was that all you had for his post? What about all th rest that was posted. I was curious as to your response.

 

[Winman]

I wonder sometimes if you only pull the portions out that you read.

His whole argument is basically that the scriptures don't come out and say:

AND JESUS ENTERED THE HOLY OF HOLIES IN HEAVEN WITH HIS LITERAL BLOOD IN HIS HANDS AND SPRINKLED IT ON THE MERCY SEAT IN HEAVEN

And even if the scriptures did say that, I think he would still try to wiggle out of it somehow.

Look, the OT high priest was forbidden to enter the holy place without blood. These scriptures are comparing Jesus directly to the OT high priest. The difference is that the OT high priest entered with the blood of bulls and goats, Jesus entered with his own blood.

Where does it say he did not enter with his blood?

See, I can make the same sort of foolish argument.

But you see, it directly says it was necessary for Jesus to offer a gift before God just as the OT high priest was required to do.

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

The OT high priest could not enter the holy place without blood, he would have been struck dead on the spot. And this verse says it is necessary that every high priest has a gift to offer, and "wherefore" it is of "necessity" that this man have somewhat "also" to offer.

If it was not Jesus's blood that he went into the holy place and offered to the Father, what was it?

 

[dwmoeller1]

That's ridiculous, of course it does. It is directly comparing Jesus's blood to the blood of goats and calves (bulls).

Hebs 9 compares AND contrasts them. It says they are similar in ways X, Y and Z, then it says they are different in ways A,B and C. So, where it says they are similar, then we know they are similar. However, your logic is that, if they are similar in ways X, Y and Z, then they must also be similar in ways P and S. Such a conclusion is fallacious.

Same sort of thing the author does in Heb 4 with the parallel between the Israel's disobedience in the wilderness, God's rest, and the Christian. The verse mentions how the disobedient Israelites failed to enter the Promised land. But, even though the passage directly compares the disobedience of the Israelites with that of Christians, it would be fallacious (and absurd) to conclude that disobedient Christians will have to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. When a comparison is made, one can only draw parallels between the things that the author actually states are parallels. That two things may be directly compared in one way does not logically mean that they are therefore alike in other ways. Such a conclusion is a result of the fallacious reasoning.

A more obvious example of this fallacy:
- The Holy Spirit and the wind both go where they will
- The Holy Spirit the wind can't be seen directly
- The Holy Spirit and the wind can be observed indirectly
Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be the result of the earth rotating since the wind is also the result of the earth rotating.

The scriptures do speak of the sprinkling of Jesus's blood.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Yep. And if the only reference to sprinkling of blood in the OT law were that of sprinkling on the mercy seat, then you would have a very strong argument in your favor. However, in the OT there were many ways in which the blood was sprinkled - on the people, on the priests, on the mercy seat, on the altar. So, given that, to conclude that I Pet 1:2 must be speaking about the literal sprinkling of literal blood on a literal mercy seat in Heaven is begging the question. Big time. Again, fallacious reasoning - assuming more than the passage actually says, drawing exact parallels where Scripture states none. In short, I Pet 1:2 can't legitimately be used to support your take on Heb 9.

 

[jbh28]

And even if the scriptures did say that, I think he would still try to wiggle out of it somehow.

Why must you make comments like this? Can you not just discuss something without think somebody would reject something in the Bible?

His whole argument is basically that the scriptures don't come out and say:

AND JESUS ENTERED THE HOLY OF HOLIES IN HEAVEN WITH HIS LITERAL BLOOD IN HIS HANDS AND SPRINKLED IT ON THE MERCY SEAT IN HEAVEN

You are right, it doesn't say that. That is my point too. Scriptures do not say that. And for it to supposedly to be so important, one would think it would if it were true.

Look, the OT high priest was forbidden to enter the holy place without blood. These scriptures are comparing Jesus directly to the OT high priest. The difference is that the OT high priest entered with the blood of bulls and goats, Jesus entered with his own blood.

Where does it say he did not enter with his blood?

See, I can make the same sort of foolish argument.

no, yours would be arguing a negative and that would be a logical fallacy. How is it foolish to say I don't believe something that the Bible doesn't say. I would say it is foolish to believe something that the Bible doesn't say.

The Scripture do not say that Jesus entered with his own blood. Also, lambs blood NEVER went to the holy place. So you have to major issues with saying that Jesus took his blood into heaven. The Scriptures never say it. Lambs blood(which Jesus is the Lamb of God) never went in the OT to the holy place. Jesus's blood is compared to the blood of bulls and goats because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice, not like that of the OT sacrifices.

 

[dwmoeller1]

His whole argument is basically that the scriptures don't come out and say:

AND JESUS ENTERED THE HOLY OF HOLIES IN HEAVEN WITH HIS LITERAL BLOOD IN HIS HANDS AND SPRINKLED IT ON THE MERCY SEAT IN HEAVEN

And even if the scriptures did say that, I think he would still try to wiggle out of it somehow.

Look, the OT high priest was forbidden to enter the holy place without blood. These scriptures are comparing Jesus directly to the OT high priest. The difference is that the OT high priest entered with the blood of bulls and goats, Jesus entered with his own blood.

Where does it say he did not enter with his blood?

See, I can make the same sort of foolish argument.

Ignore his argument then and deal with mine. Mine is much more involved that what you state above.

And while you are at it, please take the time to deal with the last portion of Heb 9:12. The verse may not say He did not enter with His blood, but it certainly says that it wasn't necessary since redemption was accomplished *before* He entered heaven. Might He still have entered with His blood? Sure. Notice that I have never once said that Christ did not enter with His blood. Scripture is silent so I can come to no firm conclusion on this particular fact. What I do say is that there is no Scriptural evidence that He actually did. Additionally, the arguments given for why He did are chock full of fallacious reasoning.

So did He? Don't know - although there is no reason to think He did. Does Scripture say He did? Nope. Or more precisely, every line of reasoning presented to show that Scripture says He did is based on fallacious assumptions and reasoning. Given that its reasonable to assume that you would put forth your best arguments, its therefore reasonable to conclude that Scripture does not say that He did.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

The OT high priest could not enter the holy place without blood, he would have been struck dead on the spot. And this verse says it is necessary that every high priest has a gift to offer, and "wherefore" it is of "necessity" that this man have somewhat "also" to offer.

If it was not Jesus's blood that he went into the holy place and offered to the Father, what was it?

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Christ, did have something to offer - Himself. This offering obtained redemption (vs 12). No need for any taking of blood.

Again, it comes back to the part of vs 12 that you seem unwilling to deal with.

Furthermore:
Heb 9:26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

It was His sacrifice what put away sin. No need to take blood to the Heaven. The message of Scripture is consistent - Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for redemption in and of itself. There is no need to bring blood to the Holy.

And lastly:
Heb 9:25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others

Your whole argument is based on the blood of Christ being compared to the blood of animals. Yet here we find that when the bringing of blood is actually mentioned, it is not compared to Christ's bringing blood, or even to His blood at all. Instead, the bringing of blood into the Holy is compared to Christ's sacrifice of Himself, NOT HIS BLOOD!!. It is the sacrifice of Christ himself that is sufficient for redemption. There is no need for any bring of blood to the Holy at all.

The supposed parallel your insist on in vs 12 has difficulty in the context of that single passage. Look at it in light of a broader context and it falls all to pieces.

 

[Winman]

Why must you make comments like this? Can you not just discuss something without think somebody would reject something in the Bible?

You are right, it doesn't say that. That is my point too. Scriptures do not say that. And for it to supposedly to be so important, one would think it would if it were true.

no, yours would be arguing a negative and that would be a logical fallacy. How is it foolish to say I don't believe something that the Bible doesn't say. I would say it is foolish to believe something that the Bible doesn't say.

The Scripture do not say that Jesus entered with his own blood. Also, lambs blood NEVER went to the holy place. So you have to major issues with saying that Jesus took his blood into heaven. The Scriptures never say it. Lambs blood(which Jesus is the Lamb of God) never went in the OT to the holy place. Jesus's blood is compared to the blood of bulls and goats because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice, not like that of the OT sacrifices.

But it does say he entered with his blood, only you make the argument that the word "by" cannot mean "with". And of course it can and often does.

I just showed you Heb 8:3 where it said "of necessity" Jesus had to have something to offer to the Father.

And then we have Hebrews 9:25

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Now you explain to me why it says "with blood of others". What is that talking about? What does it mean "with blood of others"?

If Jesus didn't have to have blood, why would this verse mention it? And why would it be careful to point out it was not the "blood of others"?

Why is blood mentioned twenty times in the book of Hebrews, second only to Leviticus which gave the instructions and directions for the sacrifices?

Why oh why does Hebrews speak so much about Jesus's blood if he didn't have to offer it in the holy place? Why does it speak so much about the OT high priest entering the holy place with blood?

Answer that if you can.

 

[Winman]

no, yours would be arguing a negative and that would be a logical fallacy. How is it foolish to say I don't believe something that the Bible doesn't say. I would say it is foolish to believe something that the Bible doesn't say.

But that IS your argument. You are saying that because the scriptures don't say something directly that it cannot be so. The scriptures never directly say there is a trinity, but we all believe that.

I was simply showing how this is a false argument. It also never directly says Jesus didn't enter in with his blood. My argument is just as valid as yours.

 

[dwmoeller1]

But it does say he entered with his blood, only you make the argument that the word "by" cannot mean "with". And of course it can and often does.

Ok, now we have certainly reached the point of intellectual dishonesty. That point has been dealt with and soundly refuted. Your argument is based on a clear case of equivocation. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend as if your arguments haven't been dealt with. If you feel our arguments about this are in error, then take the time to demonstrate such. Ignoring them and pretending it never happened is a classic case of intellectual dishonesty.


I just showed you Heb 8:3 where it said "of necessity" Jesus had to have something to offer to the Father.

And then we have Hebrews 9:25

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Now you explain to me why it says "with blood of others". What is that talking about? What does it mean "with blood of others"?

If Jesus didn't have to have blood, why would this verse mention it? And why would it be careful to point out it was not the "blood of others"?

Notice what is being directly compared to the the entering with blood yearly. Not Christ offering His blood, or bringing it to heaven. Instead, this is compared to Christ offering Himself. So, the priests brought blood yearly, but Christ offered Himself. The one place where bringing blood is clearly and explicitly mentioned and its compared to Christ's sacrifice. Please explain this.

Why is blood mentioned twenty times in the book of Hebrews, second only to Leviticus which gave the instructions and directions for the sacrifices?

Because blood was necessary for redemption. Christ though obtained redemption before entering heaven (deal with last part of vs 12, please). Christ's sacrifice accomplished the task that normally required the priest to enter with blood.

Why oh why does Hebrews speak so much about Jesus's blood if he didn't have to offer it in the holy place?

Because it it represents Christ's sacrificial death. It is the nature of His death - as a bloody sacrifice - which redeems. And that offering was sufficient as Hebrews makes very clear. No need for blood to be taken to the Holy. You are insisting on a parallel which Hebrews never speaks and and in fact, contradicts (9:25, end of vs 12 for starters).

Why does it speak so much about the OT high priest entering the holy place with blood?

It speaks of it twice that I can see. Once to set the context in vs. 7, then later in the same passage it speaks of it...in direct comparison to Christ offering himself. Heb 9 certainly draws a parallel between entering with blood, but the parallel is to His sacrifice, not to His bringing any blood to Heaven (something never mentioned in the first place).

Now that I have answered your questions, please take the time to deal with the last part of vs. 12.

 

[dwmoeller1]

But that IS your argument. You are saying that because the scriptures don't say something directly that it cannot be so. The scriptures never directly say there is a trinity, but we all believe that.

I was simply showing how this is a false argument. It also never directly says Jesus didn't enter in with his blood. My argument is just as valid as yours.

I agree. Both arguments are invalid. Now deal with mine.

 

[jbh28]

But that IS your argument. You are saying that because the scriptures don't say something directly that it cannot be so. The scriptures never directly say there is a trinity, but we all believe that.

I was simply showing how this is a false argument. It also never directly says Jesus didn't enter in with his blood. My argument is just as valid as yours.

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.

Of course with me, I think this can be proven either way. Is it required that Jesus take blood into heaven. That is what you have tried in your argument to address. I don't agree with your reasoning as to why it is necessary. Also, I think if He did and it was necessary, we would have been told. Though I'm not going to make an argument from silence.

You guys carry on and I'll read. I'm really wanting the correct biblical answer.