The Blood of Christ

[dwmoeller1]

OK, but think about it yourself.

Thanks
HankD

I have. So far all the evidence presented is terribly shaky at best. I can see the impulse to believe such, but the alternate readings and alternate views I see at the same time seem much more sound and doctrinally more compelling as well. Even if I were to accept this conclusion, it is still so shaky as to be useless as a doctrinal foundation.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Here is a very interesting article on the blood of Christ. It is not too long.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/toc.htm

I do not know if I agree with this author, but he does make some good arguments from scripture.

His argument in the first chapter is full of fallacies. I don't anticipate it improving if thats how it starts off. At best his reasoning is assumption upon assumption upon assumption.

Reminds me of my own personal belief that animals and humans could communicate before the fall (or maybe even up to the flood). Interesting speculation and not without some evidence, but by no means more than speculation based on certain assumptions and questionable readings of Scripture.

 

[Winman]

His argument in the first chapter is full of fallacies. I don't anticipate it improving if thats how it starts off. At best his reasoning is assumption upon assumption upon assumption.

Reminds me of my own personal belief that animals and humans could communicate before the fall (or maybe even up to the flood). Interesting speculation and not without some evidence, but by no means more than speculation based on certain assumptions and questionable readings of Scripture.

What fallacies? If you are going to say something like that, it would be helpful if you pointed out these errors, we cannot read your mind.

As far as animals speaking, we know of at least two examples in the scriptures, the serpent speaking in the garden, and Balaam's ass. Now, I think Balaam's ass might have been a miracle.

But the study of serpents is very interesting. There are thousands of accounts of dragons in ancient history from civilizations all over the earth. I believe people were describing dinosaurs. Being a young earth creationist I believe dinosaurs lived with men in the past. But many of these accounts say these dragons could speak.

Oh, now you will laugh at me, all the while universities spend millions of dollars trying to communicate with animals such as the porpoise. And some claim communication is possible. But these same people will laugh if you say a dragon could speak.

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

This sounds fantastic, but I have seen a few very unusual and fantastic things in my life, I have learned to discount nothing.

 

[dwmoeller1]

What fallacies? If you are going to say something like that, it would be helpful if you pointed out these errors, we cannot read your mind.

FWIW, my statement wasn't intended to be an analysis, merely an opinion. But if you want an analysis, I will be glad to give a quick run down of the first chapter. Give me a bit to reread it and gather my thoughts.

As far as animals speaking, we know of at least two examples in the scriptures, the serpent speaking in the garden, and Balaam's ass. Now, I think Balaam's ass might have been a miracle.

But the study of serpents is very interesting. There are thousands of accounts of dragons in ancient history from civilizations all over the earth. I believe people were describing dinosaurs. Being a young earth creationist I believe dinosaurs lived with men in the past. But many of these accounts say these dragons could speak.

Oh, now you will laugh at me, all the while universities spend millions of dollars trying to communicate with animals such as the porpoise. And some claim communication is possible. But these same people will laugh if you say a dragon could speak.

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

This sounds fantastic, but I have seen a few very unusual and fantastic things in my life, I have learned to discount nothing.

My point with bringing up that particular topic was to demonstrate how something can be very interesting, can have some verses which hint at it being possible, can avoid contradicting Scripture...yet is still so speculative that it would fallacious to claim that Scriptures "says" this, and especially a problem if any sort of doctrinal idea was based on it. I have no problem with speculative thinking, but one needs to be extra careful to make clear in one's own mind that it is nothing but "an interesting idea".

 

[dwmoeller1]

To start with...

Equivocation fallacy: He uses "bloody" and "blood" in various ways without distinguishing when it is meant metaphorically, literally, or otherwise. Same with "alive". Yet he seems to think that these various meaning should all be tied together to form some conclusion.

Example: The Bible is a bloody book. Life is in the blood. The Bible is alive. Therefore the Bible has blood flowing throughout its pages and words.

Notice the switches from metaphorical to literal to metaphorical in order to reach his conclusion...and its not even clear if his conclusion is meant metaphorically or literally.

Fun counter-example: Pillows are light. I can't read without light. Thus I can't read with my pillow. Or...
Comedy makes me light-hearted. I can't read without light. Thus I can't read something unless it is comedy.

Now, if this sort of thing were just his intro and meant only to set the "feeling" of his book, then I probably wouldn't quibble with it too much. However, it appears that this reliance on equivocation in the use of these words is essential to his argument. So, while he may make some valid points. unless he does away with this equivocation,his overall argument can be considered unsound.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Another central error to his reasoning is a fallacy of anachronism. He is attempting to apply a modern scientific understanding to statements made to a culture where such use of terms, concepts and analysis were foreign. So, to assume that statements like "the life is in the blood" can be subjected to scientific analysis is a fallacy of anachronism.

There were lots of other little fallacies, but I these two cover the bulk of the problems I saw.

 

[Winman]

To start with...

Equivocation fallacy: He uses "bloody" and "blood" in various ways without distinguishing when it is meant metaphorically, literally, or otherwise. Same with "alive". Yet he seems to think that these various meaning should all be tied together to form some conclusion.

Example: The Bible is a bloody book. Life is in the blood. The Bible is alive. Therefore the Bible has blood flowing throughout its pages and words.

Notice the switches from metaphorical to literal to metaphorical in order to reach his conclusion...and its not even clear if his conclusion is meant metaphorically or literally.

Fun counter-example: Pillows are light. I can't read without light. Thus I can't read with my pillow. Or...
Comedy makes me light-hearted. I can't read without light. Thus I can't read something unless it is comedy.

Now, if this sort of thing were just his intro and meant only to set the "feeling" of his book, then I probably wouldn't quibble with it too much. However, it appears that this reliance on equivocation in the use of these words is essential to his argument. So, while he may make some valid points. unless he does away with this equivocation,his overall argument can be considered unsound.

I will agree with you here. When he says the Bible is a bloody book, I understand him to be speaking of the Bible often speaking of blood and it's importance in salvation. Jesus did have to shed his blood for our sins to be forgiven. If he had been suffocated we would not be saved. The bible clearly says without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

This is where MacArthur makes a huge mistake. It was not enough that Jesus just die. He could have been strangled or drowned and died, but that would not atone for our sins. He had to shed his blood.

And it was not enough in the OT to simply kill an unblemished lamb for a sin offering. The high priest had to bring the blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle the blood before the mercy seat and on the mercy seat. If they had simply killed the lamb and poured it's blood on the ground, the Israelite's sins would not have been forgiven.

Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

So, it was not just the life of the sacrificial lamb or the life of Jesus to be given, their blood was required for the forgiveness of sins. This is where MacArthur errs.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I will agree with you here. When he says the Bible is a bloody book, I understand him to be speaking of the Bible often speaking of blood and it's importance in salvation. Jesus did have to shed his blood for our sins to be forgiven. If he had been suffocated we would not be saved. The bible clearly says without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

This is where MacArthur makes a huge mistake. It was not enough that Jesus just die. He could have been strangled or drowned and died, but that would not atone for our sins. He had to shed his blood.

Your conclusion does not follow necessarily from your premises. There are other ways to explain your premises w/o reaching your particular conclusion. A lot would have to do with how you view the relationship of the OT law and the ministry of Christ. That's not to say you are wrong, merely that your reasoning is not sound - it doesn't allow for the fact that Hebrews could be speaking illustratively rather than giving absolute principles of Christ's death. Given that Hebrews describes the OT as a "shadow" lends credence to this possibility.

And it was not enough in the OT to simply kill an unblemished lamb for a sin offering. The high priest had to bring the blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle the blood before the mercy seat and on the mercy seat. If they had simply killed the lamb and poured it's blood on the ground, the Israelite's sins would not have been forgiven.

This further illustrates the problem with taking Hebrews as describing absolute rather than illustrative principles. It is, as it were, taking the metaphor too far. For instance, in the case of Christ, who is to be considered the priest who does the sacrifice (not just anyone could kill an animal for the purpose of sacrifice or atonement).

While I might be willing to grant your general points about the need for shedding of blood, its when we come to your assertions about the sprinkling on the mercy seat that I really disagree. Hebrews shows many parallels between Christ's death and the OT sacrificial practices. However, your reasoning assumes that, if Christ's death parallels one part of the OT sacrificial practices, then it must also parallel all of it. Why do I say that your reasoning assumes this? Because no verse ever makes mention of either a mercy in heaven, that Christ takes His blood to heaven, or that He sprinkles it on the mercy seat. These conclusions can only follow from the assumption that if it is parallel in one regard then it is parallel in all regards.

Certainly, if such an assumption could be shown to be sound, then your conclusions would naturally follow. But such an assumption is both fallacious (it begs the question) and problematic (it doesn't address all the ways in which Christ's death and OT sacrificial practices are *not* parallel). Thats not to say that your conclusion is counter to Scripture (at least not that I can see), merely that it goes beyond what Scriptures says, and beyond what can reasonably be argued from Scripture.

 

[Winman]

Your conclusion does not follow necessarily from your premises. There are other ways to explain your premises w/o reaching your particular conclusion. A lot would have to do with how you view the relationship of the OT law and the ministry of Christ. That's not to say you are wrong, merely that your reasoning is not sound - it doesn't allow for the fact that Hebrews could be speaking illustratively rather than giving absolute principles of Christ's death. Given that Hebrews describes the OT as a "shadow" lends credence to this possibility.

My conclusion is based solely on what Hebrews 9:22 says, that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

This further illustrates the problem with taking Hebrews as describing absolute rather than illustrative principles. It is, as it were, taking the metaphor too far. For instance, in the case of Christ, who is to be considered the priest who does the sacrifice (not just anyone could kill an animal for the purpose of sacrifice or atonement).

Jesus is the great High Priest, Hebrews clearly explains that. There is no priest higher than Him.

Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Now, there is one important difference between Jesus as our High Priest and those high priests in the OT. Those priests were sinners and had to first offer a sacrifice for their own sins before they could enter the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the people. Jesus did not have to do this because he was not a sinner.

The OT was a figure, a picture of the reality which is Christ Jesus our High Priest.

I see you trying to explain as a metaphor something which does not require this. The high priest in the OT had to enter in with real literal blood, and the scriptures say Jesus did the same thing.

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.

There is no reason to deny Jesus entered into the holy place with his real, literal blood unless a person wants to deny it for some reason. The scriptures say nothing whatsoever to believe this is speaking in a figurative way.

 

[dwmoeller1]

My conclusion is based solely on what Hebrews 9:22 says, that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

There are several possible and reasonable ways to read this and understand it. If another reasonable view is possible, insisting on one particular reading is fallacious. That is the point where your reasoning become unsound. You must beg the question (ie. insist on one reading when more are possible) and the argument which extends from this is unsound.

Jesus is the great High Priest, Hebrews clearly explains that. There is no priest higher than Him.

I am not talking about the High Priest, but instead the priest which does the killing. In OT sacrificial practices, no matter how perfect the lamb if it was slain by unsanctified hands it was of not use, and, in fact, could be a reason for condemnation (eg. Saul's acting as priest). Yet Christ was slain by unsanctified hands. If the parallel between OT sacrificial practices and Christ's death had to be exact in all aspects, then such a death would have negated the atonement. And that is just one of many possible examples.

Thus, the assumption of an exact and complete parallel between the two things is shown to be unwarranted.

Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Now, there is one important difference between Jesus as our High Priest and those high priests in the OT. Those priests were sinners and had to first offer a sacrifice for their own sins before they could enter the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the people. Jesus did not have to do this because he was not a sinner.

The OT was a figure, a picture of the reality which is Christ Jesus our High Priest.

I see you trying to explain as a metaphor something which does not require this. The high priest in the OT had to enter in with real literal blood, and the scriptures say Jesus did the same thing.

No, the Scripture do *not* say Jesus did the same thing, much less that He did them literally. It says only that entered heaven (the reality of the shadow the tabernacle, but makes no mention at all of
a. His taking His blood to heaven
b. Him sprinkling the mercy seat in heaven

One can only arrive at these conclusions by trying to make the parallel more exact than Hebrews makes it.

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.

There is no reason to deny Jesus entered into the holy place with his real, literal blood unless a person wants to deny it for some reason.

This verse says that He entered by His own blood, not with His own blood. Insisting that "by" must mean "with" is begging the question. It could reasonably mean that it was the shedding of the blood which was the means of His entry to the heaven, not the literal carrying of literal blood.

The scriptures say nothing whatsoever to believe this is speaking in a figurative way.

There are many many clues that the discourse on blood is not meant literally. For one, it mentions that believers are sprinkled with His blood. Given that there is no evidence this is meant literally (if it were, then one would expect it to be visible when it occurs), it is reasonable to assume it is meant figuratively in some way.

 

[Winman]

There are several possible and reasonable ways to read this and understand it. If another reasonable view is possible, insisting on one particular reading is fallacious. That is the point where your reasoning become unsound. You must beg the question (ie. insist on one reading when more are possible) and the argument which extends from this is unsound.

I'm sorry, but this is a very poor argument. Anything is possible. But is it probable?

Back in the 70s Hal Lindsay wrote a bunch of books claiming that life was brought to earth by aliens from other planets in the distant past. Is that possible? Yes. Is it probable? No.

He made several TV shows and he would always point to remarkable feats that were not easily explained. He would show the pyramids and explain that men at that time did not have the technology to build these structures. Then he would ask questions like, "Is it possible the ancient Egyptians were aided and helped by aliens who had advanced technology?" Go on YouTube you can probably find a few of his old shows. He was always asking "Is it possible?" And remarkably, people fell for this argument.

Well, anything is possible, but is it probable? No, the probability is that the Egyptians knew of some way to build the pyramids whether we know how they did it or not.

You can question anything in the Bible if you want to. Many scholars have questioned that Moses through God parted the Red Sea. One scholar wrote that the Red Sea was really the "Reed Sea" and only ankle deep, to which a preacher remarked, "Praise God! God drowned Pharaoh and all his army in ankle deep water!" :laugh:

 

[dwmoeller1]

I'm sorry, but this is a very poor argument. Anything is possible. But is it probable?

AND reasonable. That is, it follows reasonably from the passages, not that it merely possible.

With that clarification, restart your analysis of my argument.


Actually, it may just be better to demonstrate what I mean by a possible and reasonable alternate reading of the passage in question. It may not come for a bit though.

 

[Winman]

AND reasonable. That is, it follows reasonably from the passages, not that it merely possible.

With that clarification, restart your analysis of my argument.


Actually, it may just be better to demonstrate what I mean by a possible and reasonable alternate reading of the passage in question. It may not come for a bit though.

It is not reasonable. Hebrews is clearly comparing Jesus to the high priest in the OT. The high priest had to take real literal blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle it on the mercy seat. Then Hebrews explains that Jesus is the true High Priest and entered in with his own blood into the holy place. Why do you accept that the high priest in the OT had real literal blood but deny it in the NT with Jesus?

Show me one verse where it gives even the slightest impression that Jesus did not enter the holy place with his real literal blood.

Hebrews also warns against counting Jesus's blood as an unholy thing.

Heb 10:29 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The word blood is mentioned 20 times in the book of Hebrews, second only to the book of Leviticus which gives the directions for the sacrifices. It is always speaking of real literal blood. There is not one hint that it is ever speaking of anything but real literal blood.

And it is shown elsewhere:

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Are silver and gold real things? Yes, but in a sense they are not as real as Jesus's blood because they corrupt and eventually rot away. But Jesus's blood is incorruptable.

Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

At the last supper they drank wine which was a picture of Jesus's blood which is shed for the remission of sins. It was not enough that Jesus simply die, he had to shed his real literal blood.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

 

[dwmoeller1]

It is not reasonable. Hebrews is clearly comparing Jesus to the high priest in the OT.

Hebrews is clearly making a comparison. What is not so clear is what direction the comparison is meant, or that the comparison is intended to be a one to one sort of parallel.

But let me just start from scratch and give a comprehensive explanation of an alternate take on this passage. I will try to get to it tomorrow.

Show me one verse where it gives even the slightest impression that Jesus did not enter the holy place with his real literal blood.

Silence on an issue proves nothing one way or the other. Give me one verse which gives even the slightest impression that Jesus did not enter the holy place with a bowl of fruit. More importantly, don't forget that I am not denying that Christ did enter heaven with His blood. Why would I bother to find a verse which disproves what I have no interest or stake in disproving? I merely am pointing out the lack of evidence that He did, or more specifically, the fallacies involved in claiming that says He did. He might have done so, and you may believe Scripture gives indications that He did, but Scripture does not say He did, much less hold it as a necessary doctrine.

 

[jbh28]

This verse says that He entered by His own blood, not with His own blood. Insisting that "by" must mean "with" is begging the question. It could reasonably mean that it was the shedding of the blood which was the means of His entry to the heaven, not the literal carrying of literal blood.

Excellent point. There is a lot of assumptions with literal blood being taken to heaven, but not solid support.

 

[rsr]

This is where MacArthur makes a huge mistake. It was not enough that Jesus just die. He could have been strangled or drowned and died, but that would not atone for our sins. He had to shed his blood.

... So, it was not just the life of the sacrificial lamb or the life of Jesus to be given, their blood was required for the forgiveness of sins. This is where MacArthur errs.

Yet MacArthur does not believe, or preach, what you keep insisting he does. He preached two sermons on this exact question, links to both of which follow.

... A bloody death was God's design for the Old Testament sacrificial animals. And so when God was picturing the death of Messiah he dramatically pictured it through animals that literally poured out their blood. They were killed. They were slaughtered. Their life was poured out vividly. Christ, being the fulfillment of those pictures, those types, shed His blood, which also was poured out through His wounds.

But we need to add a note at this point. Though Christ shed his blood at the cross he did not bleed to death. Christ said, "No man takes My life from Me, I lay it down of Myself." He did not bleed to death. In fact, he died at least 3 hours before His side was pierced and the blood flowed out. He had not shed His lifeblood before He died. He did not bleed to death. As I said, in fact, He gave up His life. Having said, "It is finished." He accomplished atonement and died, yielding up His spirit to God and it was hours later that His side was pierced and His blood flowed out.

... Scripture references to the blood of Jesus encompass His death; His atoning work in its fullness.

... So we need to understand what the Scripture teaches. It teaches us that Christ did shed His blood in His death but He didn't bleed to death. He shed His blood in death, which the animals did, but he didn't bleed to death, which is different from the way the animals died. The issue was, however, death for sin and the animals did die and Christ did die as the fulfillment, the anti-type of which the animals were but a picture. And we believe then that because Jesus died for us and because part of that death encompassed His shedding blood that His blood, indeed, is precious to us. Precious because He is precious and anything that belonged to Him is precious, precious because His death purchased our salvation. We also believe that when there is reference made to the blood of Christ in the New Testament it is more than the fluid that it speaks of, it is the whole atoning work. It is the whole atoning work. ...

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermon...lood-Part-1?q=i+believe+in+the+precious+blood

... "And he entered in...verse 12...not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place." In other words God gave Him access back to heaven into His holy presence because through His blood He had obtained eternal redemption. Now would you please notice that these people say that this is teaching us that He entered with His blood, and they take the very clear preposition through and substitute for it the word "with." But it is not so in the Greek. It is not "with" it is through. That is by virtue of his death, not "with" His blood in hand. He entered into the true and immediate presence of God when He offered Himself on the cross and He accomplished, once and for all, the perfect redemption. And, therefore, through His resurrection was granted a new and more perfect tabernacle in which He entered the presence of God and was accepted into the holy place through or by virtue of His perfect work on the cross. Because of the merits of His death, by His ascension, He entered the presence of God having satisfied God's requirement for salvation. The reference to blood is not to His carrying in His blood. It isn't with His blood, it is through His blood. That must be carefully understood.

So, therefore, there is no reason to assume, based on those two verses, which they are using, that His blood is in heaven at all. There is no reason to assume that it was some kind of supernatural blood that would have to exist forever. There is no reason to assume it was taken into heaven, certainly not on the basis of this particular text. And, yet, they insist that it was the blood of God, that it was eternal and corruptible, that it is presently in heaven, taken there by Christ. And in order to come to that view I think they have to do an injustice to the text.

... Yes the blood is precious because His death is precious. Yes we don't want to minimize anything precious, certainly not the blood of Christ. But it is very sad when people go off emotionally over what they misperceive because someone is misrepresenting it. To say that Christ was less than fully human is wrong. To say that there was some eternal character to impersonal blood that has left it uncorrupted throughout all of eternity is not taught in Scripture. To say that that fluid is now in heaven and that it is being poured out somehow on some mercy seat cannot be supported Scripturally. And to say that the New Testament writers, referring to the blood of Christ 30 times, always meant only the fluid is just not true. They had in mind his death very clearly, very clearly. And all of that kind of fuzzy and incorrect thinking takes the focus off the truth, that Jesus, the perfect God/man died and went to heaven, having once for all accomplished our redemption and is now resting at the right hand of God interceding for us, not carrying on some perpetual priestly function. There's no heresy in believing what we believe it's just what Scripture teaches. ...

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermon...lood-Part-2?q=i+believe+in+the+precious+blood

 

[dwmoeller1]

An alternate reading of Heb 9

We agree that it is clear that Heb 9 is comparing Christ's sacrifice with OT sacrificial practices.

However, there are many ways in which a comparison can be meant. These can be categorized in 3 general categories.
A. Two things can be compared which are not really related. This is done when say, comparing the wind and the Holy Spirit. The comparison is done to illustrate the way they are alike, but only in a very narrow sense. So, the HS and wind both go where they will and you can't see them directly but you see their effect. However, it is clearly silly to suggest that therefore the HS and the wind both mess up one's hair and both bring spiritual life, etc. etc. etc. They are clearly more different than they are alike.

B. On the opposite end is comparing two things which are almost identical and only differ in a few easily identifiable areas. For instance, comparing a blueprint to the layout of an actual building, or a detailed scale replica to the full sized object. In cases like these, the two things are nearly identical except in terms of specific details like size or 2D vs 3D. Once the specific differences are understood, one can give exact details about one object from the other - IOW, one could know exactly how to navigate a building from a good blueprint (assuming they knew the difference in scale).

C. A third sort of comparison falls between these two things. In this case, the two things being compared are related, but one is not an exact model of the other but is instead an analogue. In this case the similarities are extensive and non-metaphorical (as in case A), but the differences are also extensive and just as significant. So, for instance, comparing gills and lungs, a shadow and the form, an outline with the object. With these things, in the areas where they are similar the similarities are very informative and "real" (vs more metaphorical as in case A). However, unlike case B, the differences are just as striking and are generally not systematic. For instance, a shadow is excellent for determining the dimensions and outline of an object from one perspective, but is totally useless for helping us determine all the exact details of the object. The shadow and object are clearly related, but not in clearly definable ways.

You are viewing the comparison as more like case B. I suggest it is more like case C.

With me so far?

 

[HankD]

With me so far?

Presumbly you are not asking me, but this is an open forum.

My answer is no. I take the literal view where in my estimation it needs to be taken that way.

A literal 6 sidereal day creation.
A literal Virgin Birth.
A literal Death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
A literal visible and bodily return of Jesus Christ to earth.
A literal shedding of his literal blood which is in the heavenly but real and literal Holy Place.

Hebrews 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.
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 the flesh and bone body of our High Priest which is in heaven is eternal why is it so difficult to believe that His precious blood is there as well?​

HankD​

 

[dwmoeller1]

Presumbly you are not asking me, but this is an open forum.

My answer is no. I take the literal view where in my estimation it needs to be taken that way.

FWIW, my question of "Are you with me?" is not whether you agree with my conclusion or not, but whether you understand what I am trying to say.

Do you at least understand the distinctions I am making? If so, do you grant that the distinctions are reasonable - not whether you agree yet with which one applies to Heb 9 but whether you grant that they are meaningful distinctions at all?

A literal 6 sidereal day creation.
A literal Virgin Birth.
A literal Death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
A literal visible and bodily return of Jesus Christ to earth.
A literal shedding of his literal blood which is in the heavenly but real and literal Holy Place.

The problem is that all but the last one have explicit teachings to that effect in Scripture. Thus my disagreement is not with the literal view, but with the fact that Scripture makes no explicit mention of Him taking His blood, much less His literal blood, to heaven. Its not that the passage says he takes His blood to heaven and I am saying that its merely speaking figuratively. Its that the passage never says He takes His blood to heaven. Instead, you infer that fact from a particular way you take the comparison in Heb 9.

And since the question is not whether the comparison is literal, then the question of literal or not doesn't come into play in my analysis of Heb 9. We can skip over the whole question of whether Heb 9 is speaking of His literal blood because I agree with you that it is. The disagreement is over the type of comparison being made and what can be inferred from the comparison.

Hebrews 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.
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 the flesh and bone body of our High Priest which is in heaven is eternal why is it so difficult to believe that His precious blood is there as well?​

No one disputes that the blood is literal. We simply note that it never says He takes His literal blood to heaven.

 

[HankD]

FWIW, my question of "Are you with me?" is not whether you agree with my conclusion or not, but whether you understand what I am trying to say.

Do you at least understand the distinctions I am making? If so, do you grant that the distinctions are reasonable - not whether you agree yet with which one applies to Heb 9 but whether you grant that they are meaningful distinctions at all?

The problem is that all but the last one have explicit teachings to that effect in Scripture. Thus my disagreement is not with the literal view, but with the fact that Scripture makes no explicit mention of Him taking His blood, much less His literal blood, to heaven. Its not that the passage says he takes His blood to heaven and I am saying that its merely speaking figuratively. Its that the passage never says He takes His blood to heaven. Instead, you infer that fact from a particular way you take the comparison in Heb 9.

And since the question is not whether the comparison is literal, then the question of literal or not doesn't come into play in my analysis of Heb 9. We can skip over the whole question of whether Heb 9 is speaking of His literal blood because I agree with you that it is. The disagreement is over the type of comparison being made and what can be inferred from the comparison.

No one disputes that the blood is literal. We simply note that it never says He takes His literal blood to heaven.

OK, Yes brother Moeller, I understand and accept your point of view and I am with you in what you understand the scriptures to teach.

Personally I believe the implication of Hebrews 9 is that his literal blood is indeed there.

That is why I asked the question about His literal flesh and bone body.

It is there in the heavenlies, He went into the Holy place in His literal body, why not with His literal blood as well?
As did the high priest of the mosaic law with the blood of bulls and goats as a figure which is (granted) by implication what Christ did.

You need not respond, this is just an explanation of why I believe the way I do and that I believe it is scriptural (by the implication of Hebrews 9) and to confirm your most recent question.

Thanks
HankD