The Blood of Christ (cont.)

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by dwmoeller1, Oct 3, 2010.

  1. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thing which has to be taken into account when reading Heb 9 is that references to the body of Christ and the blood of Christ are interchangeable.

    Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all....29Of 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?

    What sanctifies us? The body...err, the blood. Much simpler and more consistent to see references to Christ's blood as references not to the literal physical blood but as references to the sacrificial nature of Christ's death.
     
  2. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    But what the whole problem comes down to is insisting on a more direct parallel than Heb 9 intends. Vs 12 for instance, points out that the priests entered by means of blood, and that Christ also entered by means of blood. The whole of Winman's argument rests on an exact parallel here. The fact that the priests had to enter carrying blood is used to insist that Christ had to enter by the exact same means - that is, carrying blood.

    There is no doubt that the priests had to enter with blood, and there is no doubt that Christ entered by means of blood. What is not at all clear is that the means by which Christ entered is exactly identical to the means by which the priest entered. In fact, there are so many points of difference between the sacrifice of Christ and that of the OT that such an assumption moves from being unsupported to unsupportable.

    Here are some key differences between the OT practice and Christ's sacrifice:
    1. The High Priest had to enter the Holy with incense. Christ, evidently, did not.
    2. The lamb in the OT had to be prepared and killed by purified priests otherwise the sacrifice would have been in vain. Yet Christ was prepared and killed by sinners and the unholy but yet His sacrifice was no in vain.
    3. As I mentioned before, the High Priest had to put blood on mercy seat in order for the ceremony of redemption to be complete. Christ however, completed redemption before entering the Holy.
    4. When the High Priest entered the Holy, there was a veil between it and the rest of the tabernacle. Yet when Christ entered, there was no veil, it having been rent at His death (Matthew 27:51).

    So, on many key points not mentioned or explained by Heb 9 the OT practices and Christ's sacrifice differ. Thus, there is no reason at all to see an exact parallel between the blood used by the High Priest and the blood of Christ. Such would be considered wooden-headed literalism. Such a reading fits neither the immediate context, much less does it remain consistent with the rest of Scripture. The only way to make it work in light of the rest of Scripture is to entertain some sort of mysticism which, while it fits fine with Catholic doctrine, finds no place in Baptist.
     
  3. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    I mentioned before that the High Priest had to entered with blood to complete redemption while Christ's sacrifice itself completed redemption. This contrast is show again in Heb 9:25,26:
    25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 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.

    Notice the *contrast* made here. In OT practice, the High Priest had to go into the Holy with blood to complete the act of redemption. Yet Christ merely had to offer Himself to complete the act of redemption. In the OT, blood in the Holy completed redemption, but for Christ, His sacrifice completed it.

    If Christ's blood were the analogue of the High Priest taking blood to the Holy as Winman suggests for vs 9, then in these verses we would expect to see the same parallel hold. That is, we would expect to see the contrast between the High Priest continually taking blood to the Holy and Christ having to take it only once to the Holy. Instead though, the contrast is between continual taking of blood and the one time sacrifice of Christ. This makes no sense if Heb 9 is to be seen as a reference to Christ taking blood with Him. Yet, if the reference to Christ's blood in Heb 9:12 is a reference to the sacrificial nature of His death, then vs 12 lines up exactly with vs. 25,26.
     
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but the contrast is not blood versus no blood, the contrast is that the high priest had to enter in over and over again, where Christ had to offer his blood once and for all. And this is shown.

    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.

    The word "once" is the contrast. Jesus does not need to offer his blood over and over again as the OT high priests had to offer yearly.

    And once again, this verse uses the word "by" twice. The first instance describes the OT high priest entering the Holy of Holies with real literal animal blood, the second instance shows Christ entering in with his own blood.

    If you want to argue that the second "by" does not necessitate Jesus entering in with his blood, then you could also say the first "by" does not necessitate the OT priests entering in with real literal blood either. But we know they were not allowed to enter without real literal blood. It was not enough to simply kill a lamb and pour out it's blood on the ground, the blood had to be taken into the holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat.

    No, the word "by" here is the same exact word and carries the same exact meaning.

    That there is a mercy seat in heaven is also shown.

    Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

    Moses copied the tabernacle after the vision of the heavenly tabernacle which God showed him.
     
    #4 Winman, Oct 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2010
  5. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, it doesn't say that at all. It says by his own blood, not with his own blood. yes, the priest had literal blood of goats and calves(note, never lambs blood, that always stayed at the alter), but that isn't mentioned here. It still never says that Christ picked his blood off the ground and took it with him to heaven.
    Well, you are right, it doesn't necessitate it. I have though never heard this passage used to prove that they did. I would go to the OT for that.
     
  6. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    This argument simply does not make sense. If Jesus did not have to enter a real Holy of Holies in heaven with his own literal blood, why would the scriptures contrast it with the OT high priests taking real animal blood into a real Holy of Holies on earth?

    You are in error. The high priest was forbidden to enter the Holy of Holies without blood. He would die on the spot.

    Lev 16:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;
    2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.


    Aaron's sons had offered before the Lord (without blood) and the Lord sent out a fire which consumed them. You couldn't just go in and offer an offering at your own will, you had to follow God's commandments precisely or you would die. And Aaron was required to have real literal blood to enter the Holy of Holies.

    Lev 16:14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
    15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:


    The blood could not be offered outside, it had to be brought within the vail and sprinkled on the mercy seat.

    And Hebrews 9 confirms that the high priest must have blood when he entered the holy place.

    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:

    It is repeatedly stated that the OT sacrifice was a figure of the heavenly sacrifice. It is inconsistent to believe the OT high priest was required to have real literal blood but that Jesus was not.
     
    #6 Winman, Oct 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2010
  7. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    You miss my point totally. Yes the contrast is that of continual vs. once. We agree on the contrast. What we don't agree on is the extent of the comparison. You argue that the blood is being compared in vs. 12 - that is, since the priest must enter with the blood, then Christ must also enter with the blood.

    My point is that such a comparison is
    1. ...not stated. "By" is not "with". While "by" can include "with" it does not mean "with". Only by insisting on a more exact parallel can one argue that the first "by blood" means the exact same thing as the second "by blood. But the language does not demand that such be the case.

    2. ...does not fit the wider logic of the passage. If the parallel of "by blood" is exact in both cases (beyond the fact that one was continual and the other done once), then one would expect the other details to line up. However, one very key detail does *not* line up. The priest had to not only enter with blood, but also had to offer the blood in order to complete the act of redemption. In direct contrast to this, Christ's act of redemption was completed *before* He ever entered the temple. There was no need for blood to be brought because there was no more to complete in His act of redemption.

    Also, other details do no line up either. For instance, the priest also had to enter with incense, yet Christ evidently did not. Also, the lamb had to be sacrificed by sanctified priest, yet Christ the lamb was not. Etc.

    Agreed that this is the explicit intent of the passage. But it is not the only contrast. Nor does the specific statement of a contrast mean that all other aspects are to be considered parallel. You right note the main contrast at work, but you make the invalid logical leap that therefore all other parts much match up. Such is not implied by the language of the verse, nor does it work out logically with either the implicit concepts or explicit statements of the passage.

    Agreed. But in neither case does it mean "with". They both simply refer to the use and necessity of blood for the redemptive act, not the necessity of entering with blood. In both cases it was by the virtue of blood. But while entering with blood was necessary for the priest, it was not necessary for Christ, His act of redemption being already complete. "By" does not imply that both were exactly the same - only that blood was necessary for both. You take both the logic and the language of the verse too far.

    So, for instance, if I were to say that I boarded the bus by means of money all it means is that money was involved. The person w/o a credit card may have to bring money with him to the bus station, but the person with a credit card may pay online. The use of "by" is a broader word which can encompass both those who come with something and those who do not - as long as it was the means by which they entered.

    You take the parallel too far when you insist that "by" refers specifically to "with". "By" can include "with" but it does not refer specifically to it. The verse itself indicates that such could not be the case. In the case of the priests, they had to enter with blood because it was necessary to complete the act of redemption. But the verse says that the Christ's act of redemption was already accomplished *before* He entered the temple.

    Now you are just abusing Scripture. The passage most certainly does NOT say that God showed Moses a vision of the heavenly tabernacle. It says merely that the pattern of the tabernacle was shown to Moses on the mount. Neither this passage (which is more clear if you include the surrounding verses) nor the one that is being quoted implies any sort of vision of a heavenly tabernacle.

    Furthermore, even the language of the verse you use doesn't support your claim, even when taken out of context. You claim an exact replica of heaven is found in the earthly tabernacle. Yet "example" doesn't imply any such thing (see Heb 4:11 where this same word is used to compare two things that are only remotely connected), and "shadow" implies just the opposite of an exact sort of copy. So even if the verse is about how the tabernacle is like heaven (which it is not), the likeness if vague and general, not specific as you claim.
     
  8. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the point of comparison is not about entering with blood, but simply about the necessity of blood. Hence the use of "by" instead of "with". Just as the priests entered by virtue of blood, so Christ entered by virtue of blood. The fact that priests had to enter with it goes beyond the point of comparison the passage is making.

    Furthermore, the passage gives an extremely strong clue that Christ, unlike the priests, did not have to enter with blood. For the priests, the act of redemption was not completed till blood was taken to the Holy and offered. Yet, vs. 12 says that Christ's act of redemption was completed before He entered heaven. So, the point of contrast is not only that Christ does once what the priests had to do yearly, but also that Christ's sacrifice completed redemption where the priests had to offer blood in the Holy to complete their act of redemption.

    So, why did Christ not have to enter with blood? Because there was no need - His work of redemption was already completed. Your mistake is in taking Heb 9 as a compare and contrast of things which are identical in all details where they aren't specifically contrasted. The better approach (see, for instance, how the writer deals with the idea of "rest" in chapter 4) is to see this as an example where things are unlike unless they are specifically compared - that similarities exist only in as far that the writer explicates them. So, since the writer refrains from ever making a direct comparison between the priest entering *with* blood and Christ entering heaven, there is no reason to read that sort of parallel into the passage.
     
  9. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your whole argument is the same as MacArthur's and is based on the word "by" in Hebrews 9:12. You insist it must say "with", but look in any concordance and it will show that this word in Greek often means "with".

    Strongs defines "by" used twice in Heb 9:12 as:
    Strongs shows this word often means "with"

    When the OT high priest entered "by" the blood, it did not mean he was simply enabled by the blood, he had to literally take blood with him into the vail or he would die at once. He could not enter without blood, and verse 12 is comparing this directly to Jesus except Jesus entered by his own blood and not the blood of a goat.

    And you claim we were already redeemed, but the scriptures show otherwise, it was the blood itself that redeemed us.

    Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

    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:

    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:


    There you go, the scriptures say we are redeemed "with" the precious blood of Christ. To redeem something you have to give something for it or purchase it. And this verse is comparing his blood to real literal things (silver and gold).

    Are you satisfied now?

    I bet you will now argue that with in 1 Peter 1:19 does not mean with.
     
    #9 Winman, Oct 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2010
  10. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where does it say this? Please explain.
     
  11. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    contrast with blood and Jesus.


    name we one place where lambs blood ever went to the to the mercy seat.
     
  12. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    equivocation anyone? How come it doesn't say with it if means with?
     
  13. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does say "with" in 1 Peter 1:19. And it is comparing it with real literal things, silver and gold.

    It is you that is using equivocation. The high priest in the OT could not enter the holy place without real literal blood and Hebrews 9:12 is comparing Jesus directly to the OT high priest.

    The contrast is that Jesus was sinless and only had to offer his blood once and for all. But it is not saying Jesus was not a high priest and that he did not offer his real literal blood. Seventeen times in the book of Hebrews it calls Jesus our high priest. And it shows the high priest had to offer gifts.

    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 high priest could not enter the holy place empty handed. He had to have a gift to offer, he had to have literal blood. And this verse says Jesus also had to have a gift to offer, his own blood.

    Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
    25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;


    The OT sacrifices were a figure, the heavenly things are true, they are the real reality. Go back and read Leviticus 16, Aaron could not enter at any time, but when the Lord sat on the mercy seat. And this verse shows Jesus appeared in literal presence before his Father who sat on the mercy seat.

    And the phrase "with blood of others" clinches it. This phrase makes no sense whatsoever unless he had his own blood with him. It is a dramatically strong implication that he had his "own" blood.

    In chapter 13 it also implies that his blood was taken into the sanctuary.

    Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
    12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.


    The bodies of the animal sacrifices were burned outside the camp, but their blood was brought into the sanctuary. This verse is comparing Jesus giving his body on the cross to the animal body being burned outside the camp, and comparing his blood to the blood of beasts which was brought into the sanctuary.

    This is what happens when you listen to a man and not the scriptures. It is non-sensical for the book of Hebrews to make repeated comparisons between the OT high priest that had to bring real literal blood into the holy place and Jesus if Jesus did not bring his own literal blood into the holy place.
     
    #13 Winman, Oct 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2010
  14. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are talking about Hebrews, not I Peter 1:19. and I Peter 1:19 doesn't say that the Blood went into heaven. "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"

    Lambs blood never went anywhere but at the alter.
    How so? do you even know what the word means? You can't just switch any word around as you wish(with/by) because you see it means something somewhere else.

    No, it's contrasting that the blood of goats was not like the blood of Jesus. It doesn't mention anything about Jesus blood going into heaven.

    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. 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: 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?
    he offered himself. Notice it never says his blood went into heaven. It seems that if it was that important, God would have said that.
    Again, offered himself.
    and go back to the OT and see where lambs blood went.
    no, saying that blood went into heaven is not in Scripture. It never one time says that. You make a contrast to force Scripture to say something that isn't there.
     
  15. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.

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

    It is obvious you will not listen no matter how much scriptural evidence has been shown you, believe what you want.
     
  16. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    you are the one that insists that the same greek word that has different possible meanings can mean both. That's what you are doing. Words have multiple meanings. you don't just pick one based on nothing and you can't just switch them in and out to prove your point = equivacation
    Yes, except for lambs blood, he had blood.
    And it is not saying whatsoever that he entered with blood.
    And he offered HIMSELF as the Scriptures say. "who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

    You have shown 0 scriptural evidences of literal blood going to heaven. None, Zip. Nothing. It amazes me how many people teach that, yet no verse ever says that. They take Passages like Hebrews 9:13 and force it to say something it doesn't. If Christ's blood went to heaven to go to a mercy seat in heaven, it would seem the Scriptures would actually say that.

    And you say that I don't listen to the scriptural evidence. What evidence. You are still at 0
     
  17. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am saying by here means with, and I showed you from Strongs concordance that this word often means with. Now if the OT high priest had to enter "with" blood, what makes you think Jesus could enter without blood?

    Then Hebrews 9:24 compares Jesus directly to the sacrifice whose body was burned outside the camp, but whose blood was taken into the sanctuary.

    Now, at this point in verse 25 we do see a contrast. The contrast is that Jesus needed not to offer a sacrifice each year, and that he did not enter with the blood of "others". Now, what in the world could "others" imply but that he entered with his own blood?

    You know that is what it is saying, but you will not acknowledge it. Your loss.
     
    #17 Winman, Oct 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2010
  18. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    But you can't just switch the words in and out. with and by are not the same words. Yes, you can have a Greek word that means both, but you can't just assume the are the same meaning because they come from the same greek word.
    Had to offer something. High priest offered blood, Jesus offered himself. You are assuming too much that isn't here.
    Not my loss. I'm reading Scripture by what they say. It doesn't say He went with his own blood. Not there. (unless you think it should be translated that way...) Jesus offered himself by shedding his blood on the cross. Never says he took his shed blood into heaven. I know what it says and I stick to it. you are the one that has the issue with it NEVER saying blood went to heaven. You make assumptions. The contrast is that Jesus didn't need to offer a sacrifice each year(only once) and he entered BY his own blood. By and with do not mean the same and assuming they do because of the Greek word there is equivocation.


    EDIt: The word there is by not with. And it's not even the same Greek term for them. This is what happens when someone copies and pasts from Strongs.

    by: διά

    with: μετά

    and neither word is found in I Peter passage.
     
    #18 jbh28, Oct 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2010
  19. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?
     
    #19 Winman, Oct 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2010
  20. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    That it can does not mean it does. And as far as often goes, that would only be 16 times out of the 646 times it appears that it is rendered "with". And no version renders it as "with". Furthermore, in every case where it is rendered "with" the meaning is not the same sense that you mean "with". In every case it still holds the basic idea of "by means of" not "along with, bringing with" as you would have it mean.

    So can it mean "with"? Yes. Is it likely to? Very unlikely. Does any translation render it as "with"? No. Does it ever mean "along with" even when rendered as "with"? No. So, in short, the use of "by" is certainly not a reference to "with". Thats not to say it excludes "with", simply that it was not the focus or point of the verse. The verse is referencing the involvement of blood, not the carrying or bring of blood.

    That the blood is involved in the two cases in different ways presents no problem at all for this view. In fact, the end of the verse would tend to affirm such a view.

    Its the same thing. That killing the lamb was not sufficient in his case is beside the point of the verse. The only thing the verse is referencing is that a blood sacrifice was necessary - not whether the blood had to be brought or not. You take the logic of the verse too far when you insist on such a parallel. In fact, you are relying on a fallacy of composition. That both Christ act of redemption and the OT act of redemption were similar in one way (they involved blood) does not logically mean that they are therefore similar in all ways (ie. that both had to bring blood). The passage never points to this level of similarity. Its like arguing that since Sabbath is a picture of God's rest and therefore occurs on the 7th day, that this must also mean that God must gather extra manna on Fri. Such a conclusion is fallacious. It does not follow logically.

    The verse compares the two things in only one regard - that they both involved blood, that blood was the means by which they entered. Insisting that they must therefore be alike in all other regards is fallacious. Esp. when such an exact parallel doesn't fit the verse itself.

    I point out again (still waiting to hear a response to this) that the verse points out a very clear difference between Christ's act of redemption and that of the OT. In the OT, redemption was not accomplished till the blood was offered in the holy place, but in Christ's case the verse says that redemption was accomplished BEFORE He went to heaven. So, while the priest needed to enter the holy place with blood to finish the act of redemption, there was no need for Christ to do so since He had already completed redemption.

    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.

    Past tense. Unlike the priests, He obtained redemption before entering the Holy. I claim nothing, its what the passage explicitly says. Now, you might quibble whether this is applied to us in the past tense or whatever, but thats a total red herring. The point I am raising is that the work of redemption was accomplished by Christ PRIOR to His entry of the Holy - quite unlike the priests. So, if there is this very key difference, why in the world would you insist on an exact parallel between the two cases?

    Thats a very different meaning of "with" than you are trying to create. I don't dispute that we are redeemed with (that is, by means of - as in, I heated the water with the stove) the blood of Christ. What I dispute is that Heb 9:12 says Christ went to heaven with (that is, along with - as in, I drove to the repair shop with my stove) blood. In English these two meanings both use the word "with", but in the Greek separate words were used. It is a fallacy of equivocation to confuse the two very distinct meanings of the word "with".

    Satisfied that you have to resort to fallacies to support your take on this verse? Absolutely :)

    No, it certainly means "with", just a totally different meaning of "with" than you are arguing for. This different meaning is not semantics, it is an essentially different meaning. Notice:
    - I took a trip to Vegas with all my money. (sense of I Pet 1:19)
    - I took a trip to Vegas with all my money. (sense of priests going to the Holy with blood)
    In the first case, I couldn't do any gambling because I used my money to get to Vegas - it was the means by which I got to Vegas. In the second case I did quite a bit of gambling because I took along all my money. Clearly, I Pet 1:19 uses "with" in a very different way than you mean in Heb 9:12.
     

Share This Page

Loading...