The Blood of Christ (cont.)

I don't think you are understanding correctly. Nobody is saying that "by" cannot mean "with." In fact I told somebody the other day in another forum that "by" and "with" can mean the same thing. The problem is that it's only ONE definition of "by" and "with" that are the same, not all. They are not always synonymous. What is being said is that "by" doesn't mean "with" in the sense of "accompanied with."

Were all things made accompanied with Jesus? Was Jesus just there with the one creating, or was Jesus Himself the one creating it? Obviously it is the latter.

 

I fully realize that the word "by" has several meanings. It is dwmoeller1 who said the word by (dia) never means "with" in the NT. Well, I think John 1:3 is an example of where his is in error, it absolutely means "with" in this verse, the word "without" making that obvious.

The issue we are debating is the use of "by" in Hebrews 9:12

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.

In Hebrews, Jesus is directly compared to the OT high priest who offered a blood sacrifice for the sins of the people. The high priest absolutely had to have this blood "with" him when he entered the holy place. But dwmoeller1 believes Jesus did not have to have this blood "with" him.

Why make the comparison then? It makes no sense. But there are several others verses that strongly imply he had this blood "with" him.

Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
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 high priest couldn't simply kill the sacrifice and pour it's blood on the ground, he had to enter the tabernacle and sprinkle the tabernacle and all the vessels (verse 21).

Again, why point this out if Christ did not have to do the same? If Christ did not have to sprinkle the tabernacle and the vessels, why mention it?

And why does it mention the high priest entering in the holy place with the blood of "others" (verse 25). This is a very strong implication that Jesus entered in with his "own" blood.

In chapter 8 it says that "every" high priest had to offer gifts. And then it says of "necessity" that Jesus "also" have somewhat to offer. Again, the high priest couldn't pour the blood for the sin offering for the people outside, he had to carry it into the holy place and sprinkle around and on the mercy seat. And I believe this strongly implies Jesus had to do the same.

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.

Again, why go to the trouble to mention these obligations of the OT high priest to enter with blood and sprinkle the tabernacle and vessels if Jesus did not have to do so also? It doesn't make a bit of sense.

 

Actually, that was me of which I was in error on. dwmouller1 is the one that corrected me in saying it can mean with, just not in the sense of "accompanied along."

Why make the comparison? Well, lets look at the passage.

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.

blood of goats and calves vs Jesus blood
The blood of animals cannot save. Jesus blood can save. All the sacrifices before were using animal blood. This sacrifice, Jesus used his own blood.

Entered in once
Jesus only had to do this once in contrast to the OT where it had to be over and over again.

That's the point of the verse. Jesus sacrifice with his own blood was enough to obtained eternal redemption for us. The blood of animals was not enough.

If you are referring to anything but lambs blood yes. Lambs blood was never taken anywhere. Jesus is the Lamb. That would be my answer to why the difference.

I'll look at this last argument in more detail later. I have an 45 minutes before I have to be at church. I'll read this more carefully later.

 

A "lamb" can mean a sheep or goat. Don't believe me?

Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

So, as you see, a "lamb" can be either a sheep or goat.

 

No, a lamb isn't a goat. A lamb is a young sheep, but not a goat. that verse doesn't say they are the same thing.

I haven't read the last end of our last post yet.

 

A lamb can be either a sheep or goat, that is what Exo 12:5 directly says. They could take a lamb from the sheep or goats.

Here is how Strongs defines lamb (seh) in Exodus 12:5;

1) one of a flock, lamb, sheep, goat, young sheep, young goat
a) sheep, goat
b) flock (collective)

Exodus 12:5 is speaking of the passover lamb, and Jesus is our passover lamb.

1 Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

So, your argument that Jesus could not offer his blood on the mercy seat in heaven because a "lamb" could never mean a "goat" is proven false by Exo 12:5, but you refuse to accept it.

 

that's almost the worst line of reasoning I have seen in a while. we accept cash or credit.....cash and credit are the same thing.....logical fail

and I didn't say a jesus "could not offer" I said that lambs blood in the OT was never taken anywhere but the alter.

 

Sad, Exo 12:5 directly says a lamb can be taken from the sheep or goats, and you pretend like I am twisting scripture or logic.

Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

 

a lamb is a young sheep I know. Is a lamb also a young goat, or is it giving you options

 

I showed you from scripture that a lamb could be a goat (Exodus 12:5).

I showed you from Strong's Concordance that the word "lamb" can mean a goat.

You simply refuse to accept what you have been clearly shown.