The Blood of Christ (cont.)

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

not, back to the issue

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

HankD

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HankD

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

HankD

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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