- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 May 18
5 edits
Originally posted by @divegeesterMy question:
So why is Hebrews 9:14 scriptural about the sprinkling of the blood for the conscience but Revelation 7:14 unscriptural about washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb?
In the passages in Hebrews on the sprinkling for the conscience and those in Revelation on washing of the robes virtually an equal amount of symbolism occurs.
The human conscience is immaterial. And the physical blood of Jesus is not available to us in either case. Therefore "having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience" (Hebrews 10:22) contains an amount of symbolism in the same manner as "they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14).[/b]
Hebrews 9:14 talks about the purifying of the conscience.
"How much more will the blood of Christ ... purify our conscience from dead works."
This purifying is said to take place by the sprinkling of the blood for the conscience.
"Let us come forward to the Holy of Holies with a true heart in full assurance of faith, HAVING OUR HEARTS SPRINKLED FROM AN EVIL CONSCIENCE ...." (Heb. 10:22)
And Revelation 7:14 speaks of WASHING in the blood of the Lamb.
" ... they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (see Rev. 7:14)
Divegeester raises a false alarm to argue - Hebrews and sprinkled is scriptural but Revelation and washed is unscriptural.
He is also wrong to argue that the Hebrews passages involving sprinkled contain LESS symbolism then the Revelation passage/s on washed.
No one can argue that ONLY Revelation contains symbolism but Hebrews does not, THEREFORE what we read in Hebrews is more scriptural.
There is no reason to argue that having our conscience sprinkled by the blood of t he Lamb is scriptural WHILE having our robes washed in the blood is unscriptural.
The dipping of robes in blood is symbolic,
There is also symbolism in SPRINKLING with a physical blood the IMMATERIAL Psychological / spiritual CONSCIENCE of man.
"Let us therefore come forward to the Holy of Holies with a true heart in full assurance of faith, HAVING OUR HEARTS ... SPRINKLED FROM AN EVIL CONSCIENCE and having our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22)
probably linked to Joesph’s coat being dipped in blood and the symbolism of that true story.
You're drifting even further away from sound interpretation.
The dipping of Joseph's coat in the animal blood was to propogate a falsehood on his father Jacob. They wanted the father of the SOLD Joseph to think that he had instead been eaten by a wild animal.
You are stretching the Joseph story as I have never seen, saying that it probably is an allegory of redemption in that regard of the animal's blood deceptively used as a counterfeit to trick Jacob.
And “dipping” is not washing, and “robes” are not people.
The robes signify the deeds of the people.
And in a definite sense your DEEDS are intimately closely associated with YOU.
As usual you are just too proud to admit when you are wrong old chap.
As usual you strutting around claiming victory is premature.
Your case fails. I'm not happy to admit that you failed. But I need to.
The Christian having his "robes" washed in the blood of the Lamb is every bit as scriptural as having our hearts "sprinkled" from an evil conscience.
03 May 18
Originally posted by @sonship
My question:
So why is [b]Hebrews 9:14scriptural about the sprinkling of the blood for the conscience but Revelation 7:14 unscriptural about washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb?
In the passages in Hebrews on the sprinkling for the conscience and those in Revelation on washing of the robes virtuall ...[text shortened]... mb is every bit as scriptural as having our hearts "sprinkled" from an evil conscience.[/b]If you have a scripture from your precious version of the bible which you feel supports your 10 inches of html laden waffle...then please post it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeesterWeak deflection.
If you have a scripture from your precious version of the bible which you feel supports your 10 inches of html laden waffle...then please post it.
Hearts "sprinkled" from an evil conscience contains as much symbolic talk as "robes" washed in the blood of the Lamb.
Any good English translation of the Bible could be used to debunk your silly error.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Revelation 1:5 says that the saints have been WASHED in Christ's blood. But some versions say RELEASED in His own blood.
The Recovery Version says released too.
" To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His own blood."
The Greek word there is also translated WASHED in this passage.
" ... having our bodies WASHED with pure water." (Heb. 10:22)
The same word is also translated WASHED in Second Peter 2:22.
" ... and the WASHED sow to wallowing in the mud." (See 2 Pet. 2:22)
Since the word can legitimately be translated to English WASHED it is understandable that some English translations of Rev. 1:5 say the saints are WASHED in Christ's own blood.
Ie.
King James Bible
And from Jesus Christ, ... and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Douay-Rheims Bible
And from Jesus Christ, ... and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Jubilee Bible 2000
and from Jesus, the Christ, ... and washed us from our sins with his own blood
King James 2000 Bible
And from Jesus Christ, ... and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
American King James Version
And from Jesus Christ, ... and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Darby Bible Translation
and from Jesus Christ, ... and has washed us from our sins in his blood,
Originally posted by @sonshipI know, I researched it.
[b] Revelation 1:5 says that the saints have been WASHED in Christ's blood. But some versions say RELEASED in His own blood.
The Recovery Version says released too." To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His own blood."
The Greek word there is also translated WASHED in this passage.[ ...[text shortened]... nslation [/b][/b]
and from Jesus Christ, ... and has washed us from our sins in his blood,
Most versions do not say “washed”. And most interestingly for this exchange between us, which for my part is about your preening spiritual superiority... your own precious version of the bible, which you have used to float your erroneous doctrimes in here, does NOT support you.
🙂
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @divegeesterFirst of all, I am pretty sure that I already wrote somewhere that most English translations I saw said something like released, loosed, freed. I am not sure it was in this discussion or not. But I already surveyed that at Bible Hub and volunteered this difference.
Secondly, anyone can see that my favorite version at the moment is not the sole or only English translation I can use to make the point that should be made.
So that's your red herring to deflect to comment on my precious version.
And your other usual red herring is to bring up my "vanity" for which you supposedly apologized about accusing. It seems to come up again in the form of your annoyance that my not laying down flat for you to walk over is my "preening spiritual superiority",
Same difference as "your vanity".
Maybe if you weren't so eager to find holes in the good news that I teach it wouldn't seem so to you.
Regardless of your feelings, Christians singing, proclaiming, praying, rejoicing, preaching that there is a WASHING of our sins in the blood of Jesus is biblical and scriptural. There is no need to apologize for such a superlative expression.
If you don't want to use it, that's fine.
That doesn't mean some of us cannot echo in faith that our robes are washed in the blood of Christ OR something close to that expression.
That has been proved. And there is nothing "erroneous" doctrinally about it.
03 May 18
Originally posted by @sonshipScriptural support... ?
First of all, I am pretty sure that I already wrote somewhere that most English translations I saw said something like [b]released, loosed, freed. I am not sure it was in this discussion or not. But I already surveyed that at Bible Hub and volunteered this difference.
Secondly, anyone can see that my favorite version at the moment is not the sole o ...[text shortened]... at expression.
That has been proved. And there is nothing "erroneous" doctrinally about it.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 May 18
3 edits
Let's move on. Leave Divegeester to concentrate on his driving through traffic.
After showing washed in the blood of the Redeemer, the Lamb, we should also examine that sprinkling by the blood of Jesus Christ is also scriptural.
"Chosen according to the foreknowlege of God the Father in sanctification of the Spirit unto the the obedience of faith and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ ..." (1 Peter 1:2 Recovery Version )
Here we have sprinkling of Christ's blood as well as washed in the blood.
Praise the Lord for His redeeming blood.
This sprinkling in the New Testament, picture wise, is more reminiscent of what the animal blood was actually used by the Levitical priests in the Old Testament. But as we have seen this fact did not prevent the Holy Spirit to inspired the writing of John's book of Revelation that the robes of the saints have been washed and made white in the blood of Christ.
1.) Scriptural - "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" ( 1 Peter 1:3)
2.) Scriptural - "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7:14)
Originally posted by @sonshipShow where, in your Recovery version of the Bible, it states that we, the children of god, are “washed” in the blood?
After showing washed in the blood of the Redeemer, the Lamb, we should also examine that sprinkling by the blood of Jesus Christ is also scriptural.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @divegeesterI would think a child of God would capitalize the “g” in his name. Show some respect, tiger.
Show where, in your Recovery version of the Bible, it states that we, the children of god, are “washed” in the blood?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @sonshipDo you disagree with the following?
Let's move on. Leave Divegeester to concentrate on his driving through traffic.
After showing [b]washed in the blood of the Redeemer, the Lamb, we should also examine that sprinkling by the blood of Jesus Christ is also scriptural.
[quote] "Chosen according to the foreknowlege of God the Father in sanctification of the Spiri ...[text shortened]... iptural - [b]"washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7:14) [/b]
1.) Scriptural - "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" ( 1 Peter 1:3)
2.) Scriptural - "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7:14)
If you do not disagree then I don't think there is further need to debate. Ie. further arguing - Now it HAS to be the Recovery Version and it HAS to say "YOU are washed in the blood".
1.) Neither truth is particularly tied to the Recovery Version of the Bible. This seems a red herring. Look up the verses in a number of other English versions if you prefer.
2.) The truth of being washed in the blood of Christ is an accumulative matter mostly. Here - robes washed, there - we were washed, yet another place - something related to being washed, still another place - cleansed.
This is more an accumulative truth. A lover of Christ, I think, should have no problem with the phrase "washed in the blood".
Even if in one single passage he or she could not specifically locate the exact wording as such.
3.) It is not mandatory that you use the phrase. There is no need to oppose if some lovers of God CHOOSE to sing or state that they are washed in the blood.
Did I ever state that it was mandatory to phase the truth of redemption precisely in those terms?
4.) If you want to make a case by arguing "Well the robes being washed in the blood is, after all not YOU being washed in the blood." - to that I would say "Maybe that's point. But it is not a major one IMO."
We Christians ourselves, Paul says "were washed". And although I am quite happy to equally acknowledge he says the water of the word washes the church, there is no reason to insist the "you were WASHED" here can only have the meaning of with the word of God.
" And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:11)
The fact of the matter is that ALL of the benefits of Christ's work, whether the justification, the sanctification, the washing of the water of the word, the cleansing of the blood, are ALL done in the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God brings these realities to us.
So I would say that the Christians themselves were washed [also in the blood] is included in the pronouncement:
" ... but you were washed ... in the Spirit of our God."
5.) Finally, if you don't want to say you need or want to be washed in the blood of Christ, that is your preference. I don't mind a bit confessing the need. And I will teach others who want to know HOW to be believe and be "washed in the blood".
You only want to be "sprinkled" in the blood? That's Okay.
08 May 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIs your preferred Recovery version not the best translation in this case at least?
[b] Revelation 1:5 says that the saints have been WASHED in Christ's blood. But some versions say RELEASED in His own blood.
The Recovery Version says released too." To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His own blood."
The Greek word there is also translated WASHED in this passage.[ ...[text shortened]... nslation [/b][/b]
and from Jesus Christ, ... and has washed us from our sins in his blood,