mbaemeka:


The FYI was to preempt the lame excuse that he was averse to women touching him. Glad we can put that out of the way. I am puzzled that you can see clear scriptures saying she saw someone and said something and was told not to touch and yet I am being asked to prove that she didn't.

We have Jesus words touch me not. Anything else is upon you to prove sir!

As per unclean thing in relation to dead things that was one aspect. A woman in her P was also unclean, a leper was unclean etc. Let us not reduce it to absurdities. Every evidence (both scriptural and otherwise) states that the Priests weren't touched when entering the Holy of Holies. For you to prove that assertion wrong, it is incumbent upon you to show us any verse to the contrary.

SO now Mary was ritually unclean to touch Jesus Christ as per Moses but in Matthew 28 she joined other women in not touching but clinging to him? She lost her manners?

When Jesus bore the sins of the world, he did so on his body. Which is similar to the slaughter lamb on whom the sins of the nation is confessed upon. Then the lamb is slain like Jesus was crucified. After that the blood of the slain lamb is taken into the Tabernacle (the Most holy place) where it is then sprinkled there. So Jesus had to take his blood into the Most Holy place in heaven to do so. He did this after he resurrected. I know what happened for 3 days while he was in a tomb but it is surfeit to the discussion.

As per his blood in Heaven, Hebrews 9.

Leviticus 1:11,6:25. Does it bother you that the sin offerings (bull and goat) was killed INSIDE the veil?

JMAN05:


Kjv can be misleading. It does not bring out the meaning of that word. Robertson's Word Picture comments:

mee-mou-haptou. Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning "cease clinging to me" rather than "Do not touch me."

compare various scriptures b4 making inferences. I think d Good news av sumtin similar Or even exact of what Was written in kjv.

Legacy44:


I believe Melchizedek is an Angel

an Angel having no beginning?

vooks:

We have Jesus words touch me not. Anything else is upon you to prove sir!
SO now Mary was ritually unclean to touch Jesus Christ as per Moses but in Matthew 28 she joined other women in not touching but clinging to him? She lost her manners?
Leviticus 1:11,6:25. Does it bother you that the sin offerings (bull and goat) was killed INSIDE the veil?

1. Will Jesus say "don't touch me" to someone who was already touching him or would he say it to someone who was about to touch him?

2. Mary as was every human being on earth at the point of resurrection was unclean to touch him. Then he ascended into heaven, peformed all the necessary rites, was declared King, High Priest, given the highest name and authority etc. And then returned to earth. This time Mary like everyother person was now allowed to touch him.

3. I don't understand the question. The sin offering was killed on the side of the altar northward towards God. So?

mbaemeka:


1. Will Jesus say "don't touch me" to someone who was already touching him or would he say it to someone who was about to touch him?

Any will do.

2. Mary as was every human being on earth at the point of resurrection was unclean to touch him. Then he ascended into heaven, peformed all the necessary rites, was declared King, High Priest, given the highest name and authority etc. And then returned to earth. This time Mary like everyother person was now allowed to touch him.

Am mighty glad you have toned down. She was not ritually unclean. There is NO proof nowhere of priests avoiding human contact. After this line of argument has failed you now resort so some esoteric post-resurrection purity which could be tainted by as much as human touch?

3. I don't understand the question. The sin offering was killed on the side of the altar northward towards God. So?

The sacrifice was killed INSIDE the tabernacle/Holy place. What is the NT equivalent of the Holy place? Is it on earth?

vooks:

Any will do.
Am mighty glad you have toned down. She was not ritually unclean. There is NO proof nowhere of priests avoiding human contact. After this line of argument has failed you now resort so some esoteric post-resurrection purity which could be tainted by as much as human touch?
The sacrifice was killed INSIDE the tabernacle/Holy place. What is the NT equivalent of the Holy place?

1. Any won't do. That much is clear. "Don't do it" is a world apart from "stop doing it".

2. Every human being was ritually unclean. They were all sinners all of them. And the evidences abound concerning what the priests did and didn't do. I asked you to do ANY research and bring ANY evidence that what I said was not so. Basically ALL the commentaries know this fact.

Also, I didn't say they became pure post-resurrection for the fun of it. It was only after the resurrection that they got born-again. When the High priest was done with the sacrifice he was allowed to take of the apparel, wash, and go back to his family. But was he allowed to hang around his family during the atonement? NO.

3. It is the presence of the Lord that makes a place holy. So exactly where Jesus was killed was a holy place (because God's presence was there before he deserted Jesus). The bible didn't say the sacrifice was killed inside THE MOST HOLY PLACE. There is a difference between a holy place and THE most holy place.

mbaemeka:


1. Any won't do. That much is clear. "Don't do it" is a world apart from "stop doing it".

You are interpolating. The command was to not touch. There is silence on whether Mary did it or had done it and you can't infer nothing from Jesus words

2. Every human being was ritually unclean. They were all sinners all of them. And the evidences abound concerning what the priests did and didn't do. I asked you to do ANY research and bring ANY evidence that what I said was not so. Basically ALL the commentaries know this fact.

You claim priests were not touched. If you want to appeal to extra-biblical sources to prop your assertions, be my guest. In the scriptures, there is NO hint of nothing and that's why you are shying from presenting scriptural evidence. Now, could you please step outside scriptures to prove your point? These are your claims,back them up. Why send me on a wild goose chase proving a negative? Where is nlMediator to guide us on burden of proof?

Also, I didn't say they became pure post-resurrection for the fun of it. It was only after the resurrection that they got born-again. When the High priest was done with the sacrifice he was allowed to take of the apparel, wash, and go back to his family. But was he allowed to hang around his family during the atonement? NO.

You are shying from scriptures because none exists. Atonement lasted what, less than a day. The High Priest kept off his family because he was busy not because he was avoiding contamination

3. It is the presence of the Lord that makes a place holy. So exactly where Jesus was killed was a holy place (because God's presence was there before he deserted Jesus). The bible didn't say the sacrifice was killed inside THE MOST HOLY PLACE. There is a difference between a holy place and THE most holy place.

The tabernacle had Holy place and Most Holy place. more of this later.

mbaemeka:


I am using my phone now so won't post many scriptures. But for starters, the verse above states clearly that JESUS is the mediator between GOD (the father) and MANKIND (not Christians). Mankind includes Sinners and Saints. For sinners he is there to ensure that they can be saved if they come to him. For saints he is there to ensure they remain eternally saved as they abide in him. (1 John 2:1-2).

But when it comes to the Holy Spirit is role is EXCLUSIVLEY to only Christians.

What i read you say here is that Christ and Holy Spirit are both Priests interceding for Christians. Is it that they take turns to perform their priestly role or the priestly function is shared i.e. Christ handles some bit while the Holy Spirit the handles others. Please provide scriptures.

mbaemeka:

But when it comes to the Holy Spirit is role is EXCLUSIVLEY to only Christians. His intercessory, mediatory, advocatory, priestly role is for those in whom he lives in. And that means ONLY Christians. In John 15 & 16 when Jesus explained the coming of the Holy Spirit he said God would send Allos Parakletos. He didn't say Heteros Parakletos. Heteros would have meant another one but a different kind but Allos means another one but EXACTLY of the same kind. If you use the AMP they would give 7 meanings of that phrase Allos Parakletos and it meant; Teacher, Helper, INTERCESSOR, ADVOCATE, comforter, STANDBY etc. This shows he has some priestly roles as I had earlier said.

John 15:26 (NIV)
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

John 15:26 (KJV)
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me

The role of the advocate was clearly stated. His role is not that of a priest.

Maybe you should check strong's concordance for better understanding.....

Strong's Number: 3875

Original Word Word Origin
paravklhtoß a root word

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Parakletos 5:800,782

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
par-ak'-lay-tos Noun Masculine

Definition
summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
of Christ in his exaltation at God's right hand, pleading with God the Father for the pardon of our sins
in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom

mbaemeka:

If you use the AMP they would give 7 meanings of that phrase Allos Parakletos and it meant; Teacher, Helper, INTERCESSOR, ADVOCATE, comforter, STANDBY etc. This shows he has some priestly roles as I had earlier said.

..This shows he has some priestly roles?? i don't see how you want us to accept he is high priest based on your interpretation of the word advocate. Unless you have scriptures to show that the Holy Spirit is High just like Jesus, we can assume that Jesus is the one and only mediator and the Holy spirit in the form of Melchizedek was never priest forever. So you understand why Melchizedek cannot be the Holy Spirit in Human form for him (Melchi) to be priest forever.

mbaemeka:

I asked you a question which you failed to respond to.

Where? when? please repost. It was not deliberate.

mbaemeka:

When the bible says Eleazer, Eli were priests according to Aarons order what did it mean?

Please provide scriptures. am unable to find scriptures for this.

Zikkyy:

The bible says that Jesus priesthood is of the type where the priest is the first and only priest in that office. i.e. The priest presently in office did not succeed anybody and he remains a priest forever. Jesus is the first and only priest in his priestly office just as Melchizedek is first and only priest in his office.

mbaemeka:

If the bible was just saying Jesus is the FIRST priest in his order the way Melchizedek was the first THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG TO SAY JESUS IS A PRIEST ACCORDING TO MELCHIZEDEKS ORDER.

Read my post very well. i did not say Jesus is the first priest in his order. Jesus is the first and only priest in the office he occupies just like Melchi was first and only priest in his office. This is what it means to remain a priest forever. i.e. no succession. 'Order' is the type of priesthood; one where the priest don't die, they remain priests forever. Jesus priesthood is of the same 'type' with Melchi.

vooks:

You are interpolating. The command was to not touch. There is silence on whether Mary did it or had done it and you can't infer nothing from Jesus words
You claim priests were not touched. If you want to appeal to extra-biblical sources to prop your assertions, be my guest. In the scriptures, there is NO hint of nothing and that's why you are shying from presenting scriptural evidence. Now, could you please step outside scriptures to prove your point? These are your claims,back them up. Why send me on a wild goose chase proving a negative? Where is nlMediator to guide us on burden of proof?
You are shying from scriptures because none exists. Atonement lasted what, less than a day. The High Priest kept off his family because he was busy not because he was avoiding contamination
The tabernacle had Holy place and Most Holy place. more of this later.

1. Yes the command was not to touch. The question is do you tell someone who is already touching you not to touch? Come on !

2. I gave you books to read from Leviticus 16, Exodus 29 and 30, Numbers 4, Haggai 2 etc. All these verses give a picture that when viewed holistically will show the idea. If you want links I can provide them in a subsequent post. The point is that the reason for the atonement was to cleanse people of their sins. If he needs to cleanse them, then it implies that they were not clean already. If they are unclean and touch the high priest on his way into the Tabernacle does he cleanse them or do they make him unclean? Haggai 2:11-15 (uncleanliness is infectious, cleanliness is NOT) If he is unclean whilst making the sacrifice for them will it stand? All these things can be readily seen from those verses.

Here is one link I readily found; http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Feasts%20of%20the%20Lord/day_of_atonement.htm

3. Your point is wrong. The scriptures clearly say he is to stay away from everyone. And not because he is busy. He was even mandated to wash as much as 5 times within that short time. Leviticus 16:17

Zikkyy:


What i read you say here is that Christ and Holy Spirit are both Priests interceding for Christians. Is it that they take turns to perform their priestly role or the priestly function is shared i.e. Christ handles some bit while the Holy Spirit the handles others. Please provide scriptures.

I said Christ is a High priest for THE WHOLE WORLD, while the Holy Spirit performs priestly functions for ONLY CHRISTIANS. The role christ performs as the High priest he has already done ONCE and FOR ALL TIMES AND PEOPLE. Now he is seated in Heaven as the proof that all men's sins have been forgiven. If a sinner comes to him he doesn't need to go and re-do his sacrifices. Same way with a saint who feels unholy or unworthy.

As per the Holy spirit, he is the personal advocate and intercessor. Intercession is part of the functions of a priest and the Holy spirit does that for the christian and the christian alone on the go. in other words, he does his functions based on our daily experiences and not ONCE and For all.

Romans 8:26Amplified Bible (AMP)
26 So too the [Holy] Spirit comes to our aid and bears us up in our weakness; for we do not know what prayer to offer nor how to offer it worthily as we ought, but the Spirit Himself goes to meet our supplication and pleads in our behalf with unspeakable yearnings and groanings too deep for utterance.

Hebrews 9:24Amplified Bible (AMP)
24 For Christ (the Messiah) has not entered into a sanctuary made with [human] hands, only a copy and pattern and type of the true one, but [He has entered] into heaven itself, now to appear in the [very] presence of God on our behalf.

It is clear that the "our" in both verses is different. The former is referring to us christians in context (because we are the only ones who have the Holy spirit within) while the latter refers to more than christians because a) the Hebrews were Jews that Paul was trying to convince that Judaism was a thing of the past and this book was addressed to them largely b) christ didn't die for only christians. He died for the whole world.

Zikkyy:


John 15:26 (NIV)
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

John 15:26 (KJV)
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me

The role of the advocate was clearly stated. His role is not that of a priest.

Maybe you should check strong's concordance for better understanding.....

Strong's Number: 3875

Original Word Word Origin
paravklhtoß a root word

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Parakletos 5:800,782

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
par-ak'-lay-tos Noun Masculine

Definition
summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
of Christ in his exaltation at God's right hand, pleading with God the Father for the pardon of our sins
in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom



..This shows he has some priestly roles?? i don't see how you want us to accept he is high priest based on your interpretation of the word advocate. Unless you have scriptures to show that the Holy Spirit is High just like Jesus, we can assume that Jesus is the one and only mediator and the Holy spirit in the form of Melchizedek was never priest forever. So you understand why Melchizedek cannot be the Holy Spirit in Human form for him (Melchi) to be priest forever.

I am lost. If the Holy spirit is high just like Jesus? Jesus is the only mediator between who and who? what is the role of the High priest?

1) People go to know the high priest to know the will of God. The holy spirit does that for us (Romans 8:27)
2) to offer a sin-offering regularly. Jesus already did so ONCE and for all. So need to repeat it.
3) He intercedes for the people. Christ does it for us christians (Romans 8:34), he also does it for non-christians (Hebrews 7:25). But the Holy spirit does it for ONLY christians (Romans 8:26)

So as we can see, Jesus is the mediator between God and MANKIND. He did all he did for mankind. But the Holy Spirit still intercedes, purifies and sanctifies (Makes us Holy) us by his indwelling in us, tells us the will of God etc. and each represents priestly duties that he does and will always do. Hence the forever priesthood.

Zikkyy:


Where? when? please repost. It was not deliberate.

Please provide scriptures. am unable to find scriptures for this.

Hebrews 7:11King James Version (KJV)
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

This proves that ALL levitical priests were AFTER THE ORDER OF AARON. Hence Eleazer, Eli etc.

Did you notice the question Paul asked here? He said if the levitical priesthood was perfect why should Jesus become a priest and not be designated after the Aaronic order? Why did God make Jesus a priest according to Melchizedek's order? It shows that the Melchizedek order was perfect and that is why Jesus was named after it. How do I mean perfect?

1. Sinless
2. Deathless
3. Eternal.

Melchizedek MUST be deity.

Zikkyy:




Read my post very well. i did not say Jesus is the first priest in his order. Jesus is the first and only priest in the office he occupies just like Melchi was first and only priest in his office. This is what it means to remain a priest forever. i.e. no succession. 'Order' is the type of priesthood; one where the priest don't die, they remain priests forever. Jesus priesthood is of the same 'type' with Melchi.

Scriptures say something different. I will stick to them. Thank you.

Hebrews 7:15-16King James Version (KJV)

15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Similar to Melchizedek another priest arose. This priest like Melchizedek was made after the power of an ENDLESS LIFE.

lanxlot:
compare various scriptures b4 making inferences. I think d Good news av sumtin similar Or even exact of what Was written in kjv.

It would only be best to go and study the original language, rather than translations. That will settle the matter.

Even the UBS agrees with Robertson.

mbaemeka:


1. Yes the command was not to touch. The question is do you tell someone who is already touching you not to touch? Come on !

The answer is it is inconclusive. Read about the continuos present tenses here. Of course you have little respect for ALL these commentaries because NONE remotely supports your 'revelation' or double ascension theories.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/20-17.htm

Look up ANY command forbidding anything, touch not the mountain, do not eat food offered to idols.... Can you honestly conclude that they were not doing any of the forbidden BEFORE and right up to the command?

2. I gave you books to read from Leviticus 16, Exodus 29 and 30, Numbers 4, Haggai 2 etc. All these verses give a picture that when viewed holistically will show the idea. If you want links I can provide them in a subsequent post. The point is that the reason for the atonement was to cleanse people of their sins. If he needs to cleanse them, then it implies that they were not clean already. If they are unclean and touch the high priest on his way into the Tabernacle does he cleanse them or do they make him unclean? Haggai 2:11-15 (uncleanliness is infectious, cleanliness is NOT) If he is unclean whilst making the sacrifice for them will it stand? All these things can be readily seen from those verses.

There is NOTHING on ALL those chapters forbidding touching, otherwise quote it. Sins are not communicable by touching, ritual uncleanliness is, and this is well provided for. Atonement was about sins.What's the big deal? Did God expect them to interpolate and avoid human contact instead of saying so?

Here is one link I readily found; http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Feasts%20of%20the%20Lord/day_of_atonement.htm

Scriptures please, or are they the same traditions of men Jesus viciously attacked?

3. Your point is wrong. The scriptures clearly say he is to stay away from everyone. And not because he is busy. He was even mandated to wash as much as 5 times within that short time. Leviticus 16:17

Washing frequency notwithstanding,human contact was NEVER forbidden. That's the smoking gun bro.....not my or your creativity

Haggai 2:14 KJV

Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord ; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

1. You are jumping here and there now. For your point to make any sense we would have to prove that they were doing any of the said things before the INITIAL command was given and not after. There was nothing of the sort. Don't do this means don't do it. It doesn't mean stop doing it. Any other arrangement is illogical.

2. Hahahahaha at Ritual uncleanness is transferrable and not sin. I cannot remember even remotely referring to sin in any of my posts on this thread. I said if she touched him she would have rendered the sacrifice unclean and it will be disallowed. Then I compared it with the OT high priest on the day of atonement. He too was not allowed to touch anything on entering into the most holy place so as not to render the sacrifice unclean. I never mentioned sin and you know it. The verse above shows that everything was regarded as unclean (including humans and the works of their hand).

3. I have given scriptures. I have given links of proponents of Judaism. They all say the same things. This is an aside from the fact that you have tried to dismiss clear words in John 20:17 and Hebrews 9 because you want to maintain a belief that keeps some of your errors looking right in your eyes.

4. I have shown you Leviticus 16:17, I have shown you Haggai 2:14. Nobody touched the priest. It is that simple.

vooks:

The answer is it is inconclusive. Read about the continuos present tenses here. Of course you have little respect for ALL these commentaries because NONE remotely supports your 'revelation' or double ascension theories.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/20-17.htm
Look up ANY command forbidding anything, touch not the mountain, do not eat food offered to idols.... Can you honestly conclude that they were not doing any of the forbidden BEFORE and right up to the command?
There is NOTHING on ALL those chapters forbidding touching, otherwise quote it. Sins are not communicable by touching, ritual uncleanliness is, and this is well provided for. Atonement was about sins.What's the big deal? Did God expect them to interpolate and avoid human contact instead of saying so?
Scriptures please, or are they the same traditions of men Jesus viciously attacked?
Washing frequency notwithstanding,human contact was NEVER forbidden. That's the smoking gun bro.....not my or your creativity

...By the way, read the link. Read a few of the commentaries and I stopped to laugh hard. This is what happens when we take the scriptures and try to force them to say what we want them to say. That verse is EASY as A B C.

Jesus didn't leave us in doubt as to why he told her not to touch him. Based on that, EVERY OTHER THING the commentaries have to say is ERRONEOUS. Jesus said don't touch me FOR/BECAUSE I have not ascended unto my father. The reason he told her not to touch him was because he hadn't ascended. If you disagree take the complaints to Jesus himself. I am regurgitating his words to you and you are disregarding them and using yours to suppress his.

mbaemeka:
Haggai 2:14 KJV

Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord ; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

This verse tells you nothing about not touching a priest

1. You are jumping here and there now. For your point to make any sense we would have to prove that they were doing any of the said things before the INITIAL command was given and not after. There was nothing of the sort. Don't do this means don't do it. It doesn't mean stop doing it. Any other arrangement is illogical.

Do not touch tells you nothing about whether she had touched or not. So simple

2. Hahahahaha at Ritual uncleanness is transferrable and not sin. I cannot remember even remotely referring to sin in any of my posts on this thread. I said if she touched him she would have rendered the sacrifice unclean and it will be disallowed. Then I compared it with the OT high priest on the day of atonement. He too was not allowed to touch anything on entering into the most holy place so as not to render the sacrifice unclean. I never mentioned sin and you know it. The verse above shows that everything was regarded as unclean (including humans and the works of their hand).

No scriptures are provided, nor extra-biblical sources. What's your basis for these wild allegations? What else was there to touch in the Holy Place seeing he was the only person there?

3. I have given scriptures. I have given links of proponents of Judaism. They all say the same things. This is an aside from the fact that you have tried to dismiss clear words in John 20:17 and Hebrews 9 because you want to maintain a belief that keeps some of your errors looking right in your eyes.

The link just regurgitates your theory. You have simply referred me to a link that says what you are saying namely a priest could not be touched. I need evidence for this not affirmation from another sect. Scriptural basis not fantasies. I even allowed you the pleasure of extra-biblical sources. None supports you

4. I have shown you Leviticus 16:17, I have shown you Haggai 2:14. Nobody touched the priest. It is that simple.

None of those talk about touching no priest and you know it. Why are you being shdemidemi? Clinging to man made traditions you can't substantiate?


Leviticus 16:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
Atonement, according to your theory, was done in heaven, that's where there should have been NO MAN. Let's grant you that the 'tabernacle of congregation' was here on earth. There were men at the cross, at the grave. Did Mary flout this shadow by ambushing a yet-to-atone resurrected Christ?

None of those commentators can match your intelligence. If I was you, I'd weep at their foolishness

-You claim Mary never touched Jesus and you have no proof, you are the one adding to the Word

-You claim Jesus sacrifice on the cross and bearing our sins was not sufficient and a man touching him could contaminate his ALREADY done sacrifice, you are adding to scriptures

- You also claim Jesus carried his blood to heaven, you are adding to scriptures

Two questions
1. He bore our sins in his own body at the cross. Where did he take them after the cross?
2. What blood did he carry to heaven? The one shed at calvary or the one running through his veins?

mbaemeka:
...By the way, read the link. Read a few of the commentaries and I stopped to laugh hard. This is what happens when we take the scriptures and try to force them to say what we want them to say. That verse is EASY as A B C.

Jesus didn't leave us in doubt as to why he told her not to touch him. Based on that, EVERY OTHER THING the commentaries have to say is ERRONEOUS. Jesus said don't touch me FOR/BECAUSE I have not ascended unto my father. The reason he told her not to touch him was because he hadn't ascended. If you disagree take the complaints to Jesus himself. I am regurgitating his words to you and you are disregarding them and using yours to suppress his.

vooks:

This verse tells you nothing about not touching a priest
Do not touch tells you nothing about whether she had touched or not. So simple
No scriptures are provided, nor extra-biblical sources. What's your basis for these wild allegations? What else was there to touch in the Holy Place seeing he was the only person there?
The link just regurgitates your theory. You have simply referred me to a link that says what you are saying namely a priest could not be touched. I need evidence for this not affirmation from another sect. Scriptural basis not fantasies. I even allowed you the pleasure of extra-biblical sources. None supports you
None of those talk about touching no priest and you know it. Why are you being shdemidemi? Clinging to man made traditions you can't substantiate?

Leviticus 16:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
Atonement, according to your theory, was done in heaven, that's where there should have been NO MAN. Let's grant you that the 'tabernacle of congregation' was here on earth. There were men at the cross, at the grave. Did Mary flout this shadow by ambushing a yet-to-atone resurrected Christ?

1. Your issue is basic scripture-on- scripture analysis. Leviticus 16 already said the High Priest would be put on Holy garments so as to be clean and holy while carrying out the sacrifice. The same book says he might need to wash several times to make up for any unclean act or saying the Lord's name until he enters the veil. When he does so he would first of all, make sacrificea for himself so as to be clean enough to make sacrifices for the nation. Latter verses says he is to be the ONLY one to enter into the Most holy place (a place he had to go in clean). Now if Haggai 2:14 says that all the people that the High priest is to make atonements for are unclean and infectiously so, doesn't it imply that they would make him unclean? If they make him unclean prior to atonement doesn't it defeat the essence of the atonement?

2. Don't side step the do not touch. Juxtapose it with why he said so. Then ask yourself why he let touch him later when he should have been more in a hurry than this earlier time going by your illogic.

3. The Mercy seat, the Ark of the covenant, people around him, the other priests etc. Wild allegations has been the excuse of those who refuse to study precepts upon precepts, line upon line. I am quoting scriptures. How I wish you would just do so.

4. Hahahahaha, you are so funny. I provided scriptures. I provided a link. I was ready to give more than one. I even gave you the lee-way to do YOUR OWN research on the subject matter and come up with any one that contradicts my assertion. You did none yet you maintained my scriptural citations were extra-biblical. How risible.

5. Your last point is a clincher and should be archived. It is ample proof that you do not even understand what is been discussed. The lamb is ALWAYS slain outside just at the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation (people will see it being killed) Leviticus 4, then the High priest takes the blood inside (The Holy place) to sprinkle it around the Tabernacle itself and (on days of atonement) also on the mercy seat( most Holy place). So in the same way Jesus was slain outside/at the door of the tabernacle of congregation where everyone saw him. When he was raised and needed to go for the atonement he went ALONE inside the Tabernacle of congregation and sprinkled his blood there and on the Mercy seat in the Holiest place in Heaven Hebrews 9. That is why he could not let Mary touch him before he ascended.

Your question is moot.

vooks:
None of those commentators can match your intelligence. If I was you, I'd weep at their foolishness

-You claim Mary never touched Jesus and you have no proof, you are the one adding to the Word

-You claim Jesus sacrifice on the cross and bearing our sins was not sufficient and a man touching him could contaminate his ALREADY done sacrifice, you are adding to scriptures

- You also claim Jesus carried his blood to heaven, you are adding to scriptures

Two questions
1. He bore our sins in his own body at the cross. Where did he take them after the cross?
2. What blood did he carry to heaven? The one shed at calvary or the one running through his veins?

1. They are not the only commentaries, so sad for those who anchor all their beliefs on such commentaries. If we are to consider that I asked you for commentaries ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT then it would be funnier because we noticed the sidetrack but we played along.

2.Any proof on Mary not touching Jesus will trump all the balderdash that you and the commentaries have said put together. Jesus told someone don't touch and he said why. You lot threw away the reason he said and began making half-witted statements like cling or grasping knees. As though the greek rendering only meant to cling or grab. Wonder why they didn't check out the last meaning- To touch. Or maybe it is because they didn't understand it but to form "I must comment" they decided to take only the cling and neglect the reason that JESUS HIMSELF GAVE. That sort of wisdom is worthy of every disdain it is getting.

3. When the High priest slains the sacrificial lamb, does that end the atonement process? NO. So in the same vein Jesus dying on the cross wasn't the end. Like the High priest does when he confesses all the sins of the nation on the lamb, Jesus took all our sins upon himself. Then he died like the lamb had to be slain. Subsequently, the High priest takes the blood of the slain lamb and goes INTO the Tabernacle and the seat of mercy where he sprinkles the blood as the final rite. Then if the sacrifice is accepted, the High priest comes out and declares it to the people. Without even saying so, for the very fact that he comes out alive is already a good sign. Jesus in the same token had to do same to COMPLETE THE SACRIFICE for he wasn't done when Mary saw him. He took his blood into the tabernacle in heaven and into the mercy seat and did as was necessary. Hebrews 9 said it emphatically. So take your wild allegations accusation to the author of Hebrews 9- the HOLY SPIRIT.

3. Adding to scriptures? Hahahahaha. Please read Hebrews 9 and let us see who is adding to what. I am taking the verses at face value. You on the other hand, wished that book wasn't in the bible to begin with.

4. He didn't take sins anywhere man. He destroyed sin on the cross but that was not the end because he only took away the PUNISHMENT FOR SIN here. He needed to paralyze the one that brought sin. He also had to wash away the nature and guilt associated with sin. Last and not least he had to remove the record of sin which could ONLY BE DONE BY BLOOD. That is why he went to the main Holy place- the one in heaven.

- he took his blood, the divine one, the one spilled at calvary but not totally drained from his body. That was the blood he took.

mbaemeka:


1. Your issue is basic scripture-on- scripture analysis. Leviticus 16 already said the High Priest would be put on Holy garments so as to be clean and holy while carrying out the sacrifice. The same book says he might need to wash several times to make up for any unclean act or saying the Lord's name until he enters the veil. When he does so he would first of all, make sacrificea for himself so as to be clean enough to make sacrifices for the nation. Latter verses says he is to be the ONLY one to enter into the Most holy place (a place he had to go in clean). Now if Haggai 2:14 says that all the people that the High priest is to make atonements for are unclean and infectiously so, doesn't it imply that they would make him unclean? If they make him unclean prior to atonement doesn't it defeat the essence of the atonement?

My broda,
Leviticus 16 talks of multiple washings and all that. Am still waiting for the portion that says the High Priest should touch nobody.

Haggai 2:13-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 Then Haggai said, “If one who is unclean from a [a]corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean?” And the priests answered, “It will become unclean.” 14 Then Haggai said, “‘So is this people. And so is this nation before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.
Note the illustration given that makes the clean Levitical elements unclean are the same things a High Priest was to avoid; corpses of even close relation. A High Priest is unclean if he touches a corpse.Besides, Haggai says ALL people not just the laity. ALL includes the priests and that's why they couldn't offer acceptable sacrifices. Mary was not a corpse. Get other verses to prop your theory my broda

2. Don't side step the do not touch. Juxtapose it with why he said so. Then ask yourself why he let touch him later when he should have been more in a hurry than this earlier time going by your illogic.

First, you have no proof she never touched him apart from imagining that.

Secondly,think through. Shortly thereafter, he met the women who came to the tomb with Mary in Matthew 28 and allowed them to touch him. And note Mary got to the tomb, finds it opened, rushes back,gets Peter and John who rush to the tomb and find it empty. All this while Jesus is resurrected but not in the tomb. Mary is then left there and Jesus appears to her. Why couldn't he rush and atone and then come back all this time and allow all to kiss his feet?

3. The Mercy seat, the Ark of the covenant, people around him, the other priests etc. Wild allegations has been the excuse of those who refuse to study precepts upon precepts, line upon line. I am quoting scriptures. How I wish you would just do so.

Jesus did not ascend to offer blood in heaven. Blood represents his life which he had duly laid down and taken back by Sunday morning

4. Hahahahaha, you are so funny. I provided scriptures. I provided a link. I was ready to give more than one. I even gave you the lee-way to do YOUR OWN research on the subject matter and come up with any one that contradicts my assertion. You did none yet you maintained my scriptural citations were extra-biblical. How risible.

None of your scriptures come close to supporting your claim, none talk of a High Priest who was untouchable during Atonement. The link regurgitated what you are saying. That is not scholarly in any way.

5. Your last point is a clincher and should be archived. It is ample proof that you do not even understand what is been discussed. The lamb is ALWAYS slain outside just at the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation (people will see it being killed) Leviticus 4, then the High priest takes the blood inside (The Holy place) to sprinkle it around the Tabernacle itself and (on days of atonement) also on the mercy seat( most Holy place). So in the same way Jesus was slain outside/at the door of the tabernacle of congregation where everyone saw him. When he was raised and needed to go for the atonement he went ALONE inside the Tabernacle of congregation and sprinkled his blood there and on the Mercy seat in the Holiest place in Heaven Hebrews 9. That is why he could not let Mary touch him before he ascended.

You are stretching Hebrews imagery beyond Holy Spirit and that is why I asked you. What/where is the Holy Place in Christ atonement? What/where is the tabernacle of congregation?

Your question is moot.

mbaemeka:


1. They are not the only commentaries, so sad for those who anchor all their beliefs on such commentaries. If we are to consider that I asked you for commentaries ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT then it would be funnier because we noticed the sidetrack but we played along.

Can you share ANY commentary that supports you? It is sad for those who subscribe to double ascenscion theories without proof and who insist Christ work at Calvary was not finished and they can't explain what was sprinkled in heaven. Did he cut his arteries?

2.Any proof on Mary not touching Jesus will trump all the balderdash that you and the commentaries have said put together. Jesus told someone don't touch and he said why. You lot threw away the reason he said and began making half-witted statements like cling or grasping knees. As though the greek rendering only meant to cling or grab. Wonder why they didn't check out the last meaning- To touch. Or maybe it is because they didn't understand it but to form "I must comment" they decided to take only the cling and neglect the reason that JESUS HIMSELF GAVE. That sort of wisdom is worthy of every disdain it is getting.

Jesus told Mary not to touch and he explained why. None of that tells us that she had (not) touched him. So simple

3. When the High priest slains the sacrificial lamb, does that end the atonement process? NO. So in the same vein Jesus dying on the cross wasn't the end. Like the High priest does when he confesses all the sins of the nation on the lamb, Jesus took all our sins upon himself. Then he died like the lamb had to be slain. Subsequently, the High priest takes the blood of the slain lamb and goes INTO the Tabernacle and the seat of mercy where he sprinkles the blood as the final rite. Then if the sacrifice is accepted, the High priest comes out and declares it to the people. Without even saying so, for the very fact that he comes out alive is already a good sign. Jesus in the same token had to do same to COMPLETE THE SACRIFICE for he wasn't done when Mary saw him. He took his blood into the tabernacle in heaven and into the mercy seat and did as was necessary. Hebrews 9 said it emphatically. So take your wild allegations accusation to the author of Hebrews 9- the HOLY SPIRIT.

You are straining imagery my broda
First, blood represents life. Blood offered and sprinkled on the ark was that of a DEAD animal. Jesus alive in heaven sprinkling his blood is not offering his life in ANY way yet atonement DEMANDED life of an animal.
Secondly, the resurrected Christ had a glorified body. What was there to atone from his resurrected body? What blood did he offer?

3. Adding to scriptures? Hahahahaha. Please read Hebrews 9 and let us see who is adding to what. I am taking the verses at face value. You on the other hand, wished that book wasn't in the bible to begin with.

You are adding. You are saying the resurrected Christ took his own blood from wherever to heaven. Where is that stated?

4. He didn't take sins anywhere man. He destroyed sin on the cross but that was not the end because he only took away the PUNISHMENT FOR SIN here. He needed to paralyze the one that brought sin. He also had to wash away the nature and guilt associated with sin. Last and not least he had to remove the record of sin which could ONLY BE DONE BY BLOOD. That is why he went to the main Holy place- the one in heaven.

Blood of Jesus means life of Christ my broda, not literal blood. When the scriptures say without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, it means without DEATH

- he took his blood, the divine one, the one spilled at calvary but not totally drained from his body. That was the blood he took.

Bro, this is the resurrected Christ in a glorified body not a revived corpse. Did he slash his wrists in heaven?

vooks:

My broda,
Leviticus 16 talks of multiple washings and all that. Am still waiting for the portion that says the High Priest should touch nobody.
Haggai 2:13-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 Then Haggai said, “If one who is unclean from a [a]corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean?” And the priests answered, “It will become unclean.” 14 Then Haggai said, “‘So is this people. And so is this nation before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.
Note the illustration given that makes the clean Levitical elements unclean are the same things a High Priest was to avoid; corpses of even close relation. A High Priest is unclean if he touches a corpse.Besides, Haggai says ALL people not just the laity. ALL includes the priests and that's why they couldn't offer acceptable sacrifices. Mary was not a corpse. Get other verses to prop your theory my broda
First, you have no proof she never touched him apart from imagining that.
Secondly,think through. Shortly thereafter, he met the women who came to the tomb with Mary in Matthew 28 and allowed them to touch him. And note Mary got to the tomb, finds it opened, rushes back,gets Peter and John who rush to the tomb and find it empty. All this while Jesus is resurrected but not in the tomb. Mary is then left there and Jesus appears to her. Why couldn't he rush and atone and then come back all this time and allow all to kiss his feet?
Jesus did not ascend to offer blood in heaven. Blood represents his life which he had duly laid down and taken back by Sunday morning
None of your scriptures come close to supporting your claim, none talk of a High Priest who was untouchable during Atonement. The link regurgitated what you are saying. That is not scholarly in any way.
You are stretching Hebrews imagery beyond Holy Spirit and that is why I asked you. What/where is the Holy Place in Christ atonement? What/where is the tabernacle of congregation?
Your question is moot.

1. AND SO IS EVERY WORK OF THEIR HANDS AND WHAT THEY OFFER THERE IS UNCLEAN. If they are unclean why will he let them touch him? Won't it make him unclean?

2. You are confusing yourself by not merging accounts. I have said so before. Read Mark 16:9, Jesus met with Mary Magdalene ALONE first. That is what John 20:17 corroborated. The way it actually happened is merged by all accounts. First of Mary Magdalene, Salome and co went to the sepulchre Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24. They didn't see his body but instead saw an Angel who told them he had arisen. They partially believed so they went their way to tell his disciples. Mary told Peter and John. John outran Peter but stopped at the entrance while Peter entered and didn't see the body. After much ado Peter and John left but Mary stayed put still sobbing. Jesus then appeared to her and told her what he told her I.e that he was ascending, don't touch me etc. So she went back to Peter and co and told them what he said. The and co included Salome (the one who accompanied her to his grave). Now shortly after Jesus appears to her and Salome together then they bowed and kissed his feet. This time he allowed them obviously because he had completed the sacrifice. We know this because he said ALL HAIL which means HAIL ME (for I have done something big). And also because he told the women to tell his disciples that he would meet them at Galilee. That was when he appeared inside the room in the evening. This meeting with Mary and Salome in Matthews 28 isn't the same with John 20 because in John 20 he told MARY not them..that he was ascending and not that he would see his disciples in Galilee.

Please learn to merge accounts.

3. The point about blood and life is trash sir. The spirit is also life. Why didn't he take his spirit too? Please stick to the scriptures. Hebrews 9:12, 14, 18, 25. They are clear. Throw everything else away. Please.

4. No link ever said ANY HIGH PRIEST WAS TOUCHED. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

5. The lamb is slain at the door of the Tabernacle. Not inside. The blood is then taken through the first veil into the second which is called the Holy of Holies. Jesus was slain on earth. It represents the door of the tabernacle. Then he took his blood into the Holy of Holies in Heaven. The bible said so. I don't know how to argue with clear scriptures. That seems to be your forte. Unenviably so I must add.

Hebrews 9:11-12, 14, 23-25, 28 KJV

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; 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. 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? 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. 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: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I don't know how to argue with clear scriptures or to respond to questions about arteries or veins. All these are absurd. Blood is blood.

vooks:

Can you share ANY commentary that supports you? It is sad for those who subscribe to double ascenscion theories without proof and who insist Christ work at Calvary was not finished and they can't explain what was sprinkled in heaven. Did he cut his arteries?


Jesus told Mary not to touch and he explained why. None of that tells us that she had (not) touched him. So simple

You are straining imagery my broda
First, blood represents life. Blood offered and sprinkled on the ark was that of a DEAD animal. Jesus alive in heaven sprinkling his blood is not offering his life in ANY way yet atonement DEMANDED life of an animal.
Secondly, the resurrected Christ had a glorified body. What was there to atone from his resurrected body? What blood did he offer?


You are adding. You are saying the resurrected Christ took his own blood from wherever to heaven. Where is that stated?


Blood of Jesus means life of Christ my broda, not literal blood. When the scriptures say without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, it means without DEATH


Bro, this is the resurrected Christ in a glorified body not a revived corpse. Did he slash his wrists in heaven?

Which of these verses tell you Christ carried blood into heaven?

They are not absurd. A glorified body has no blood to offer my broda. Think through that prayerfully in your free time

mbaemeka:
Hebrews 9:11-12, 14, 23-25, 28 KJV

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; 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. 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? 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. 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: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I don't know how to argue with clear scriptures or to respond to questions about arteries or veins. All these are absurd. Blood is blood.

mbaemeka:


1. AND SO IS EVERY WORK OF THEIR HANDS AND WHAT THEY OFFER THERE IS UNCLEAN. If they are unclean why will he let them touch him? Won't it make him unclean?

The words were issued by a prophet against Israel. The Priests were part of the problem

2. You are confusing yourself by not merging accounts. I have said so before. Read Mark 16:9, Jesus met with Mary Magdalene ALONE first. That is what John 20:17 corroborated. The way it actually happened is merged by all accounts. First of Mary Magdalene, Salome and co went to the sepulchre Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24. They didn't see his body but instead saw an Angel who told them he had arisen. They partially believed so they went their way to tell his disciples. Mary told Peter and John. John outran Peter but stopped at the entrance while Peter entered and didn't see the body. After much ado Peter and John left but Mary stayed put still sobbing. Jesus then appeared to her and told her what he told her I.e that he was ascending, don't touch me etc. So she went back to Peter and co and told them what he said. The and co included Salome (the one who accompanied her to his grave). Now shortly after Jesus appears to her and Salome together then they bowed and kissed his feet. This time he allowed them obviously because he had completed the sacrifice. We know this because he said ALL HAIL which means HAIL ME (for I have done something big). And also because he told the women to tell his disciples that he would meet them at Galilee. That was when he appeared inside the room in the evening. This meeting with Mary and Salome in Matthews 28 isn't the same with John 20 because in John 20 he told MARY not them..that he was ascending and not that he would see his disciples in Galilee.

Read Matthew account. Jesus met the women on their way to Galilee from the grave that very morning
Please learn to merge accounts.

3. The point about blood and life is trash sir. The spirit is also life. Why didn't he take his spirit too? Please stick to the scriptures. Hebrews 9:12, 14, 18, 25. They are clear. Throw everything else away. Please.

There is no verse that says took his blood to heaven. Quote it

4. No link ever said ANY HIGH PRIEST WAS TOUCHED. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

neither is there any link or more importantly verse that says they were not

5. The lamb is slain at the door of the Tabernacle. Not inside. The blood is then taken through the first veil into the second which is called the Holy of Holies. Jesus was slain on earth. It represents the door of the tabernacle. Then he took his blood into the Holy of Holies in Heaven. The bible said so. I don't know how to argue with clear scriptures. That seems to be your forte. Unenviably so I must add.

So what/where is the tabernacle? earth or heaven? Not a single verse tells you of Jesus trip to heaven. Where is it?

Hebrews 9:12 KJV

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.

vooks:
Which of these verses tell you Christ carried blood into heaven?
They are not absurd. A glorified body has no blood to offer my broda. Think through that prayerfully in your free time

Please think through these things yourself too by praying about it. Will a glorified body have injuries? Why did Christs body maintain the injuries?

vooks:


The words were issued by a prophet against Israel. The Priests were part of the problem

Read Matthew account. Jesus met the women on their way to Galilee from the grave that very morning
Please learn to merge accounts.


There is no verse that says took his blood to heaven. Quote it


neither is there any link or more importantly verse that says they were not

So what/where is the tabernacle? earth or heaven? Not a single verse tells you of Jesus trip to heaven. Where is it?

1. OMG what is he saying about Priests again? Have I ever said any priest was inherently clean? Even the high priest was unclean but he wore a holy garment and he sacrificed a goat for himself and this was enough to keep him clean before he sacrificed a bull for others. While at it, NONE OF THE OTHERS was allowed to contaminate him.

2. Your statement on Matthews account magnifies your obduracy. Matthew did not mention that Jesus saw Mary Magdalene ALONE, When Salome, Peter and co had left her. This was before she met with Salome again when he reappeared to her. If you can't merge the accounts then we can say that either Matthews account is wrong or Mark and John are wrong. Mark 16:9 said he appeared to Mary of Magdala FIRST.

3. Hebrews 9:12 says so. Tell the Holy spirit that he doesn't know how to express himself.

4. Links and verses have shown they couldn't be touched. You can ask your beloved commentaries. Let us see them.

5. The Tabernacle Jesus entered is in heaven. The one not made with human hands. Hebrews 9.

I will not tire to show you.