How the Passover celebrated in 31 A.D. coincided with a Gregorian Wed ( death of Christ ), Thursday and Friday...
...That is the primary question & given it's the fundamental peg holding the prophetic schema together.
Christ didn't die on a wednesday. Of course, that's not up for debate in this thread.
__________________
Isa 24:4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover." Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)
In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.
Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38. If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?
They will hold onto any translation that suits them, no matter how unlikely or flawed. They can't give any ground or their house of cards may collapse.
Very interesting discussion. I hope you have some more good questions.
While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover." Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:
Totally true. I wasn't necessarily relying on the translation of the KJV so to say. I looked up the word which was translated as Holy Place. This is why I know that the translation in the NKJV is incorrect. The word "Hagion" is used to describe the Holy Place. The phrase Hagia Hagion (sp?) is used to describe the Most Holy place.
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)
In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.
Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38.
I found my answers to your questions during my studies. This is from a book named The Path to the Throne of God
Do you ask how it is that God's throne at this time appears in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary instead of in the most holy place, as symbolized in the earthly sanctuary? Being only a type, the earthly could not fully represent the heavenly because its parts,...had no inherent power, while their antitypes in the heavenly sanctuary are full of life and activity. God's throne...is a living moving throne...
If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?
That was a symbol showing that the earthly sanctuary, along with its services had ceased:
Daniel 9:7 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
__________________
Isa 24:4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
They will hold onto any translation that suits them, no matter how unlikely or flawed. They can't give any ground or their house of cards may collapse.
Very interesting discussion. I hope you have some more good questions.
How do you figure it's a house of cards? Is it because many people do not believe the same as we do? The explanations have been given but they have not been received. It's like the old saying - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
What I fail to understand is why this is even a point of contention. The majority of what people think this doctrine teaches is incorrect, and when proper answers are given to explain accepted errors, they are shot down.
My feeling, is that many do not like the doctrine because it reveals the eternal nature of God's law, including His ten commandments.
__________________
Isa 24:4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
There is no biblical basis for the Sanctuary Message. This came about as a result of a failed prophecy. Matthew 24:36 states no one not even the angels of heaven knows when Christ would return. I am sure that scripture was in the same bible that the early Adventists had including E.G. White. It is time for us to focus on Jesus, we know three things about him.
(i) He was born
(ii) He was resurrected
(iii) He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lord
The sanctuary doctrine is all about Jesus. You miss out on that, you miss out on understanding much.
__________________
Isa 24:4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Christ didn't die on a wednesday. Of course, that's not up for debate in this thread.
All I'm saying is that IF an apologist for the SDA Church had a formal debate...
...On the rubrics of Adventisms prophetic schema leading up to 22 October.
...The fact that Passover in 31 A.D. didn't fall on a Friday would be the first thing mentioned.
The text in the book of Hebrews isn't referring to a compartment, but to the sanctuary as a whole. The NKJV translation is incorrect. The proper translation states that Christ entered into the holy place. Not the most Holy Place.
I think the biggest issue here is a misunderstanding of sanctuary and how it relates to Christ's work.
so the translation is incorrect? huh? are you able to prove that? or is your assessment based on hearsay?
All I'm saying is that IF an apologist for the SDA Church had a formal debate...
...On the rubrics of Adventisms prophetic schema leading up to 22 October.
...The fact that Passover in 31 A.D. didn't fall on a Friday would be the first thing mentioned.
Couldn't say. All I'm saying is that there are more than enough resources explaining this subject. If one wants to know, the answer is at their fingertips. If they want to debate, than that's another subject altogether.
__________________
Isa 24:4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
so the translation is incorrect? huh? are you able to prove that? or is your assessment based on hearsay?
"The author of the Book of Hebrews however, was very consistent in its use. In fact, the author (of Hebrews) defines its use in the first three verses of Hebrews chapter 9. He used 'hagion' to mean the entire two apartment sanctuary {9:1}, he used 'hagia' to define 'holy place' {9:2} and he used 'hagia hagion' to define the 'holiest' or "Most Holy Place' {9:3}. He was consistent. When he meant to use 'hagia' he used 'hagia'. When he meant to use 'hagia hagion', he used 'hagia hagion', etc."
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place (hagion), having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places (hagion) made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
There's two issues here: First is of course, making sure we use the correct translation. The second issue however is trying to use Hebrews to support an issue that it's not addressing. The author of Hebrews isn't trying to establish where Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary, but rather that Christ is indeed in the Heavenly sanctuary, as our new High Priest. The book of Hebrews is about establishing authority, not location.
__________________
Isa 24:4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Totally true. I wasn't necessarily relying on the translation of the KJV so to say. I looked up the word which was translated as Holy Place. This is why I know that the translation in the NKJV is incorrect. The word "Hagion" is used to describe the Holy Place. The phrase Hagia Hagion (sp?) is used to describe the Most Holy place.
Good point! But there seems to be a problem: in the KJV with Strong’s, G39 (hagion) appears in Hebrews 9:3 for the expression, “Holiest of all,” while hagion also appears in Hebrews 9:24 for “holy places,” and in 9:25 for "holy place" How do you explain this apparent contradiction? And where do you see "Hagia Hagion"?
Originally Posted by Stryder06
That was a symbol showing that the earthly sanctuary, along with its services had ceased: Daniel 9:7 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
Indeed! But it also indicates that Christ has removed the barrier that separated us from God.
“Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6 NASB)
“Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.” (Hebrews 7:25-28 NASB)
Regarding what you said about what you learned from the book: The Path to the Throne of God, where it is said that God's throne moved from the Most Holy place to the holy place, that is an interesting theory, but there is nothing to back it up from Scripture. Yet, Scripture indicates that Christ entered the Holiest place (within the veil and in the presence of God):
"so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:18-20 NASB)
"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" (Hebrews 9:24 NASB)
These passages appear to show that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies. Therefore, we have this hope of being able to go before the throne of grace because Christ has entered for us. And when we go to that place, we go there clothed in Christ’s righteousness, not to be condemned, but to receive mercy, because He paid the penalty for our sins" (see Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, Gal. 2:20, and Rom. 8:1).
Last edited by cesty; 14th April 2012 at 07:49 PM.
Linear Mode
