How do you understand atonement

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Actually 1:3 says He already made purification.

Heb 1:3 b After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

That there refers to the sacrifice.

Moreover, the entrance into God's presence in the Day of Atonement to present the blood is what happened in the sanctuary. And it is that portion, the portion in the sanctuary, that Adventists say is fulfilled by the IJ. Adventists have invented some work of the priest in the sanctuary investigating. It is not there. He presented blood in God's presence. That is what Jesus did as well.

The blood presented in the sanctuary, both the HP and MHP was used to clean the sanctuary of the sins of the people. And that was only the first part. The sanctuary wasn't cleansed until the sins were removed. That was the process. At what point have the sins been removed?

There is nothing in Leviticus that shows the priest investigating books, or investigating blood in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. You have substituted a totally different thing than what the text says. The text says presentation of blood for atonement.

It was a shadow. The high priest on earth was an example in part of our High Priest in heaven. We received a glimpse of that heavenly work through the earthly pattern. Not the full thing.

He presents blood before God. That is what Jesus did. That is the portion IN the sanctuary.

We don't disagree that Jesus entered into the sanctuary. Do you think Jesus literally sprinkled His blood in the sanctuary in heaven? Prey tell how did it get there? Who collected it when He was killed? Surely you must agree that the act on earth was symbolic of something that would occur in heaven.

Also, the atonement for the holy place (and the people, and himself) and the altar, all happened before the scapegoat.

Lev 16 shows that a final sacrifice was made once the scapegoat was removed carrying the sins of the people. The text says that the final sacrifice was for the people and the priest for atonement.

Now did the scapegoat still play a role? Yes, but it is not in the sanctuary, which is what Adventists apply to the IJ.

What do you mean it didn't play a role in the sanctuary? So all the sacfifices played a role in the cleansing of the sanctuary but the scapegoat didn't? That doesn't make sense. If it wasn't part of the process, it wouldn't have been needed.

If you go just by the type, the scapegoat would happen when He leaves the sanctuary. However, I don't intend to try and interpret what the NT does not interpret regarding the scapegoat. However, the portion that happens in the sanctuary already happened. And that was presentation of blood in the presence of God.

Yes, the scapegoat happens when He leaves the sanctuary. When that occurs the sins that are polluting the sanctuary will be removed thus cleansing it. Again, you can't take part of the process that suits you and leave the rest of it out. Also, Hebrews isn't trying to interpret the day of atonement service. It's simply trying to prove to the Jewish reader that Christ is now our Great High Priest. The old system of sacrifices was no more, and their focus needed to switch to the new one.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So looking at evidence against your position would be too complicated? I guess things are simple that way, but that is not examining all the evidence.

You're probably not going to like this, but I have had enough evidence from God that what we teach and believe is true. I fully believe in the ministry of Sr White, and I have no qualms about not entertaining "all the evidence". That sir, is how men's minds get lead astray. The devil knows how to spin scripture better than any man, and I have no interest in opening myself up to being deceived.


Stryder, what are these verses talking about? There are two services referenced.

Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Heb 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you."
Heb 9:21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.


And:

Heb 10:20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

The word dedicated here is ενεκαινισεν, egkainizō
eng-kahee-nid'-zo
From G1456; to renew, that is, inaugurate: - consecrate, dedicate.

Vs 15-21: Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. Just as the old covenant was sealed with blood, so was the new covenant sealed with His blood. Just as the earthly vessels were cleansed by blood, so too the heavenly ones are cleansed by His sacrifice.

Heb 10:20: Christ made a way for us into the Father's presence (i.e the sanctuary) through His sacrifice.

The inauguration was the service that was done before the temple was used.

Ok. And what does that have to do with the day of atonment?
 
Upvote 0
Apr 30, 2013
2
0
✟7,612.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The word translated 'ATONEMENT' actually means "to COVER". In the Old Testament, and
under the Mosaic Law sins of the people were 'atoned' or, covered by animal sacrifice.
Now that Christ has fulfilled the Law and become the 'Once-for all-time' sacrifice, our
sin is not merely 'covered', it is forgiven.
 
Upvote 0

Going Merry

‏‏‏‏ ‏‏‏‏
Mar 14, 2012
12,253
992
✟16,924.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I view atonement according to the law of God, that Christ Jesus came to fulfill. This is why John, a descendant of Aaron was specially selected for his ministry of baptism and the baptism of the Lord. All sacrifices has to be without blemish. All sacrifices has to have a high priest to pass sin to the sacrifice by laying of hands (which the baptism manifests as). All sacrifices must be bled to death to atone for said sin.

So I understand atonement that Christ Jesus took up all of my sin that I have ever done at his baptism. All my future sin too. All of my present sin, all of my past. Not only my sin but this also includes the whole world. So I believe all sin was placed on the Lord Jesus at his baptism in the Jordan. (the river of death, hehe) Then he went into the wilderness right afterwards, much how after the highpriest passes sin to the scapegoat in the law they would release the animal into the wilderness. Then Christ carried all of our sin 2000 years ago. So he had to die, because he was carrying all judgment on himself. Then He was crucified, while still being pure, yet having the guilt of every sin of the whole worlds sin. So he crucified all sin away once and for all through his blood. Making the world sinless from then on. That is why I say I am sinless, because I believe in his atonement like that. Even though we have to repent and believe to receive his gift. Even though sin is still done, those sins judgment were taken away by Christ.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,160
1,805
✟794,653.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
[/size][/font]

Please for give me, but I really didn't know how best to answer your questions which is why I made the response that did. Was hoping that it would give you a general idea of what I thought about your response.
Most of the questions are virtually rhetorical, but you do need to address them since they lead to a conclusion.

Yes actually. Considering that He is all powerful and all knowing. It lends on to think that Christ going to the cross was the only solution that could be implemented to solve the problem of sin.


“the problem of sin” is not God’s problem with sin, but a problem for man, which man’s sins created. God would not have a “problem” forgiving sins, but like with any wonderful parent that has a rebellious disobedient child, the opportunity created by the transgression includes more than just the parent’s forgiveness, so the relationship will end up stronger.

Christ going to the cross provides man with a way to strength the relationship with God/Christ, if man ceases the opportunity.


According to modern protestantism, yes. According to scripture, no.
The Law is perfect and wonderful, so God is not trying to correct anything with the Law by having Christ go to the cross.

Yes. Man couldn't save himself. God's dilema was either to save man or wipe him out. He choose to solve dilema A.


If it is “God’s problem to either save man or wipe man out”, is God not powerful and Loving enough to do this without Christ going to the cross?

Where people “forgiven” and not saved before Christ went to the cross?

Why did God have to torture, humiliate and murder Christ and not just take Christ life in a painless easy death?


We are not God. We may learn lessons from parenting, but we in no way can compare any parental act to God's act of solving the sin problem. It's simply not possible.
I am not the first one to teach others to think of God as our Wonderful Father (parent).

The point is a wonderful loving parent has no problem forgiving their children, but that does not end their responsibility in the situation and would not end God’s responsibility in the situation. They (and God) still have the responsibility to seeing to the disciplining (if it is at all fairly possible) of their rebellious disobedient children, and would never punish an innocent child for the transgressions of the guilty child (that could be counterproductive).



I didn't say the act of what man did to God was fair. I said that God himself is fair by saving man through the life and death of Christ. The way Christ was treated went to show how disgusting sin is, and will ultimately juistify God in how He ends it.
How is it “fair” for God to not see to the punishment of some of His children and yet punish other disobedient children that did the same thing?

If you let those children off the hock that ask for forgiveness, how will that help prevent them from doing the same thing? Are we not told one of the ways you know you are a child is by the fact you are being disciplined, so is the undisciplined a child of God?

Heb. 12:
6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”


7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That there refers to the sacrifice.

The sacrifice alone did not make purification. I thought you were wanting to go by the pattern? Moreover, the participle shows it was completed before sitting at God's right hand, focusing on the sanctuary portion.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The blood presented in the sanctuary, both the HP and MHP was used to clean the sanctuary of the sins of the people. And that was only the first part. The sanctuary wasn't cleansed until the sins were removed. That was the process. At what point have the sins been removed?

The text I posted shows in fact atonement was made by the blood in the sanctuary.

However, you have a larger problem. The Adventist church holds that something happened in the sanctuary. But it does not match the type you keep speaking of, or the fulfillment in Hebrews.

In the sanctuary there was no investigation of blood or books. There was entry into God's presence and presentation of blood.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tall73 said:
There is nothing in Leviticus that shows the priest investigating books, or investigating blood in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. You have substituted a totally different thing than what the text says. The text says presentation of blood for atonement.
It was a shadow. The high priest on earth was an example in part of our High Priest in heaven. We received a glimpse of that heavenly work through the earthly pattern. Not the full thing.

Now you are arguing against your earlier point of going with the pattern, even after Hebrews described the fulfillment.

The problem for you is BOTH the pattern and fulfillment agree on this point. There was

-death
-entry into God's presence
-presentation of blood for cleansing.


Neither in the type or in the fulfillment in Hebrews do we see this notion of investigating. The priest did not investigate the blood, he applied the blood for atonement.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We don't disagree that Jesus entered into the sanctuary. Do you think Jesus literally sprinkled His blood in the sanctuary in heaven? Prey tell how did it get there? Who collected it when He was killed? Surely you must agree that the act on earth was symbolic of something that would occur in heaven.

Jesus presented HIMSELF, the completed sacrifice, in God's presence. He is the sacrifice and He presents His completed work.

It is symbolic, and the fulfillment is spelled out. Death, entry, presentation before God, described in comparison to the high priest on the day of atonement entering with blood yearly.

The fulfillment is spelled out. There is nothing about investigating in the type or fulfillment. Jesus presented His blood for atonement for all, just as the high priest brought blood for atonement for the whole camp.

Moreover, the word that the author uses for the blood presentation in the description of the type, is the same word used for Jesus presenting Himself in God's presence in 9:25.

This was noted by Adventist scholar Felix Cortez in a footnote on page 25 of his recent dissertation The Anchor of the Soul that Enters 'Within the Veil': The Ascension of the 'Son' in the Letter to the Hebrews:

Interestingly, Hebrews departs from the language of the LXX to describe the manipulation of blood by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement: the blood is not “sprinkled” on the sanctuary but “offered” (9:7).



The same word for offered appears in both to represent the blood work:

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,


The under lying Greek term is the same in both. The author is showing the type and the fulfillment.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Tall73 said:
Lev 16 shows that a final sacrifice was made once the scapegoat was removed carrying the sins of the people. The text says that the final sacrifice was for the people and the priest for atonement.

Lev 16 shows that a final sacrifice was made once the scapegoat was removed carrying the sins of the people. The text says that the final sacrifice was for the people and the priest for atonement.




Stryder, first of all the text I mentioned does in fact say the work in the sanctuary is making atonement.

However, let's take your argument for a second about the last burnt offering.

Lev 16:24 And he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place and put on his garments and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people.


When do you propose Jesus fulfilled THAT sacrifice?

Is He going to die again at the end of time?

His one sacrifice of Himself already fulfilled all those sacrifices.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tall73 said:
Now did the scapegoat still play a role? Yes, but it is not in the sanctuary, which is what Adventists apply to the IJ.


What do you mean it didn't play a role in the sanctuary? So all the sacfifices played a role in the cleansing of the sanctuary but the scapegoat didn't? That doesn't make sense. If it wasn't part of the process, it wouldn't have been needed.


You did not understand.

The scapegoat portion of the service did not happen inside the sanctuary. It happened outside the sanctuary.

The part Adventists focus on in the IJ happens inside. But that part was already fulfilled.

And neither the type nor the fulfillment in Hebrews mention anything about investigating books .
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the scapegoat happens when He leaves the sanctuary. When that occurs the sins that are polluting the sanctuary will be removed thus cleansing it.

Lev 16:20 "And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat.


Stryder the focus for Adventists is the IJ, which happens in the sanctuary. And you don't find it described at all in the Day of Atonement service. No priest on the DOA examined things inside the sanctuary. Rather the high priest applied blood for atonement for all the camp.

That was the fulfillment in Hebrews as well, death, entry into God's presence and purification.



Also, Hebrews isn't trying to interpret the day of atonement service.
Stryder, if it references the type, then shows how He entered into God's presence to offer Himself, in the middle of a discussion of the anti-typical fulfillment of the cleansing of the heavenly things, in comparison to the entry of the high priest on day of atonement yearly with blood, using the same word for Christ presenting Himself as was used of the blood ministration in vs 7........ how is that not discussing the fulfillment?

And of course Hebrews 1:3 references making purification of sins before sitting down.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're probably not going to like this, but I have had enough evidence from God that what we teach and believe is true. I fully believe in the ministry of Sr White, and I have no qualms about not entertaining "all the evidence". That sir, is how men's minds get lead astray. The devil knows how to spin scripture better than any man, and I have no interest in opening myself up to being deceived.

So you are contending that if you look at the Bible's discussion of the inauguration of the sanctuary by Christ you may become deceived?

And therefore you justify coming to a conclusion without looking at all the biblical evidence.

HOWEVER, you are fine with taking Ellen White's word on it.

Your choice. However, do you expect that the people posting in GT who do not accept your view of Ellen White will be convinced by this? What do you have to offer those who think the Bible should be the thing that tests doctrine?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Vs 15-21: Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. Just as the old covenant was sealed with blood, so was the new covenant sealed with His blood. Just as the earthly vessels were cleansed by blood, so too the heavenly ones are cleansed by His sacrifice.

So do you agree here that the two services referenced are the ratification of the covenant, and then the inauguration of the sanctuary? (these were separate)


Heb 10:20: Christ made a way for us into the Father's presence (i.e the sanctuary) through His sacrifice.
The term used is dedication/inauguration by the way.


So do you agree Jesus inaugurated the sanctuary for service at His ascension?
 
Upvote 0

Cribstyl

Veteran
Jun 13, 2006
8,989
2,067
✟97,528.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Crib, the earthly was patterened after the heavenly. Of course the Heavenly is better, but it also can be properly understood thanks to that which God gave to Moses. We can't make up what we think atonment is when God already showed us what it is and what it involves through types.
:hypno: Stryder, stop leading and following blindly. It's commentary that leads you to believe that the heavenly sacrifices are patterned after the earthly sacrifices.
The OT makes it clear that the:cleansing, animals and bloods was not the pattern of heavenly things. What was the pattern is the tabernacle (tent) and instruments (furniture).

Exd 25:9According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make [it].

The scriptures makes it clear that the cleansing and sacrifices was to serve as a witness against the people not as a pattern of heavenly things.
Jos 22:28Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should [so] say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say [again], Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it [is] a witness between us and you.

Stryder, the book of Hebrews reenforces the truth by saying: The sacrifices and cleansings was imposed on them until a time. (This reveals that the sacrifes was not a pattern of the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrew go on to say that blood of goats, bulls and cleansing is not offered or acceptable in the heavenly.

Stryder, how can the earthly sacrifice be a pattern if it's not used or mention in the heavenly sanctuary?


Hbr 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:
Hbr 9:9 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;
Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
Hbr 9:11¶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;
Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Paul is making it clear that these sacrifices was a pattern for the specified time only and not for time to come.
SDA have to teach their santuary doctrine by misapplying the scriptures.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You did not understand.

The scapegoat portion of the service did not happen inside the sanctuary. It happened outside the sanctuary.

Yes, but it was still part of the service. And what the priest didn't do once he finsihed in the sanctuary was doddle around. He sprinkled the blood and immediately left taking with him the sins that had polluted it all year long. That was how it was cleansed. That seems to be the part you're missing.

The part Adventists focus on in the IJ happens inside. But that part was already fulfilled.

Not.

And neither the type nor the fulfillment in Hebrews mention anything about investigating books .

Hebrews isn't it's fulfillment. It makes parallels as much as necessary for the people it was directed to at that time. And the portion of Christ investigating the books, so to speak, happens in the MHP. Considering He wasn't there yet, that could very well be what it wasn't mentioned in Hebrews. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
:hypno: Stryder, stop leading and following blindly. It's commentary that leads you to believe that the heavenly sacrifices are patterned after the earthly sacrifices.
The OT makes it clear that the:cleansing, animals and bloods was not the pattern of heavenly things. What was the pattern is the tabernacle (tent) and instruments (furniture).

Exd 25:9According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make [it].

The scriptures makes it clear that the cleansing and sacrifices was to serve as a witness against the people not as a pattern of heavenly things.
Jos 22:28Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should [so] say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say [again], Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it [is] a witness between us and you.

Stryder, the book of Hebrews reenforces the truth by saying: The sacrifices and cleansings was imposed on them until a time. (This reveals that the sacrifes was not a pattern of the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrew go on to say that blood of goats, bulls and cleansing is not offered or acceptable in the heavenly.

Stryder, how can the earthly sacrifice be a pattern if it's not used or mention in the heavenly sanctuary?


Hbr 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:
Hbr 9:9 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;
Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
Hbr 9:11¶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;
Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Paul is making it clear that these sacrifices was a pattern for the specified time only and not for time to come.
SDA have to teach their santuary doctrine by misapplying the scriptures.

The service in it's entirety was patterned after the heavenly. I don't need commentary to know that. I knew that before I read anything from Sr white. A very wise elder from my church who's life study has been the sanctuary taught me that.

That which happened on earth was a shadow. A type. It wasn't a direct correlation, but an example to help us understand, as much as possible, the sacrifice and work that was to be completed on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Stryder, first of all the text I mentioned does in fact say the work in the sanctuary is making atonement.

However, let's take your argument for a second about the last burnt offering.

Lev 16:24 And he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place and put on his garments and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people.


When do you propose Jesus fulfilled THAT sacrifice?

Is He going to die again at the end of time?

His one sacrifice of Himself already fulfilled all those sacrifices.

Don't be silly. Of course He's not going to die again. I'm actually still looking into that. I'm not willing to ignore that text simply because I don't have an answer.

What I know is that Christ didn't have to make atonement for Himself. So just as the sacrifice of the bull didn't apply to Him, neither does this. However, it does say that this final sacrifice made atonement for the priest and the people.

My concern isn't so much as to how this applies to Christ, but as to how it applies to the people. Right now, I'm wondering if it is symbolic of the final destruction of the wicked.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟31,839.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So you are contending that if you look at the Bible's discussion of the inauguration of the sanctuary by Christ you may become deceived?

Not at all. I'm contending that I like to keep it simple. I won't say understaning the inauguration isn't important. Just that I haven't gotten to that part yet, and I'm not particulally interested in discussing it with you. No offense.

And therefore you justify coming to a conclusion without looking at all the biblical evidence.

Not at all. I've come to my conclusion by looking at the sanctuary and seeing the parallels there. That's all the biblical evidence I need. Mix in the whole 2300 days thing, and I'm good :cool:

HOWEVER, you are fine with taking Ellen White's word on it.

Oh don't sound so surprised. I have no reason to take your word over it, when I see the things she said coming to pass.

Your choice. However, do you expect that the people posting in GT who do not accept your view of Ellen White will be convinced by this? What do you have to offer those who think the Bible should be the thing that tests doctrine?

Not my concern. This isn't an intellecutal matter that can simply be solved by providing "cold hard facts". This is a spiritual war that is being waged. The only thing I can do is provide the information that I have and leave it in God's hands. Those who will respond shall respond. Whether it's now or next year is not for me to say, or to concern myself with. What I do know is that we are fast approaching the close of probation (bet you haven't heard that in a while ;)) and all of God's children are being called out of Babylon. Those who are His shall hear, and shall leave and take their stand with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cribstyl

Veteran
Jun 13, 2006
8,989
2,067
✟97,528.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The service in it's entirety was patterned after the heavenly. I don't need commentary to know that. I knew that before I read anything from Sr white. A very wise elder from my church who's life study has been the sanctuary taught me that.

That which happened on earth was a shadow. A type. It wasn't a direct correlation, but an example to help us understand, as much as possible, the sacrifice and work that was to be completed on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins.
Those comments above in pink dont qualify as scriptures. Prove them Stryder?
Do you have any scripture to show that the sacrifice and services was a pattern of heavenly things?
The scriptures does teach us that the sanctuary and furniture are a pattern of the heavenly, but you're rambling on about the services being a heavenly pattern. There is a fine line between truth and error. Hebrews explain that those services in Lev was required under the first covenant. And the new covenant have better things. No bulls, no goats. Hbr 9:23

Hbr 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Hebrews 9 teaches that the services was a pattern for the time then present not for now and furture in the heavenly sanctuary. It was imposed until time of reformation.


Hbr 9:9Which [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;
Hbr 9:10[Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0