The Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgement.

reddogs said:

Then why do you have to confess to priests, or have a 'god on earth' and 'infallible' as the magistrate claims.

Click to expand...

I did previously tell you that i was Orthodox and not Roman Catholic, did I not?

So why are you asking me about Roman Catholicism?

Although I would note they deny that the Pope is a “God on Earth,” they do believe he is “Vicar of Christ” and since the First Vatican Council in the 19th century have taught infallibility, but we Orthodox had had no communion with the Roman Catholic Church for over 900 years by the time of that council.

Of course in the past I seem to recall you making the claim that my denomination either did not exist historically or does not exist at present, but I can assure you we did and we do and at no time did we acknowledge the Pope as being the supreme bishop, indeed it was over that issue specifically that the Great Schism started, in 1054 (following a prior schism when the RCC added the word “filioque” to the Creed in violation of the canons of the Council of Ephesus, which was ended when they resolved to remove it; they then changed their mind but the Orthodox bishops at the time did not press the issue). Of course what actually cemented the creed was the mass murder of Orthodox Christians during the Crusades, especially the Fourth Crusade, and in subsequent events such as the martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut by the Spanish colonial government and the Franciscans of the California missions.

Now, that being said the Church of Rome apologized to us for this and we forgive them, and have also returned some Orthodox relics such as those of the Three Holy Hierarchs which were expropriated (however we still have not received the entire relics of St. Nicholas or St. Mark the Evangelist which were taken from Myra and Alexandria respectively and are now in Bari and Venice).

Part of my frustration with the historical narrative of your church is that it ignores those ancient Christians such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East who were actually persecuted by the Church of Rome and instead focuses on non-Christian groups.

reddogs said:

Yes, but you use their synods,

Click to expand...

No we don’t - the synods were ecumenical, except for the Second Council of Constantinople.

traditions,

Click to expand...

Nope.

rituals,

Click to expand...

Also nope.

... So not much to separate like two sides of the coin. Maybe icons instead of idols... maybe you can elaborate and edify us.

Click to expand...

I’ve got a better idea - you clarify that you did not just accuse my denomination of idolatry and desist from further flaming and goading.

If you have an actual interest in learning about the very substantial difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia is generally a good place to start.

Among Western churches, the Anglicans, Confessional Lutherans and Old Catholics are closer to us due to having adopted some of our prayers and due to a lack of a doctrine of Papal Supremacy which the Orthodox never accepted (indeed a predominantly Greek Orthodox council deposed Pope Honorius I, but the RCC accepted it; at one time a state of unity existed between the Orthodox and the Catholics but all of the aspects of the Roman church that the original Protestants such as St. Jan Hus (Venerated by the Eastern Orthodox as a hieromartyr), John Calvin (definitely not venerated by the Orthodox), Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, et cetera objected to either happened within 300 years prior to the schism and were the proximate cause of it, or followed the schism. In the case of the Oriental Orthodox, they were out of communion with Rome since 451 AD (and are also the closest denomination to the EO, indeed the two are so close as to be basically compatible).

The Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) along with the Assyrian Church of the East also have the highest ratio of martyrs and confessors to Christians who did not suffer martyrdom or torture of any denomination including the Waldensians (while we are horrified by the Piedmont Easter, it pales in comparison to what the Roman church did to us - and has apologized for, and we are forgiving, during the Crusades, which included cannibalizing Eastern Christians when food supplies ran low, and also raising the fourth crusade ostensibly to liberate Jerusalem from the Saracens, but at the request of the Venetian Republic and with the approval of the Pope it was diverted to attack and conquer the Byzantine Empire.

reddogs said:

Yes, but you use their synods, traditions, rituals, etc... So not much to separate like two sides of the coin. Maybe icons instead of idols... maybe you can elaborate and edify us.

Click to expand...

You could start elaborating on the context of I Peter and how it fits your view that it relates to the IJ.

See here in post #3

tall73 said:

You could start elaborating on the context of I Peter and how it fits your view that it relates to the IJ.

See here in post #3

Click to expand...

I would be content with an elaboration of Galatians 3:15-5:15 since as far as I can tell several key doctrinal points including this one clash with that (although to be fair on this issue the bigger problem pertains to the attempt to date the Second Coming and also the pre-millenial interpretation) and also the off-topic criticism of my church.

reddogs said:

This is where the corruption of the text by the Alexandrian Codices come in, and why it must be unmasked and the changes to the text exposed. The Alexandrian codices, including Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus are among the manuscripts of the New Testament with many changes and their textual reliability is widely contested. In the NIV which is one of these version which use the Alexandrian Codices, it does changes to the text in some important areas. One example is here in Hebrews 9, where the NIV changes 'holy place' to 'Most Holy Place.'

"Hebrews 9 says that Christ entered the 'greater and more perfect tabernacle . . .' and that He entered the Holy Place. v. 12 says that Christ entered the Holy Place, 'ta hagia', not the Most Holy Place, 'hagia haggiwn'.
Hebrews 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.

The NIV translators have attempted to change that and we see the resulting confusion by readers of these version.

Hebrews 9:12 New International Version

​

12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining[a] eternal redemption.

And we see further where they twist it in verse 25..
Hebrews 9:25
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Hebrews 9:25 New International Version

​

25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

We see prior in Hebrews 7 where it is found in what it says was His stated work 'to make intercession for us.'
Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

That is the distinctive ministry of the courtyard and the Holy Place which we see here. The work in the Most Holy Place was a work of judgment.
Heb. 9 specifies that Christ entered 'ta hagia', the holy place, as opposed to' hagia haggiwn'. Christ's ministry as our intercessor occurs in the holy place, within the veil and what began shortly after his ascension, the work of the judgement begins when Christ enters the most holy place.

Click to expand...

Well, in the first place, this doesn't seem to actually address the message you were replying to, as that person noted that a literal translation of the phrase in Hebrews 9:12 meant "holy places". But the big issue I need to point out is that your entire post here rests on a faulty assumption, one that you would have discovered had you done just a bit of verification. Specifically, you blame this translation difference (the KJV in Hebrews 9:12 saying "holy place" versus the NIV in that saying "Most Holy Place") on "the corruption of the text by the Alexandrian Codices". This is bizarre, given that they have no textual difference in the verses you cite.

This is pretty easy to confirm with a textual apparatus like this one. So, for example, let's take your first example, Hebrews 9:12. One can look at that here and see that it says "No textual critical info for this verse" which means there's no notable reading differences among manuscripts or quotations. The same applies to the other verses you refer to. You get the same reading whether one uses the "Alexandrian Codices" or not.

But you wouldn't need to have used a textual apparatus to see that it was very unlikely to have been a difference in textual basis; all someone has to do is look at any one of the various translations based on critical texts that involve things like the "Alexandrian Codices" because they don't agree with the NIV on this. So proper verification would have meant taking a quick look at something like the NASB or ESV, and then someone would have seen they say (respectively) "holy place" and "holy places". That should have made you realize that the reason for the difference in translation is well, a difference in translation, not textual basis, given that translations with the same basis as the NIV turned out differently.

So it looks like you saw a KJV/NIV difference and then, due to not spending any time at all to verify it was actually a textual issue, just assumed this was some textual difference and due to not verifying this idea, spouted off this completely inaccurate claim of it having something to do with the "Alexandrian codices".

JSRG said:

Well, in the first place, this doesn't seem to actually address the message you were replying to, as that person noted that a literal translation of the phrase in Hebrews 9:12 meant "holy places". But the big issue I need to point out is that your entire post here rests on a faulty assumption, one that you would have discovered had you done just a bit of verification. Specifically, you blame this translation difference (the KJV in Hebrews 9:12 saying "holy place" versus the NIV in that saying "Most Holy Place") on "the corruption of the text by the Alexandrian Codices". This is bizarre, given that they have no textual difference in the verses you cite.

This is pretty easy to confirm with a textual apparatus like this one. So, for example, let's take your first example, Hebrews 9:12. One can look at that here and see that it says "No textual critical info for this verse" which means there's no notable reading differences among manuscripts or quotations. The same applies to the other verses you refer to. You get the same reading whether one uses the "Alexandrian Codices" or not.

But you wouldn't need to have used a textual apparatus to see that it was very unlikely to have been a difference in textual basis; all someone has to do is look at any one of the various translations based on critical texts that involve things like the "Alexandrian Codices" because they don't agree with the NIV on this. So proper verification would have meant taking a quick look at something like the NASB or ESV, and then someone would have seen they say (respectively) "holy place" and "holy places". That should have made you realize that the reason for the difference in translation is well, a difference in translation, not textual basis, given that translations with the same basis as the NIV turned out differently.

So it looks like you saw a KJV/NIV difference and then, due to not spending any time at all to verify it was actually a textual issue, just assumed this was some textual difference and due to not verifying this idea, spouted off this completely inaccurate claim of it having something to do with the "Alexandrian codices".

Click to expand...

Correct. The NIV reads most holy place based on a translation decision due to context. It should read holy places, as she acknowledged. It is not a textual variant issue.

And you are also correct that this didn't address the problem at all.

He entered as "High Priest", "by means of blood".


Jesus entered

• As High Priest
• By means of His own blood, as contrasted with the blood of bulls and goats
• Securing eternal redemption.

Blood was not necessary to go into the first compartment. The author of Hebrews had just spelled this out:


Only the high priest would go into the second, and not without taking blood.

Jesus is the High Priest in the true tabernacle, taking not the blood of bulls and goats, but His own blood, and the result is securing eternal redemption.

And, He not only died once, but He entered once-for-all, in the past tense from the view of the author of Hebrews.

Jesus fulfilled that presentation of His Sacrifice in the true sanctuary in the first century:





His entry is contrasted with the earthly high priest entry on the day of atonement.

• Jesus' entry was NOT into the copy, but the true, into heaven itself.
• He entered to appear in God's presence on our behalf.
• He did not enter t present Himself year after year, as the high priest did, but once.
• Just as he doesn't have to suffer many times, but did so once.

The word here for presentation/offer is the same used of the blood ministration in the earthly earlier in the chapter:

Here are some Adventist scholars who are constrained to admit that these verses have reference to the Day of Atonement:


Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on Hebrews 10:1:

M.L. Andreasen in The Book of Hebrews:


William Johnsson in his essay "Day of Atonement Allusions," which can be found in the DARCOM volume on Hebrews, lists 9:25 as clearly alluding to the Day of Atonement.


Alwyn Salom in his appendix article in the Daniel and Revelation committee series on Hebrews, speaking of verse 24, 25:


Richard Davidson, notes that vs. 25 is an unmistakable reference to the Day of Atonement:


Felix Cortez states in his article "From the Holy to the Most Holy Place: The Period of Hebrews 9:6-10 and the Day of Atonement as a Metaphor of Transition" in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 125.3, Fall 2006, 527 (footnote):


Jesus sacrificed Himself as the once for all sacrifice on the cross. He then ascended and having made purification for sins, sat at the right hand of God.

He entered into God's presence for us, as the high priest did yearly--but He did it once for all. And this was past tense for the writer of Hebrews. It was all done in the first century as @Maria Billingsley noted.

And already in the first century they could come boldly to the throne of grace to obtain mercy and find grace, because of what He had done.


Jesus was already on Heaven's true mercy seat in the first century, long before 1844. He reigns as King until His enemies are made His footstool And He intercedes for us on the basis of His completed blood ministration.

Another evidence that Jesus entered the equivalent of the Most Holy Place in the heavenly is seen in the fact that Jesus inaugurated the heavenly sanctuary. The inauguration included all the sanctuary and all its vessels. Speaking of that service in the earthly, in the context of Jesus' blood being better, the author of Hebrews says:


Jesus inaugurated or consecrated a new and living way to God at His ascension:


So it is evident that Jesus' entry in first century completed not only Day of Atonement aspects, but also inauguration aspects. This inauguration included the whole sanctuary, extending to the Most Holy Place.

Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in the first century.

JSRG said:

Well, in the first place, this doesn't seem to actually address the message you were replying to, as that person noted that a literal translation of the phrase in Hebrews 9:12 meant "holy places". But the big issue I need to point out is that your entire post here rests on a faulty assumption, one that you would have discovered had you done just a bit of verification. Specifically, you blame this translation difference (the KJV in Hebrews 9:12 saying "holy place" versus the NIV in that saying "Most Holy Place") on "the corruption of the text by the Alexandrian Codices". This is bizarre, given that they have no textual difference in the verses you cite.

This is pretty easy to confirm with a textual apparatus like this one. So, for example, let's take your first example, Hebrews 9:12. One can look at that here and see that it says "No textual critical info for this verse" which means there's no notable reading differences among manuscripts or quotations. The same applies to the other verses you refer to. You get the same reading whether one uses the "Alexandrian Codices" or not.

But you wouldn't need to have used a textual apparatus to see that it was very unlikely to have been a difference in textual basis; all someone has to do is look at any one of the various translations based on critical texts that involve things like the "Alexandrian Codices" because they don't agree with the NIV on this. So proper verification would have meant taking a quick look at something like the NASB or ESV, and then someone would have seen they say (respectively) "holy place" and "holy places". That should have made you realize that the reason for the difference in translation is well, a difference in translation, not textual basis, given that translations with the same basis as the NIV turned out differently.

So it looks like you saw a KJV/NIV difference and then, due to not spending any time at all to verify it was actually a textual issue, just assumed this was some textual difference and due to not verifying this idea, spouted off this completely inaccurate claim of it having something to do with the "Alexandrian codices".

Click to expand...

The difference between KJV and NIV, King James Version is a literal word for word Bible translation termed as "formal equivalence, while the New International Version is thought for thought Bible translation described as "dynamic equivalence" means not all wordings were taken from the original Bible words or languages.

Yes, some translations did record "holy places" which bears Strong#G40, in Greek "ἅγιος hagios" defined by Bible Lexicon as - the interior (either the outer or the inner of the two rooms)

Thus by definition, the "holy place or places" refers either the outer or inner of the two rooms.

(NASB) Heb 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, having obtained eternal redemption.

(NASB+) Heb 9:12 and not throughG1223 R1the bloodG129 of goatsG5131 and calvesG3448, but R2throughG1223 His ownG2398 bloodG129, He R3enteredG1525 the holyG40 placeG40 R4onceG2178 forG2178 allG2178 time, N1having obtainedG2147 R5eternalG166 redemptionG3085.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) Heb 9:12 ουδεG3761 CONJ-N διG1223 PREP αιματοςG129 N-GSN τραγωνG5131 N-GPM καιG2532 CONJ μοσχωνG3448 N-GPM διαG1223 PREP δεG1161 CONJ τουG3588 T-GSN ιδιουG2398 A-GSN αιματοςG129 N-GSN εισηλθενG1525 V-2AAI-3S εφαπαξG2178 ADV ειςG1519 PREP ταG3588 T-APN αγιαG40 A-APN αιωνιανG166 A-ASF λυτρωσινG3085 N-ASF ευραμενοςG2147 V-2AMP-NSM

G40 (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon)
ἅγιος hagios
n: the interior (either the outer or the inner of the two rooms) of the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple or of the earlier tabernacle or of a corresponding 'spiritual holy place,' perhaps regarded as being in heaven - 'the holy place.'
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

Capbook2 said:

The difference between KJV and NIV, King James Version is a literal word for word Bible translation termed as "formal equivalence, while the New International Version is thought for thought Bible translation described as "dynamic equivalence" means not all wordings were taken from the original Bible words or languages.

Yes, some translations did record "holy places" which bears Strong#G40, in Greek "ἅγιος hagios" defined by Bible Lexicon as - the interior (either the outer or the inner of the two rooms)

Thus by definition, the "holy place or places" refers either the outer or inner of the two rooms.

Click to expand...

Or the whole temple itself. It is a substantive use of an adjective. And we see contextually what is meant.

For a discussion of the usage you can see here:

Alwyn P. Salom, "Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews."


This article originally appeared in Andrews University Seminary Studies and was reprinted in The Daniel and Revelation Committee series, "Issues in the Book of Hebrews" as an appendix.

Capbook2 said:

(NASB) Heb 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all time, having obtained eternal redemption.

Click to expand...

• The High Priest entering the greater tent (parallel to the wilderness sanctuary, and showing that it is referring to entering into the whole sanctuary)
• entry by means of blood
• His own blood is superior to the blood of bulls and goats in the type
• obtaining eternal redemption
• And He entered once for all time.

This is a description of entry into the whole sanctuary, as the author had just spelled out that only the high priest could enter the second compartment, and he had to take blood. The blood of goats is also limited to the Day of Atonement, or arguably (not explicitly said) the inauguration, as argued by Richard Davidson .

But that would make the point as well. Inauguration involved the whole sanctuary, so this would include the most holy place.

And He entered once for all--all the entries were fulfilled in the first century, in the past from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. You can see the post right above yours for more details.

Maria Billingsley said:

After doing some of my own research, I came to understand that according to Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, the investigative judgment began on October 22, 1844, and continues in heaven to this day. Most importantly, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth moved from the "Holy Place" to the "Most Holy Place" in 1844, which creates a two-phase theology of atonement . It would be nice to know where this is stated in scripture.

Click to expand...

And how it became known based on a blown prediction of the return of our Lord. Was that handy, or what?

Maria Billingsley said:

I just need one verse. My understanding is He ascended in the first century and entered the " Most Holy Place

Click to expand...

Same place that new gentiles converts to the Faith were commanded to keep the Sabbath, I reckon.

reddogs said:

You can read through what the corruption did here as don't want to derail this one..

Click to expand...

So there's a whole bunch of issues in your claims there--some of which other posters pointed out in that topic--but here's the thing. Even if all of your claims in that topic (which are mostly just copy/pasted material you lifted uncritically from often questionable websites) were true, it wouldn't actually refute a single thing I said. Your original claim was about how a difference in phrasing between the KJV and NIV--which wasn't even important to the point you were responding to either--was because of this "corruption." But it wasn't, because the Greek text underlying both translations was the same in this verse. It was just a difference in translation. You just saw a difference between them and due to not doing any research to confirm it, wrongfully assumed it was due to a textual variant, which was not the case at all. If you think the NIV's translation was faulty, whatever (though as I noted, the specific question of translation wasn't actually important to the question posed by the person you were responding to), but that wasn't your claim, it was specifically the claim about the difference being based on bad manuscripts.

Here's the post I gave before that you are quoting from:

JSRG said:

Well, in the first place, this doesn't seem to actually address the message you were replying to, as that person noted that a literal translation of the phrase in Hebrews 9:12 meant "holy places". But the big issue I need to point out is that your entire post here rests on a faulty assumption, one that you would have discovered had you done just a bit of verification. Specifically, you blame this translation difference (the KJV in Hebrews 9:12 saying "holy place" versus the NIV in that saying "Most Holy Place") on "the corruption of the text by the Alexandrian Codices". This is bizarre, given that they have no textual difference in the verses you cite.

This is pretty easy to confirm with a textual apparatus like this one. So, for example, let's take your first example, Hebrews 9:12. One can look at that here and see that it says "No textual critical info for this verse" which means there's no notable reading differences among manuscripts or quotations. The same applies to the other verses you refer to. You get the same reading whether one uses the "Alexandrian Codices" or not.

But you wouldn't need to have used a textual apparatus to see that it was very unlikely to have been a difference in textual basis; all someone has to do is look at any one of the various translations based on critical texts that involve things like the "Alexandrian Codices" because they don't agree with the NIV on this. So proper verification would have meant taking a quick look at something like the NASB or ESV, and then someone would have seen they say (respectively) "holy place" and "holy places". That should have made you realize that the reason for the difference in translation is well, a difference in translation, not textual basis, given that translations with the same basis as the NIV turned out differently.

So it looks like you saw a KJV/NIV difference and then, due to not spending any time at all to verify it was actually a textual issue, just assumed this was some textual difference and due to not verifying this idea, spouted off this completely inaccurate claim of it having something to do with the "Alexandrian codices".

Click to expand...

So again, rather than acknowledge the fact you were flat-out wrong on this issue regarding the applicable verses (because there was no textual variance here) you ignore that and try to talk about what you claim are corrupted manuscripts even though--once again--that wouldn't actually negate my point about your error. You're just deflecting to avoid admitting your error or engaging with the points I brought up.