1844

Greetings,

Pre-advent Investigative judgment is supported by the sanctuary and its services. Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement comes before Sukkot/Feast of Tabernacle. Judgement begins before the Second Coming is clearly demonstrated by the anual feasts.

Hebrews 9:12... He entered entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Textus Receptus translates 'hagia' into Holy Place. Only modern bibles NIV, NKJV...which use Greek minority text translate it into Mosy Holy Place. Remember the High Priest was allowed to enter into the Most Holy only once a year on the Day of Atonement. KJV is proven again to be more acurate than its catholic counterparts.

Jesus was in the Holy Place for our daily intercession. Upon 1844, Jesus began the judgment of the righteous. Jesus entered into the Most Holy to also become our judge and to begin the period of probation.

God always gave a period probation out of His mercy before He executes His judgment. Like in the days of Noah, and like the 70 weeks with Jews, God gives the people a period to repent before the probation closes.

God does not have to wait for anything. But it rather represents the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy. And according to God's foreknowledge, He appointed the day on which the judgment shall begin.

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained;...

Upon His 2nd Coming, all the righteous would have been already judged.

If someone comes up with another explaination of 'Daniel 8:14 Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,' I'm willing to listen.

SDAs do not teach the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. On the contrary, we teach anything defiles can not enter into the Holy Place. And it is necessary for the blood to be sprinkled onto veils of the sanctuary for the purpose of recording the sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary is not to cleanse the sins, but rather to erase the record of sin after the record has been examed on the Day of Atonement.

ttreg said:

ok im sorta confused what is the SDA beleif of 1844 isnt that judgement began

Click to expand...

Here's an article by Joe Crews on 1844 and 2300-day prophecy.
http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=641

And an illustration on the time line.
http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00timeline.html#days2300

Hi,

The sin was transfered from the sinner to the blood of the animal. And blood was transfered to the sanctuary. This we do believe. This is also taught in all the modern studies of the sanctuary. And I posted about it in the OT Feast thread. No arguments. However, a closer look reveals the symbolism. The blood was sprinkled onto the veils. The veils had gold embroilment of angels. The implication and the significance is that angels record our sins. And on the Yom Kippur, the veils are cleansed of all blood: record of sins.

I can not varify your quote at this moment. I will have to look it up. But Ellen White never said the blood defiles the sanctuary and bible does not teach it. The blood itself does not defile. But the act of sin does. The blood atones for sin. The bible teaches that the one that commits a sin can not be in the sanctuary but can be at the foot of the cross (copper altar).

I do not see any contradictions here.

Show me where Ellen White's wrote the blood defiles the sanctuary. No speculation or implication please. You said it. She didn't.

I'm sure you can also look up for yourself what she actually said about what the blood of Christ did for us .

Read Lev 4 again. Lev 4 talks about the regular/daily sin offering. vs 6,7 and 16,17 says the blood was sprinkled 7 times onto the veil. Lev 4 talks about the blood offerings for different people for their ignorant(not wilfull) sins, and not for the Day of Atonement. The type of animal slain depended on the position of the sinner. But the point is the blood was the payment for sin and it was sprinkled onto the veil on the daily bases.

Yes, I don't deny we teach the sins are transferred into the sanctuary by blood. But hear what I am saying: this symbolizes the recording of sins.

If I want to see a show of hands who had been taught that blood of christ defiles the sanctuary, I don't expect to see any. If a SDA had taught you this, he was surely mistaken.

Ellen White never wrote such statement. If you are acusing her and the SDAs of false doctrine, you should understand fully what we are teaching.

And lastly, the original question was asking what SDAs teach about 1844. The person didn't ask for the opinion of what you think about it. You could have stated your opinion on another thread. Anyways, I think what you have is a straw man.

Click to expand...

Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the day of atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself, and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. {GC88 420.1}

And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin, and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation,--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {GC88 421.3}

As you can see in the 1888 edition of GC what Ellen White wrote about the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In her own words, she wrote (and I highlighted for your convenience) the sins had polluted the sanctuary.

sin does defile the sanctuary as the blood is placed in the holy placed. Once a year on the day of Atonement the sanctuary, the most Holy place was cleansed. this was the total blootting out of the sin on record. This is confirmed by studying the sanctuary service of the old testament which was a pattern of the Heavenly where sin originated by Lucifer. Lets not get hung up on semantics. Let us also consider that if the Heavenly Sanctuary is, and it is, being cleansed since 1844 how will it happen if we ,Gods people are still sinning????" God dosent want sacrafice but obedience".The life Jesus led was an example of how we can live through the Power of God. Sinless.( Sanctification )

YeshuamySalvation said:

Hey, it's like someone trying to force a part of a puzzle somewere it doesn't belong, but by hammering it they think they made it fit even though they didn't succeed...

Later

Blessings...

Click to expand...

Dear yeshuma no offense but this for people asking questions to other adventists to answer or debate. You may ask questions but NOT debate for us. TY . If i came to messianic and started giving my SDA views it would not bode well. TY and GOD bless

Quote:
Originally Posted by OntheDL
Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the day of atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself, and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. {GC88 420.1}

And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin, and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation,--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {GC88 421.3}

As you can see in the 1888 edition of GC what Ellen White wrote about the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In her own words, she wrote (and I highlighted for your convenience) the sins had polluted the sanctuary.

Hey, it's like someone trying to force a part of a puzzle somewere it doesn't belong, but by hammering it they think they made it fit even though they didn't succeed...

Click to expand...

It isn't too hard a "puzzle" for God to handle and He certainly wouldn't have given is sanctuary service in symbols for us if it was too hard to understand.

No hammering away to make it fit; but, you do have to surrender the stony heart of sin and let it be ground down to nothingness. Otherwise, it will always get in the way and you'll never understand.

It is also good to note that judgment does not come till later..

1. Rev 14:7 - the hour of his judgment is come
2. Rev 11:9 - And the temple of God was opened in heaven,
3. Dan 7:9-10 - I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit,....the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
4. These thrones (in the heavnly sanctuary) were set after the Little Horn Power
5. Rev 4:1 - a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
6: Rev 5:1 - After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven
7. Ellen White - the door was opened in the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary
8. Daniel 8:17 - O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.
9. Heb 9:26 - But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
10. Heb 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

After Jesus went into heaven is when he needed to enter into the heavenly sanctuary.
When he went to the right side of God it does not say this was in the Sanctuary.
Thrones were set later for judgment to take place, these may be different ones or they are just moved into the Sanctuary by his angels...
Ez 1:25-26 - After describing the Angles....
And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

OntheDL said:

And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin, and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation,--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {GC88 421.3}

As you can see in the 1888 edition of GC what Ellen White wrote about the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In her own words, she wrote (and I highlighted for your convenience) the sins had polluted the sanctuary.

Click to expand...

You skipped the first part of this paragraph, which was included in the 1888 GC. Here is the whole paragraph:
She doesn't say that only a record is transferred to the heavenly sanctuary. She says that the sins are transferred there in fact. You disagree with her when you say this:

OntheDL said:

SDAs do not teach the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. On the contrary, we teach anything defiles can not enter into the Holy Place. And it is necessary for the blood to be sprinkled onto veils of the sanctuary for the purpose of recording the sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary is not to cleanse the sins, but rather to erase the record of sin after the record has been examed on the Day of Atonement.

Click to expand...

Maybe she wrote those words, I don't know...

B. L. House: My real difficulty is just here: Sister White did not write
either the old edition or the revised, as I understand it.
A. G. Daniells: What do you mean by saying that she did not write either
edition?
B. L. House: As I understand it, Elder J. N. Anderson prepared those
historical quotations for the old edition, and Brother Robinson and
Brother Crisler, Professor Prescott and others furnished the quotations
for the new edition. Did she write the historical quotations in there?
A. G. Daniells: No.



What I find her trying to bring out in her books is not where the blood or sin went to but that there was an investigative judgment that started in 1844 which I believe the Bible supports.

JonDavis said:

Maybe she wrote those words, I don't know...

B. L. House: My real difficulty is just here: Sister White did not write
either the old edition or the revised, as I understand it.
A. G. Daniells: What do you mean by saying that she did not write either
edition?
B. L. House: As I understand it, Elder J. N. Anderson prepared those
historical quotations for the old edition, and Brother Robinson and
Brother Crisler, Professor Prescott and others furnished the quotations
for the new edition. Did she write the historical quotations in there?
A. G. Daniells: No.

Click to expand...

Do you have a reference for this quote, and do you know which specific portions they were referring to? Also, the section that I quoted wasn't an historical reference; it was her interpretation of the OT sanctuary types in relation to Jesus' ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. Are you saying that someone else wrote this and that she wasn't shown it by God? In that case, how would anyone be able to tell which things she actually wrote and which things they should view as "authoritative"? I guess if people don't like something that she said, they could just claim that she didn't actually write it.

What I find her trying to bring out in her books is not where the blood or sin went to but that there was an investigative judgment that started in 1844 which I believe the Bible supports.

Click to expand...

Well, she did say where she thought sin went and where she thought Jesus went until 1844, which contradicts the Bible. The book of Hebrews shows that Jesus did enter the MHP (which in the heavenly reality is the throne room of God) at His ascension. Today, many TSDA scholars (like Davidson) acknowledge that, but they justify departing from the historical views of the pioneers by saying that His entrance into the MHP was only to inaugurate it, and then He went back to the HP until 1844. The problem is that EGW said that the door to the MHP wasn't opened until 1844, so this interpretation contradicts what she wrote (unless of course she didn't really write that either).

I don't believe that the Bible supports the IJ doctrine or the 1844 date as having any prophetic significance.

You skipped the first part of this paragraph, which was included in the 1888 GC. Here is the whole paragraph:

As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin-offering, and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ, and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But, before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin, and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation,--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {GC88 421.3}​

​

She doesn't say that only a record is transferred to the heavenly sanctuary. She says that the sins are transferred there in fact. You disagree with her when you say this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by OntheDL
SDAs do not teach the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. On the contrary, we teach anything defiles can not enter into the Holy Place. And it is necessary for the blood to be sprinkled onto veils of the sanctuary for the purpose of recording the sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary is not to cleanse the sins, but rather to erase the record of sin after the record has been examed on the Day of Atonement.

Click to expand...

There is a little sloppiness in the English here. The confusion lies in assuming that the word "sanctuary" and "Holy Place" is the Most Holy. Sin never enters there. Sin is transferred to the Temple through the sacrificial offerings. The blood of some of the offerings is brought into the Temple and sprinkled on the veil between the Holy and the Most Holy.

Well, she did say where she thought sin went and where she thought Jesus went until 1844, which contradicts the Bible.

Click to expand...

EGW has been accussed of contradicting Scripture over 50 times. In each and every single case it has been shown that it was the critics who were wrong and not EGW; see http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/contradictions.html

Most of the alleged contradictions are the result of the critics simplistic, wooden and literalistic reading of both texts.

Read my tag line.

The book of Hebrews shows that Jesus did enter the MHP

Click to expand...

There is NO verse in Hebrews that says such a thing. And please don't cite some flawed translation. Use the Greek.

which in the heavenly reality is the throne room of God

Click to expand...

There is no verse in the Bible that says that.

I don't believe that the Bible supports the IJ doctrine or the 1844 date as having any prophetic significance.

Click to expand...

There's abundant evidence in the Bible that says there is a judgement BEFORE Christ comes. See http://www.harvesthands.org/judgment1.htm & http://www.harvesthands.org/judgment2.htm.

As for 1844 it is highly unlikely that God would have given a prophecy pointing to 1844 (or any other point in time) just for the fun of it.

This is a reminder to our non Seventh Day Adventist visitors that you are welcome to post fellowship posts and ask quesitons however CF Rule 1.4 prohibits non Seventh Day Adventists from debate.

Thank you
Jtbdad

djconklin said:

There is a little sloppiness in the English here. The confusion lies in assuming that the word "sanctuary" and "Holy Place" is the Most Holy. Sin never enters there. Sin is transferred to the Temple through the sacrificial offerings. The blood of some of the offerings is brought into the Temple and sprinkled on the veil between the Holy and the Most Holy.

Click to expand...

djconklin said:

There is NO verse in Hebrews that says such a thing. And please don't cite some flawed translation. Use the Greek.

Click to expand...

Please see the discussion in the Denomination-specific Theology thread. Even Adventist scholars like Salom have admitted that a knowledge of Greek doesn't settle the interpretation question in regard to ta hagia. The context is the determining factor.

djconklin said:

There is no verse in the Bible that says that.

Click to expand...

What more holy place could there be in heaven than the throne of God, where God sits encircled by the cherubim, just as in the OT Most Holy Place the mercy seat (above which the Bible says God met with them) was covered by cherubim? The parallels are clear. Do you subscribe to the "table of shewbread as the symbol of God's throne" theory?

djconklin said:

EGW has been accussed of contradicting Scripture over 50 times. In each and every single case it has been shown that it was the critics who were wrong and not EGW; see http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/contradictions.html

Most of the alleged contradictions are the result of the critics simplistic, wooden and literalistic reading of both texts.

Read my tag line.

Click to expand...

I don't get my opinions from those sorts of lists that cite supposed contradictions. I read the Bible. I agree that many of the alleged contradictions have reasonable explanations. Some do not.