Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[BobRyan]

Bob the sprinkling in the sanctuary was described as the means of atonement of the sins of all the people. .

Blood is sprinkled for a single individual in Lev 3:2,8,13
Blood is sprinkled for a single individual in Lev 4:6
Blood is sprinkled on behalf of a single individual in Lev 5:9
Blood is sprinkled on behalf of a single individual's guilt offering in Lev 7:2
Blood is sprinkled on behalf of a single individual's offering in Lev 17:6

 

[BobRyan]

Offer Often = Suffer Often on the cross… not “sprinkle often” see vs 25-26

The high priest did not have to sacrifice another animal each time he sprinkled something with that one blood sacrifice... "sprinkle often" did not = "suffer often"

Heb 9:

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many,​

Christ entered into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would OFFER HIMSELF (on the cross - as a sin offering) Often, as the high pries enters the Holy Place year by year WITH BLOOD (blood already offered up in smoke on the altar of burnt offering) that is not his own. OTHERWISE would He (CHRIST) have needed to SUFFER (on the cross as a sin offering) often since the foundation of the world; but now once (one sin offering) at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin BY THE SACRIFICE of Himself (on the cross as a sin offering). 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once (As a sin offering on he cross) to bear the sins of many,

As we see in the above -

Offer Often = Suffer Often on the cross… not “sprinkle often” see vs 25-26

The high priest did not have to sacrifice another animal each time he sprinkled something with that one blood sacrifice... "sprinkle often" did not = "suffer often"

Incorrect, because the high priest didn't ENTER to suffer.

you missed the point - the suffering happens before the entering and it is Heb 9 that says that

"Offer Often" = "Suffer Often" on the cross… not “sprinkle often” see vs 25-26

The high priest did not have to sacrifice another animal each time he sprinkled something with that one blood sacrifice... "sprinkle often" did not = "suffer often"

Heb 9:

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many,​

Christ entered into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would OFFER HIMSELF (on the cross - as a sin offering) Often, as the high pries enters the Holy Place year by year WITH BLOOD (blood already offered up in smoke on the altar of burnt offering) that is not his own. OTHERWISE would He (CHRIST) have needed to SUFFER (on the cross as a sin offering) often since the foundation of the world; but now once (one sin offering) at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin BY THE SACRIFICE of Himself (on the cross as a sin offering). 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once (As a sin offering on he cross) to bear the sins of many,

 

[BobRyan]

Now Bob, this all started based on Ballenger. it should be noted that you owe an apology to Ballenger, Davidson, Andross, Young, etc. You claimed that Jesus did not go into the second compartment, within the veil.

Correction. I claimed that Jesus did not go into the Most Holy Place for the Day of Atonement service - I have never said He did not go in for inauguration. This has always been my position many years before our conversation here - and it still is my position. Ballenger was flat out befuddled on this point not just his holy flesh fanaticism which even you know is bogus.

 

[BobRyan]

And that entry was once for all, and was by means of blood, .

true for the sanctuary itself - as has been stated repeatedly. But the daily phase comes before the Day of Atonement and the Day of Atonement deals with the issues in the daily.

In the same way in the antitypical daily - each person receives forgiveness and is saved or not (as 1 John 1:9 thru 1 John 2:1 also reminds us and has been stated a few times here already). The Day of Atonement is a review that reveals "what already is" as a result of those individual interactions with Christ as HighPriest.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, the death already happened. But we saw, and you admitted, that 9:7 is the description of the type

True - and Heb 9:23-28 makes it very clear that to "offer often" would mean to "Suffer often" since the High Priest offers up the sacrifice on the altar.

It does not say "to sprinkle often" would mean "to suffer often" since in fact in some of those sprinklings - a number of things get sprinkled as the result of one single sin offering "offered up" on the altar of burnt OFFERING.

, which uses the same word for the presentation of the blood.

IT is context sensitive in Heb 9:7 but in Heb 9:

6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance


Heb 9:

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many,​

Christ entered into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would OFFER HIMSELF (on the cross - as a sin offering) Often, as the high pries enters the Holy Place year by year WITH BLOOD (blood already offered up in smoke on the altar of burnt offering) that is not his own. OTHERWISE would He (CHRIST) have needed to SUFFER (on the cross as a sin offering) often since the foundation of the world; but now once (one sin offering) at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin BY THE SACRIFICE of Himself (on the cross as a sin offering). 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once (As a sin offering on he cross) to bear the sins of many,

So while in vs 7 one "might" be able to try and spin it so that offering is merely sprinkling - but in vs 24-28 it is not spinnable at all - it is crystal clear that to offer often on that altar of burnt OFFERING is to SUFFER often on that altar - which is a type of the cross. And that did not happen.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, Daniel 7 and 8 are not Leviticus 16, .

True but they speak to the same subject - it is called exegesis. All texts that speak to the same subject are taken into account, not ignored. As has been stated repeatedly in answer to that same point.

 

[BobRyan]

Judgment Day

“The Day of Atonement is the Holiest day of the Biblical year. It is a day of intense prayer, fasting and calling out to God for mercy and grace. It is a day for doing business with God. It is a day for coming face to face with God.

Yom Kippur comes just ten days after Rosh Hashanah. Ten days prior to Yom Kippur, the Torah commands us to blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. One of the reasons for blowing the shofar is as a warning that a period of judgment has begun. According to Jewish tradition, the Gates of heaven swing open on Rosh Hashanah. The Heavenly Court is convened on Rosh Hashanah. The Books of Judgement opened on Rosh Hashanah. The heavenly ledgers are scrutinized on Rosh Hashanah.
…

What is Atonement?

In discussing the Day of Atonement it is helpful to accurately define the word "Atonement." Contrary to popular Christian teaching, atonement does not mean forgiveness of sin (though forgiveness may be an aspect of atonement). It is from the Hebrew word kaphar which means, "covering".

Yom Kippur High Holiday Festival - Kehilat Sar Shalom.

tall73 said:
And they say that is based on tradition. It certainly is not based on Lev. 16.

Hmm they tell us the meaning of the Hebrew word --

What is Atonement?

In discussing the Day of Atonement it is helpful to accurately define the word "Atonement." Contrary to popular Christian teaching, atonement does not mean forgiveness of sin (though forgiveness may be an aspect of atonement). It is from the Hebrew word kaphar which means, "covering".​

And you say "ignore it"??

"Yom Kippur, or the "Day of Atonement," is the holiest day of the Jewish year, and provides prophetic insight regarding the Second Coming of the Messiah, the restoration of national Israel, and the final judgment of the world. It is also a day that reveals the High-Priestly work of Yeshua as our Kohen Gadol (High Priest) after the order of Malki-Tzedek (Heb. 5:10, 6:20).

"The term Yom Kippur is actually written in the plural in the Torah, Yom Ha-Kippurim (יוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים), perhaps because the purification process cleansed from a multitude of transgressions, iniquities, and sins. However, the name also alludes to the two great atonements given by the LORD - the first for those among the nations who turn to Yeshua for cleansing and forgiveness, and the second for the purification of ethnic Israel during Yom Adonai, the great Day of the LORD at the end of days"​

from: Yom Kippur - Day of Atonement

 

[tall73]

Blood is sprinkled for a single individual in Lev 3:2,8,13
Blood is sprinkled for a single individual in Lev 4:6
Blood is sprinkled on behalf of a single individual in Lev 5:9
Blood is sprinkled on behalf of a single individual's guilt offering in Lev 7:2
Blood is sprinkled on behalf of a single individual's offering in Lev 17:6

Which makes the point. The blood makes atonement. The difference between the sin offering for the individual and the sin offering for one act of all the people is scale. And because a single sin for the congregation required greater atonement the sacrifice was more costly, and went further into the sanctuary, into the holy place.

Lev 4:13 “If the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do any one of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, and they realize their guilt,
Lev 4:14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, the assembly shall offer a bull from the herd for a sin offering and bring it in front of the tent of meeting.
Lev 4:15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD, and the bull shall be killed before the LORD.
Lev 4:16 Then the anointed priest shall bring some of the blood of the bull into the tent of meeting,
Lev 4:17 and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD in front of the veil.
Lev 4:18 And he shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is in the tent of meeting before the LORD, and the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Lev 4:19 And all its fat he shall take from it and burn on the altar.
Lev 4:20 Thus shall he do with the bull. As he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven

Lev 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire.

The sin offering for a single sin by the whole camp still made atonement for the people, and is stated to make atonement in the holy place.

-atonement for the people
-atonement in the holy place

And the Day of Atonement sin offering does the same thing on an even larger scale, for all the sins of the whole camp throughout the year.

Lev 16:17 No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel.

-atonement for the people
-atonement in the holy place

There is no transfer by the sin offering. There are no "two phases". All of the sin offerings are pictures of atonement for people and the holy place. And the blood atones, not transfers in all of them.

And that is why He only needed one death, and one entry by means of blood that fulfilled all of them. His blood presentation was sufficient. And all the rites picture that blood purification.

Now we come to receive the benefits of that in real time.

 

[tall73]

you missed the point - the suffering happens before the entering and it is Heb 9 that says that

"Offer Often" = "Suffer Often" on the cross… not “sprinkle often” see vs 25-26

The high priest did not have to sacrifice another animal each time he sprinkled something with that one blood sacrifice... "sprinkle often" did not = "suffer often"

I did not miss the point at all Bob. The offer is in the context of entry, and doesn't refer to the death. But to enter with blood every year as the earthly high priest did he would need to die again. And that is not the case.

And Hebrews 9 does not show what you claim. Because 9:7 specifically refers to the blood being presented/offered by the high priest after taking the blood into the second compartment. That is not the death, but the blood ministration.

And the reason you miss the point, but all the various non-Adventist commentators (including Gill who you quoted, but not the part where he references the Day of Atonement), indicate that Jesus' was fulfilling what the high priest did on the Day of Atonement is because you have changed the type. The high priest in Lev. 16 did not investigate cases in the sanctuary. He presented the blood of the sin offering in God's presence, ministering atoning blood to make atonement in the holy place, and make atonement for the people.

And this is the same thing the sin offering during the year did. It made atonement for the person. And sin offerings where blood was brought in are specifically stated to make atonement in the holy place.

Because the various non-Adventist commentators don't change the type, they see the fulfillment.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

And that entry was once for all, and was by means of blood, .

true for the sanctuary itself - as has been stated repeatedly. But the daily phase comes before the Day of Atonement and the Day of Atonement deals with the issues in the daily.

No Bob, that is just your unsupported supposition. You have read into the type. The Day of Atonement type in Lev. 16 says nothing about the high priest examining cases in the sanctuary. And the type does not indicate transfer of sin by the sin offering.

Rather in both the sin offerings during the year and in the sin offering on the Day of Atonement the blood made atonement for the person and in the holy place.

You have here tried to reinterpret the statement of Hebrews that He entered once for all by means of His own blood.

Scripture says:
Heb 9:12 He entered once for all ... by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Bob says:
He entered once back then...by means of his own blood, thus performing only the inauguration. Later He goes and enters again for the Day of Atonement.

The Scripture is correct. He entered once for all. And the reason you don't see it is because you ignore the type, and you ignore the description of the type in Hebrews 9. Speaking of entry into the most holy place on the Day of Atonement by the earthly high priest he states:

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.

The type is taking blood and presenting it for the sins of the people. The high priest brought atoning blood.

It doesn't say the high priest investigated cases, etc. So when it shows the fulfillment you won't see it because you changed the type.

In the same way in the antitypical daily - each person receives forgiveness and is saved or not (as 1 John 1:9 thru 1 John 2:1 also reminds us and has been stated a few times here already). The Day of Atonement is a review that reveals "what already is" as a result of those individual interactions with Christ as HighPriest.

That has not been shown at all Bob. The sin offerings throughout the year and the Day of Atonement sin offerings are pictures of the same thing--atonement for the people, and atonement in the holy place.

Your notion of transfer to the sanctuary by one, and atoning by the other is not stated in the text.

You notion of the Day of Atonement type being the high priest investigating individual cases in Leve. 16 is not stated in the text.

And as a result you don't see what the various non-Adventist commentators do see, which is atoning blood.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

Yes, the death already happened. But we saw, and you admitted, that 9:7 is the description of the type

True - and Heb 9:23-28 makes it very clear that to "offer often" would mean to "Suffer often" since the High Priest offers up the sacrifice on the altar.

It does not say "to sprinkle often" would mean "to suffer often" since in fact in some of those sprinklings - a number of things get sprinkled as the result of one single sin offering "offered up" on the altar of burnt OFFERING.

IT is context sensitive in Heb 9:7 but in Heb 9:

6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance

The blood is taken by the high priest at the entry. The same is the case in 24-25, and is directly compared to the high priest entering with blood.

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

They are both describing the same thing. Jesus went into the presence of God on our behalf and presented Himself.

Nor was it to....

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

Heb 9:25 οὐδ᾿ ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ

Verse 24 started with a negative statement: Christ entered not. . . .

Verse 25 continues with another negative statement regarding Christ's entry:

Nor yet . . .

In verse 25 we have not only the connecting word ουδε but also a clause that indicates purpose. It uses the word ινα, which means in order that. So we can translate the first part of verse 25 something like this:

Nor yet was it in order that. . . .

Nor yet refers back to the previous clause, to the
entry into God's presence spoken of in verse 24. Jesus did not enter in the the earthly sanctuary made with hands. Nor yet did He enter in order that He might offer Himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own.

The words for nor yet and in order that, which begin the verse, can refer only back to the event of entry and presentation in God's presence of verse 24. So we see that verse 25 still describes aspects of Jesus' entry.

And 9:12 affirms this. He only did it once:

Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

So while in vs 7 one "might" be able to try and spin it so that offering is merely sprinkling - but in vs 24-28 it is not spinnable at all - it is crystal clear that to offer often on that altar of burnt OFFERING is to SUFFER often on that altar - which is a type of the cross. And that did not happen.

It is not "spinning" in either case. Both cases describe an action that happens in relation to the entry, which cannot be the death because that was not when the high priest entered.

And then it goes on to say if he were to present himself often in entry he would also have to suffer often (in death).

The following Bible versions recognize this connection to the entry in verse v. 24 and add the word enter to vs. 25 to clarify that it has reference to the entry of Christ in verse 24:

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. (New International Version)

Nor did He [enter into the heavenly sanctuary to] offer Himself regularly again and again, as the high priest enters the [Holy of] Holies every year with blood not his own.
(Amplified Bible)

And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal.
(New Living Translation)

And as noted earlier these commentaries on the Greek note that the offering is the presentation of Christ before God in the sanctuary, during the entry.

Commentary on the New Testament by D. D. Whedon

This offer is parallel to the entereth of the high priest; it, therefore does not here mean to sacrifice himself, but to present himself in heaven, as the high priest presented himself in the holy place. Yet in both cases a previous sacrifice takes place.


Vincet's Word Studies

Offer himself refers rather to Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary and presentation of himself before God, than to his offering on the cross. . . The sacrifice on the cross is described by παθειν suffer, Heb 9:26, and is introduced as a distinct thought. The point is that, being once in the heavenly sanctuary, Christ was not compelled to renew often his presentation of himself there, since, in that case, it would be necessary for him to suffer often. Each separate offering would necessitate a corresponding suffering.


Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews by Franz Delitsch

V. 25 Nor yet (is he entered in) that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy of holies year by year with alien blood.

The comparison is between the offering of the Jewish high priest within the veil, and that of Christ in the eternal sanctuary: the προσφερειν εαυτον here spoken of cannot therefore be ...the self-sacrifice of Christ upon earth, but a self-presentation subsequent to that. The Jewish high priest goes year by year into the typical sanctuary, εν...αιματι αλλοτριω, i.e. to offer there the blood of a sacrifice which is not himself. Not so with Christ. He is gone into the heavenly sanctuary once for all, not to offer Himself first now, and then again some time hence, and again afterwards, and so on in perpetual succession.

On verse 26:

An of-repeated self-oblation (πολλακις προσφερειν εαυτον) would have been impossible without an oft-repeated suffering of death (πολλακισ παθειν).


The Greek Testament, on vs. 26, in reference to 25 and 26 and the argument therein:

This παθειν is here not equivalent to that προσφερειν, but is emphatically placed as a new necessity, involved in that; the πολλακις being common to both: the πολλακιςπροσφερειν necessitated the πολλακιςπαθειν. If Christ’s view in entering heaven was to offer, present, himself often to God, then, as a condition of that frequent presentation, there would be an antecedent necessity for Him to suffer often: because that self-presentation is in fact the bringing in before God of the Blood of that his suffering: and if the one was to be renewed, so must the other be likewise.

Jamieson Faussett Brown

Construe, "Nor yet did He enter for this purpose that He may offer Himself often," that is, "present Himself in the presence of God, as the high priest does (Paul uses the present tense, as the legal service was then existing), year by year, on the Day of Atonement, entering the Holy of Holies.

Beacon Bible Commentary

Extends the thought of the previous verse by affirming that this crucial self-presentation before the Father does not need to be repeated, as the high priest entereth into the [earthly] holy place every year with blood of others.

Jesus' offered Himself in God's presence, on our behalf, the completed sacrifice.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

Bob, Daniel 7 and 8 are not Leviticus 16, .

True but they speak to the same subject - it is called exegesis. All texts that speak to the same subject are taken into account, not ignored. As has been stated repeatedly in answer to that same point.

Bob, if the type is described in Leviticus 16 then you have to find the investigation there because that is the type.

If the type doesn't describe investigation of individual cases, then if later texts talk about individual investigation that is not taking what all the texts say on the subject into account, because they are not on the same subject.

The type in Lev. 16 describes the high priest in the sanctuary presenting atoning blood. The fulfillment shows the same.

You reinvented the type to call it judgment on individual cases, but that is not what the type says. And it is not what the summary of the type says in Hebrews 9:7 either:

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.

You have not demonstrated sin offerings during the year transferring sin to the sanctuary.
You have not demonstrated the type showing investigation of cases.
You haven't demonstrated two "phases" of ministry.

The sin offering for the individual, the sin offering for the whole camp for one act, and the sin offering for the whole camp for all the sins in the year all make atonement for people and make atonement in the holy place.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:
And they say that is based on tradition. It certainly is not based on Lev. 16.

Hmm they tell us the meaning of the Hebrew word --

What is Atonement?

In discussing the Day of Atonement it is helpful to accurately define the word "Atonement." Contrary to popular Christian teaching, atonement does not mean forgiveness of sin (though forgiveness may be an aspect of atonement). It is from the Hebrew word kaphar which means, "covering".​

And you say "ignore it"??

I did not ignore it. I responded to it earlier.

Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

Tall73 said:
Yes Bob, covering. Jesus' blood covers our sins. His death paid for our death. Both the sin offering each time one sinned and the sin offering on the Day of Atonement point to that.

And you didn't quote again your earlier passage that clarified they think it is a day of judgment based on their tradition.

Bob quoted:
Yom Kippur comes just ten days after Rosh Hashanah. Ten days prior to Yom Kippur, the Torah commands us to blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. One of the reasons for blowing the shofar is as a warning that a period of judgment has begun. According to Jewish tradition, the Gates of heaven swing open on Rosh Hashanah. The Heavenly Court is convened on Rosh Hashanah. The Books of Judgement opened on Rosh Hashanah. The heavenly ledgers are scrutinized on Rosh Hashanah. Hey Bob, did you notice they base "that a period of judgment has begun", and "the books of judgment opened" on "according to Jewish tradition". That is because it does not say that in the text. It says it in their tradition.

I stated:

Hey Bob, did you notice they base "that a period of judgment has begun", and "the books of judgment opened" on "according to Jewish tradition". That is because it does not say that in the text. It says it in their tradition.

Now this is a thread not on Jewish tradition testing, but Scripture testing. So I will need you to show me in the text where it describes judgment on cases

And you still need to show judgment on individual cases from the type in Lev. 16 Bob. And you keep trying to quote Jewish tradition instead, because the type in Lev. 16 shows that the high priest in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement ministered atoning blood, rather than made individual investigation of sins.

"Yom Kippur, or the "Day of Atonement," is the holiest day of the Jewish year, and provides prophetic insight regarding the Second Coming of the Messiah, the restoration of national Israel, and the final judgment of the world. It is also a day that reveals the High-Priestly work of Yeshua as our Kohen Gadol (High Priest) after the order of Malki-Tzedek (Heb. 5:10, 6:20).

"The term Yom Kippur is actually written in the plural in the Torah, Yom Ha-Kippurim (יוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים), perhaps because the purification process cleansed from a multitude of transgressions, iniquities, and sins. However, the name also alludes to the two great atonements given by the LORD - the first for those among the nations who turn to Yeshua for cleansing and forgiveness, and the second for the purification of ethnic Israel during Yom Adonai, the great Day of the LORD at the end of days"​

from: Yom Kippur - Day of Atonement

Now you have switched your site for Jewish tradition. But note from the new article:

In traditional Judaism, the day of Yom Kippur marks the climax of the ten day period of repentance called the "Days of Awe," or yamim nora'im (יָמִים נוֹרָאִים). According to the sages of Jewish tradition, on Rosh Hashanah the destiny of the righteous, the tzaddikim, are written in the Book of Life (סֵפֶר הַחַיִּים), and the destiny of the wicked, the resha'im, are written in the Book of Death.

They see per tradition that there is a judgment applying to whether you will die in the coming year, and this happens each year:

Recall from Rosh Hashanah that one of the themes of the Days of Awe is that God has "books" that He writes our names in, noting who will live and who will die in the forthcoming year.

What is Sefer ha-chayim? This is the allegorical book in which God records the names and lives of the righteous (tzaddikim). According to the Talmud it is open on Rosh Hashanah (the Book of the Dead, sefer hametim, is open on this date as well) and God then examines each soul to see if teshuvah is sh'leimah (complete). If a person turns to God and makes amends to those whom he has harmed, he will be given another year to live in the following (Jewish) year. On the other hand, if he does not repent, then the decree may be given that he will die during the coming year...

In Jewish tradition, Yom Kippur is essentially your last appeal, your last chance to change "the judgment of God" and to demonstrate your repentance and make amends.


Also note your article says:

One of the roles of our beloved Mashiach Yeshua (Jesus Christ) is that of Kohen HaGadol (High Priest) who offered true kapparah [atonement] for our sins by offering His own blood in the Holy of Holies made without hands.

A reference to

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

And they state:

Some Messianic Jews observe Yom Kippur (i.e., keep the 25 hour fast, confess sins, etc.) in order to better identify with the Jewish people, while others might observe it as a special time of personal confession and teshuvah. We are careful, however, to keep in mind that such observance does not grant us a "favorable judgment" before the LORD or determine whether our names will be written in Sefer ha-chayim (the Book of Life), since Yeshua's sacrifice and intercession is all we need for at-one-ment with the Father. Those who belong to Yeshua are indeed written in the "Lamb's book of life" (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19).

And:


Yom Ha-Din - Judgment Day

As Messianic believers, we maintain that Judgment Day has come and justice was served through the sacrificial offering of Yeshua for our sins (2 Cor. 5:21). He is the perfect fulfillment of the Akedah of Isaac. Our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, or Sefer HaChayim (Rev. 13:8). We do not believe that we are made acceptable in God's sight by means of our own works of righteousness (Titus 3:5-6), though that does not excuse us from being without such works (as fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives). The Scriptures clearly warn that on the Day of Judgment to come, anyone's name not found written in the Book of Life will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).

They clearly don't hold to Adventist theology.

And you still need to find the high priest investigating cases in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 rather than quoting Jewish tradition (which in this case does not agree with your theology either).

 

[tall73]

Correction. I claimed that Jesus did not go into the Most Holy Place for the Day of Atonement service - I have never said He did not go in for inauguration. This has always been my position many years before our conversation here - and it still is my position. Ballenger was flat out befuddled on this point not just his holy flesh fanaticism which even you know is bogus.

Folks can go back and read the exchange. You claimed the various Adventist scholars were incorrect.

I had to remind you that the inauguration shows that Jesus did go within the second veil, or He could not inaugurate, as that involved the whole sanctuary. And yes, you have mentioned before you accept the inauguration view (which is why I mentioned it in the first place, to demonstrate He did go into the second compartment, and I noted Andross held your view as well).

The entry was once for all Bob, and was by means of blood, and extended through the whole sanctuary or He could not inaugurate. But He didn't just inaugurate. He fulfilled all the entries with blood, entered into God's presence on our behalf, and secured eternal redemption.

 

[BobRyan]

Folks can go back and read the exchange. You claimed the various Adventist scholars were incorrect.

I claimed that the half dozen or so SDA scholars that wrote the 700+ page paper on the Judgment and Sanctuary message of Seventh-day Adventists were correct.

I can help you with that link for my post #218 if you like.

ok so you are giving us page 50 and 51 of Ford's book/manuscript ... "Ford said... that Spicer said... that Prescott said...".

Still it is more somewhat interesting administrivia about a meeting almost 100 years ago regarding Prescott.

But thanks for the post in any case.

For now -- I note that -- we have this scholarly work
in 1981 we have “The Sanctuary and the Atonement” published by the Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. 700 pages of research for those interested in the content of the Sanctuary subject.

(Or we could just look for more "meeting minutes" - for those that prefer that)

 

[BobRyan]

I had to remind you that the inauguration shows that Jesus did go within the second veil

You can't be serious. I have never claimed that the Inauguration in Heb 9 is the holy place -- in fact as I recall pointed to inauguration antitype for Moses' inauguration work in the MHP -- being in Heb 9 --- early on in this discussion on Hebrews.

Everyone agrees He went "Within the veil" - the question is which one.

1. Hebrews 6 does not appear to be talking mainly about Inauguration - it looks like the daily ministry of Christ in the holy place. I think Heb 9 is the closet you get to inauguration.
2. And it does your argument no good if Heb 6 is not talking about the Day of Atonement ministry -- which is a problem for your case so far.

You said --

I had to remind you that the inauguration shows that Jesus did go within the second veil, or He could not inaugurate, as that involved the whole sanctuary. And yes, you have mentioned before you accept the inauguration view (which is why I mentioned it in the first place, to demonstrate He did go into the second compartment, and I noted Andross held your view as well).

Which shows that even you admit I have had this same position on inauguration - long before this thread was created

 

[BobRyan]

The entry was once for all Bob, and was by means of blood, .

That was the entry specifically -- into the heavenly sanctuary itself -- from the cross - as High Priest it is not a reference to the day of atonement. (As has been the same response given to that vague statement - about a dozen times now)

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, if the type is described in Leviticus 16 then you have to find the investigation there because that is the type.

That's nonsense. It is like saying that if Matthew describes Christ's crucifixion on the cross - then the thief on the cross incident must be found in Matthew -- not Luke -- or it never happened.

You are running out of road on that line of argument. Stick with exegesis.

 

[tall73]

I claimed that the half dozen or so SDA scholars that wrote the 700+ page paper on the Judgment and Sanctuary message of Seventh-day Adventists were correct.

I indicated you owed Gane, Davidson, Young, Andross and Ballenger an apology. You claimed they were wrong

Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

Tall73 said:
So for instance, here is a quote from the April 2002 Andrews University Seminary Studies by Adventist OT professor Richard Davidson, responding to articles by Adventist professors Roy Gane and Norman Young (from your region, and now retired).

Andrews Unierersity Seminury Studies, S p ~ g 2002, Vol. 10, No. 1,69-88. Copyright * 2002 Andrews University Press.

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=old-testament-pubs

I appreciate the opportunity to continue the dialogue with my friend and colleague Norman Young over important matters in the book of Hebrews raised by Roy Gane's article and our two responses in recent issues of AUSS.' First of all, I wish to soften the language of the editor in his introduction of our two articles in the last issue of AUSS. The editor writes that I offer a contrasting view to both Gane and Young."' Awkward wording in an earlier draft of my article may have given the editor that impression, but the final (published) draft is, as far as I can determine, in complete harmony with the study by Gane. I agree with Gane that reference by the author of Hebrews to the veil in Heb 6:19-20,following LXX usage, most probably has in view the 'second" veil, i.e., the veil before the Most Holy Place. This was also the major conclusion of Norman Young's article, and thus I find myself in agreement with both Gane and Young in regard to their main point (i.e., the identification of the veil of Heb 6:19) and their basic methodology (recognizing the consistency of the author of Hebrews with LXX usage).

My article actually addressed a further, deeper issue, building upon the previous one: what is the OT background of Heb 6:19-20. I applaud Young for acknowledging in his reply to my article that "this indeed is the real issue." On this issue of background Young and I do come to different conclusions. I see the OT background of Heb 6:19-20 and parallel "entering" passages in Hebrews as inauguration, while Young sees the background as the Day of Atonement.

Young rightly points out that the inauguration background to Heb 6: 19-20 was suggested almost a century ago by E. E. Andross, in his book A More Excellent Ministry. However, Andross based his arguments largely on thematic typological parallels to the O T inauguration services and allusions to these elsewhere in the NT, and did not ground his conclusions in an examination of the intertextual use of key LXX terms by the author of Hebrews. Furthermore, Andross argued that Christ, following his inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary, left its Most Holy Place and sat down at the right hand of the Father on a throne in the Holy Place. Young assumes that "the logic of my position leads to the same conclusion, but in fact I do not concur with Andross on this point. I agree instead with Young, that in Hebrews the "throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb 8:1), the "throne of God" (Heb 1 2 4 , where Christ sat down, most probably should be located in the heavenly equivalent to the Most Holy Place, just as in the earthly sanctuary YHWH was enthroned in the Most Holy Place, above the ark between the cherubim Exod 25:22; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:l5). But I find attractive the further suggestion of my colleague Roy Gane, who argues that Christ is by no means confined to his position on the throne with the Father in the heavenly equivalent to the Holy of Holies.

All three of them agree that within the veil likely refers to the MHP. This was a key contention of Ballenger, and they now all agree with it.

You replied with:

They were not wrong. Jesus went into the Most Holy Place, or He could not inaugurate.

 

[tall73]

You can't be serious. I have never claimed that the Inauguration in Heb 9 is the holy place -- in fact as I recall pointed to inauguration antitype for Moses' inauguration work in the MHP -- being in Heb 9 --- early on in this discussion on Hebrews.

You said --

Which shows that even you admit I have had this same position on inauguration - long before this thread was created

Which means Gane, Young, Davidson, and especially not Andross, who holds to the view that Jesus inaugurated then went back out, were not wrong. They all claimed Jesus went into the Most Holy Place.

And yes, I reminded you that you hold to the inauguration, resulting in you admitting that He entered the Most Holy Place.