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

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

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

That was the entry into the heavenly sanctuary from the cross - as High Priest it is not a reference to the day of atonement. (As has been responded - about a dozen times now)

Bob you have said over and over it doesn't include the Day of Atonement. But that of course is you changing what it says.

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 entry was by means of blood, compared to the blood of goats. Only in the inauguration and the Day of Atonement did goats blood go into the sanctuary, and entry into the first compartment did not require blood. So your claim that it did not include the Most Holy Place in the once for all entry is not true. Moreover, you already admitted it wasn't true because you admit that He inaugurated, which required entry into the Most Holy Place, with blood. All the entries with blood were fulfilled Bob. And the only reason you want to not let that mean exactly what it says is because you have changed the type.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

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.

No Bob, it is not like two gospel accounts at all. Gospel accounts all speak of Jesus. I am asking you where the type of the high priest in the sanctuary portrays what you claim in Leviticus 16. Because for you, and the Adventist church, to claim that the type involves investigation of individual cases you have to find that in the Scriptures that describe the type.

Here you claimed that Leviticus 16 pictured this investigation of cases.

But in the pr-advent judgment done in the Lev 16 Day of Atonement

And you are not the only one who claims that. The fundamental belief number 24 includes the notion that what Jesus did in the fulfillment (which you think Daniel 7, etc. are) was TYPIFIED BY the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary:

In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary.

I am asking you to show me where in the type it pictures the priest in the most holy place of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement investigating individual cases. It does not show that at all. Rather it shows the high priest in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement ministering atoning blood. So to say that something later is the fulfillment of a type when you have not demonstrated the type even says that is not going to work.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Your own quote shows Davidson only allows for past entry into the most holy place in Heb 6 - in terms of "inauguration" and flat out rejects that it was "day of atonement".

quoting Davidson:
"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.

Are you reading your own posts?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob you have said over and over it doesn't include the Day of Atonement. But that of course is you changing what it says.

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

Which is not a day of atonement reference but rather to the work Christ had already started in the daily service - which is the only one having individual interaction with the High Priest - as noted repeatedly this thread so far.

 

[tall73]

Your own quote shows Davidson only allows for past entry into the most holy place in Heb 6 - in terms of "inauguration" and flat out rejects that it was "day of atonement".

Are you reading your own posts?

I am apparently reading better than you. I posted Davidson's view, Andross' view, etc. and how it agreed with Ballenger that Jesus entered into the MHP. I specifically said Andross indicated inauguration then going back out. Davidson indicates inauguration, but also sees Jesus most likely being in MHP.

But you disagreed with them. Then I reminded you that you believe in the inauguration. And now you got around to actually reading their position, and you do agree with them, even though you said they were wrong.

Hence my statement you should apologize to them.

 

[tall73]

Which is not a day of atonement reference but rather to the work Christ had already started in the daily service - which is the only one having individual interaction with the High Priest - as noted repeatedly this thread so far.

Of course it is regarding the Day of Atonement. Because it was all the entries with blood.

And it has been pointed out the Day of Atonement did in fact have individuals afflict themselves in light of the atonement being made for them:

Lev 16:29 “And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you.
Lev 16:30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.
Lev 16:31 It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever.

 

[BobRyan]

The entry was by means of blood, compared to the blood of goats. Only in the inauguration and the Day of Atonement did goats blood go into the sanctuary,

1. All sacrifices collapse into one single sacrifice on the cross.

2. Your statement is not accurate


Lev 1:

2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When anyone of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or the flock. 3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, so that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, so that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5 Then he shall a]">[aslaughter the b]">[bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6 He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, with the head and the suet, on the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 9 Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it up in smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire as a soothing aroma to the Lord.

10 ‘But if his offering is from the flock, either from the sheep or from the goats, as a burnt offering, he shall offer a male without defect.

If any of you brings an offering.. if it from the goats... as a burnt offering

Lev 10:
16 But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying, 17 “Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to take away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you certainly should have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded!” 19 But Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord.


LEV 6:
24 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. 27 Whoever touches its flesh will become consecrated; and when any of its blood spatters on a garment, you shall wash what spattered on it in a holy place. 28 Also the earthenware vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken; and if it was boiled in a bronze vessel, then it shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29 Every male among the priests may eat it; it is most holy. 30 But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire.

 

[BobRyan]

I am apparently reading better than you. I posted Davidson's view, Andross' view, etc. and how it agreed with Ballenger that Jesus entered into the MHP. I specifically said Andross indicated inauguration then going back out. Davidson indicates inauguration, but also sees Jesus most likely being in MHP. .

Davidson flat out rejects Day of Atonement work being done at all in Heb 6 - and you insist on it. Davidson argues that at best you only get Inauguration work in the MHP prior to the Day of Atonement which he agrees has not happened and is not addressed in Heb 6. Which deletes your entire argument.

You are pushing a "red herring" by getting Davidson's 2002 statement for Heb 6 to reject the two physical room model that God dictated for us in scripture even though he still flat out rejects your Day of Atonement idea - which is still a no-go non-starter for your argument.

Davidson maintains the classic SDA view of
1. a daily service ministry of Christ that starts at His ascension into heaven
2. - and a MHP Day of ATonement phase in Christ's ministry that only starts in 1844.

Are we simply not supposed to notice??

In the more than 20 scholars that compiled the SDA response to critics regarding the heavenly Sanctuary and Atonement - not one of them sides with the view that there is no Holy Place in the Sanctuary in heaven or that the only physical location there is the Most Holy Place.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course it is regarding the Day of Atonement. Because it was all the entries with blood.

False.

As has been stated half a dozen times - we DO see in Heb "once for all" in the case of the sacrifice on the cross, and the entry into the sanctuary. One sacrifice , one entry - but we have NO scripture to support deleting the entire Holy Place and the ministry that goes on there with individuals interacting with the High Priest for forgiveness of specific sins.

You are simply glossing over too many details.

And it has been pointed out the Day of Atonement did in fact have individuals afflict themselves in light of the atonement being made for them:

Lev 16:29 “And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you.
Lev 16:30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.
Lev 16:31 It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever.

A great example of a text describing no individual interaction between High Priest and individuals.

 

[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 said: ↑
No Bob, it is not like two gospel accounts at all.

It's like "Exegesis" where the same doctrine is fleshed out in "more than one text" as we see in the case the crucifixion where "more details" are given in different books of the Bible - different chapters.

This is "irrefutable".

Gospel accounts all speak of Jesus. I am asking you where the type of the high priest in the sanctuary portrays what you claim in Leviticus 16. Because for you, and the Adventist church, to claim that the type involves investigation of individual cases you have to find that in the Scriptures that describe the type.

That artificial rejection of all of scripture outside of Lev 16 that speaks to the same topic of the Day of Atonement and judgment - is less then compelling.

If the only information that the Bible had on any one given doctrine was "just in the symbols of the type" and if that was the case for judgment and the day of ATonement - you would have at least one leg to stand on.

But as it is we have MORE information than "just in symbols of the type" on the subject of the judgment that is a key part of the Day of Atonement.

JUST like we have MORE information about Christ as the Passover lamb - beyond just "an animal slain" - and we cannot reject all of scripture outside of "animal sacrifice" for getting more Bible details about the cross of Christ.

This is irrefutable.

 

[tall73]

1. All sacrifices collapse into one single sacrifice on the cross.

Yes of course they do. Just like all the entries collapse into one. But you of course deny the plain text.

But the point made was that it is compared to entry with blood of goats and calves IN THE TYPE. And goat's blood only went into the sanctuary on two occasions, the inauguration and the Day of Atonement. You already admitted one of those, so you really admitted the whole thing, because it is all in one.

2. Your statement is not accurate

Yes it is.

Lev 1:

2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When anyone of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or the flock. 3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, so that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, so that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5 Then he shall a]">[aslaughter the b]">[bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6 He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, with the head and the suet, on the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 9 Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it up in smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire as a soothing aroma to the Lord.'

10 ‘But if his offering is from the flock, either from the sheep or from the goats, as a burnt offering, he shall offer a male without defect.

This includes goats, but doesn't go inside. It only reaches to the altar.

Lev 10:
16 But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying, 17 “Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to take away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you certainly should have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded!” 19 But Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord

This also does not show blood going into the sanctuary. In fact it says plainly since its blood has not been brought into the sanctuary.

That is because the the sin offerings that went into the sanctuary for the anointed priest and for a sin by the whole camp. In both those cases bulls were the sin offering, rather than a goat.

The goat was offered for a leader or common person, but the blood did not go into the sanctuary.

LEV 6:
24 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. 27 Whoever touches its flesh will become consecrated; and when any of its blood spatters on a garment, you shall wash what spattered on it in a holy place. 28 Also the earthenware vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken; and if it was boiled in a bronze vessel, then it shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29 Every male among the priests may eat it; it is most holy. 30 But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire.

Those that went into the sanctuary were bulls. But note Bob, the sin offering didn't transfer sin. It made atonement in the holy place. So your whole system is broken from the start. The blood always made atonement. Anything the sin offering touched became holy, rather than becoming a sin container.

The entry by means of blood extended to the most holy place, because that is where goat's blood was brought in. And the entry was once for all.

 

[tall73]

Davidson flat out rejects Day of Atonement work being done at all in Heb 6 - and you insist on it. Davidson argues that at best you only get Inauguration work in the MHP prior to the Day of Atonement which he agrees has not happened and is not addressed in Heb 6. Which deletes your entire argument.

Oh we don't disagree on Davidson's position. But he agrees Jesus went into the Most Holy Place and actually thinks he stayed there seeing the throne of grace as the mercy seat, per the article. And that was the point, to show that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place at His ascension. And you have admitted that due to the inauguration.

And the entry by means of blood was once for all, so you actually admitted the whole thing, even if you wish the text didn't say once for all entry by means of blood, and pretend it doesn't mean the parts you don't want it to mean.

Davidson maintains the classic SDA view of a daily service ministry of Christ that starts at His ascension into heaven - and a MHP Day of ATonement phase in Christ's ministry that only starts in 1844.

Are we simply not supposed to notice??

Oh we notice Bob. We notice he fails to address the once for all entry by means of blood. Once for all is plain Bob, even if you and Davidson don't want to admit it.

But you and he both admitted the once for all entry by means of blood extended to the MHP or else He could not inaugurate. And it was a once for all entry, so it fulfilled even the Day of Atonement.

And that is also seen in v. 23-24 where the necessity of the cleansing of the heavenly things is spelled out then shows Jesus going into God's presence on our behalf. Jesus already presented Himself, just as the high priest presented blood. Jesus doesn't bring blood in jars because He is alive, but He brings His own blood in His person. He brings Himself. And the entry was once for all by means of His own blood. And it obtained eternal redemption.

In the more than 20 scholars that compiled the SDA response to critics regarding the heavenly Sanctuary and Atonement - not one of them sides with the view that there is no Holy Place in the Sanctuary in heaven or that the only physical location there is the Most Holy Place.

Nor does it matter. Because they admit He inaugurated which means the once for all entry extended to the MHP. And the entry was by means of blood, once for all.

And by the way, many commentaries see the Day of Atonement in Hebrews, but Adventists try not to because then their whole identity falls apart.

But Jesus entering in, in the context of the cleansing of the heavenly things, to appear in God's presence for us is plain:

Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
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.

His once for all entry by means of blood secured eternal redemption already in the first century:

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.

The inauguration did not secure eternal redemption Bob.

Jesus already made purification for sins in the first century before He sat down:

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Purification did not come from just the death. It came from the blood ministration. And it was all done by the first century.

And all this is in the context of setting the stage in 9:7 describing the Day of Atonement cleansing in the type, which is then seen as fulfilled.

Which is why the Adventist sanctuary doctrine is unique. Other commentaries note the connection with the Day of Atonement. But Adventists have a vested interest in not seeing it, as their identity depends on not seeing it.

 

[tall73]

False.

As has been stated half a dozen times - we DO see in Heb "once for all" in the case of the sacrifice on the cross, and the entry into the sanctuary.

Bob entry by means of blood was for the second compartment, and you admit it went that far because of the inauguration. We can go in circles all day with you claiming once for all entry by means of blood (you didn't need blood to go into the first compartment), compared to that of bulls and goats in the type (goats blood only went in during the inauguration and the Day of Atonement) does't REALLY mean once for all entry by means of blood, but only once for all except for the Day of Atonement. But that of course is special pleading.

And you haven't explained how the entry by means of blood secured eternal redemption. But of course it is obvious when you realize it completed all the blood ministration.

And you haven't explained how Jesus had already made purification for sins by the time He sat down. But He had:

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

One sacrifice , one entry - but we have NO scripture to support deleting the entire Holy Place and the ministry that goes on there with individuals interacting with the High Priest for forgiveness of specific sins.

We have not basis for you making two phases to start with. You haven't demonstrated sin offerings transferring sin. They atone for the person and the holy place, just as on the Day of Atonement.

And the Day of Atonement is likewise a picture of presentation of blood for atonement, but for all the sins of all the people.

And of course you reinvent the type itself. But Hebrews 9:7 describes what the high priest did in the type, and it was to minister atoning blood. And that was done already in the first century because Jesus already made purification for sins before He sat down.

You are simply glossing over too many details.

Not at all. You are inventing details not in the type. The priest ministered atoning blood in the type, not investigated individual cases.

You invent the sin offering transferring sin to the sanctuary, and thereby invent two "phases", when the sin offering and the sin offering in the Day of Atonement are both said to atone for people and to make atonement in the holy place. They all point to the atoning blood of Christ.

And then you insist everyone must see your made up details. But Adventists are the only ones who hold their view because other see what 9:7 says. It doesn't picture investigation of cases, but ministration of atoning blood.

A great example of a text describing no individual interaction between High Priest and individuals.

Of course it was. Each individual was required to afflict themselves while the atonement went on and blood ministration was made for them.

Jesus already did the blood work and made purification Now we come to Him for the benefits.

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

 

[tall73]

It's like "Exegesis" where the same doctrine is fleshed out in "more than one text" as we see in the case the crucifixion where "more details" are given in different books of the Bible - different chapters.

This is "irrefutable".

Neither of us disagrees the gospels flesh out more details.

But Adventists claim that Jesus fulfilled the type. So you have to show what is in the type which you claim. And you have not.

That artificial rejection of all of scripture outside of Lev 16 that speaks to the same topic of the Day of Atonement and judgment - is less then compelling.

No, it is holding you to what the fundamental says. You are supposed to find your investigation of individual cases IN THE TYPE.

If the only information that the Bible had on any one given doctrine was "just in the symbols of the type" and if that was the case for judgment and the day of ATonement - you would have at least one leg to stand on.

But as it is we have MORE information than "just in symbols of the type" on the subject of the judgment that is a key part of the Day of Atonement.

Bob if you cannot find it in the type then it is not a fulfillment of the type. That is obvious.

JUST like we have MORE information about Christ as the Passover lamb - beyond just "an animal slain" - and we cannot reject all of scripture outside of "animal sacrifice" for getting more Bible details about the cross of Christ.

This is irrefutable.

Bob, we have the details in the type of the Passover that Jesus fulfilled.

AND we have the details in the Day of Atonement in the sanctuary where the high priest ministered atoning blood, and Jesus fulfilled that.

What you cannot find in the type is what you describe, the high priest on the Day of Atonement in the sanctuary making investigation of individual cases. Which demonstrates you changed the type.

Now Bob you claim you have other texts like Daniel 7.

Are you claiming that Daniel 7 is the type, or the fulfillment?

If it the fulfillment then you have to show it in the type, because that would be what it is fulfilling, and what the Adventist doctrine claims.

Instead you made up something not in the type and then claim you found it in Daniel 7. If you can't find it in the type there is nothing to find in Daniel 7 as a fulfillment of a non-existent type.

It is painfully obvious you don't have texts saying the sin offering transfers sin which sinks your whole system.

It is painfully obvious you don't have a text from the type that shows the high priest in the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement investigating individual cases.

And it is painfully obvious once for all entry with blood means just what it says, and not what you want it to mean, everything but the Day of Atonement.

Jesus already made purification for sins in the first century Bob. And purification for all the sins of the people, with blood was what was done in the sanctuary by the high priest, in the type. He already entered into God's presence on our behalf, in the context of a description of the cleansing of the heavenly things. He already obtained eternal redemption.

It is no wonder the Adventist doctrine is unique to them. They changed the type, and ignored the fulfillment of the actual type.

And they transformed Jesus' precious atoning blood into a vehicle for defilement, instead of a means of atonement which the text says.

 

[BobRyan]

========Goats used in sin offerings

Lev 1:

2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When anyone of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or the flock. 3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, so that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, so that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.

5 He shall kill the bull before the Lord; and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting (NKJV/KJV)

6 He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, with the head and the suet, on the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 9 Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it up in smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire as a soothing aroma to the Lord.

10 ‘But if his offering is from the flock, either from the sheep or from the goats, as a burnt offering, he shall offer a male without defect.

If any of you brings an offering.. if it from the goats... as a burnt offering

========sin offering taken into the sanctuary:

Lev 10:
16 But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying, 17 “Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to take away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you certainly should have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded!” 19 But Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord.


LEV 6:
24 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. 27 Whoever touches its flesh will become consecrated; and when any of its blood spatters on a garment, you shall wash what spattered on it in a holy place. 28 Also the earthenware vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken; and if it was boiled in a bronze vessel, then it shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29 Every male among the priests may eat it; it is most holy. 30 But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire.

========Sin offerings offered up in smoke:

DAILY Service where Individuals receive Atonement/Forgiveness of sins


Lev 4:

27 ‘Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty, 28 if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed. 29 He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering. 30 The priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar. 31 Then he shall remove all its fat, just as the fat was removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar for a soothing aroma to the Lord. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.


32 ‘But if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring it, a female without defect. 33 He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they slay the burnt offering. 34 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar. 35 Then he shall remove all its fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and the priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar, on the offerings by fire to the Lord. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

 

[BobRyan]

Neither of us disagrees the gospels flesh out more details.

In fact that is true in all of scripture will all doctrine - we can find "more detail" on a given doctrine outside of "a single chapter" that addresses it.

and symbols-and-type about the lamb slain - will always have "more detail" found regarding the work and mission of Christ and the various details about what the death accomplished - outside "the symbol of an animal sacrificed".

But Adventists claim that Jesus fulfilled the type.

turns out... a lot of Christians claim Christ fulfilled the type of the lamb slain, the goat slain, the bull slain, the Passover, the feast of first fruits, the feast of Pentecost, The role of high Priest, the Day of Atonement.

That is not the part that is unique to SDAs.

 

[BobRyan]

So you have to show what is in the type which you claim. And you have not.

No, it is holding you to what the fundamental says. You are supposed to find your investigation of individual cases

Which I have shown you many times - in scripture.

Your argument that is of the form -- "only in Matthew can you find information about the cross" idea is totally bogus. We find information about the work of Christ and the future judgment in a great many places and it is not merely SDAs who 'notice' that the Day of Atonement is a day of Judgment.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob entry by means of blood was for the second compartment,

Correction. Entry by means of blood was for the entire "sanctuary" entering IT.

1. Every service regarding the forgiveness of sins in the type began with a sin offering - which Christ did "once for all"
2. Every sin offering / sacrifice included entry into the sanctuary either by taking blood or eating the sacrifice and so it entered in the person of the priest.

Has we have stated bazillions of times by now - that one sacrifice and one entry into the sanctuary itself was "once for all".

But NO TEXT SAYS "He entered the most holy place once for all" at His ascension.
And NO TEXT SAYS that the Day of Atonement service had even started at all at the writing of Hebrews.
And NO TEXT Says that the daily service ended at the writing of the book of Hebrews
And NO TEXT says Christ is not still functioning in that sanctuary in his role as High Priest
And NO TEXT says that inauguration was the first event that began the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 - in fact it was not any part at all of the Day of ATonement events in Lev 16.

God's own statement is that there is a two-phase operation for the sanctuary -
1 The DAILY Service where individuals interact personally with the High Priest for forgiveness of sins case by case - daily. And receive forgiveness of sins.
2. The final Day of Atonement where there is NO individual interaction with the High Priest. It is a day of judgment as described in Dan 7:9-10 with Christ coming to the Ancient of Days in the courtroom of Heaven before the 2nd Advent.

Heb 9 continues to affirm the TWO Veils and TWO phase function of the Sanctuary in heaven and adds detail about the work of Christ - case by case, individual by individual in His role as High Priest which is by definition the daily service activity.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob you have said over and over it doesn't include the Day of Atonement. But that of course is you changing what it says.

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

Nothing in there about the Day of Atonement. It speaks to the entering of the sanctuary which Priests did in the daily service.

One offering.
One entry into the sanctuary

But not just ONE event/phase for the sanctuary - rather God's definition of that work done in two-phases remains and nothing in hebrews changes that.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes of course they do. Just like all the entries collapse into one. But you of course deny the plain text.

false. I have stated repeatedly that there is one sacrifice and one entry into the sanctuary in heaven itself.

Try again.

But the point made was that it is compared to entry with blood of goats and calves IN THE TYPE. And goat's blood only went into the sanctuary on two occasions, the inauguration and the Day of Atonement.

False.

I have shown you in Lev where sin offerings were brought by individuals and included the sin offering of a goat.


It looks a lot like this.

========Goats used in sin offerings

Lev 1:

2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When anyone of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or the flock. 3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, so that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, so that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.

5 He shall kill the bull before the Lord; and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting (NKJV/KJV)

6 He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, with the head and the suet, on the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 9 Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it up in smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire as a soothing aroma to the Lord.

10 ‘But if his offering is from the flock, either from the sheep or from the goats, as a burnt offering, he shall offer a male without defect.

If any of you brings an offering.. if it from the goats... as a burnt offering

========sin offering taken into the sanctuary:

Lev 10:
16 But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying, 17 “Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to take away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you certainly should have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded!” 19 But Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord.


LEV 6:
24 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. 27 Whoever touches its flesh will become consecrated; and when any of its blood spatters on a garment, you shall wash what spattered on it in a holy place. 28 Also the earthenware vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken; and if it was boiled in a bronze vessel, then it shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29 Every male among the priests may eat it; it is most holy. 30 But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire.

========Sin offerings offered up in smoke:

DAILY Service where Individuals receive Atonement/Forgiveness of sins


Lev 4:

27 ‘Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty, 28 if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed. 29 He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering. 30 The priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar. 31 Then he shall remove all its fat, just as the fat was removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar for a soothing aroma to the Lord. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.


32 ‘But if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring it, a female without defect. 33 He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they slay the burnt offering. 34 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and all the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar. 35 Then he shall remove all its fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and the priest shall offer them up in smoke on the altar, on the offerings by fire to the Lord. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin which he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

You are attempting an wooden-rigid interpretation with "goats" such that Christ "The lamb of God" , and Christ "the Passover Lamb" have to be rejected since it must be "a goat". you are going wayyy too far in your stretching of that point.