What are Progressive/Evangelical views on Des Ford Investigative Judgement Thesis

[AdamjEdgar]

You asked me to respond to the points in your article. I had already responded. Had you even started to read the responses you would know I was responding to it, whether you understood all the arguments or not.

If you want responses to detailed dissertations, expect details responses. The dissertation is hundreds of pages. I expressed my response in a quite compact form comparatively.




I already did that several times as well.

Here is one simple version that hopefully you can understand. You ask when Jesus became high priest.

It was before the author of Hebrews wrote in the first century. And it was by the time He entered into the sanctuary once for all, by means of blood (which was not required to enter the first compartment), and obtained eternal redemption.

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.

Let me know if that answers whether Jesus was a high priest in the first century.

yes i follow that no problems. I am wondering, lets put the following scenario out there...

Jesus is our sacrifice
Jesus is our Priest
Jesus is our High Priest
Jesus is Mighty God (i did not include almighty simply because even though i believe he is, Jw's claim the text doesnt say that in Isaiah)

If we talk now about the nature of Christ (as this is also an issue I hear coming from the Ford camp),

a. how does one explain that the creator of all, the very essence of the science that explains our physical existence, a triune Mighty God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is limited physically to one compartment in the sanctuary in heaven?
b. building on from above, I have this idea concerning Christ...is there any reason why he is not able to "simultaneously" perform all functions of the priesthood and act as God?

 

[tall73]

yes i follow that no problems. I am wondering, lets put the following scenario out there...

Jesus is our sacrifice
Jesus is our Priest
Jesus is our High Priest
Jesus is Mighty God (i did not include almighty simply because even though i believe he is, Jw's claim the text doesnt say that in Isaiah)

If we talk now about the nature of Christ (as this is also an issue I hear coming from the Ford camp),

a. how does one explain that the creator of all, the very essence of the science that explains our physical existence, a triune Mighty God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is limited physically to one compartment in the sanctuary in heaven?
b. building on from above, I have this idea concerning Christ...is there any reason why he is not able to simultaneously perform all functions of the priesthood and act as God?

He did simultaneously perform all of the blood ministration for every sacrifice ever, immediately upon His ascension. That is why it says he already ratified the covenant, already inaugurated, already presented one sacrifice for sins, already completed the red heifer, etc. in Hebrews 9 and ten.

Not only was the death once for all. The entry was once for all. And He appeared once, rather than yearly, in God's presence for us.

The blood ministration is over. He is not presenting different sacrifices, but His one completed sacrifice was already presented, past tense to the author of Hebrews, in His own person. That is why it says:

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

The Day of Atonement type was entry with blood into God's presence. Jesus did that. He did not complete just the death. He completed the once for all entry, as High Priest, into God's presence.

And His offering (not just the death, the priestly offering) fulfilled all the blood ministrations:

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God

The priest standing daily offering is not just the sacrifice. In fact, the common person's sin offering was not killed by the priest but by the person. The reference is to the ministration of blood. And Jesus did that.

His role now as high priest is to give the benefits of that completed blood ministration to all who come to Him in faith.

Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The blood portion of the sin offering is done. He doesn't need to die again, and he doesn't need to minister the blood again in heaven. He doesn't present blood in heaven again every time we confess. He forgives on the basis of that already ministered sacrifice.

The blood portion of the Day of Atonement is done. Now all those throughout the Christian era who trust in Him to the end, and afflict themselves, avail themselves of that ministration.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

He did simultaneously perform all of the blood ministration for every sacrifice ever, immediately upon His ascension. That is why it says he already ratified the covenant, already inaugurated, already presented one sacrifice for sins, already completed the red heifer, etc. in Hebrews 9 and ten.

Not only was the death once for all. The entry was once for all. And He appeared once, rather than yearly, in God's presence for us.

The blood ministration is over. He is not presenting different sacrifices, but His one completed sacrifice was already presented, past tense to the author of Hebrews, in His own person. That is why it says:

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

The Day of Atonement type was entry with blood into God's presence. Jesus did that. He did not complete just the death. He completed the once for all entry, as High Priest, into God's presence.

And His offering (not just the death, the priestly offering) fulfilled all the blood ministrations:

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God

The priest standing daily offering is not just the sacrifice. In fact, the common person's sin offering was not killed by the priest but by the person. The reference is to the ministration of blood. And Jesus did that.

His role now as high priest is to give the benefits of that completed blood ministration to all who come to Him in faith.

Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The blood portion of the sin offering is done. He doesn't need to die again, and he doesn't need to minister the blood again in heaven. He doesn't present blood in heaven again every time we confess. He forgives on the basis of that already ministered sacrifice.

The blood portion of the Day of Atonement is done. Now all those throughout the Christian era who trust in Him to the end, and afflict themselves, avail themselves of that ministration.

I agree that Jesus offered one sacrifice for all.

It seems to me that the discrepancy lies in whether or not the sanctuary in heaven can be defiled.

If i am understanding your previous posts correctly you claim it cannot be defiled because God is perfect and sinless. This leads me to think that you believe that the ministry covers only the defilement part of the Old Testament rehearsal of the plan of salvation by the Israelites.

So here is my question regarding that assumption (if i have it correct):

1. Is it not true that Satan sinned in heaven not on earth?
2. The charge Satan made against God first happened in heaven not on earth, however, the earth has been the staging ground for the playing out of the narrative of the Bible

If the above are true, then how does one maintain the position that sin does not exist in heaven and that the heavenly sanctuary where Gods throne resides, has not been, and cannot be, defiled...particularly in light of the end of the Atonement service rehearsing that the scapegoat Azazel will eventually have "Atoned for sin" placed back on his own head and banished and that Satan will be destroyed for all sin

 

[tall73]

I agree that Jesus offered one sacrifice for all.

It seems to me that the discrepancy lies in whether or not the sanctuary in heaven can be defiled.

If i am understanding your previous posts correctly you claim it cannot be defiled because God is perfect and sinless. This leads me to think that you believe that the earthly ministry covers the defilement part of the Old Testament rehearsal of the plan of salvation by the Israelites.

I never stated that the heavenly places did not need cleansing. Quite the opposite. But the only New Testament passage that discusses that in detail is in Hebrews 9, and it shows it already happened in the first century.

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.
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

Hebrews says it was necessary for the heavenly things to be cleansed. But then it spells out how Jesus entered (past tense to the author of Hebrews), into God's presence on our behalf. Then verse 25 says that He didn't have to go in every year, as the earthly high priest did, every Day of Atonement. Rather, He did it once.

 

[tall73]

particularly in light of the end of the Atonement service rehearsing that the scapegoat Azazel will eventually have "Atoned for sin" placed back on his own head and banished and that Satan will be destroyed for all sin

Since you do not like long posts I will wait until you respond to the above post before addressing this.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

... the only New Testament passage that discusses that in detail is in Hebrews 9, and it shows it already happened in the first century.

Hebrews says it was necessary for the heavenly things to be cleansed. But then it spells out how Jesus entered (past tense to the author of Hebrews), into God's presence on our behalf. Then verse 25 says that He didn't have to go in every year, as the earthly high priest did, every Day of Atonement. Rather, He did it once.

Ok so here we have what i think is a timeline issue. The claim is that Paul says past tense and that he is only speaking of the cleansing process being past tense.

Now without going right now and carefully looking at this passage again (i do read it often but when discussing these things i want the person to explain their point of view to me and that is my aim here...

I have a couple of thoughts to put to you:

1. Is Paul illustrating the earthly model and actually referring to the rehearsal process demonstrated by the Israelites in explaining the future heavenly one? (I dont have specific text examples in mind right now where this is the case with Bible writers although obviously John does this quite a lot in Revelation, but I am sure you can think of plenty of specific examples)

2. I get this feeling that too much emphasis is being placed on the sacrifice and in light of that, the Atonement process is being heavily restricted in its fulfillment to a very finite event immediately after the ascension of Christ into Heaven.

Now i am not wanting to make claim here that Paul is wrong...that is however a claim that is made against E.G White by modern individuals

irrespective of the characteristics of her physical state in visions being supported according to the model outline in the bible...i do not recall any of those physical attributes during visions being proven of Joseph Smith for example but after watching the entire Battlestar Galactica series recently, its clear there are far easier ways of determining the errancy of Mormonism! (BSG is based on the concepts of mormonism)​

Could it be that Paul himself doesn't fully understand timeline of the Heavenly Sanctuary concept in his own writings in Hebrews? If i take your view, i would have to conclude that to be the case because of the 2300 day/year in Daniel 8!

It seems to me that when i read Paul, we know that he and the apostle Peter did not agree, Paul seems to be at times in direct conflict with other NT writers:

1. By claiming Jesus entered directly into the MHP he does not appear to follow existing well-known traditions
2. His timeline does not fit Daniels prophecy of the 2300 days/years (which obviously cannot possibly end in A.D 31, or A.D 34 at the stoning of Stephen, or A.D 70/135 with the destruction of Jerusalem....as these dates simply do not line up with its timeline)
3. What John writes in the book of Revelation concerning these things...so much so that a number of denominations essentially claim John's work is either wrong or simply metaphorical and/or has no specific application in time

For example, read the following from the NKJV for Daniel 9:2-4

For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the [a]sanctuary; 3and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold
​

If I simply provided only those 2 verses to you how would you interpret them?

You would say the following:
1. the sanctuary and the Tabernacle are two different things in that the sanctuary is inside the outer tabernacle
2. they are separated by 2 veils and that behind the second veil is a part of the tabernacle which contains a golden censor and an ark with gold. "hang on, wasn't the inner building in the previous verse just called a Sanctuary...what is going on here, so the second part of the tabernacle is not a Sanctuary?"

Now here is the problem with vs4...
1. the prophecy in Daniel specifically says "2300 days and the Sanctuary..." does it not? So immediately we are left with the original Millerite dilemma, the earth is to be cleansed after 2300 days beginning 457 B.C, the Millenium has already started and SAtan will be killed at the end of it...around A.D 2844!
2. Second, how did the priest first get the golden censor in order to put incense inside it to be able to enter the holiest place when the golden censor is already inside the MHP? based on a loose outside knowledge a person would then ask, Wouldnt he die if he entered the holiest place without incense? Clearly the priest goes into the MHP a number of times during the process!

 

[tall73]

Ok so here we have what i think is a timeline issue. The claim is that Paul says past tense and that he is only speaking of the cleansing process being past tense.

The cleansing by presenting blood in God's presence is what happened IN the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.

So that is the point at issue.

I get this feeling that too much emphasis is being placed on the sacrifice and in light of that, the Atonement process is being heavily restricted in its fulfillment to a very finite event immediately after the ascension of Christ into Heaven.

The blood ministration process happened in the past tense.

if Jesus made one sacrifice, encompassing all the sacrifices, and made one once-for-all entry, and and presented that one sacrifice before the Father, that is it. There is no other blood ministration to be done. He fulfilled it.

That does not mean the whole Day of Atonement type was completed yet.

As mentioned many times, but I am not sure you saw it, the scapegoat portion happens when the high priest leaves the sanctuary. It is not explained in the New Testament, but would apparently happen future to now when Jesus leaves the heavenly sanctuary.

Could it be that Paul himself doesn't fully understand timeline of the Heavenly Sanctuary concept in his own writings in Hebrews?

Paul is not stated as the author, and the issue is hotly debated. Ellen White does say it is Paul, so if you want to think that, fine. But I take no position on it.

But why would you argue that the author doesn't know the timeline? First of all the heavenly is the true, the earthly is the shadow. There are several differences. But the heavenly is always better.

-Jesus makes one sacrifice instead of many--but he knows there are many in the type, and specifically says Jesus fulfilled them all in one.

-Jesus makes one entry instead of many--but he knows of the other entries, and refers to items involving entry.

-Jesus presents Himself once before the Father instead of yearly-but this is contrasted with the yearly of the earthly priest.

-Jesus lives forever--but he knows the high priest died and spells out how Jesus is better.

Jesus is sinless--but he knows that the earthly high priest is not and has to offer for himself, and spells out how Jesus is better.

Jesus has opened up greater access to us than even the earthly high priest. We can go anytime to the throne of grace. But he mentions the earthly high priest could only go once per year.

He is not confused on the type. But he knows the earthly is the shadow, and the heavenly is the reality. And He shows how Jesus fulfilled it. He knew quite well the type, and the fulfillment.

It seems to me that when i read Paul, we know that he and the apostle Peter did not agree, Paul seems to be at times in direct conflict with other NT writers:

Peter endorses Paul's writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3.

1. By claiming Jesus entered directly into the MHP he does not appear to follow existing well-known traditions

God designed the earthly. It is a shadow that only points to aspects of the reality:

Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.

2. His timeline does not fit Daniels prophecy of the 2300 days/years (which obviously cannot possibly end in A.D 31, or A.D 34 at the stoning of Stephen, or A.D 70/135 with the destruction of Jerusalem....as these dates simply do not line up with its timeline)

Since we are going point by point, will address this when you respond.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The cleansing by presenting blood in God's presence is what happened IN the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.

So that is the point at issue.



The blood ministration process happened in the past tense.

if Jesus made one sacrifice, encompassing all the sacrifices, and made one once-for-all entry, and and presented that one sacrifice before the Father, that is it. There is no other blood ministration to be done. He fulfilled it.

That does not mean the whole Day of Atonement type was completed yet.

As mentioned many times, but I am not sure you saw it, the scapegoat portion happens when the high priest leaves the sanctuary. It is not explained in the New Testament, but would apparently happen future to now when Jesus leaves the heavenly sanctuary.



Paul is not stated as the author, and the issue is hotly debated. Ellen White does say it is Paul, so if you want to think that, fine. But I take no position on it.

But why would you argue that the author doesn't know the timeline? First of all the heavenly is the true, the earthly is the shadow. There are several differences. But the heavenly is always better.

-Jesus makes one sacrifice instead of many--but he knows there are many in the type, and specifically says Jesus fulfilled them all in one.

-Jesus makes one entry instead of many--but he knows of the other entries, and refers to items involving entry.

-Jesus presents Himself once before the Father instead of yearly-but this is contrasted with the yearly of the earthly priest.

-Jesus lives forever--but he knows the high priest died and spells out how Jesus is better.

Jesus is sinless--but he knows that the earthly high priest is not and has to offer for himself, and spells out how Jesus is better.

Jesus has opened up greater access to us than even the earthly high priest. We can go anytime to the throne of grace. But he mentions the earthly high priest could only go once per year.

He is not confused on the type. But he knows the earthly is the shadow, and the heavenly is the reality. And He shows how Jesus fulfilled it. He knew quite well the type, and the fulfillment.



Peter endorses Paul's writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3.




God designed the earthly. It is a shadow that only points to aspects of the reality:

Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.



Since we are going point by point, will address this when you respond.

I guess the point I am getting at, is this...you appear to be taking your doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary on a book that i am now starting to really doubt was actually written directly by Paul. Now this is not to say its completely wrong, however there are some significant problems that arise in reading the book of Hebrews.

Could it be someone like Appollos wrote it?

That would explain the theology not matching up with the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel 8 and denominations ignoring the corresponding passages in the book of Revelation.

see the following from wikipedia..."The Epistle To the Hebrews"

However, doubt on Pauline authorship in the Roman Church is reported by Eusebius.[3] Modern biblical scholarship considers its authorship unknown,[4] perhaps written in deliberate imitation of the style of Paul

Scholars of Greek consider its writing to be more polished and eloquent than any other book of the New Testament, and "the very carefully composed and studied Greek of Hebrews is not Paul's spontaneous, volatile contextual Greek"

​

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I thought i woudl expand from wikipedia...Appollos

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (AD 55) mentions Apollos as an important figure at Corinth. Paul describes Apollos' role at Corinth:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.[8]
Paul's Epistle refers to a schism between four parties in the Corinthian church, of which two attached themselves to Paul and Apollos respectively, using their names[9] (the third and fourth were Peter, identified as Cephas, and Jesus Christ himself).[10] It is possible, though, that, as Msgr. Ronald Knox suggests, the parties were actually two, one claiming to follow Paul, the other claiming to follow Apollos.​

A schism, for those who may have forgotten, is a separation, a religious division. So if Appollos did write Hebrews, and the elegance of the literary style would indicate it's of an academic level well above someone like Paul, then his theology will not be inline with either the disciples, or even the apostles, and therefore would have differences even with Paul!

I am not by any means claiming Hebrews is a non canononical book, however in light of the above, one needs to probably place more emphasis on other biblical books and themes to determine where one may be in error with this doctrine other than the book of Hebrews

Even Origin states...

In the epistle entitled To The Hebrews the diction does not exhibit the characteristic roughness of speech or phraseology admitted by the Apostle [Paul] himself, the construction of the sentences is closer to the Greek usage, as anyone capable of recognising differences of style would agree.
​

from the Appollos article, i note it says that even Martin Luther did not believe Paul wrote Hebrews. I have found reference from the Wikipedia article on Hebrews, that indicates that when the bible cannon was being organized, it was touch and go as to whether Hebrews would be included!

Because of its anonymity, it had some trouble being accepted as part of the Christian canon, being classed with the Antilegomena. Eventually it was accepted as scripture because of its sound theology, eloquent presentation, and other intrinsic factors​

 

[tall73]

I guess the point I am getting at, is this...you appear to be taking your doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary on a book that i am now starting to really doubt was actually written directly by Paul. Now this is not to say its completely wrong, however there are some significant problems that arise in reading of the book.

Could it be someone like Appollos wrote it?

That would explain the theology not matching up with the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel 8 and denominations ignoring the corresponding passages in the book of Revelation.

see the following from wikipedia..."The Epistle To the Hebrews"

However, doubt on Pauline authorship in the Roman Church is reported by Eusebius.[3] Modern biblical scholarship considers its authorship unknown,[4] perhaps written in deliberate imitation of the style of Paul

Scholars of Greek consider its writing to be more polished and eloquent than any other book of the New Testament, and "the very carefully composed and studied Greek of Hebrews is not Paul's spontaneous, volatile contextual Greek"

​

Yes, as I mentioned, I don't know that Paul wrote it, and there are a number of things that suggest he did not. The greek is much more refined, and difficult to translate than Paul's usual from my limited perspective when translating, and scholars relate the same. Although, keep in mind many think this was likely a sermon that was put into letter form. The whole thing is an exhortation. And it has very limited intro. It is possible a Greek speaking scribe placed it in writing for the speaker.

But I do not doubt it is Scripture. Nor do I think the author was confused.

For instance, scholars hotly debate the question you asked about the golden altar of incense. Some think it refers to a censor that is carried in. Some think it is the altar.

But note that in both the sanctuary and the temple the golden altar is very closely linked with the Day of Atonement, but also the Most Holy Place, and the ark.

Exo 30:1 “You shall make an altar on which to burn incense; you shall make it of acacia wood.
Exo 30:2 A cubit shall be its length, and a cubit its breadth. It shall be square, and two cubits shall be its height. Its horns shall be of one piece with it.
Exo 30:3 You shall overlay it with pure gold, its top and around its sides and its horns. And you shall make a molding of gold around it.
Exo 30:4 And you shall make two golden rings for it. Under its molding on two opposite sides of it you shall make them, and they shall be holders for poles with which to carry it.
Exo 30:5 You shall make the poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold.
Exo 30:6 And you shall put it in front of the veil that is above the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is above the testimony, where I will meet with you.

1Ki 6:22 And he overlaid the whole house with gold, until all the house was finished. Also the whole altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold.

The text indicates that the altar belonged to, similar to "having" in the Hebrews passage, the inner sanctuary.


Exo 40:5 And thou shalt set the altar of gold for the incense before the ark of the testimony, and put the hanging of the door to the tabernacle.

While is seems a strange think in Hebrews, it lines up with the thinking in the type. It is set right before the ark, used on the Day of Atonement, and right by the hanging veil, so that when Day of Atonement comes and the curtain is opened to go into the MHP, its use belongs to that area.

Now if you are ready we can go point by point through your next objection, and parts of your article regarding the 2,300 days.

 

[tall73]

I thought i woudl expand from wikipedia...Appollos

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (AD 55) mentions Apollos as an important figure at Corinth. Paul describes Apollos' role at Corinth:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.[8]
Paul's Epistle refers to a schism between four parties in the Corinthian church, of which two attached themselves to Paul and Apollos respectively, using their names[9] (the third and fourth were Peter, identified as Cephas, and Jesus Christ himself).[10] It is possible, though, that, as Msgr. Ronald Knox suggests, the parties were actually two, one claiming to follow Paul, the other claiming to follow Apollos.​

A schism, for those who may have forgotten, is a separation, a religious division. So if Appollos did write Hebrews, and the elegance of the literary style would indicate it's of an academic level well above someone like Paul, then his theology will not be inline with either the disciples, or even the apostles, and therefore would have differences even with Paul!

In fact not. Paul did not have any issue with Apollos and they worked together. And he suggests that Apollos go to the Corinthians in the letters to them as well. Paul goes on to say that Paul was not crucified for them, nor Apollos, but Jesus was, and they should follow Him. They are workmen, but God gives the growth. And he says that the Corinthians are still carnal because they divide themselves in this way. He does not say he is divided from Apollos.

And years later when writing to Titus he wants Titus to help Apollos on his task:

Tit 3:13 Do your best to speed Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way; see that they lack nothing.

And we already addressed that Peter endorsed Paul. These were not at odds with one another. Rather, the Corinthians, a new church, struggling in their new spiritual life, was fighting amongst themselves over which preacher is best and Paul rebukes them for it.

I am not by any means claiming Hebrews is a non canononical book, however in light of the above, one needs to probably place more emphasis on other biblical books and themes to determine where one may be in error with this doctrine other than the book of Hebrews

We will look at Daniel 8 next. But since Hebrews is the book that describes Jesus' ministry in the sanctuary it is strange that you want to avoid it.

Even Origin states...

In the epistle entitled To The Hebrews the diction does not exhibit the characteristic roughness of speech or phraseology admitted by the Apostle [Paul] himself, the construction of the sentences is closer to the Greek usage, as anyone capable of recognising differences of style would agree.
​

from the Appollos article, i note it says that even Martin Luther did not believe Paul wrote Hebrews. I have found reference from the Wikipedia article on Hebrews, that indicates that even when the bible cannon was being organized, it was touch and go as to whether Hebrews would be included!

Because of its anonymity, it had some trouble being accepted as part of the Christian canon, being classed with the Antilegomena. Eventually it was accepted as scripture because of its sound theology, eloquent presentation, and other intrinsic factors​

And it was only considered in the first place because it was already in use in the churches and accepted. The canon formation happened much later, recognizing what was already in use.

Also, Revelation barely made the cut as well. But it was also in use and accepted, and by John.

Let me know when you are ready to look at Daniel 8.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

delete

 

[tall73]

@icedragon101

Regarding the connection to the Garden of Eden you mentioned earlier in the thread:

Certainly we see God walk directly with Adam in the garden. And then there is no need for a temple in the New Jerusalem. The temple is given as a way God may dwell among a sinful people, but is patterned off His own throne room in heaven itself. Only with provisions for cleansing necessary to approach.

And the two apartment model has parallels to the kingly courts of the day. For instance, Esther could only come into the inner throne room with permission. The priests can go into the holy place any time, but only the high priest, and only at the set time, in the most holy place.

 

[tall73]

That would explain the theology not matching up with the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel 8

If you are ready we can discuss this now, point by point.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

If you are ready we can discuss this now, point by point.

sorry but i dissagree with your responses on Paul vs Appollos.

The likely schism that occurred in the early Christian church is an indication there were problems between Paul and Peter and obviously others in the early christian church...over doctrine most likely. (i do not know how you could disagree with that actually, i have found this via research...i didnt make it up) I find it interesting that the Wikipedia article also supports my own research...I didnt create the Wikipedia article so perhaps you might like to prove its wrong on this?

AS you know, i dont think the SDA denomination pushes this idea in defense of its 1844 doctrine...so once again, you are encountering someone who doesnt follow company lines just because!

Before anyone can step into the 2300 day prophecy, one has to consider the context of the environment of the time...the schism and the insistence from scholars that Paul is unlikely to have written Hebrews, indicates another writer with the motive of trying to prop up a church leader's own beliefs in the middle of a religious separation was the order of the day...someone like Apollos for example! One has to question...was the schism the result of different interpretations of scripture on a topic such as the sanctuary?

Is it likely that Hebrews 9 is flawed and that its writer did not really interpret the sanctuary correctly? What appears to be a complete ignorance of Exodus 30 tells me the answer is affirmative to this question! (I am open to an explanation as to why that perception may be the case)

If we add to that, we find a significant translation difference in Chapter 9 as well..the KJV does not agree with say the ESV on whether its an alter or golden censor in the MHP (we know that Aaron carried a censor in his duties).

Considering Hebrews wasnt going to be included into the cannon...I think other sources are needed to backup your claims.

When considering doctrine that dissagrees with books of the bible cannon that were not in any doubt, I cannot ignore what Eusebius states...

It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed [αντιλέγεσθαι] by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.​

How could the writer of Hebrews not know Exodus 30

1“You are also to make an altar of acacia wood for the burning of incense. 6Place the altar in front of the veil that is before the ark of the Testimony​

When applying existing knowlege and just a tiny bit of really basic logic about the nature of God to Exodus 30...

one has to ask the question, what was the purpose of the incense from this alter?

It very clearly is described by Moses in his writings (along with a number of other authors of the Bible cannon) as also a means of protecting sinners (in the case of the sanctuary itself, the High Priest) from the glory of God on the mercy seat.

It would not be possible for the High Priest to recharge this alter only once a year...he would have needed to access the MHP regularly to continue that process. How can he enter the MHP in order to recharge an alter and thus to protect himself during his movements in the MHP from the very thing in there that would kill him if there was no incense already coming from the alter of incense and flowing around the mercy seat already?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I thought i woudl expand from wikipedia...Appollos

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (AD 55) mentions Apollos as an important figure at Corinth. Paul describes Apollos' role at Corinth:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.[8]
Paul's Epistle refers to a schism between four parties in the Corinthian church, of which two attached themselves to Paul and Apollos respectively, using their names[9] (the third and fourth were Peter, identified as Cephas, and Jesus Christ himself).[10] It is possible, though, that, as Msgr. Ronald Knox suggests, the parties were actually two, one claiming to follow Paul, the other claiming to follow Apollos.​

A schism, for those who may have forgotten, is a separation, a religious division. So if Appollos did write Hebrews, and the elegance of the literary style would indicate it's of an academic level well above someone like Paul, then his theology will not be inline with either the disciples, or even the apostles, and therefore would have differences even with Paul!

I am not by any means claiming Hebrews is a non canononical book, however in light of the above, one needs to probably place more emphasis on other biblical books and themes to determine where one may be in error with this doctrine other than the book of Hebrews

Even Origin states...

In the epistle entitled To The Hebrews the diction does not exhibit the characteristic roughness of speech or phraseology admitted by the Apostle [Paul] himself, the construction of the sentences is closer to the Greek usage, as anyone capable of recognising differences of style would agree.
​

from the Appollos article, i note it says that even Martin Luther did not believe Paul wrote Hebrews. I have found reference from the Wikipedia article on Hebrews, that indicates that when the bible cannon was being organized, it was touch and go as to whether Hebrews would be included!

Because of its anonymity, it had some trouble being accepted as part of the Christian canon, being classed with the Antilegomena. Eventually it was accepted as scripture because of its sound theology, eloquent presentation, and other intrinsic factors​

this problem can be easily solved, when one considers that scribes were imployed, such as Luke for Paul and Mark for Peter. It is completely possible that Paul was the editor and Apollos was the Scribe. that would account for both influences.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

this problem can be easily solved, when one considers that scribes were imployed, such as Luke for Paul and Mark for Peter. It is completely possible that Paul was the editor and Apollos was the Scribe. that would account for both influences.

that only explains translational issues, it does not explain a complete stuff up of well known Jewish O/T history! No one of Jewish origin would ever make such a mistake concerning the layout of the sanctuary Moses had the Israelites build. Paul came from the Sanhedrin, he would not allow such a mistake had he checked the text. This tells me that either:

1. Paul had no knowledge of it because he didnot write Hebrews

2. a scribe was able to write in error

Either way, the credibility of any doctrine that appears in conflict with well-known Bible themes from other writers, coming from Hebrews 9, is completely destroyed by this!

EDIT

There are some other options

3. the start of Hebrews 9 is not talking about the earthly sanctuary and that its the heavenly after the veil on the earthly had been torn in half...thus the heavenly would mirror that because Jesus died on earth not in heaven! This supports the idea that the two compartments became one after the cross

4. The earthly type layout changed throughout the ages

 

[tall73]

sorry but i dissagree with your responses on Paul vs Appollos.

The likely schism that occurred in the early Christian church is an indication there were problems between Paul and Peter and obviously others in the early christian church...over doctrine most likely.


(i do not know how you could disagree with that actually, i have found this via research...i didnt make it up)

I find it interesting that the Wikipedia article also supports my own research...I didnt create the Wikipedia article so perhaps you might like to prove its wrong on this?

Sure.

You refer to a wikipedia article that references a quote from I Corinthians, without looking at the context:

1Co 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
1Co 3:3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
1Co 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
1Co 3:5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.
1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.
1Co 3:7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.
1Co 3:8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor.
1Co 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.

He says they are one. He says they are fellow workers.

Paul is not at odds with Apollos. Which is why he wants to send Apollos back later to the Corinthians, and he wants Titus to help Apollos later in his work.

Tit 3:13 Do your best to speed Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way; see that they lack nothing.

Paul was received by the brothers in Jerusalem:

Act 21:17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.


Paul speaks well of Peter's ministry, and the bretheren receive him:

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
Gal 2:8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Gal 2:10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Peter commends Paul's letters to his readers, and says that Paul was given wisdom.:

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

AS you know, i dont think the SDA denomination pushes this idea in defense of its 1844 doctrine...so once again, you are encountering someone who doesnt follow company lines just because!

Whether you follow the company line or not, you still have to show the point from Scripture. And I spelled out above that they were not at war with each other doctrinally.

Before anyone can step into the 2300 day prophecy, one has to consider the context of the environment of the time...the schism and the insistence from scholars that Paul is unlikely to have written Hebrews, indicates another writer with the motive of trying to prop up a church leader's own beliefs in the middle of a religious separation was the order of the day..

There are a number of NT authors who are not Paul.

And I already addressed the supposed schism.

.someone like Apollos for example! One has to question...was the schism the result of different interpretations of scripture on a topic such as the sanctuary?

Is it likely that Hebrews 9 is flawed and that its writer did not really interpret the sanctuary correctly? Waht appears to be a complete ignorance of Exodus 30 tells me the answer is affirmative to this question! (I am open to an explanation as to why that perception may be the case)

As noted, even in the temple it was considered part of the inner sanctuary. And Exodus 30 says it was before the ark.

Exo 30:6 And you shall put it in front of the veil that is above the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is above the testimony, where I will meet with you.

1Ki 6:22 And he overlaid the whole house with gold, until all the house was finished. Also the whole altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold.

If we add to that, we find a significant translation difference in Chapter 9 as well..the KJV does not agree with say the ESV on whether its an alter or golden censor in the MHP (we know that Aaron carried a censor in his duties).

I referenced that in my previous post. The word can refer to both. But he is unlikely to leave out the altar of incense and mention the censer.

Considering Hebrews wasnt going to be included into the cannon...I think other sources are needed to backup your claims.

You going to give Revelation which also was questioned the same treatment?

If you want to start removing Bible books I cannot stop you. But Daniel 8 still doesn't help you at all, as it is not speaking of what you claim. And you mentioned no thought of removing Hebrews when I quoted it before, until you realized what it said about the cleansing of the heavenly things

And now you want to remove the one book in the NT that does speak of what you claim to be interested in discussing.

I would sleep on it before you start removing books.

It very clearly is described by Moses in his writings (along with a number of other authors of the Bible cannon) as also a means of protecting sinners (in the case of the sanctuary itself, the High Priest) from the glory of God on the mercy seat.

It would not be possible for the High Priest to recharge this alter only once a year...he would have needed to access the MHP regularly to continue that process. How can he enter the MHP in order to recharge an alter and thus to protect himself during his movements in the MHP from the very thing in there that would kill him if there was no incense already coming from the alter of incense and flowing around the mercy seat already?

I see you didn't address:

1Ki 6:22 And he overlaid the whole house with gold, until all the house was finished. Also the whole altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold.

They would tend it daily in the holy place, but thought of it as belonging to the most holy because its primary use was on the Day of Atonement, and when the curtain was pulled entered on that day it was right before the ark.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

that only explains translational issues, it does not explain a complete stuff up of well known Jewish O/T history! No one of Jewish origin would ever make such a mistake concerning the layout of the sanctuary Moses had the Israelites build. Paul came from the Sanhedrin, he would not allow such a mistake had he checked the text. This tells me that either:

1. Paul had no knowledge of it because he didnot write Hebrews

2. a scribe was able to write in error

Either way, the credibility of any doctrine that appears in conflict with well-known Bible themes from other writers, coming from Hebrews 9, is completely destroyed by this!

EDIT

There are some other options

3. the start of Hebrews 9 is not talking about the earthly sanctuary and that its the heavenly after the veil on the earthly had been torn in half...thus the heavenly would mirror that because Jesus died on earth not in heaven! This supports the idea that the two compartments became one after the cross

4. The earthly type layout changed throughout the ages

Golden Alter vs. Golden Censer

Is there a Bible contradiction in Hebrews 9:3–4?

I think this adequately describes the issue.

 

[tall73]

Either way, the credibility of any doctrine that appears in conflict with well-known Bible themes from other writers, coming from Hebrews 9, is completely destroyed by this!

Your sudden desire to make your Bible lighter started at the moment you realized what Hebrews said about the cleansing of the heavenly things.

I think upon reflection you will see that tearing out Bible pages is not the solution. In fact, the solution in Hebrews is far better. Jesus did all that was needed for forgiveness. Now we can come to Him in time of need, to the throne of grace:

Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Have you thought about what that means? Already in the first century every believer had GREATER access than the high priest in the earthly. He could only enter once per year, with incense, and quickly retreat. You can come anytime, boldly, because our Savior has made the way.

Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
Heb 10:21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
Heb 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.