What I Would Like to See

[Stryder06]

How the Passover celebrated in 31 A.D. coincided with a Gregorian Wed ( death of Christ ), Thursday and Friday...
...That is the primary question & given it's the fundamental peg holding the prophetic schema together.

Christ didn't die on a wednesday. Of course, that's not up for debate in this thread.

 

[Kira Light]

While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover." Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:

"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)

In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.

Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38. If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?

They will hold onto any translation that suits them, no matter how unlikely or flawed. They can't give any ground or their house of cards may collapse.

Very interesting discussion. I hope you have some more good questions.

 

[Stryder06]

While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover." Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:

Totally true. I wasn't necessarily relying on the translation of the KJV so to say. I looked up the word which was translated as Holy Place. This is why I know that the translation in the NKJV is incorrect. The word "Hagion" is used to describe the Holy Place. The phrase Hagia Hagion (sp?) is used to describe the Most Holy place.

"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)

In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.

Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38.

I found my answers to your questions during my studies. This is from a book named The Path to the Throne of God

Do you ask how it is that God's throne at this time appears in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary instead of in the most holy place, as symbolized in the earthly sanctuary? Being only a type, the earthly could not fully represent the heavenly because its parts,...had no inherent power, while their antitypes in the heavenly sanctuary are full of life and activity. God's throne...is a living moving throne...

If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?

That was a symbol showing that the earthly sanctuary, along with its services had ceased:
Daniel 9:7 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...

 

[Stryder06]

They will hold onto any translation that suits them, no matter how unlikely or flawed. They can't give any ground or their house of cards may collapse.

Very interesting discussion. I hope you have some more good questions.

How do you figure it's a house of cards? Is it because many people do not believe the same as we do? The explanations have been given but they have not been received. It's like the old saying - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

What I fail to understand is why this is even a point of contention. The majority of what people think this doctrine teaches is incorrect, and when proper answers are given to explain accepted errors, they are shot down.

My feeling, is that many do not like the doctrine because it reveals the eternal nature of God's law, including His ten commandments.

 

[Stryder06]

There is no biblical basis for the Sanctuary Message. This came about as a result of a failed prophecy. Matthew 24:36 states no one not even the angels of heaven knows when Christ would return. I am sure that scripture was in the same bible that the early Adventists had including E.G. White. It is time for us to focus on Jesus, we know three things about him.

(i) He was born
(ii) He was resurrected
(iii) He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lord

The sanctuary doctrine is all about Jesus. You miss out on that, you miss out on understanding much.

 

[Pythons]

Christ didn't die on a wednesday. Of course, that's not up for debate in this thread.

All I'm saying is that IF an apologist for the SDA Church had a formal debate...
...On the rubrics of Adventisms prophetic schema leading up to 22 October.
...The fact that Passover in 31 A.D. didn't fall on a Friday would be the first thing mentioned.

 

[JohnMarsten]

The text in the book of Hebrews isn't referring to a compartment, but to the sanctuary as a whole. The NKJV translation is incorrect. The proper translation states that Christ entered into the holy place. Not the most Holy Place.

I think the biggest issue here is a misunderstanding of sanctuary and how it relates to Christ's work.

so the translation is incorrect? huh? are you able to prove that? or is your assessment based on hearsay?

 

[Stryder06]

All I'm saying is that IF an apologist for the SDA Church had a formal debate...
...On the rubrics of Adventisms prophetic schema leading up to 22 October.
...The fact that Passover in 31 A.D. didn't fall on a Friday would be the first thing mentioned.

Couldn't say. All I'm saying is that there are more than enough resources explaining this subject. If one wants to know, the answer is at their fingertips. If they want to debate, than that's another subject altogether.

 

[Stryder06]

so the translation is incorrect? huh? are you able to prove that? or is your assessment based on hearsay?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"The author of the Book of Hebrews however, was very consistent in its use. In fact, the author (of Hebrews) defines its use in the first three verses of Hebrews chapter 9. He used 'hagion' to mean the entire two apartment sanctuary {9:1}, he used 'hagia' to define 'holy place' {9:2} and he used 'hagia hagion' to define the 'holiest' or "Most Holy Place' {9:3}. He was consistent. When he meant to use 'hagia' he used 'hagia'. When he meant to use 'hagia hagion', he used 'hagia hagion', etc."

Seventh Day Adventism & Hebrews 9 - Part 2

[/FONT]Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place (hagion), having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places (hagion) made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

There's two issues here: First is of course, making sure we use the correct translation. The second issue however is trying to use Hebrews to support an issue that it's not addressing. The author of Hebrews isn't trying to establish where Christ is in the heavenly sanctuary, but rather that Christ is indeed in the Heavenly sanctuary, as our new High Priest. The book of Hebrews is about establishing authority, not location.

 

[cesty]

Totally true. I wasn't necessarily relying on the translation of the KJV so to say. I looked up the word which was translated as Holy Place. This is why I know that the translation in the NKJV is incorrect. The word "Hagion" is used to describe the Holy Place. The phrase Hagia Hagion (sp?) is used to describe the Most Holy place.

Good point! But there seems to be a problem: in the KJV with Strong’s, G39 (hagion) appears in Hebrews 9:3 for the expression, “Holiest of all,” while hagion also appears in Hebrews 9:24 for “holy places,” and in 9:25 for "holy place" How do you explain this apparent contradiction? And where do you see "Hagia Hagion"?

That was a symbol showing that the earthly sanctuary, along with its services had ceased: Daniel 9:7 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...

Indeed! But it also indicates that Christ has removed the barrier that separated us from God.

“Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6 NASB)

“Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.” (Hebrews 7:25-28 NASB)

Regarding what you said about what you learned from the book: The Path to the Throne of God, where it is said that God's throne moved from the Most Holy place to the holy place, that is an interesting theory, but there is nothing to back it up from Scripture. Yet, Scripture indicates that Christ entered the Holiest place (within the veil and in the presence of God):

"so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:18-20 NASB)

"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" (Hebrews 9:24 NASB)

These passages appear to show that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies. Therefore, we have this hope of being able to go before the throne of grace because Christ has entered for us. And when we go to that place, we go there clothed in Christ’s righteousness, not to be condemned, but to receive mercy, because He paid the penalty for our sins" (see Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, Gal. 2:20, and Rom. 8:1).

 

[Stryder06]

Good point! But there seems to be a problem: in the KJV with Strong’s, G39 (hagion) appears in Hebrews 9:3 for the expression, “Holiest of all,” while it also appears as such in Hebrews 9:24 for “holy places,” and 9:25 for "holy place"

What’s even more ironic is the fact that G39 (hagion) could mean “holiest of all,” while G40 (hagios) could mean “most holy.” How do you explain this apparent contradiction? And where do you see "Hagia Hagion"?

Sorry, I don't see a contradiction. As you said, it "could mean", but by looking at how the author uses the word, in context, we can determine what he's talking about. And Hagia Hagion i seen in 9:2

Indeed! But it also indicates that Christ has removed the barrier that separated us from God.

“Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6 NASB)

“Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.” (Hebrews 7:25-28 NASB)

The removal of the veil symbolized the end of the earthly sacrifices. We can go straight to the Father through Christ.

Regarding what you said about what you learned from the book: The Path to the Throne of God, where you said God's throne moved from the Most Holy place to the holy place, that is an interesting theory, but there is nothing to back it up from Scripture. Yet, Scripture indicates that Christ entered the holiest place:

What I said was that God's throne was a moving throne, and the book I referenced gave a better explanation than what I could type out. Scripture very much shows God's throne on the move. In Eze 1 and Isaiah 6 we see God on His throne, which isn't in the MHP.

"so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:18-20 NASB)

You do know that there was a veil that separated the court from the Sanctuary right?

"For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;" (Hebrews 9:24 NASB)

These passages appear to show that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies. Therefore, we have this hope of being able to go before the throne of grace because Christ has entered for us. And when we go to that place, we go there clothed in Christ’s righteousness, not to be condemned, but to receive mercy, because He paid the penalty for our sins" (see Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, Gal. 2:20, and Rom. 8:1).

Im sorry, but those verses do not place Christ in the MHP. They simply don't. If you would like, you can look at the link I presented to Marsten in post #30. I would also suggest a study of the first chapter of Revelation. In Chapter 1 Christ is seen walking among 7 candlesticks, which I believe correlates very nicely with the menorah that was within the holy place.

 

[cesty]

Sorry, I don't see a contradiction. As you said, it "could mean", but by looking at how the author uses the word, in context, we can determine what he's talking about. And Hagia Hagion i seen in 9:2



The removal of the veil symbolized the end of the earthly sacrifices. We can go straight to the Father through Christ.



What I said was that God's throne was a moving throne, and the book I referenced gave a better explanation than what I could type out. Scripture very much shows God's throne on the move. In Eze 1 and Isaiah 6 we see God on His throne, which isn't in the MHP.



You do know that there was a veil that separated the court from the Sanctuary right?



Im sorry, but those verses do not place Christ in the MHP. They simply don't. If you would like, you can look at the link I presented to Marsten in post #30. I would also suggest a study of the first chapter of Revelation. In Chapter 1 Christ is seen walking among 7 candlesticks, which I believe correlates very nicely with the menorah that was within the holy place.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you have not proven that Christ didn't enter the Most Holy Place. Yet, I have given Scripture that appears to indicate He has. You have not proven that the Scripture I provided doesn't show this. But I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.

By the way, when the Bible speaks of Christ entering within the veil (Hebrews 6:19-20), and then goes on to say that He now appears "in the presence of God for us" (Hebrews 9:24), it would seem that this could only mean one thing, that Jesus is in "the Holiest place of all."

One more thing: You posted your response to my post while I was editing it. It may be helpful for you to go back and reread it.

 

[cesty]

If anyone else would like to step in to respond to the issues I have raised, please feel free to do so. I am not here to prove you wrong, but to see what you have to say and discuss these things with you.

 

[mannysee]

I think that Hebrews chapter 9 gives the clearest instruction that Christ did enter through the second veil, prior to the time that Hebrews was written.

The writer especially in chapter 9 sets up a parallel of the role of High Priest in their argument for this.

There are quite a few markers in this chapter.
One parallel stands out to me:-
v7. "But into the second part (through the second veil) the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood..."
v11 "But Christ came as High Priest...v12...with His own blood He entered the...once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

The writer, using the word, "once", draws out this parallel in their argument; once a year entering into the second part.

I think that both sides of this argument can agree that, "the second part" refers to within the second veil.

 

[cesty]

...

 

[cesty]

Stryder06,

I found what you were talking about concerning "Hagia Hagion." But I also found some other things.

In Hebrews 9:3 of the Greek text from Wescott-Hort Version 1881, "Hagia Hagion" is the underlying text for "Holy of Holies"

But...

In the KJV with Strong's the word is "hagion" (Strong's G39)

And in the NASB with Strong's the word is "hagios" (Strong's G40)

Note: both the KJV and NASB with Strong's are from the esword program, while the verse that has "Hagia Hagion" is from this page: Hebrews 9:3 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Here's an image to illustrate what I am referring to:

As you can see, there is an obvious lack of consistency here. Therefore, relying so heavily on the presence of the expression "hagia hagion" as proof that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place isn't necessarily the best way to approach the issue. In my opinion, the best way to approach it would be to weigh the evidence which suggests He entered the Most Holy Place against any evidence which suggests that He didn't. Thus far, I have seen more Scriptural evidence to support the idea that He did enter the Most Holy Place than evidence to prove He didn't.

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder06,

I found what you were talking about concerning "Hagia Hagion." But I also found some other things.

In Hebrews 9:3 of the Greek text from Wescott-Hort Version 1881, "Hagia Hagion" is the underlying text for "Holy of Holies"

But...

In the KJV with Strong's the word is "hagion" (Strong's G39)

And in the NASB with Strong's the word is "hagios" (Strong's G40)

Note: both the KJV and NASB with Strong's are from the esword program, while the verse that has "Hagia Hagion" is from this page: Hebrews 9:3 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Here's an image to illustrate what I am referring to:

As you can see, there is an obvious lack of consistency here. Therefore, relying so heavily on the presence of the expression "hagia hagion" as proof that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place isn't necessarily the best way to approach the issue. In my opinion, the best way to approach it would be to weigh the evidence which suggests He entered the Most Holy Place against any evidence which suggests that He didn't. Thus far, I have seen more Scriptural evidence to support the idea that He did enter the Most Holy Place than evidence to prove He didn't.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any inconsistency. All we have to do is look at how the author made use of the word. When being specific about the Most Holy Place, the author uses Hagia Hagion. When speaking of the Holy Place or the Sanctuary as a whole, he uses the word Hagion. Now I'm not a big fan on most of the modern translations, simply because I believe that tradition has influenced translation, but when I look at Heb 9:1,2 and see that just about every translation translates Hagion as "sanctuary", and in verse two, translates the word as Holy Place, I can get a feel for the authors intent behind using that word.

In verse 3 we get Hagia Hagion when he is being specific about the Most Holy Place. When we get to verse 12, this is where we see tradition raising it's ugly head. The NIV, NLT, ISV, GWT, and DBT translate hagion as Most Holy Place, or Holy of Holies.

The KJV, NASB, ESV, NASV, AKJV, ERV, and YLT translate the word as Holy place, or Holy Places. Were we to simply stop here, yes there would be some confusion with assumptions that would need to be made. However, we need not do this is we simply allow the author's use of the word to enlighten our understanding of what he meant. I do believe, that if the author of Hebrews was intent on stating that Christ was most definitely within the Most Holy place, that just as he did in verse 3, he would have used hagia hagion.

Hebrews places Christ within the sanctuary. It is tradition that places Him inside the Most Holy Place. This tradition, along with many others, is simply wrong.

 

[cesty]

I'm sorry, but I don't see any inconsistency

According to Young's Literal Translation, the Bible says, "And Christ being come, chief priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands--that is, not of this creation-- neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained;" (Hebrews 9:11-12 YLT)

"holy places" is plural, which means that must include both the "holy place" and the "Most Holy Place." It would not make sense to exclude the Most Holy Place from "the holy places."

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus "purged our sins" and "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3 KJV). It would seem that He could not have done this without entering the Most Holy Place.

I have a question for you: What do you believe made the Most Holy Place the Holiest of all?

 

[OntheDL]

While the NKJV certainly has its share of translational issues, so also does the KJV. Let's not forget about that misplaced comma in Luke 23:43, and the reference to "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than the more accurate word: "Passover."

Actually KJV is only version correctly translated word to Easter in Acts 12:4. Because vs3 was the passover and the days of unleavened bread. After that the next holiday on the calendar is Easter not Passover which was already over.

Of course, there are other matters too, but these two should be enough to show that you can't necessarily use the idea that it is a faulty translation of the passage to prove that it isn't referring to the Most Holy Place, unless the context clearly suggests it. But the context appears to suggest that it was the Most Holy Place, and that's likely why the NKJV was translated to reflect that:

Heb 9:12 uses the word 'hagion', means holy place. The Greek words Most Holy place is 'hagion hagion': holy of holies.

"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:24-26 NKJV)

In the OT, the Most Holy Place was where the presence of God was (relative to the sanctuary). See Exodus 25:22 and Leviticus 16:2. Therefore, when the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus appearing "in the presence of God for us," he seems to imply that He entered the Most Holy Place. This is likely why he also said, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16 NKJV). The usage of the word "mercy" within this context seems to be connected to the idea of the "mercy seat," which was located in the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary.

Having said that, we can now go boldly to the throne of grace because Jesus, through the shedding of His own blood and death, opened the way to it. This was illustrated when the veil was rent, as recorded in Mark 15:38. If Jesus only entered the Holy Place, then why was the veil to the Most Holy Place rent?

I think you have the good idea here. But we need to also look at what intent the author was writing with to his intended audience.

The book of Hebrews was written in the 60s just a few years before the 70AD disaster of Jerusalem.

Paul since he was a learned Pharisee was the most likely author who was intimately familiar with the ceremonial system.

Jesus in Matthew 24 had foretold the doom of Jerusalem in 70AD and told the disciples to flee. So the book of Hebrews urged the Jewish Christians to realize Jesus had begun his ministry in the heaven sanctuary. The earthly temple, the ceremonies, the Levitical priesthood had been replaced by Jesus and His ministry in the heaven sanctuary.

The author of Hebrews did not dismiss the annual atonement service where the high priest entered once a year into the MHP (Heb 9:1-7). It confirms and uses it as a type for the heavenly to be purified (vs 23).

However, we see clearly, the author of Hebrews was trying the persuade the new Hebrew Christians away from the earthly sacrificial service and to focus on Jesus’ heavenly ministry which was ratified by His blood and inaugurated upon His ascension.

This was typified by the Old Testament dedication ceremonies of the tabernacle and of the High Priest, Exodus 29, 30, Leviticus 8.

Immediately before the anointing of the high priest, the sanctuary was dedicated. The Ark of Testimony was anointed with oil and Aaron presented the wave offering before the LORD.

The author of the book of Hebrews began with the exaltation of Christ by vindicating his divinity (in Heb 1) and humanity (in Heb 2)... This builds up theologically. In Hebrews 9, the author demonstrated Christ's inauguration.

In the OT dedication/inauguration service, the high priest entered the sanctuary to:
1. dedicate the sanctuary
2. inaugurate the priest hood

Paul in Heb 9 demonstrated Christ's ascension to heaven after his resurrection to present his blood to the Father. We saw this 10 days later when the high priest was anointed with oil at the end of the service, the disciples received the pentecostal out pouring.

Another case in point, Heb 9:13 mentions the ashes of Red Heifer. The heifer was not a part of the Day of Atonement service, so the author was writing about (in general) the cleansing of sin through justification and sanctification, not by the blood of the bulls and goats nor the ashes of the heifers was obtained by the commencement of Christ's ministry in heaven on the sinner's behalf.

So Hebrews 9 shows Christ entered into the sanctuary (Most Holy Place included) to dedicate the heavenly sanctuary. This was only one act, the initial phase of Christ' ministry. As Jesus began His mediatorial ministry, He was in the Holy Place until 1844 when His judicial phase of ministry began.

 

[Stryder06]

According to Young's Literal Translation, the Bible says, "And Christ being come, chief priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands--that is, not of this creation-- neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained;" (Hebrews 9:11-12 YLT)

"holy places" is plural, which means that must include both the "holy place" and the "Most Holy Place." It would not make sense to exclude the Most Holy Place from "the holy places."

Christ didn't enter both simultaneously. Holy Places is simply another way of saying the part of the sanctuary that contains the Holy and Most holy place. That notwithstanding, I gave you several translations that show the word being translated as Holy Place and others that translate it as Most Holy Place. Why try to pick on over the other when we can allow the authors use of the word/phrase, explain it for us?

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus "purged our sins" and "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3 KJV). It would seem that He could not have done this without entering the Most Holy Place.

Purging our sins does not involve going into the MHP. And as stated before, the throne of God is not static; aside from that, the term "sat down at the right hand..." is an expression used to show ones Authority. Stating that Christ is seated at the right hand of God is showing that Christ has ultimate Authority. I don't think you can believe that Christ has literally just been sitting for the past 2k years.

I have a question for you: What do you believe made the Most Holy Place the Holiest of all?

Good question. I believe it was because it was there that the presence of God was manifested. If you're going where I think you are, than you're headed into the trap that I advised against earlier. The earthly temple and it's services were not a mirror of what was going on in heaven. If you're going to say that God's throne couldn't have been situated, for a time, in the Holy Place, is to limit God.