What I Would Like to See

[cesty]

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 doesn't mean Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place. Keep in mind that the Day of Atonement was a process. And I believe that is why it is translated as "holy places" in Hebrews 9:12 of Young's Literal Translation, that is, to show that Jesus went through the process of making atonement for us.

The High Priest entered the Most Holy Place in order to make atonement for the people. Jesus had to do the same in order to purge us of our sins. The writer of Hebrews makes this clear by contrasting the difference between the work of the priests and the High Priest, and by acknowledging Jesus as our High Priest. See Hebrews 7:22-28; 9:6-7, 24-28.

Can you provide biblical proof to show that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place? If not, how can you be sure He didn't?

Purging our sins does not involve going into the MHP.

You need to read Leviticus 16 again. The concept of purging us from our sins, as it pertains to the work of the High Priest, is the same as making atonement for us. The High Priest had to enter the Most Holy Place in order to do that work. And Jesus, as our High Priest, did that for us!

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:3-4 KJV).

Note: "purged" is past tense.

And as stated before, the throne of God is not static

Please provide biblical proof that God's throne moved to the holy place. If you can't do that, then you can't use this argument as proof that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place.

The goal here is to come to an agreement on what the Bible says, not to use theories that are not clearly supported by the Bible to try to justify what we believe.

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.

Can you prove Jesus isn't literally seated next to the Father in heaven? I can provide proof to show that He was next to the Father in heaven prior to 1844, except that He was standing at the time: "But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56 NASB).

And why can't it mean both, that is, that Jesus is not only literally seated next to the Father in heaven, but also has ultimate authority?

By the way, I never believed that Jesus has been seated for two thousand years, nor does such an assertion constitute a necessary condition to believe that He entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844.

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.

If you truly believe what you just said here, then you shouldn't be so firm about denying that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844.

Keep in mind that the Bible doesn't show that the Father went to Jesus in order to make atonement for the people, but that Jesus went to the Father to make atonement "for us". So the idea of the Father moving to the Holy Place doesn't stand to reason with what is written in Hebrews.

Moreover, since you agree that the presence of God made the Most Holy Place the holiest of all, then it should not be hard for you to agree that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven, for the Bible clearly states that He entered the presence of God for us: "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)

The keywords here are: "enter," "presence of God," and "for us." These words indicate that as our High Priest, Jesus entered the Most Holy Place (where the presence of God is) to make atonement for us.

Having said that, please take a close look at these passages:

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water" (Hebrews 10:19-22 KJV)

"Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Hebrews 6:19-20 KJV)

Note: "Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus" is better translated as, "where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us" (NASB)

The bolded words in the passages above appear to indicate that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844.

Again, I see more evidence from the Bible to support the idea that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 than I see evidence to prove He didn't.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Can you provide biblical proof to show that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place? If not, how can you be sure He didn't?

Daniel 8:13,14

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

What does the term cleansing of the sanctuary mean? It is the anti-typical fulfillment of the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary on the day of atonement. The symbology makes complete sense of Christ following the sanctuary service. He is our high Priest and would have fulfilled all the work of the sanctuary.

If you do a deep study into the trampling down of symbols of the sanctuary by the Roman church and the restoration of them by the reformers, you can see the logical conclusion of the finishing work by the cleansing of the sanctuary after the work of the reformers and the end of the transgression of desolation of the Papal supremacy in 1798.

 

[cesty]

Daniel 8:13,14

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

What does the term cleansing of the sanctuary mean? It is the anti-typical fulfillment of the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary on the day of atonement. The symbology makes complete sense of Christ following the sanctuary service. He is our high Priest and would have fulfilled all the work of the sanctuary.

Daniel 8:13-14, addresses the matter of when the sanctuary would be cleansed, but it doesn't prove that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us.

 

[ricker]

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 or Passover which was already over.

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

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.

If any of all this was essential to anyone's salvation, Jesus would have made it all the details clear from the start. The SDA sanctuary doctrine was obviously a way to save face after the Great Disappointment, and is an event unverifiable physically, Biblically, or in any other manner.

 

[OntheDL]

If any of all this was essential to anyone's salvation, Jesus would have made it all the details clear from the start (just like an end time Sabbath test).

The SDA sanctuary doctrine was obviously a way to save face after the Great Disappointment, and is an event unverifiable physically, Biblically, or in any other manner.

To save face? Pure rubbish.

If the remnant of 1844 were only facing ridicule, I'd say 'save face' might be a possibility.

But they were facing starvation. Saving face is not the first thing that comes to mind when you have to struggle for your own survival.

And the event and the events leading up to it are verifiable biblically and historically.

 

[ricker]

To save face? Pure rubbish.

If the remnant of 1844 were only facing ridicule, I'd say 'save face' might be a possibility.

But they were facing starvation. Saving face is not the first thing that comes to mind when you have to struggle for your own survival.

And the event and the events leading up to it are verifiable biblically and historically.

Dramatic reply. to say the least.

How many Millerites died from starvation? Round numbers would suffice, exact aren't needed.

 

[cesty]

People let's not ruin this discussion by making personal attacks and using inflammatory language. I realize that there is a lot of tension over this issue, but please try to remember that we are supposed to follow the example of Jesus and love one another as He loves us.

 

[ricker]

People let's not ruin this discussion by making personal attacks and using inflammatory language. I realize that there is a lot of tension over this issue, but please try to remember that we are supposed to follow the example of Jesus and love one another as He loves us.

Just trying to cut to the chase. Carry on.

 

[OntheDL]

Dramatic reply. to say the least.

How many Millerites died from starvation? Round numbers would suffice, exact aren't needed.

Had you been a farmer and depended on the harvest for your family to get by the long harsh new England winter as the Millerites did, you would understand the dire situation they were in. They did not harvest anything for the winter they didn't expect to endure.

 

[OntheDL]

People let's not ruin this discussion by making personal attacks and using inflammatory language. I realize that there is a lot of tension over this issue, but please try to remember that we are supposed to follow the example of Jesus and love one another as He loves us.

I made a reply to your post here, in case you didn't see it.

 

[JohnMarsten]

let me ask you in regard to the whole holy place controversy what the following verse means

Hebrews 6:19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,

especially the idea of within the veil...

New International Version (©1984)
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,New Living Translation (©2007)
This hope is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls. It leads us through the curtain into God's inner sanctuary.
English Standard Version (©2001)
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
International Standard Version (©2008)
That hope, firm and secure like an anchor for our souls, reaches behind the curtain
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Which we have as an anchor that holds fast in our soul, which will not be moved, and has entered inside the veil,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
We have this confidence as a sure and strong anchor for our lives. This confidence goes into the [holy] place behind the curtain
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the veil;
American King James Version
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the veil;
American Standard Version
which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and stedfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
Douay-Rheims Bible
Which we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm, and which entereth in even within the veil;
Darby Bible Translation
which we have as anchor of the soul, both secure and firm, and entering into that within the veil,
English Revised Version
which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and stedfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
Webster's Bible Translation
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail;
Weymouth New Testament
That hope we have as an anchor of the soul--an anchor that can neither break nor drag. It passes in behind the veil,
World English Bible
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
Young's Literal Translation
which we have, as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and entering into that within the vail,

 

[cesty]

I made a reply to your post here, in case you didn't see it.

I read it. But I don't see any Scriptural proof in it to validate the belief that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us. I have provided plenty of Scriptural references which suggest He did enter the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us. Unless it can be shown that the Scripture I have provided doesn't suggest that, then I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Have you read all of my posts in this thread? It would be a good idea to do that if you haven't. That way, you can see the Scripture that I have given in support of my belief that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us, as well as the reasons I have given to justify interpreting it in that way.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Daniel 8:13-14, addresses the matter of when the sanctuary would be cleansed, but it doesn't prove that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us.

If you understand the work of the priest in the cleansing of the sanctuary and the atonement process, then yes, it does prove that Christ, our High Priest entered into the MH to accomplish this work after the 2300 year prophesy came to an end.

 

[cesty]

If you understand the work of the priest in the cleansing of the sanctuary and the atonement process, then yes, it does prove that Christ, our High Priest entered into the MH to accomplish this work after the 2300 year prophesy came to an end.

You haven't provided any exegetical proof to show that the Scripture I have given in support of my view doesn't suggest that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844. Therefore, I have no reason to accept your belief.

By the way, just because I believe Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us, that doesn't mean I believe the Day of Atonement is complete. As outlined in Leviticus 16, there is a process to the Day of Atonement.

 

[Stryder06]

let me ask you in regard to the whole holy place controversy what the following verse means

Hebrews 6:19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,

especially the idea of within the veil...

New International Version (©1984)
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,New Living Translation (©2007)
This hope is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls. It leads us through the curtain into God's inner sanctuary.
English Standard Version (©2001)
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
International Standard Version (©2008)
That hope, firm and secure like an anchor for our souls, reaches behind the curtain
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Which we have as an anchor that holds fast in our soul, which will not be moved, and has entered inside the veil,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
We have this confidence as a sure and strong anchor for our lives. This confidence goes into the [holy] place behind the curtain
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the veil;
American King James Version
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the veil;
American Standard Version
which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and stedfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
Douay-Rheims Bible
Which we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm, and which entereth in even within the veil;
Darby Bible Translation
which we have as anchor of the soul, both secure and firm, and entering into that within the veil,
English Revised Version
which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and stedfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
Webster's Bible Translation
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail;
Weymouth New Testament
That hope we have as an anchor of the soul--an anchor that can neither break nor drag. It passes in behind the veil,
World English Bible
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil;
Young's Literal Translation
which we have, as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and entering into that within the vail,

It is an assumption that lead to a traditional teaching that this verse is referring to the second veil of the sanctuary. The first veil, which acted as to the door to the sanctuary as a whole, is what this verse is referring to.

 

[Stryder06]

By the way, just because I believe Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us, that doesn't mean I believe the Day of Atonement is complete. As outlined in Leviticus 16, there is a process to the Day of Atonement.

You do realize that there's also a process before entering the Most Holy place? If Christ went straight way into the MHP at His ascension, than when did He get a chance to minister in the Holy Place?

 

[Stryder06]

That doesn't mean Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place. Keep in mind that the Day of Atonement was a process. And I believe that is why it is translated as "holy places" in Hebrews 9:12 of Young's Literal Translation, that is, to show that Jesus went through the process of making atonement for us.

The day of atonement also came at an appointed time. The prophecy in Daniel testifies to this time taking place at the end of 2300 days.

The High Priest entered the Most Holy Place in order to make atonement for the people. Jesus had to do the same in order to purge us of our sins. The writer of Hebrews makes this clear by contrasting the difference between the work of the priests and the High Priest, and by acknowledging Jesus as our High Priest. See Hebrews 7:22-28; 9:6-7, 24-28.

Let's not skip the process that took place within the sanctuary. The blood shed by the sacrifice, for the sins of anyone who transgressed was transferred to the sanctuary - Lev 4:5-7 . The day of atonment was about the cleansing of the sanctuary. The sins of the people had already been forgiven them, but their sins were to remain in the sanctuary until the time had come to cleanse it. The process of cleansing and purging sin began in the courtyard (baptism/crucifixion), than moved to the Holy Place (ascension - 1844), and finally, will reach it's conclusion in the Most Holy Place (1844 - end).

Can you provide biblical proof to show that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place? If not, how can you be sure He didn't?

I don't need proof for something that isn't there. The text doesn't say MHP. Tradition does. I've given you several explanations and shown you various translations that do not say "Most Holy Place", but rather Holy Places(s). Add that to how the author uses the words translated as such, and this should be an open/shut case. I'm not sure what else you need.

You need to read Leviticus 16 again. The concept of purging us from our sins, as it pertains to the work of the High Priest, is the same as making atonement for us. The High Priest had to enter the Most Holy Place in order to do that work. And Jesus, as our High Priest, did that for us!

My words were too hasty. My apologies. The reason why I made my statement was because I took into account versus 16,18, and 20, while forgetting about verse 30. On the day of atonement, the sins of the people were purged, but this came after the sanctuary was set in order, and the sins were placed upon the scapegoat, which was then lead away from the camp. Either way, this process still did not being at the ascension.

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:3-4 KJV).

Note: "purged" is past tense.

Dully noted. This text however is talking about the purging that took place on the cross.

Please provide biblical proof that God's throne moved to the holy place. If you can't do that, then you can't use this argument as proof that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place.

The goal here is to come to an agreement on what the Bible says, not to use theories that are not clearly supported by the Bible to try to justify what we believe.

I agree, we ought to come to an agreement on what the bible says. The bible, as shown, says that God's throne moves. You are doing exactly what you said we ought not do however, and that's use theories to justify what we believe. If we go off of what the text plainly says, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You have opted to use one translation that best suits your idea, while ignoring the others that oppose it, as well as the explanation that shows the way the author meant for his words to be understood.

Can you prove Jesus isn't literally seated next to the Father in heaven? I can provide proof to show that He was next to the Father in heaven prior to 1844, except that He was standing at the time: "But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56 NASB).

Umm, didn't you just prove this for me? I never said Christ wasn't next to the Father. I just said that He hasn't literally been sitting down, idle, for 2000 years.

And why can't it mean both, that is, that Jesus is not only literally seated next to the Father in heaven, but also has ultimate authority?

By the way, I never believed that Jesus has been seated for two thousand years, nor does such an assertion constitute a necessary condition to believe that He entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844.

If you never believed that Jesus was seated, than isn't this a moot point?

If you truly believe what you just said here, then you shouldn't be so firm about denying that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844.

Keep in mind that the Bible doesn't show that the Father went to Jesus in order to make atonement for the people, but that Jesus went to the Father to make atonement "for us". So the idea of the Father moving to the Holy Place doesn't stand to reason with what is written in Hebrews.

Hebrews doesn't put Jesus in the MHP though. It puts Him in the Holy Place. You said that I shouldn't be so adamant in my belief if I believe what I say, but I believe the contrary is true. If what I'm saying is correct, than you shouldn't be so quick to put Jesus in the MHP prior to 1844.

Moreover, since you agree that the presence of God made the Most Holy Place the holiest of all, then it should not be hard for you to agree that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in heaven, for the Bible clearly states that He entered the presence of God for us: "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)

The keywords here are: "enter," "presence of God," and "for us." These words indicate that as our High Priest, Jesus entered the Most Holy Place (where the presence of God is) to make atonement for us.

You forgot to bold the part of the scripture that says "heaven itself". Christ entered Heaven, and I don't believe the the presence of God is limited to a secluded section of it. This is why I keep saying that you can't try to apply the earthly service to the Heavenly one. It was a shadow, just a peek, if you will. It was not an exact replica of how everything works.

Having said that, please take a close look at these passages:

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water" (Hebrews 10:19-22 KJV)

"Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Hebrews 6:19-20 KJV)

Note: "Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus" is better translated as, "where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us" (NASB)

The bolded words in the passages above appear to indicate that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844.

Again, I see more evidence from the Bible to support the idea that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 than I see evidence to prove He didn't.

I've read the texts over and over again to make sure my own understanding was appropriate. And my beliefs stand. I can't shake how the author actually makes use of the word Hagion. And he is very specific. He speaks of the holy and holy of holies in two separate terms. Add to that the prophecy of the sanctuary being cleansed from Daniel, and Christ standing among 7 candlesticks in Revelation, and I believe the evidence clearly shows Christ in the HP.

 

[JohnMarsten]

It is an assumption that lead to a traditional teaching that this verse is referring to the second veil of the sanctuary. The first veil, which acted as to the door to the sanctuary as a whole, is what this verse is referring to.

what makes you so sure of that?

 

[Stryder06]

what makes you so sure of that?

The text says within the veil. It doesn't say "second veil". I make the connection with earlier statements from the author which put Christ, not inside of the MHP, but inside of the HP.

 

[OntheDL]

I read it. But I don't see any Scriptural proof in it to validate the belief that Jesus didn't enter the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us. I have provided plenty of Scriptural references which suggest He did enter the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us. Unless it can be shown that the Scripture I have provided doesn't suggest that, then I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Have you read all of my posts in this thread? It would be a good idea to do that if you haven't. That way, you can see the Scripture that I have given in support of my belief that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place prior to 1844 to make atonement for us, as well as the reasons I have given to justify interpreting it in that way.

My post was replying to your comments based on Heb 9:12.

I didn't say Jesus never entered into the MHP prior to 1844. He did, upon his ascension, to dedicate the heavenly sanctuary and to be inaugurated as our highpriest for the 10 days leading up to Pentecost.