Ok assuming you are right which I can see the reasons. It's still a subset of the superset. Logically it does not eliminate the specific case of the high priest appearing before the Lord in the HP in a daily service.
It shows that they were all considered to be "before the Lord" so therefore it does negate the meaning that you intend to give that the Lord is only there in the holy place at that time.
The text says "on the side of the altar northward". It doesn't necessarily sugguest a verticle north.
Lets look at the text in Jer 1.
13 And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou? And I said, I see a seething pot; and the face thereof is toward the north.
14 Then the LORD said unto me, Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.
15 For, lo, I will call all the families of the kingdoms of the north, saith the LORD; and they shall come, and they shall set every one his throne at the entering of the gates of Jerusalem, and against all the walls thereof round about, and against all the cities of Judah.
Obviously Jer 1:13-15 say the direct of north or side of north since Isael's enemies were more from the north-east.
I would agree that the general direction is given there. But again you have not even given the rabbinical statement and put the burden of proving your statement on me. Moreover, the text only says north.
Finally, as noted above, it doesn't matter as "before the Lord" is used in a number of ways, which differ from what you say are "specific" cases. They were all specific cases. The term is simply broader than you want to admit and does not prove that God was primarily in the holy place, especially when we all see the Shekinah was above the mercy seat.
You can look it up for yourself but here is one: Middoth 3:5.
Why is it up to me to prove your point?
See above. 'before the Lord' has generic and specific usage.
The only reason you think yours is specific is that you want it to limit it to the holy place.
It is very clear that the sanctuary illustrated the plan of Salvation. "thy way is in the sanctuary".
The levitical high priest also represented the common believers enter judgment at the end of time by enter into the MHP on the day of atonement at the end of year.
Looks to me like it was another element of the sacrifice of Christ, available to all who avail themselves of it...just as the day of atonement was for those who availed themselves.
Isaiah's vision wasn't about the endtime. It was about an actual heavenly sanctuary scene. If it was symbolic, what part of Isaiah 6:1-4 was symbolic, of what?
It is a vision. And it simply says it was in the temple. There is nothing that says it was in heaven It seems likely he was viewing the earthly temple just as Ezekiel saw God in the earthly temple.
The place where God dwells is heaven itself. The atmosphere and universe are also caled heavens in the bible. The Heb 9:24's heaven is alluding to the throne of God. Combine this with Isaiah's and John's visions, the sanctuary in heaven literally exists of which the earthly patterned after.
A. Again, did I say there was no temple? I said that heaven itself was the temple
B. the text is quite clear in what it says. And are you suggesting the heavens here are not the ones with which me most directly associate God's presence, since it says heaven itself to appear in God's presence?
That's the heart of the problem which is behind the scope of this discussion.
The heart of the problem is that I will not take EGW comments instead of Scripture? Agreed, it is a problem if you don't have biblical comments but only EGW ones.
It's one thing to ask questions, another to call someone a false prophet, lier, contradicts the bible which you did in the previous post.
If she contradicts it what else can be said? If she contradicts herself by saying the proper view of the daily is the old one then says she saw no light on it, what more can I say?
So you say it is fine to ask questions as long as all the answers come back to exactly what we believe.
I'm not trying to give you my approval since I don't write your paychecks. But I want to know if your paying employer and your local church members will appreciate your comments here.
My comments here meant to discuss the issues so that they can be resolved if possible? Again, I am not preaching these ideas abroad but discussing them on a forum meant for theological discussion. This is not the new believers Sabbath School course. This is a discussion forum.
Do you have a more specific quote? All I saw was EGW saying the sacrifice was added by man after the daily. If the text implies the pre-1844 position was correct, her later testimony tried to diffuse the contention which she often did to avoid the division of the church on a non-essential issue.
If? She did not just say the sacrifice but said the following:
When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "Daily;" but since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion has followed.
Now, she mentions they had the correct view before 1844, which was Miller's paganism view. The later views were what were said to bring confusion.
Moreover, it is not unessential at all. It is very essential, and is in the same context as Daniel 8:24. It is rather critical to our view that the little horn power took away the daily of Christ's ministry, is it not?
But it was becoming problematic because Daniels etc. were taking her to task on it, especially in light of her earlier statement.
So no, she didn't want controversy when it would point out issues with HER and her writings.
Now what would you have me call that? Did she have light before or not? In one instance or another she was clearly not telling the whole truth. If she lied or belittled the earlier to stop controversy what does that say? Is a prophet to lie and say they didn't have light from the Lord when they did?
Anyways, my conclusion comes from my own understanding. If I find it to contradicts EGW's writings I would have to restudy the scriptures to see my error.
So in other words you would put her above the Scriptures and take whatever view she says? I cannot do that.
The context in the passage is clearly not paganism.
You also admitted once already, unless you have changed your view, that Christ went into to the MHP to innaugurate, which does not agree with EGW's statements. Care to explain?
I don't care what Edson said. But EGW's statement says the door to the MHP was not open until the 1844. Do you see in the bible or in EGW's writings where it says the door to the MHP could never be opened then shut again?
During the dedication, the high priest went inside the MHP and then closed the veil for the rest of the year until the day of atonemet.
The statement is clear. You don't want to accept it:
This door was not opened, until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary in 1844.
Now she plainly says it was not opened until then. You say do I see anywhere that it says it cannot be opened, shut, then opened again. I ask you, do you see where it says it can? And more importantly why does it say WAS NOT OPENED if it was opened?
The old view always was that Christ did not enter the MHP until that date.
In fact EGW supported the inauguration view.
Christ's ascension to heaven was the signal that His followers were to receive the promised blessing. For this they were to wait before they entered upon their work. When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as the ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. The Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven's communication that the Redeemer's inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise, He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers, as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people" ---AA, p38-39
Agreed! But that just shows the contradictions of her views. She sees an inauguration but also sees that the door was not open. So which is it? Or did He inaugurate from the HP which would not fit the type?
Of course, I have no problem at all with an inauguration as you would see if you read post 67, which you still haven't responded to.
I think Christ did go in and inaugurate, and also completed presenting the offering, and sat down. But you and EGW are all over the map.
Of course you can look at the scriptures and decide for yourself what the truth is. But these statements made by you on the board are viewed by many people (outsider, newcomer...).
And so are the problems. People here have come to a board where they know all kinds of conversation occurs, from the theological to the deeply personal (recovery issues, etc.).
Again you assert that people can look at things as long as they don't mention them. Why the cover up? Why won't the church discuss these issues which causes many to leave?
Did you not take a vow to uphold our doctrines when and if you were ordained?
Yes, and I want very much to be able to now. But I can't say other than what I see. And until I am shown otherwise this is what I am seeing. And if no relief comes then I will act. But again, you want to hide the discussion. You want me to just keep it to myself rather than trying to work it out.
I don't have issues with you nor your wife (I nominated her to be a mod here). I could care less what you believe. I have long learnt you can't care more for people more than their do. Even Christ doesn't force His ways on us.
The issues I have are the statements you made while on the church payroll. If someone works for a company but underhandedly marginalizes or discredits the policy and practice that made them what they are, they couldn't wait to get rid of their disgruntled employee.
I am not complaining about the company. I am studying the Bible and asking why our church won't deal with the issues, and whether folks can help me with the issues. I want to support the church. I want our doctrine to be true. You all just want us to shut up and not ask questions. I never took an oath to not ask questions, especially when these questions are tearing our church, and my life, apart.