• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Where is Christ and what is He doing?

Jon0388g

Veteran
Aug 11, 2006
1,259
29
London
✟24,167.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
I don't disagree that part of the issue was transgressing the command. But a couple of points:

a. Why did Moses have to view only God's back?

I'm stumped. Since Christ said "No man has seen God"? When the glory of God passed by Elijah in the mountain, we aren't told specifically if he saw all or not. I don't know really.

b. Doesn't this still show that God's presence was explicitly said to be above the ark in a significant way, which was my main point?

Yes it was in a significant way - since the way to the Father was only through the veil (Christ). But, don't forget that the Bread is explicitly referred to as the Bread of the Presence.


The larger issue is that the text says it is heaven itself that Jesus entered.

Ok, that's between you and DL.



Jon
 
Upvote 0

Jon0388g

Veteran
Aug 11, 2006
1,259
29
London
✟24,167.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Tall, since you now deny the existence of a heavenly sanctuary, what do you do with this text?


"And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." Revelation 21:21-22

John says he sees no temple in the new Jerusalem, in the new heaven. Doesn't this imply that there was one previously? Or do you feel that this is still in the context of a symbolic book, so we shouldn't take this literally?


Jon
 
Upvote 0

Adventist Dissident

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,389
524
Parts Unknown
✟519,832.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Tall, since you now deny the existence of a heavenly sanctuary, what do you do with this text?


"And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." Revelation 21:21-22

John says he sees no temple in the new Jerusalem, in the new heaven. Doesn't this imply that there was one previously? Or do you feel that this is still in the context of a symbolic book, so we shouldn't take this literally?


Jon
Jon
it says "the Lord is their temple"
 
Upvote 0

NightEternal

Evangelical SDA
Apr 18, 2007
5,639
127
Toronto, Ontario
✟6,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
John is making the comparison between what he knew on earth and what he wasn't seeing in Heaven. He is emphasizing that Christ had replaced the literal temple. The reality is always better than the shadow.

The Holy and Most Holy are phases of his Heavenly ministry, intercession and judgment.

Christ does not have to be locked in a literal room to do this.

Hyper-literalism always makes a mockery of the beautiful, figurative symbolism in Hebrews.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,684
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,383.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Tall, since you now deny the existence of a heavenly sanctuary, what do you do with this text?


"And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." Revelation 21:21-22

John says he sees no temple in the new Jerusalem, in the new heaven. Doesn't this imply that there was one previously? Or do you feel that this is still in the context of a symbolic book, so we shouldn't take this literally?

There were a couple of contrasts mentioned in that passage and they are with earthly things, not heavenly things:

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof.
Rev 21:23 And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb.
Rev 21:24 And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory into it.
Rev 21:25 And the gates thereof shall in no wise be shut by day (for there shall be no night there):

Rev 21:26 and they shall bring the glory and the honour of the nations into it:
Rev 21:27 and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

The gates always being opened, which safety did not afford on earth, and the sun and moon being absent, though they were present on earth, etc. continue the theme of contrast with earthly realities.

When God first made the tabernacle He said to let them build Him a sanctuary that He might live among them (despite their sinful state).
The people had limited access however, as they could only come so far, and the high priest could only come once a year.

Now God dwells directly among them as in the garrden. They no longer need a temple when God is right there.

As to denying a heavenly temple, I don't deny one, but Hebrews said it is heaven itself.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,684
6,107
Visit site
✟1,047,383.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Adventist Dissident

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,389
524
Parts Unknown
✟519,832.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This is why you are not taken seriously because you can not hold a remotely repectful, adult conversation.
exactly what is wrong with this. you make statement that are not true and then try to say that i am not to be respected. sad
 
Upvote 0

StormyOne

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
5,424
47
65
Alabama
✟5,866.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?



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 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.

Tall, I have observed your questions from afar and applaud the fact that you are willing to dissect the various positions of the church to see if they can be proven biblically or not. I am also glad you have not cowed to the pressure exerted by some here to stand and be a good soldier even though you see the problems with the "official position." Keep asking questions because in the end God may ask what you did with the brain he gave you.... It is unfortunate that more don't question as opposed to having a belief and then going to the bible to find support....
 
Upvote 0

NightEternal

Evangelical SDA
Apr 18, 2007
5,639
127
Toronto, Ontario
✟6,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I am also glad you have not cowed to the pressure exerted by some here to stand and be a good soldier even though you see the problems with the "official position."

Amen. Again, OnTheDL needs to back the heck off and stick to the issues. If he cannot (and he has already demonstrated twice he cannot seem to) Tall should just simply say this conversation is over.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
exactly what is wrong with this. you make statement that are not true and then try to say that i am not to be respected. sad

You seem to have a short memory after you editted your post. I said what I said in reply to this post of yours BEFORE you editted.

Originally Posted by icedragon101
you are a fool. I have read the book it does not say what you say it does. I went to 2 different colleges and lived at another one and never saw that. Granted there are problem on the SDA campuses, but that is not one. you have never attended a campus you speak out of ignorance
I don't believe you. you have a tendency to dray the wrong conclusion.

But you don't have any facts. you have retoric and ridicule

I found it funny that you posted within the same hour you added me to your buddy list. Was it for you becoming a mod? Here is a tip if you will: you can't ask people to do what you don't do.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
I am also glad you have not cowed to the pressure exerted by some here to stand and be a good soldier even though you see the problems with the "official position."

Amen. Again, OnTheDL needs to back the heck off and stick to the issues. If he cannot (and he has already demonstrated twice he cannot seem to) Tall should just simply say this conversation is over.

People (you and stormy included) are welcome to supply your arguments on the subjects. As long as they are not personal remarks and they are valid points, I'll entertain them.
 
Upvote 0

Adventist Dissident

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,389
524
Parts Unknown
✟519,832.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You seem to have a short memory after you editted your post. I said what I said in reply to this post of yours BEFORE you editted.



I found it funny that you posted within the same hour you added me to your buddy list. Was it for you becoming a mod? Here is a tip if you will: you can't ask people to do what you don't do.
adding you to my buddy list is no big deal, dL I have almost ALL the active SDA on my list. that is about 250. It is just a way of seeing who in on line at any give moment. makes it easire to talk to people. That is all.

As far as the edit. I am not sure what you are talking about. I did change something to convey a less personal statment and more a more objective statement that was more in line with what I was trying to convey.

I believe you owe an apology for the "robin" statement. that was picking a fight.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
adding you to my buddy list is no big deal, dL I have almost ALL the active SDA on my list. that is about 250. It is just a way of seeing who in on line at any give moment. makes it easire to talk to people. That is all.

As far as the edit. I am not sure what you are talking about. I did change something to convey a less personal statment and more a more objective statement that was more in line with what I was trying to convey.

I believe you owe an apology for the "robin" statement. that was picking a fight.

Robin as for Batman Robin was funny, ok? But you called me a fool. Not even close. Hey I have a thick skin. It rolls right off.

But I'm willing to apologize to you if it offended you. Can you and your buddies keep the personal remarks from appearing on the forum?
 
Upvote 0

NightEternal

Evangelical SDA
Apr 18, 2007
5,639
127
Toronto, Ontario
✟6,559.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
It is absolutely making things personal, and everyone can see that except you. You make comments like 'showing transcripts of his posts to his churches and employers' and you think that isn't going beyond the bounds of the discussion?

By all means, keep the theological exchange with Tall going. Just leave his personal pastoral issues out of it.

Is that such an unreasonable request?
 
Upvote 0

JonMiller

Senior Veteran
Jun 6, 2007
7,165
195
✟30,831.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What I asked him to do is to stay consistent with his statements made here. Asking him to step down is not a personal attack. Because he is being paid by the tithe money to uphold SDA doctrines.

And you know he doesn't in his church?

I know numerous pastors who preach what their denomination teaches rather than their person beleifs.

JM
 
Upvote 0

Adventist Dissident

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,389
524
Parts Unknown
✟519,832.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Robin as for Batman Robin was funny, ok? But you called me a fool. Not even close. Hey I have a thick skin. It rolls right off.

But I'm willing to apologize to you if it offended you. Can you and your buddies keep the personal remarks from appearing on the forum?
are you asking me to do what you don't do? Are you saying I am the problem? I think the personal attacks are coming from the conservatives first. not the progressives. I don't want to fight I want to discuss. I just want good answers.

As far as my "buddies" i don't know who you are talking about and don't control what they do.

Are you going to be as responsible in avoiding starting a fight as you are wanting me to be?
 
Upvote 0

Moriah_Conquering_Wind

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2006
23,327
2,234
✟34,174.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I you are foolish. I have read the book it does not say what you say it does. I went to 2 different colleges and lived at another one and never saw that. Granted there are problem on the SDA campuses, but that is not one. you have never attended a campus you speak out of ignorance
I don't believe you. you have a tendency to dray the wrong conclusion.

But you don't have any facts. you have retoric and ridicule

the former president of CUC did in fact teach mysticism and deliberate praxis for the alteration of consciousness. his name was william loveless and he will burn in hell for what he did to me. he introduced me to the occult at CUC through his teachings. he destroyed my tender, newborn faith in Christ with his cocky assertion that "how do you think you communicate with God? it's through your imagination." I won't bore you with the details of my life story -- if I got started I would not know where to stop. But two years down the road I was forced to leave CUC because it was apparent to everyone there I had become daimonizomai. The students and half the faculty were scared to DEATH and their "solution" was to get rid of me, so that Mumsy and Dadsy would not balk at the idea of sending Junior to CUC because they were "harboring a witch" and thus the COFFERS could be kept flowing. :mad:

this was in the early 1980s. More I will not disclose at this time; it is irrelevant. The point I want to make is that yes, william loveless -- whom i now understand is out in california somewhere -- did introduce these teachings at CUC. YES they are occultic techniques, though a very low-brow version thereof (not high-level psychospiritual tech) and YES they can and do open doors. So do NOT go off half-cocked in ignorance at someone here who is raising these concerns. I'm fully aware some of the hullaballoo around "NLP" and whatnot is overblown effluvia, but there are still cautions that are worth noting when it comes to the deliberate praxis of placing one's mind in an altered state of consciousness and supplanting genuine communication with the True and Living God with communicating with a "god" in your imagination.

Live and learn.
Signed,
Moriah Conquering Wind
CF's resident daimonizomai
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
the former president of CUC did in fact teach mysticism and deliberate praxis for the alteration of consciousness. his name was william loveless and he will burn in hell for what he did to me. he introduced me to the occult at CUC through his teachings. he destroyed my tender, newborn faith in Christ with his cocky assertion that "how do you think you communicate with God? it's through your imagination." I won't bore you with the details of my life story -- if I got started I would not know where to stop. But two years down the road I was forced to leave CUC because it was apparent to everyone there I had become daimonizomai. The students and half the faculty were scared to DEATH and their "solution" was to get rid of me, so that Mumsy and Dadsy would not balk at the idea of sending Junior to CUC because they were "harboring a witch" and thus the COFFERS could be kept flowing. :mad:

this was in the early 1980s. More I will not disclose at this time; it is irrelevant. The point I want to make is that yes, william loveless -- whom i now understand is out in california somewhere -- did introduce these teachings at CUC. YES they are occultic techniques, though a very low-brow version thereof (not high-level psychospiritual tech) and YES they can and do open doors. So do NOT go off half-cocked in ignorance at someone here who is raising these concerns. I'm fully aware some of the hullaballoo around "NLP" and whatnot is overblown effluvia, but there are still cautions that are worth noting when it comes to the deliberate praxis of placing one's mind in an altered state of consciousness and supplanting genuine communication with the True and Living God with communicating with a "god" in your imagination.

Live and learn.
Signed,
Moriah Conquering Wind
CF's resident daimonizomai


Thank you for your testimony. And I have a video of William Loveless (president of CUC and senior pastor of LLU church) giving these spiritual exersizes (art of demon possession). Maybe one of these days I will convert them to computer format so they can see for themselves.

I had read some of your posts in the past. I don't pretend to know what you went through and what you still might be facing today. But I pray God will restore the faith and innocence in you. God bless you!
 
Upvote 0