Originally Posted by tall73
I don't agree with you, but for the moment let's just take the important part of what you said. The shekinah glory was there.
Thanks, that kind of makes the point doesn't it?
Originally Posted by OntheDL
Then how did the priest and high priest appear before the Lord? Here is what you contradict yourself.
Not at all. In fact, this is perfectly in line with my overall point. The phrase “before the Lord” is used of people
a. in the holy place
b. in the court
c. all over the place in their booths during the feast
d. metaphorically.
In other words it is not at all limited to one place but is a broad term.
So you don't have a text, I provided one that said north, not north west, and now you are taking rabbinical sources over the Bible? Why did you ask if a text mattered to me when it doesn't to you?
Again, you have no text. Nor did you address the texts I posted which clearly showed that "before the Lord" did not refer only to the holy place, or even right in front of it, so this whole stakes issue is only a distraction.
Historical records are also accepted as facts. The scriptures are not explicit about the location of the stakes. The bible speaks about the enemies of Israel always came from the north. But it seems Assyria, Babylon were more to the north east. But indeed, there are many known scriptures quoted to you that you have not accepted, why should the whereabouts of the stakes make a difference?
The one text we have says to the north. Now
a. post the rabbinic tradition
b. explain what difference it makes anyway given the general way in which the phrase “before the Lord” is used. That is why I said the stakes thing is a distraction from the start.
c. If I cite tradition that goes against the Bible in regard to other topics, which will you go with?
d. Which texts do you feel I ignored?
It is quite relevant to the argument. In the type it was a Levite. in the reality it was not. A reason was given.
The sanctuary services illustrated the plan of salvation. Also again notice the high priest not only typified Christ, he also represented the common believers.
Please explain where you are going with that a bit more. I do not currently understand your argument.
The same is true here. It says He entered not a two-compartment tent, as the type would indicate, but heaven itself. Unlike your stakes argument I do have a text. But you don't want to believe it.
What about the texts Daniel, Isaiah and John wrote? Were they given false visions of the actual heavenly sanctuary scenes?
Do you feel that everything in apocalyptic/symbolic vision is literal? Was Babylon really a winged lion or a head of gold?
You are mis-quoting the scripture. It actually says "the holy places made with hands". It meant that Jesus didn't enter into the earthly sanctuary made by human hands, but into the heavenly sanctuary.
I am not misquoting the text, you simply didn’t refer to all of it:
Heb 9:24 For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us:
I certainly agree that this verse means that it is not a human temple, but one built by God. But it also clarifies that it is NOT even a limited temple after the earthly pattern but heaven itself. It is in heaven itself that He appears before the face of God.
I think you probably know this. In the hebrew mindset, there are three heavens. The 'third heaven' Paul talked about is where God dwells. Your interpretation of the Hebrew 9:24 is far stretch and contradicts other verses.
The text is pretty clear. He appeared in heaven itself.
Sorry, assumes facts not in evidence, that they are from the same source.
I've yet to see any concrete evidence from you to say otherwise.
It was your contention that they are from the same source, not mine. I don’t have to disprove your contention before you even proved it. You made the claim that there can be no contradiction upon the basis that they are from the same source. If that is to be evidence you must prove the premise.
Now, since the post from here on out turns to personal matters, why did you not address the Hebrews post?
Addressed above. What about the actual heavenly sanctuary visions? What's your explanation?
You did not at all address my long post on the details in post 67. You addressed a couple of points, which I have now followed up on.
As to the visions, they are just that—visions in symbolic settings, as the beasts etc. are not beasts.
Hebrews however clarifies what the heavenly sanctuary is which the symbols point to.
I will leave if I can't resolve the issues, as alreadys stated. But I am not on your timetable to do that.
Let me say again, I don't have a problem with you questioning our doctrines. But with the damaging statements made by you over the past year or so, and the intensity, God forbid if you are wrong, you have been the worst enemy of the truth considering the position you claim to have.
No, in fact, I have not. I would be the worst enemy if I made a quick decision, tried to convert my members, went public and made a Youtube video or opened a hate website, promoting my views to thousands
However, that is not at all what I have done. I have studied out the issues consulting those who I thought could help. As part of that I have discussed these things on a non-official forum, and as often as possible in the obscure sub-forum of denomination-specific theology. I did that intentionally not to draw attention, but to try to get answers.
I posted here because you were making statements that do not seem to match up with what I have seen, and I wanted to address it. You left my other thread some time ago.
It's your own time table if you live your life onto yourselves, but your statements influence many new comers and the on-lookers. And that's not even adding the fact that you have been paid to teach OUR doctrines. You think there would have been an uproar if your congregations were shown the transcripts of your posts?
This is in fact a discussion forum, not even an official Adventist one, and is clearly a place where debate is allowed. What do people expect when they come here? Frankly these issues are not going away and if someone chooses to read them then they make the choice to get into it.
I want to discuss these because they are issues our church is addressing, and so am I. I tend to think my conference would understand that and appreciate that I did not go off on a public mission rather than trying to figure it out in a limited setting among those who come to a place where doctrine is discussed. I am sorry if this does not meet your approval, but I am not asking for your approval, nor do I feel I have done something wrong. I am trying to get answers among those who might have answers.
Also, you yourself accept the new view of the daily which EGW condemned. Any reason?
EGW condemned? She said she had no light on the daily and doesn't endorce any specific views.
It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken in settling this matter. The true meaning of "the daily" is not to be made a test question.
I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy. ---Selected Message, V1, p164
Please get your facts straight.
I do have my facts straight. You have reproduced what she said when she didn’t want Daniels, etc. to keep pressing her on the issue because she clearly DID say she had light on it before in an earlier statement, and that she “saw” that the old view was the correct one.
The Lord showed me that the 1843 chart was directed by his hand, and that no part of it should be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them. That his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until his hand was removed.
Then I saw in relation to the "Daily," that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. 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. { Present Truth November , 1850 } http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc...-11/index.djvu
She said she had no instruction on the point. Does that in fact make sense when looking at her comment from 1850?
- EGW, says she saw that the old view was the right one
- People start using the comment to solve the controversy
- EGW, says that she never had any instruction on the matter and doesn't know why folks are worked up over it.
Question--if she did not have any previous instruction on the subject then why would she say to not use her writings to solve it? They couldn't use her writings to solve it if in fact she had not previously taken a position. But she clearly did.
And it is clear she claimed that she saw this in vision:
This was the opening statement of her article
DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTER.--I .wish "to give you a
short sketch of what the Lord has recently shown :to
me in vision...
She says
"I saw"right at the introduction to the thought.
The two paragraphs right around that say the Lord showed her, and the thought is continued throughout the article as she relates the vision.
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?
Again, this is my attempt to understand the text of Hebrews. EGW was not specific on this. Where did she say otherwise?
Here is where she said otherwise, already quoted in my long Hebrews post, #67:
Sabbath, March 24th, 1849, we had a sweet, and very interesting meeting with the Brethren at Topsham, Me. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the City of the living God. There I was shown that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out, with all their importance, and for God's people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Ark is, containing the ten commandments. This door was not opened, until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary in 1844. Then, Jesus rose up, and shut the door in the Holy Place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and passed within the second vail, where he now stands by the Ark; and where the faith of Israel now reaches. {RH, August 1, 1849 par. 2}
The door was not opened until 1844 according to EGW. That WAS the traditional view, that Jesus for the FIRST TIME, as Edson put it (also quoted in post 67) entered the MHP in 1844.
The only way to change it is to change Adventists history and EGW’s comments. But that is what scholars have done because they know the old view of the daily does not fit the evidence in the text.
These unique doctrines made us who we are today. If your arguments are truth, it would make us a false church and our movement a false religious movement. You are free to make these statements. You just shouldn't be paid by those do believe these doctrines to say them. These statements invalidate our very existence. Again, let your employer and congregation know and see what they think as they write out your paycheck.
Yes, our very identity is at stake. And since that is the case are you really saying that no one who is employed by the conference should even look at the Scriptural evidence in order to address these issues that have plagued our church for its entire history, even on a discussion board?
If our church can’t deal with discussion of evidence then they need to change their view that they have the truth to start with.
Now I am going to continue along the lines of the actual issues, rather than your issues with me.
