Leaderboard

This is a really good book. One of the reasons I appreciate the study of "the sanctuary," is because I once red a quote that basically says "In ever part of it was a symbol of Him," meaning, the sanctuary. Jesus is what makes that an essential topic.

Stinsonmarri asked in the quote below: The answer to that question is very simple: Because we seek to both understand and to apply it to our lives. Stinsonsmarri interprets what she believes God says on a regular basis as she shares her interpretation with us. She should interpret and apply it to her life. Her understanding may not be correct. But, that is another issue. Her application to her life may not be correct. But, that is another issue. A common meaning of the work interpret is to explain the meaning of something in understandable terms. That is the basic role of evangelism. If Stinsonmarri really believes that one does not need to interpret, she is telling us that evangelism is not needed. Further, if she is telling us that she does not need to have Scripture interpreted to her, she is telling us that she believes that she has perfect knowledge and no need of any further understanding of the Biblical teachings. Well, on this point, the Biblical teaching is that the spiritual life is a life of constant growth in understanding.

Well, I am not sure why you said I have "interpreted" anything. I simply quoted scripture and made a general statement on one possible application. The scripture I quoted was simple and clear: there are division/s in the church, and The Holy Spirit can and does work just fine with the divisions therein. No need to eliminate the ones we dont agree with. Or to coerce everyone into seeing something the same way. PTL :)

"We Have This Hope" Why does Paul say believers would be "more to be pitied than anyone in the world" if there were only earthly value to Christianity? In Paul's day, Christianity often brought a person persecution, ostracism from family, and, in many cases, poverty. There were few tangible benefits from being a Christian in that society. It was certainly not a step up the social or career ladder. More important is the fact that if Christ had not been resurrected from the dead, Christians would not be forgiven of their sins or have any hope of eternal life. If what Christians believe is a lie, we would be pitiful because we would be going through such suffering for no purpose. Fortunately, that is not the case! (Life Application Notes).

? a place for you ? John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so , I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

I would disagree with you on this one. However, I have decided to no longer comment on this topic of the sanctuary in this forum. There are a couple of other topics that I choose not to be part of the discussion because they just get too inflammatory for the sacredness of the topic. I have for some time been doing my own independent study of the sanctuary and have read thru quite a number of books on the topic with more to go. Leslie Hardinge's "With Jesus in His Sanctuary" is next on my list. I am purposefully not reading EGW on this topic until the very last. The early pioneers worked beliefs out thru careful Bible study and when they had, EGW would often have a confirmatory vision regarding their conclusions. EGW was not the source of Adventist beliefs. You can duplicate this experiment over and over again within Adventist circles. Ask a group of Adventists when they last heard a sermon on the sanctuary and no one will be able to remember when that might have been. Why this concerns me is that I have a growing appreciation of the sanctuary in the desert as one highly symbolic physical parable of the entire plan of salvation. Now do you see why it is seldom preached?! People will go on and on how we are saved by the Cross. However, the part of the Cross in the desert sanctuary was represented by the alter of burnt offerings outside the sanctuary. You could erase the sanctuary itself and have the plan of salvation as believed by most Christians. But what was the meaning of everything inside of the sanctuary? For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10 The Cross only reconciled us to God and the entire human family has been reconciled by the Cross. But we are saved by the life of Jesus. So, short "drive-by" potshots at comments do not do this topic justice.

So the term "be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect" may have been written only once in the New Testament, but references to be perfect occur frequently. So, score one "gotcha" point for you! Not sure what poisonous snake and moving mountains has to do with this discussion, but Paul actually did have an encounter with a poisonous snake. People in the New Testament also spoke in tongues. People today speak in tongues just as the apostles did. I have heard quite a number of stories of missionaries preaching to an audience and those who did not know the language of the speaker understood him perfectly. Moving mountains is quite the illustration. If one under the direction of God were to order a mountain to be moved as Jesus described, it would be done. Because it has never been known to happen does not invalidate it. Again God (Jesus) does not waste words. I tend to think that a point to be made from this illustration is that one who has the mind of Christ will only ask for things that Christ would want and then anything will be done if asked.

The term "most holy place" does not occur in the KJV New Testament. It does say in Hebrews that Jesus entered the holy place. Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Here are a few other versions and how they translated that verse: KJ21 neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. ASV nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. AMP He went once for all into the Holy Place [the Holy of Holies of heaven, into the presence of God], and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, having obtained and secured eternal redemption [that is, the salvation of all who personally believe in Him as Savior]. BRG Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. DRA Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption. ESV he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. JUB neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the sanctuary designed for eternal redemption. KJV Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. MSG But when the Messiah arrived, high priest of the superior things of this new covenant, he bypassed the old tent and its trappings in this created world and went straight into heaven’s “tent”—the true Holy Place—once and for all. He also bypassed the sacrifices consisting of goat and calf blood, instead using his own blood as the price to set us free once and for all. If that animal blood and the other rituals of purification were effective in cleaning up certain matters of our religion and behavior, think how much more the blood of Christ cleans up our whole lives, inside and out. Through the Spirit, Christ offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice, freeing us from all those dead-end efforts to make ourselves respectable, so that we can live all out for God. There are many more, some saying "most holy," and some saying "holy!" Lets not forget that when EGW lived she used the KJV, I believe, and not some of the more modern translations? All I can say is, she either was a messenger of God or not!! Can't have it both ways! We can't say some of her writings were from God and the others she made up!! Because if that is the case than she is either a liar and than can't be believed at all, because we have no idea when she's telling the truth or telling us falsehoods??

One of the real problems you will have to deal with in this argument is that we are exhorted over and over again in the Bible to "be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect." I see many many people who believe that a person can sin right up to the very moment that Jesus returns to this earth and I tend to believe this is a very fatal error. First of all, it demonstrates unbelief. I find that you really then have to determine what or how one becomes perfect. Exactly what does that mean? Many try every day of their lives to not sin and fail miserably. And to be sure, I find it to be really works to attempt tp become perfect through your own efforts. It was (and is) often said to me that "we need to get ready, because Jesus is coming." No one ever says how you do that. It has been one of my focuses for some time now to understand exactly how do you get ready, i. e., even, how do you become perfect. Since we have been exhorted to become perfect by God in Scripture, then it follows that we can become perfect. God does not lie and He does not waste words. And as noted previously, what that means has to be determined. One of the great recent studies regarding having the mind of Jesus and becoming perfect is a seminar by Bill Liversidge which is available on Youtube and is linked to in my sig lines. See the Victory in Jesus section of the links. One of the fallacies I find is to try and point out that no one is a perfect commandment keeper. We cannot know that. It is given that everyone has sinned, but the idea seems to be because one has sinned they can never be perfect. I very much believe that a person can cease to sin. There is reference in Scripture that when Jesus comes we will see Him as He is because we will be like Him. He even stands up in heaven and says let the righteous be righteous still. Again, we can not ever be able to say how many individuals on this earth have become so like God through their relationship with Him that they cease to sin. However, I believe that for one to claim they have stopped sinning is to prove that they continue to sin. As far as saying none can point to a single case of someone becoming perfect, you cannot prove none have. As far as "Last Generation Theology (LGT)" goes, it seems to be a name applied to a number of traits of those people who go through the time of trouble without a mediator. The Bible uses a different name, "the 144,000." I believe the name came through the writings of M. L. Andreasen, but any of you are free to correct me on that. I have found nothing in the LGT belief that is not in all of the writings of the Scriptures and the early church founders including Sister Ellen, E. Waggoner, and others I have yet to read. And of course, many more modern theologians and writers echo much of the same in different ways including Andreasen, Goldstein, Douglass, Liversidge, and others. This I would find troubling. I do believe God will share secrets with His people and show them wonderful things. When it comes to EGW, it seems to me that you have to totally dismiss the messages that were given to us via her ministry or believe. And if we have been given a wonderful message through her, but choose to dismiss them, it seems one is not slighting her but God who gave the message. The understanding of 1844 is a very powerful message that we have not even gotten to the end of fully understanding it. While it is true that it is not a "requirement" for salvation, but I personally would be very concerned to go out and ignore what understandings have been offered to us for this day and age. Daniel was told to seal up that understanding and in this day it is open to us. Jesus talked about how the people of His time on earth had a knowledge of things that others only dreamed of knowing. And today, we have a knowledge of things that even the apostles did not seem to have. Another writer notes often that much of the Scripture writings of prophecies that seem to have been fulfilled long ago are written for us today. Many prophecies even by Jesus were in the same talk applicable to the residents of Jerusalem and to the inhabitants of the earth at the end of the age. Here you are making statements without proving evidence. Exactly where does EGW contradict Scripture? Often done is to make such statements without providing the evidence for them. And exactly where does EGW claim more power for herself than the Pope? Given that EGW claimed nothing more than being a messenger, but the Popes have referred to themselves in the past as "Lord God the Pope"!