Need help on Stephens dying vision

[se7en]

Hi,

I am new here. The bible says that Stephen saw Christ sitting next to God right beofore he was stoned. How is this possible when Christ entered the most holy place in 1844?

thanks!

p.s. i am not studying theology so keep it simple pls.

[karl]

Hi,

I am new here. The bible says that Stephen saw Christ sitting next to God right beofore he was stoned. How is this possible when Christ entered the most holy place in 1844?

I agree with you, se7en. I believe Christ has been going in and out of the MHP since His resurrection. He went in there in 1844 to start a special work on behalf of all mankind, but I don't think that was His first time in the MHP.

[Dr. Rich]

Hey there se7en, good question! Questions like these are fun to read but make it hard to answer if one already has their mind made up.

Perhaps you can help me with this question. Who is it that tells us Steven saw Jesus with His Father?

[John317]

Quote:

se7en: Hi,

I am new here. The bible says that Stephen saw Christ sitting next to God right beofore he was stoned. How is this possible when Christ entered the most holy place in 1844?

What does it mean to say Christ was sitting at God's right hand? Does that mean Christ was literally sitting on the right-hand of God? What do you think this meant to Stephen?

Also, does it refer to a location? Or to a relationship, position, and work?

Christ's entering into the Most Holy Place in 1844 was for a specific work, the last phase of Christ's mediatorial ministry for mankind before He comes for His church. This ministry was not affected by Christ's being at God's right-hand after His ascension. Was it?

[Dr. Rich]

John, se7en asked the question and now you seem to want to confuse him with your prejudicial view because of Edson and White.

First, my bible has Stephen saying that Jesus is standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55 and 56) In verse 49 we see that the whole Heaven is the throne of God, so when Jesus told His disciples in John 16 that He was going to be with His Father, what makes people think that is not what He did? If Jesus said this, why would someone want to make people believe that the Father was in the Most Holy Place and Jesus had to remain outside somewhere? Hmmm? Makes no sense to me.

Here is the problem: Daniel 8:13 and 14 is talking about a Holy place, and not necessarily the Temple in Heaven and the Most Holy Place there. Verse 14 says nothing about any "Most Holy Place". Since this "Holy Place" is Strongs 6944 it can mean a place set apart or a consecrated thing or it could even mean (and I think it did) God's Kingdom of Heaven (His consecrated group of people) or the Stone cut out without hands that was prophesied to happen at the time of the end.

After all, the context in Daniel 8 is that God's people (HOST) would be trampled for 2300 evenings and mornings and then they (HOST) would be restored. This is just as good an answer as anybody else! In fact, it makes more sense since this is exactly what happened. However, prophecy tells us that they wouldn't know it because they would be sleeping.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich:

...my bible has Stephen saying that Jesus is standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55 and 56) In verse 49 we see that the whole Heaven is the throne of God, so when Jesus told His disciples in John 16 that He was going to be with His Father, what makes people think that is not what He did? If Jesus said this, why would someone want to make people believe that the Father was in the Most Holy Place and Jesus had to remain outside somewhere? Hmmm? Makes no sense to me.

You're right-- that wouldn't make sense, and I didn't say that or suggest it.

But at the same time, there's no reason to think that the Father was in the Most Holy Place at the time Stephen saw Him. However, it doesn't matter where the Father was. The point of the passage in Acts is not that the Father was in the Most Holy Place. The point is that Jesus shares God's throne. God's throne is wherever God is, and God moves around. For that reason God's throne has wheels. Wheels indicate movement. God is not stationary. The whole purpose of the passage in Acts is to teach that Christ is with God the Father and that we have total access to God Himself through Jesus.

[Dr. Rich]

Ok John, but we have access to Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Isn't this the whole reason Jesus said what He did in John 14, 15 and 16? Since Jesus said He would not come back until He would eat with the saints again, what makes people think that Jesus came back to visit with Saul? Just because Saul said so does not necessarily make it true. In fact, to me that would make Jesus a liar. I know that Jesus didn't lie, so someone else had to have done it.

[se7en]

OK Seriously guys... i dont have my mind made up. I have heard that theres controversy about different stuff. I just want a wholehearted EGW bible 7th day adventsit answer...

no controversy pls. im not here to start one... :S

[se7en]

by the way 2 things:

1. thank you

2. are you people SDA's?

[John317]

Not everyone on the Forum is SDA. Some are former SDAs, others are anti-SDA, and some are agnostic and even atheists.

I'm an SDA and believe in SDA doctrines and in the entire Bible.

Dr. Rich claims to be SDA but he rejects a great many SDA doctrines as well as most of the New Testament and Ellen White.

[Dr. Rich]

Wow, you thru the bait out and now you don't want to go fishing any more. Hmmm? Yes, I am a third generation SDA and I think John is too. But don't hold me to believing everything in all of the 28 fundamental doctrines. I am NOT just a SDA--I am a serious truth seeker knowing that christians have been sold a bill of goods that are fiction.

And yes, it is very hard NOT to imagine that anyplace where the Father is, isn't most holy!

[Guest]

Rich, at this point you wouldn't know the truth if it fell on you.

[Guest]

It is a fearful thing to reject truth and call it error. And to take up error, and call it truth. You have chosen the death road Rich, and don't even know it. I'm praying that if it is at all possible, that God will pull you out before it is too late.

And on some have compassion, making a difference:

And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Jud 1:22,23

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: But don't hold me to believing everything in all of the 28 fundamental doctrines. I am NOT just a SDA--I am a serious truth seeker knowing that christians have been sold a bill of goods that are fiction.

It's one thing to have doubts and questions about some of the SDA doctrines or even about the Bible, but you reject 2/3 of the New Testament and most of the basic church doctrines.

It begs the question, what is an SDA? Is anyone an SDA just because they say so? Can they believe and do anything and still be legitimately described as SDA? If that's the case, it seems to me we reach a point where the name is meaningless.

Could I be Catholic if I reject the papacy, the mass, the missal, the confessional, Sunday, the saints, the human priesthood, and so on? At what point is someone a Catholic in name only? The same principle applies to being SDA, it seems to me.

[BobRyan]

Hi,

I am new here. The bible says that Stephen saw Christ sitting next to God right beofore he was stoned. How is this possible when Christ entered the most holy place in 1844?

thanks!

p.s. i am not studying theology so keep it simple pls.

1. In Acts Jesus is "Standing" at the right hand of the Father.

2. In Daniel 7 - the 1844 judgment scene begins with the ancient of days COMING to the MHP. It does not state that He was there the whole time.

3. The sanctuary model - provides for the Throne of God in the H.P as well as in the MHP.

4. God the Father is omnipresent

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: But don't hold me to believing everything in all of the 28 fundamental doctrines. I am NOT just a SDA--I am a serious truth seeker knowing that christians have been sold a bill of goods that are fiction.

It's one thing to have doubts and questions about some of the SDA doctrines or even about the Bible, but you reject 2/3 of the New Testament and most of the basic church doctrines.

It begs the question, what is an SDA? Is anyone an SDA just because they say so? Can they believe and do anything and still be legitimately described as SDA? If that's the case, it seems to me we reach a point where the name is meaningless.

Could I be Catholic if I reject the papacy, the mass, the missal, the confessional, Sunday, the saints, the human priesthood, and so on? At what point is someone a Catholic in name only? The same principle applies to being SDA, it seems to me.

I am one of those people that thinks that the 28 FB "have some meaning" when it comes to the question "What doctrines does the Seventh-day Adventist denomination teach".

I also think that any Catholic or Lutheran that chooses to "call themselves Adventist" in some fashion -- is still not changing the definition of Adventist beliefs by so doing. They may call themselves whatever they like -- if in the end they are Lutheran -- then they are simply Lutheran that also like calling themselves "Adventist" for some reason.

It does not change the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in the least.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Richard and John, can't you obey what se7en asked for? Man!! What is it with you guys. Talk about someone with an agenda for you guys sure have that tuned. I was honest and you refuse to abide by the rules. Hmmm?

[Dr. Rich]

John and Richard, there is a text in Revelation that fits both of you to a tee=Rev. 3:9!

[LifeHiscost]

John and Richard, there is a text in Revelation that fits both of you to a tee=Rev. 3:9!

Somewhere I read a rule that said we weren't to attack one another. Now I need to determine if this was an attack.

In another opinion I heard, "A text without a context is a pretext". I don't happen to believe that is anything other than making an effort to avoid hearing the voice of God speaking to yours truly in that particular text, but then maybe none of this has anything to do with our salvation, especially if we don't look up Revelation 3:9.

Regards!

[se7en]

WHOA!!!!

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR RESPONDING. YOU GUYS ARE FAST!!!

so to sum it up... God the Father can be anywhere... Stephen was refering to Christ's ocupation rather than his location in heaven. Even if he was refering to His physical place - it does not mean that it was MHP. Becuse the Father could have been anywhere at that point. As john said - its a throne on wheels. I remeber one of the evangelists describing it that way.

---------------------------------------------

just a shout out to everyone - when it comes to me being an SDA - I am locked in. There is nothing else out there for me. Everything else is a joke. Ellen never said to leave the church at any point.

second and simpler question - only for the SDA's who also fully belive in the SOP

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

At what point does this happen? is this refering to the begining of 1844 investigative judement?

[John317]

John and Richard, there is a text in Revelation that fits both of you to a tee=Rev. 3:9!

Ok, Dr. Rich, please explain what's on your heart. What do you see in Richard and I that makes you think of this verse:

Rev. 3:9

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

[John317]

Quote:

se7en: WHOA!!!!

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR RESPONDING. YOU GUYS ARE FAST!!!

Hey you're sincerely welcome, se7en!

We're glad you've come to the Forum and hope you enjoy and get a blessing from your time with us. I'm sure you'll make friends with a lot of people here.

About Dr. Rich, we've met each other and got along fine, at least I thought so. We actually care deeply about each other or else we wouldn't take the time to write back and forth. He lives only a few miles from me too, and if he'll let me, I plan to sit down with him again over a good meal while we talk about the WHOLE Bible.

Quote:

se7en: so to sum it up... God the Father can be anywhere... Stephen was refering to Christ's ocupation rather than his location in heaven. Even if he was refering to His physical place - it does not mean that it was MHP. Becuse the Father could have been anywhere at that point. As john said - its a throne on wheels. I remeber one of the evangelists describing it that way.

Yes, it's described in the Bible as having wheels. See Daniel 7: 9, 10; Ezekiel 1: 19-21. Notice that the verses in Daniel are given in the context of God's throne moving during a scene of judgment. I think that's very significant for SDAs. God is shown as having just moved His throne, and He is waiting for judgment to begin. Then the Son of man comes and the judgment begins. I believe it's talking about the beginning of the Investigative Judgment because while the judgment is going on, the little-horn power is still active on earth. v. 11. So this judgment is being held before the Second Coming.

It appears that Stephen's vision of Christ at the Father's right hand is meant to tell us that Christ's work on earth has been completely accepted by the Father and that Christ is now on the throne along with Him. It's saying the same thing as Philippians 2: 9. Also, Hebrews 1: 13, where God says to His Son, "Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies Your footstool."

Notice that here it says Christ is "sitting," whereas Acts says Jesus is "standing." But of course it's not to be taken literally, as indicating whether sitting down or standing up. It's emphazinng His equality with the Father as co-ruler of the universe.

Being at the "right-hand" is no more literal than Christ's enemies being His "footstool." It's a way of saying that Christ will become totally victorious over all evil.

---------------------------------------------

Quote:

se7en: just a shout out to everyone - when it comes to me being an SDA - I am locked in. There is nothing else out there for me. Everything else is a joke. Ellen never said to leave the church at any point.

I agree with you, and I know there are many here who also agree with you. Sometimes it takes a lot of wandering around and wasting time before people discover what you have already discovered. You're a fast learner. :-)

Quote:

second and simpler question - only for the SDA's who also fully belive in the SOP

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

At what point does this happen? is this refering to the begining of 1844 investigative judement?

Yes, I believe you're right. It seems clearly to fit the context of a judgment that occurs while the little-horn power is still speaking pompous words. That would put this judgment sometime between the time of John and the Second Coming. When we compare this with the First Angels Message of Rev. 14: 7, we can see that just before Christ returns, there will be a message given to the world that "judgment" has started. It clearly shows that it's a judgment that wasn't going on in John's day, and that begins a relatively short time before the earth is reaped (Rev. 14: 14-19). I see this as one more proof that SDAs are right in regard to a pre-Advent Judgment. It makes good sense and it's clearly biblical.

THANKS FOR YOUR GOOD QUESTIONS!!

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Richard and John, can't you obey what se7en asked for? Man!! What is it with you guys.

Hey, Doc, check out my posts to him. How did we NOT answer se7ven's questions?

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Talk about someone with an agenda for you guys sure have that tuned. I was honest and you refuse to abide by the rules. Hmmm?

Not sure what you mean here, Dr. Rich. Please explain. I'm all ears-- I mean eyes. :-)

[Dr. Rich]

Attack? Hmmm? Might want to check who wrote the comments that I was replying to on attacks. I did not attack, just did what Jesus would do--giving scripture for the present problem. But I do agree that NO ONE should be attacking anyone else--if they have a problem, they should address the problem and not attack the messenger.

[se7en]

Thanks John 317. Good answers.

Don't worry Ill come around with more questions.

HAPPY SABBATH EVERYONE!!!

OH OH

A SHOUT OUT TO EVERYONE... IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN THE SOP - YOU ARE NOT AN ADVENTIST.