The aftermath

[skyblue888]

John and Gerry, please read the following by M.L. Andreason regarding an article brother Crozier wrote about the atonement and which Mrs. White said was the true light. Thank you.

M.L. Andreason wrote:

"In an incomplete research which I conducted years ago I found what the author found, and more. Among other things, I found in a small pamphlet entitled, "A Word to the Little Flock," published by James White in Brunswick, Maine, May 30, 1847, a statement by Sister White on the sanctuary that immediately drew my attention. It is dated April 21, 1847, and written from Topsham, Maine. On page 12, I found these words, which I suppose our Ministry author also found. Says Sister White:

"I believe the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, etc., and that it was His will, that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint. I pray that these lines may prove a blessing to you, and all the dear children who may read them." Signed E.G. White.

I lost no time to get a copy of that Extra and read it. As I write this I have before me a photostatic copy of the Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, and on pages 40 and 41 of that issue I read Brother Crosier's article. After having discussed certain theories in which he does not believe, Brother Crozier observes:

"But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier

This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers. We are not ready to do this.

We now face this situation. Did our Ministry author in his thorough search find this statement that Brother Crozier had "the true light"? If he did not find it, he has little ground to feel pleased with his work. In either case, if I were a teacher and had sent him to do this research work and he presented the collection in Questions on Doctrine as his report, I would have to give him a straight F, which in school language stands for Failure. It is either a case of poor research, or of omission, which latter, under the circumstances, is most serious." M.L. Andreason, Letters To The Churches, pp.34,35.

Back to you both.

sky

[skyblue888]

Lev. 1: 4--

He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

John, Leviticus 1:4 must be read with verse 5. In verse 5 it says that after he killed the bull the priest brought the blood and sprinkled it all around on the altar.

In verse 4, the words, "to make atonement for him" does not mean that the atonement was made but that the condition for the atonement was made so that the priest could take the blood and then sprinkle it, thus the atonement, in type.

Then you add: Romans 3:24,25 shows that Christ's death was atonement. Christ's death was not atonement. It was the condition for the atonement.

"Christ's sacrifice on behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled." A.A.29.

And this is full harmony with brother Crozier's article.

sky

[JawgeFromJawja]

"As to the atonement, there is not a shadow of doubt that the leaders repudiated this doctrine in these secret meetings. They explained to the Evangelicals that they, like them, believed that the atonement was finished at the cross. When the Evangelicals asked our leaders what Mrs. White meant by statements like "Christ ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions," they responded that she only meant that He was applying the benefits of the atonement which was finished at the cross. This seemed to satisfy them for after these declarations, our denomination was recognized as a member of "Christ's body." Up until then, they had looked upon us as an anti-Christian cult!

Confusing. Not you, Sky, but the status of belief in The Investigative Judgment and The Heavenly Sanctuary amongst adventists. I request comments about those doctrines, and whether they believe them to be salvation dependent - comments from Adventists on this forum, for perhaps the cohort of Adventists amongst whom I live are not typical. That cohort includes my wife of 51 years, my beloved mother in law (no joke here! she's my mom since the death of my mother in 1995), two brothers in law, many nephews, nieces,and cousins in law, and a huge coterie of Adventist friends. My wife and senior brother in law (my closest friend) and his wife no longer believe in the Investigative Judgment or the Heavenly Sanctuary; the rest of the whole kit and kaboodle of Adventists in my circle are either very confused about what the IJ and Heavenly Sanctuary are, or no longer accept it. (I plan to start asking them closely about this doctrine.) Since the advent of the book Questions on Doctrine, I had thought those doctrines were declining in influence.

Skyblue88, as a Baptist, but not necessarily an evangelical,I can tell the greatest concern is the total lack of Scripture founding the doctrine.

Jawge

Jawge, you must be a new member. First time I see your name on this board. You are a Baptist living within an adventist entourage! Wow! interesting. Not all who call themselves "evangelicals" are necessarily evangelicals and not all who call themselves "adventists" are necessarily adventists but Adventists should be truly evangelicals.

As a "Baptist" it is totally expected of you to talk about "the total lack of Scripture founding the doctrine," but it is totally expected from an "Adventist" to know and understand the Scriptures founding this doctrine.

sky

Please! Not just a "Baptist", but a heretical Baptist. I am a preterist, believe in evolution, believe in universal salvation, and believe in reincarnation (here I can actually sense a collective gasp from this forum). For universal salvation, see 1 Timothy 4: 10, especially in the New English Bible. I believe in the only thing that matters, salvation as a gift of God through the sacrificial death of Jesus.)

Shhhh! Let's keep that cult nonsense quiet. Let it die the quiet death it ought to, unheralded and unmoaned. I am being serious here. In my experience, the average non-Adventist Church member has not the vaguest notion about that appellation. And the typical lay Adventists of my circle also have no inkling of such nonsense. Should I have even breathed the idea around my Adventist family in law, I should have required an armed escort from then on, never mind the fact that SDAs profess non-combat status.

Jawge

Please understand the above post - what should die a quiet death is the appellation "cult", not any doctrine or theological position. By "nonsense", I meant designation of Adventism as a cult, not any doctrine. And yes, should I call SDAs a cult, an old feud dating way before the publication of Questions on Doctrine would be rekindled. I'm too old to go around armed. Furthermore, my family are not cultists.

---It is a fact that there are less and less adventists who adhere to the sanctuary doctrine or who are able to explain it from the Scriptures. [color:#FF0000]Christ's death upon the cross was not the atonement itself but the condition for the atonement.

In order to make atonement Christ had to be a Priest. Hebrews 8:4 clearly says that while on earth He would not be a priest. So it was not until He ascended up on High and entered into His Priestly ministry that He began to made atonement by pleading the merits of His infinite sacrifice before the Father in our behalf.

--- This took place at the end of the 2,300 day prophecy, on October 22, 1844.

On that day, type met antitype.

The doctrine of a final atonement involving an examination of the guests at the Wedding feast, which takes place in Heaven, can also be found in some of the parables that Jesus spoke, especially in the parable of the Net and in the parable of the Wedding Garment.

So, far from being "nonsense" this teaching is totally Biblical and a most important part of the last-day message to the church and to world.

The foundational Scripture is found in Daniel 8:14 and its explanation by the angel to Daniel is found in chapter 9:23-27.

This teaching is the foundation and central pillar of the Advent Movement. But alas it has been compromised and even repudiated in secret meetings with representatives of the Evangelicals more than five decades ago. Of course since then the church has been maintaining an apparent status-quo as far as the members of the church are concerned. But the wrong has already been done and today we are reaping what was sown, confusion.

Nevertheless, the Lord has said, "I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it."

"Even if all our leading men should refuse light and truth, that door will remain open. The Lord will raise up men who will give the message for this time." Testimonies to Ministers, p.107.

sky

Wow! A gaggle of doctrines from before Questions on Doctrine

It had seemed to me that the conference of 2007 led to a reconciliation among Adventists concerning the necessity for believing in doctrines of the founding Adventists.

For most of my immediate family, those doctrines are a moot point. Only my mother in law remains conservative, actually ultra conservative.

One final question. A buncha Adventists I know would be very upset if belief in that doctrine were declared a condition of salvation. Some would definitely bolt the church. So, are those doctrines felt by some to be salvation dependent?

Now just some rogue Baptist opinions. And some not so rogue Baptist opinions.

First, Hebrew 8: 4 in in the subjunctive mood:

Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

"For if" signals the verse to be subjunctive. And the construction "he were" instead of "he was" definitely makes it subjunctive, or terribly ungrammatical. The author was pointing out that on earth, Jesus could not have been a priest, because he was not of the Tribe of Levi. Even so, the whole Book of Hebrews was addressed to Jews. Paul (? the author) was using an analogy of Jewish theology and protocol in Hebrews.

Second, the whole chapter of Daniel 8 concerns desecration of the Temple Sanctuary in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is "the little horn". Verses 20 through 26 make this quite clear. The messenger was saying that the Sanctuary would be purified within a definite time frame. But Daniel 8: 14 in NIV reads "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings: then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated." Meaning the implied days are literal, NOT prophetic days, and meaning a total of 1150 days of evening and morning sacrificial ceremonies. The earliest translation that I can read without difficulty is Luther's translation printed 77 years before the KJV. It reads "Daniel 8:14 Und er antwortete mir: Bis zweitausend dreihundert Abende und Morgen um sind; dann wird das Heiligtum wieder geweiht werden."; which almost word for word that written in the KJV. "Abende und morgen" means evenings and mornings. The only difference is the word "antwortete" which means answered, not said, and KJV leaves out "mornings and evenings", both of those words being found in many reliable translations, including The New English Bible.

Doctrines of many Christian faiths providing minutiae in an effort to explain salvation are personally meaningful only to those who believe them. Salvation depends only on a simple faith in God. In Genesis, Isaac asked his father who would provide their sacrifice. Abraham answered him that God would provide the sacrifice. And so God did, the substitute sacrifice for Isaac, and the substitute sacrifice for all of mankind.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Jawge, I would also like to know what you believe the function of the heavenly sanctuary to be as portrayed in Hebrews and Revelation.

_________________________

Gail

Gail, I do not believe in a heavenly sanctuary. It was not portrayed in Daniel 8. Daniel 8 refers to the Jewish Temple Sanctuary desecrated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Reading the whole chapter will clarify that. And if you can find time, read the Books of Maccabees in the Apocrypha, especially Maccabees 1 and 2. Those books expound on the advent of Antiochus' desecration of the temple in Jerusalem. Please understand that this is not an endorsement of the Apocrypha except for clarification of some historical details in the second century before Christ.

Jawge

[Twilight]

Second, the whole chapter of Daniel 8 concerns desecration of the Temple Sanctuary in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is "the little horn". Verses 20 through 26 make this quite clear. The messenger was saying that the Sanctuary would be purified within a definite time frame. But Daniel 8: 14 in NIV reads "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings: then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated." Meaning the implied days are literal, NOT prophetic days, and meaning a total of 1150 days of evening and morning sacrificial ceremonies. The earliest translation that I can read without difficulty is Luther's translation printed 77 years before the KJV. It reads "Daniel 8:14 Und er antwortete mir: Bis zweitausend dreihundert Abende und Morgen um sind; dann wird das Heiligtum wieder geweiht werden."; which almost word for word that written in the KJV. "Abende und morgen" means evenings and mornings. The only difference is the word "antwortete" which means answered, not said, and KJV leaves out "mornings and evenings", both of those words being found in many reliable translations, including The New English Bible.

So what is your start point of the 2,300 days with the above in mind Jawge and how do you support that from scripture?

[JawgeFromJawja]

In response to Twilight's question about "my starting point" for the 1250 days:

Antiochus’ brutal invasion and “ethnic cleansing” are well documented historically. See Josephus’ account, and the accounts in Jewish literature, especially Maccabees 1 - 4. The overthrow of Antiochus by a heroic Jewish revolt lead by Judas Maccabees led to establishment of “The Feast of Lights”, Hanukkah. The setting of the Book of Daniel is the time of Babylonian and Persian capture, some four hundred years before the advent of Antiochus’ barbaric invasion.

The desecration of the sanctuary lasted something over three years, 168 BC until 165 BC.

Therefore the obvious “start point” for the 1250 days of “evening and mornings” would be 168 BC. The “start point” is not stated in Daniel, as far as I recall, but considering that Daniel was set during the Babylonian and Persian capture, some 400 years before the advent of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the prophecy is astounding.

It’s not my start point, but one well founded in history: the start point would be 168 BC. 1250 day of evenings and mornings, divided by a Jewish year of 360 days, would be

3.47 years.

[Gerr]

Lev. 1: 4--

He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

John, Leviticus 1:4 must be read with verse 5. In verse 5 it says that after he killed the bull the priest brought the blood and sprinkled it all around on the altar.

In verse 4, the words, "to make atonement for him" does not mean that the atonement was made but that the condition for the atonement was made so that the priest could take the blood and then sprinkle it, thus the atonement, in type.

Then you add: Romans 3:24,25 shows that Christ's death was atonement. Christ's death was not atonement. It was the condition for the atonement.

"Christ's sacrifice on behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled." A.A.29.

And this is full harmony with brother Crozier's article.

sky

G: It seems to me, this talk about the "condition" for atonement is just semantics. When a sinner came with his sacrifice, the animal is killed at the entrance and the blood is thrown against the sides sides of the altar. Lev 1:4 clearly says that atonement is made for the sinner right then and there. No blood is taken into the santuary. In Lev 4, when at priest, the whole congregation, or a leader sinned unintentionally, when it became known and acknowledged, the sacrificial animal is killed at the entrance but in their cases, some of the blood is taken INTO the first apartment (holy place) and sprinkled in front of the veil. For the common person, no blood was taken into the holy place. In ALL cases, however, the Bible emphatically says "So the priest shall make atonement for hm for his sin, AND HE SHALL BE FORGIVEN," Lev 4:27 & repeated in v.31. So atonement takes place right then & there. Then there's the continual atonement being made with the a.m./p.m sacrificial lambs. Then the Yom Kippur Day of Atonement. To me, atonement clearly occurs in stages, yet the sinner is just as forgiven at one stage as in another.

To say that no atonement was made at the Cross when Jesus died because there was no priest to offer the blood, I believe is a bogus argument. During the first Passover night in Egypt, where was the priest to offer the blood for atonement? You might argue that the father being the head of the family acted as the priest. But he is NOT a priest in the Levitical sense. We can then also argue that there is such a thing as the priesthood of ALL believers. The promise of a a kingdom of priest was made to Israel back in OT times. There was NO priest when Abel offered his sacrifice. Ditto, Noah. They received forgiveness, i.e. atonement. So to say that no atonement could be made without a priest looks totally false to me. Besides, would you go so far as to say that forgiveness or atonement was withheld from a sincerely repentant sinner during the Sabbath that Christ was in the grave?

[John317]

....about "my starting point" for the 1250 days:

What 1250 days are these? By reading your post, it's apparent you mean 2300 days, yet you NEVER mentioned 2300 days, which leads me to believe you didn't say 1250 days by mistake. This is especially true in the light of your last comments at the end of your post where you did the math involving "1250 days." I don't understand how you could have done this and not seen that the correct period of time is not 1250 days but 2300 days. Where do you get 1250 days even considering it's an error?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Antiochus brutal invasion and ethnic cleansing are well documented historically. See Josephus account, and the accounts in Jewish literature, especially Maccabees 1 - 4. The overthrow of Antiochus by a heroic Jewish revolt lead by Judas Maccabees led to establishment of The Feast of Lights, Hanukkah.

Sure, but none of the above helps to establish whether the 2300 prophecy relates to what Antiochus Epiphanes IV did. In fact, history shows that he couldn't possibly have been the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies.

There are a number of important characteristics of the prophecy that Antiochus did not fulfill. One of these is that Antiochus IV never grew greater than the male goat in Daniel 8: 8. The prophecy was that this power would "grow exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land." But instead, Antiochus IV was stopped in Egypt by a single man in 168 BC, the Roman legate, G. Popilius, who drew a line in the sand and told Antiochus IV not to cross it. At that point Antiochus obediently and submissively withdrew. It's hard imagine this as a fulfillment of the prophecy that "the little horn" would "grow exceedingly great" toward the south.

Another way in which it can be proved that Antiochus is not the fulfillment of the prophecy is that it predicted that he would would do these things "in the latter time of the indignation" and "at the appointed time of the end." None of this was fulfilled in the experience of Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

The setting of the Book of Daniel is the time of Babylonian and Persian capture, some four hundred years before the advent of Antiochus barbaric invasion.

I agree.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

The desecration of the sanctuary lasted something over three years, 168 BC until 165 BC.

But everyone agrees that this desecration didn't last 2300 days. That's why a lot of people try to get fulfilment out of 1150 days, but even that is not a fulfillment of the prophecy.

The deseration lasted 3 years and 10 days. See 1 Mac 1: 57 and 4: 52-54.

2300 literal days is 6 years and 140 days.

The temple was profaned in 168 BC and was rededicated December 25, 164 BC.

Will it help if we say 1150 days (or half the 2300)? Not a bit. 1150 days comes to 3 years and 130 days. That is not even close to 3 years and 10 days. It's 120 days too long.

This is proof that Antiochus IV could not possibly be the fulfillement of the prophecy. On top of this, there's the fact that Daniel 8: 7 says the vision refers to the "the time of the end." However, in what sense did Antiochus desecrate the temple "at the time of the end"?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Therefore the obvious start point for the 1250 days [correction to 2300 days,ed.] of evening and mornings would be 168 BC.

But why is this, since the descration by Antiochus Epiphanes IV didn't last 2300 days and therefore could not be what the prophecy was pointing to?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

The start point is not stated in Daniel, as far as I recall, but considering that Daniel was set during the Babylonian and Persian capture, some 400 years before the advent of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the prophecy is astounding.

But if you think a fulfillment of prophecy of 400 years is astounding, how about if that prophecy is predicting something over 2000 years beforehand?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

It's not my start point, but one well founded in history: the start point would be 168 BC. 1250 day of evenings and mornings, divided by a Jewish year of 360 days, would be

3.47 years.

Did you do the math here? How did you get that out of 1250 days? Can you show the math? If you can't get the math right, then you almost certainly don't have the history or the fulfilment correct.

[Gerr]

Jawge, the concept of an Investigative Judgment is really very simple, if you're willing to listen. Just consider this fact/question: Are ALL professing Christians saved? What needs to be done to show all parties involved why some are saved and some are lost?

Once you become attuned to the Investigative Judgment, you will find it all over the Bible.

16 “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,

17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.

18 “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,

19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Dt 19:16–19). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996 (electronic ed.) (Dt 19:16–18). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death,

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996 (electronic ed.) (Dt 17:2–6). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

The gospel net brings in good & bad fish. They must be separated.

The wheat must be separated from the chaff. Ditto the sheep from the goats.

When Adam & Eve sinned, the Lord came down, and an investigation took place BEFORE a judgment was given. Look at the story in Gen 3 again. Look at the investigative question the Lord asked.

Look at the story of Sodom & Gomorrah again. Before the punishment was meted out, the Lord, in anthrophomorphic language said He was going to check it out to see if the reports of their wickedness was true or not.

The IJ is not to inform God. He is omniscient. The IJ is for the benefit of His creatures. Should HMS Richards or Billy Graham be lost (heaven forbid) & Hitler & Stalin saved, there will/would be a LOT of people howling asking questions. The IJ would show why. It will show and vindicate God that He is righteous and a fair Judge after all.

[skyblue888]

"Christ's sacrifice on behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled." A.A.29

sky

____________________________________________________

It seems to me, this talk about the "condition" for atonement is just semantics. When a sinner came with his sacrifice, the animal is killed at the entrance and the blood is thrown against the sides sides of the altar. Lev 1:4 clearly says that atonement is made for the sinner right then and there. No blood is taken into the santuary. In Lev 4, when at priest, the whole congregation, or a leader sinned unintentionally, when it became known and acknowledged, the sacrificial animal is killed at the entrance but in their cases, some of the blood is taken INTO the first apartment (holy place) and sprinkled in front of the veil. For the common person, no blood was taken into the holy place. In ALL cases, however, the Bible emphatically says "So the priest shall make atonement for hm for his sin, AND HE SHALL BE FORGIVEN," Lev 4:27 & repeated in v.31. So atonement takes place right then & there. Then there's the continual atonement being made with the a.m./p.m sacrificial lambs. Then the Yom Kippur Day of Atonement. To me, atonement clearly occurs in stages, yet the sinner is just as forgiven at one stage as in another.

To say that no atonement was made at the Cross when Jesus died because there was no priest to offer the blood, I believe is a bogus argument. During the first Passover night in Egypt, where was the priest to offer the blood for atonement? You might argue that the father being the head of the family acted as the priest. But he is NOT a priest in the Levitical sense. We can then also argue that there is such a thing as the priesthood of ALL believers. The promise of a a kingdom of priest was made to Israel back in OT times. There was NO priest when Abel offered his sacrifice. Ditto, Noah. They received forgiveness, i.e. atonement. So to say that no atonement could be made without a priest looks totally false to me. Besides, would you go so far as to say that forgiveness or atonement was withheld from a sincerely repentant sinner during the Sabbath that Christ was in the grave?

Gerry Cabalo

____________________________________________________

Gerry, you are stating that the statement from A.A.29, "Christ's sacrifice on behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled" is merely a matter of "semantics or "nonsense"?

Did you, by any chance, miss the following post:

"I believe the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, etc., and that it was His will, that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint. I pray that these lines may prove a blessing to you, and all the dear children who may read them." E.G. White, A Word To The Little Flock, p.12.

"But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pages 40,41.

This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers.

In the light of the above, we have no choice but to aknowledge that what Crozier said is truth, light proceeding from the throne of God.

sky

[skyblue888]

Jawge, the concept of an Investigative Judgment is really very simple, if you're willing to listen. Just consider this fact/question: Are ALL professing Christians saved? What needs to be done to show all parties involved why some are saved and some are lost?

Once you become attuned to the Investigative Judgment, you will find it all over the Bible.

16 “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,

17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.

18 “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,

19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Dt 19:16–19). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996 (electronic ed.) (Dt 19:16–18). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death,

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996 (electronic ed.) (Dt 17:2–6). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

The gospel net brings in good & bad fish. They must be separated.

The wheat must be separated from the chaff. Ditto the sheep from the goats.

When Adam & Eve sinned, the Lord came down, and an investigation took place BEFORE a judgment was given. Look at the story in Gen 3 again. Look at the investigative question the Lord asked.

Look at the story of Sodom & Gomorrah again. Before the punishment was meted out, the Lord, in anthrophomorphic language said He was going to check it out to see if the reports of their wickedness was true or not.

The IJ is not to inform God. He is omniscient. The IJ is for the benefit of His creatures. Should HMS Richards or Billy Graham be lost (heaven forbid) & Hitler & Stalin saved, there will/would be a LOT of people howling asking questions. The IJ would show why. It will show and vindicate God that He is righteous and a fair Judge after all.

Gerry

___________________________

Very good Gerry but what most of us forget to say is that these parables pin point the time when the investigative judgment of the living will take place which is, from the parable of the net, when the ship comes to shore. Then the fish are sorted out. The bad fish are thrown back into the sea. This takes place when the mission of the Gospel is completed. This is confirmed by this inspired commentary: "When the mission of the gospel is completed, the judgment will accomplish the work of separation. " "When the work of the gospel is completed, there immediately follows the separation between the good and the evil, and the destiny of each class is forever fixed." Christ's Object Lessons, pp.122,123 (Parable of the Net)

The parable does not give the year or the month or the day, of course, but only the order of events.

And the parable of the Wedding Garment (Matt.22) teaches the very same thing. At the end of the third call of the parable the king comes into the room to examine the guests. This takes place at the end of the third call which represents the end of the loud cry. So the judgment of the living takes place moments before the close of probation.

sky

[Gail]

I see it this way:

Everything that I need for salvation was accomplished at the cross. There is nothing for me to do but to repent and accept God's grace through the merits (yes, sky, I've always believed that ) of the life and death of Jesus.

I think of the priesthood of both the Old Testament typical service and Jesus' priesthood (for he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek- both priest and king) in the (heavenly, or better) sanctuary described in Hebrews and other places as a picture, an illustration, to the universe as to the "how" it works.

Forgive me, but I thought that the Baptists (and I know that you are a former, Jawge) believed in a judgment... just not in the same sense as the SDAs.

And I agree with Gerry in that once you tweak on to the judgment concept you begin seeing it all through the Bible.

Although you won't see the exact word "investigative" you will see the concept by looking up the word, "try" or "trial".

[Gerr]

Sky: Gerry, you are stating that the statement from A.A.29, "Christ's sacrifice on behalf of man was full and complete. The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled" is merely a matter of "semantics or "nonsense"?

G: And where did I use the word, "nonsense?" That EGW said, "The condition for the atonement had been fulfilled," to me does not in any way mean that atonement did not take place at the Cross.

Sky: Did you, by any chance, miss the following post:

"I believe the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, etc., and that it was His will, that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint. I pray that these lines may prove a blessing to you, and all the dear children who may read them." E.G. White, A Word To The Little Flock, p.12.

G: Yes, I read the above quote. The cleansing of the sanctuary is just another step in the whole process of atonement. The final step when the whole universe will finally be at-one-ment is when sin and sinners are no more, as the last paragraph in Great Controversy so eloquently states.

G: It seems to me, this talk about the "condition" for atonement is just semantics. When a sinner came with his sacrifice, the animal is killed at the entrance and the blood is thrown against the sides sides of the altar. Lev 1:4 clearly says that atonement is made for the sinner right then and there. No blood is taken into the santuary. In Lev 4, when at priest, the whole congregation, or a leader sinned unintentionally, when it became known and acknowledged, the sacrificial animal is killed at the entrance but in their cases, some of the blood is taken INTO the first apartment (holy place) and sprinkled in front of the veil. For the common person, no blood was taken into the holy place. In ALL cases, however, the Bible emphatically says "So the priest shall make atonement for hm for his sin, AND HE SHALL BE FORGIVEN," Lev 4:27 & repeated in v.31. So atonement takes place right then & there. Then there's the continual atonement being made with the a.m./p.m sacrificial lambs. Then the Yom Kippur Day of Atonement. To me, atonement clearly occurs in stages, yet the sinner is just as forgiven at one stage as in another.To say that no atonement was made at the Cross when Jesus died because there was no priest to offer the blood, I believe is a bogus argument. During the first Passover night in Egypt, where was the priest to offer the blood for atonement? You might argue that the father being the head of the family acted as the priest. But he is NOT a priest in the Levitical sense. We can then also argue that there is such a thing as the priesthood of ALL believers. The promise of a a kingdom of priest was made to Israel back in OT times. There was NO priest when Abel offered his sacrifice. Ditto, Noah. They received forgiveness, i.e. atonement. So to say that no atonement could be made without a priest looks totally false to me. Besides, would you go so far as to say that forgiveness or atonement was withheld from a sincerely repentant sinner during the Sabbath that Christ was in the grave? Besides, Gail brought up something that I had not thought of regarding the no priest notion before Christ was inaugurated at His ascension, and that is the priesthood of Melchizedek. Yes, there was a priest if one was required. But as I already pointed out, there were no priests BEFORE the Levitical system and I have no doubt that atonement was made for the pre-Levitical saints.

[Gerr]

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

G: Who made atonement for Abel? Enoch? Noah? For all the saints BEFORE the Levitical system was instituted? How about Melchizedek officiating at Calvary?

Sky: 2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

G: Atonement for the sin of Saul against the Gibeonites was made when 7 of his kin were hanged. (2 Sam 21). When Isaiah saw God's glory in vision He said, "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips..." An angel took coals from the altar and touched his lips and then said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”(Isa 6) " ‘Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it." Nu 35:33 NIV.

The slaying of a person or sacrificial animal is the same as shedding blood.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

G: Are you saying that the pre-levitical saints did not receive atonement? Like Abel? Enoch? Noah? Remember that Enoch was translated before the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. So did Elijah, and a host of resurrected saints when Jesus died and went up with Him after the resurrection.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

G: No sanctuary for the saints I mentioned above either.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

G: See my comments about the pre-levitical saints above. Besides, there was also Melchizedek, whose priesthood was also "forever."

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pages 40,41.

G: Are you saying there was no forgiveness between His death and ascension?

This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers.

In the light of the above, we have no choice but to aknowledge that what Crozier said is truth, light proceeding from the throne of God. sky

G: So what are you saying that Crozier said? That NO atonement took place before the cleansing of the sanctury?

[Gerr]

S: Very good Gerry but what most of us forget to say is that these parables pin point the time when the investigative judgment of the living will take place which is, from the parable of the net, when the ship comes to shore. Then the fish are sorted out. The bad fish are thrown back into the sea.

G: My purpose here was to point out the principle and necessity of the IJ, not WHEN.

[JawgeFromJawja]

G: It seems to me, this talk about the "condition" for atonement is just semantics. When a sinner came with his sacrifice, the animal is killed at the entrance and the blood is thrown against the sides sides of the altar. Lev 1:4 clearly says that atonement is made for the sinner right then and there. No blood is taken into the santuary. In Lev 4, when at priest, the whole congregation, or a leader sinned unintentionally, when it became known and acknowledged, the sacrificial animal is killed at the entrance but in their cases, some of the blood is taken INTO the first apartment (holy place) and sprinkled in front of the veil. For the common person, no blood was taken into the holy place. In ALL cases, however, the Bible emphatically says "So the priest shall make atonement for hm for his sin, AND HE SHALL BE FORGIVEN," Lev 4:27 & repeated in v.31. So atonement takes place right then & there. Then there's the continual atonement being made with the a.m./p.m sacrificial lambs. Then the Yom Kippur Day of Atonement. To me, atonement clearly occurs in stages, yet the sinner is just as forgiven at one stage as in another.

To say that no atonement was made at the Cross when Jesus died because there was no priest to offer the blood, I believe is a bogus argument. During the first Passover night in Egypt, where was the priest to offer the blood for atonement? You might argue that the father being the head of the family acted as the priest. But he is NOT a priest in the Levitical sense. We can then also argue that there is such a thing as the priesthood of ALL believers. The promise of a a kingdom of priest was made to Israel back in OT times. There was NO priest when Abel offered his sacrifice. Ditto, Noah. They received forgiveness, i.e. atonement. So to say that no atonement could be made without a priest looks totally false to me. Besides, would you go so far as to say that forgiveness or atonement was withheld from a sincerely repentant sinner during the Sabbath that Christ was in the grave?

Excellent post, Gerry. You are a veritable Daniel.

[skyblue888]

[skyblue888]

Very good Gerry but what most of us forget to say is that these parables pin point the time when the investigative judgment of the living will take place which is, from the parable of the net, when the ship comes to shore. Then the fish are sorted out. The bad fish are thrown back into the sea.

sky

_______________________

G: My purpose here was to point out the principle and necessity of the IJ, not WHEN.

Gerry

_______________________

I understood that Gerry and I agreed with what you stated. I simply added that these parables pin point the timing of the investigative judgment of the living, as far as the order of last day events is concerned/ This is usually a matter of speculation among us, when there is no need to speculate. I thought you would appreciate the fact that this is clearly revealed and yet how many of us have ever noticed it before?

sky

[Gerr]

G: So what are you saying that Crozier said? That NO atonement took place before the cleansing of the sanctury?

_________________________________

S: Gerry, I am not saying anything. I am only quoting what Mrs. White said the Lord told her about Crozier's article.

You do not believe what the Lord told her?

G: As far as I can tell, what EGW said was the Crozier has the true light regarding the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. Nothing was said about the atonement.

[skyblue888]

G: So what are you saying that Crozier said? That NO atonement took place before the cleansing of the sanctury?

_________________________________

S: Gerry, I am not saying anything. I am only quoting what Mrs. White said the Lord told her about Crozier's article.

You do not believe what the Lord told her?

G: As far as I can tell, what EGW said was the Crozier has the true light regarding the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. Nothing was said about the atonement.

Gerry

________________

Nothing was said about the atonement!!! You can't be serious, are you Gerry?

How can you say that after reading the six points that he made. It is all about explaining that no atonement took place when the victim was slain, let alone when it was brought to the door of the tabernacle! Then he explains that no atonement was made at the cross, not until Christ ascended up on High.

sky

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pages 40,41.

______________________________

When Andreason quoted these six points made by Crozier, he did not have the cleansing of the sanctuary in mind but whether there was atonement made on the cross or not. This section was quoted from pp.40 and 41 of his article.

sky

[JawgeFromJawja]

I see it this way:

Everything that I need for salvation was accomplished at the cross. There is nothing for me to do but to repent and accept God's grace through the merits (yes, sky, I've always believed that ) of the life and death of Jesus.

Strictly Biblical! This is what Jesus' life was all about.

I think of the priesthood of both the Old Testament typical service and Jesus' priesthood (for he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek- both priest and king) in the (heavenly, or better) sanctuary described in Hebrews and other places as a picture, an illustration, to the universe as to the "how" it works.

Great. God does not want to complicate the salvation process in any way. God cares not one whit about all the theological theories of Adventists, Catholics, (shudder) Calvinists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, charismatic fire baptized believers, etc, etc, etc.

Forgive me, but I thought that the Baptists (and I know that you are a former, Jawge) believed in a judgment... just not in the same sense as the SDAs.

I am not a former Baptist. Just a God believing, God trusting, guy who is still more or less a Baptist, until they kick this weird ole coot outta the local church. They prob'ly won't - it would be too awkward for the community. After all, I am a deacon, for what it's worth. In the eyes of God, that is worth zip. There is a word for folks like me in all denominations: "heterodox". Jesus was heterodox: one example of that is "love your enemies as yourselves". Difficult for western civilization Christians, and nigh impossible for those of middle eastern cultures.

And yes, Baptists do believe in a Judgment.

And I agree with Gerry in that once you tweak on to the judgment concept you begin seeing it all through the Bible.

Although you won't see the exact word "investigative" you will see the concept by looking up the word, "try" or "trial".

God investigate? Jesus investigate? An absurdity. God is transcendent. God knows anything, everything, and something. So what's to investigate? He already knows, has known from beginning of time, all about me. An investigative judgment would accomplish nothing for God.

_________________________

[skyblue888]

Not for God but for the onlooking universe. Satan made accusations. The investigative judgment answers all the objections. It is not for God but for His creatures.

sky

[skyblue888]

Everything that I need for salvation was accomplished at the cross. There is nothing for me to do but to repent and accept God's grace through the merits (yes, sky, I've always believed that ) of the life and death of Jesus.

Gail

_________________________________________

Gail we are not discussing what we must do to be saved per se but what Jesus is doing in the sanctuary above. He is making atonement. He is pleading the merits of His sacrifice for our transgressions. The cross was not the atonement itself but the condition for the atonement which was full and complete. Pleading His divine merits before the Father in our behalf is just as important as His death upon the cross. So it is not right to declare that everything I need for salvation was accomplished upon the cross. If that was the case, Jesus would not need to plead His merits before the Father in our behalf.

The atonement consists in pleading His divine merits for our transgressions. Thus our work is to lay hold by faith of the merits of Christ. This is the only way we can be saved.

If Christ was not pleading the merits of His great sacrifice before the Father in our behalf, and if we failed of claiming the said merits for our salvation, we could not be saved. And then there is the final atonement made for the dead and the living at the time of the investigative judgment which began in 1844.

sky

[skyblue888]

Gail, notice the following very carefully from Letters to the Churches by M.L. Andreason:

THE MERITS OF CHRIST: INEXHAUSTIBLE FUND

Post # 5

Hear this:

"There is an inexhaustible fund of perfect obedience accruing from His obedience. How is it, that such an infinite treasure is not appropriated? In Heaven, the merits of Christ, His self-denial, and self-sacrifice, are treasured up as incense, to be offered up with the prayers of His people." General Conference Bulletin, Vol.3:101,102, Fourth Quarter, 1899.

Note the phrases: "inexhaustible fund", "merits of Christ". This fund was deposited at the cross, but not "used up" there. It is "treasured up" and offered up with the prayers of God's people. And especially since 1844 is this fund drawn on heavily as God's people advance to holiness; but it is not exhausted, there is sufficient and to spare.

When we pray, in this year of 1959, Christ intercedes for us and mingles with our prayers "the merits of His own life of obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by this incense. Christ has pledged Himself to intercede in our behalf and the Father hears His Son." Ibid. "Jesus has turned the merits of His sacrifice into prayer. Jesus prays, and by prayer succeeds." E.G. White, Bible Commentary, Vol.7, p.914.

Contrast this with the statement in Questions on Doctrine, page 381:

"Jesus appeared in the presence of God for us... But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross."

Note the picture: Christ appears in the presence of God for us. He pleads, but He gets nothing. For 1800 years He pleads, and gets nothing. Does He not know that He already has it? Will no one inform Him that it is useless to plead? He Himself has "no hope" of getting anything now or at any future time. And yet He pleads, and keeps on pleading. What a sight for the angels! And this is represented to be Adventist teaching! This is the book that has the approval of Adventist leaders and is sent out to the world to show what we believe. May God forgive us. How can we stand before the world and convince any one that we believe in a Savior who is mighty to save, when we present Him as pleading in vain before the Father?

But thank God, this is not Adventist doctrine. Hear this from Mrs. White, as quoted above:

"Christ has pledged Himself to intercede in our behalf, and the Father always hears His Son."

"The intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offering of Himself to the Father as our Substitute and Surety, for He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." Signs of the Times, July 4, 1892.

This is Christianity, and the other is not.

Shall we remain silent under such conditions?"

sky

[JawgeFromJawja]

What 1250 days are these? By reading your post, it's apparent you mean 2300 days, yet you NEVER mentioned 2300 days, which leads me to believe you didn't say 1250 days by mistake. This is especially true in the light of your last comments at the end of your post where you did the math involving "1250 days." I don't understand how you could have done this and not seen that the correct period of time is not 1250 days but 2300 days. Where do you get 1250 days even considering it's an error?

I meant 1/2 of 2300 days, or 1150 days. 1250 days was my typo. The translation of 2300 evenings and mornings, in the place of 2300 days, is quite established in reliable translations of the Holy Scriptures. "evenings and mornings" is the translation of the NIV, which I am beginning to respect more and more. There are translations that say 1150 days of evenings and mornings. You are almost certainly familiar with them. If not, do your homework and review translations of Daniel 8.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Antiochus brutal invasion and ethnic cleansing are well documented historically. See Josephus account, and the accounts in Jewish literature, especially Maccabees 1 - 4. The overthrow of Antiochus by a heroic Jewish revolt lead by Judas Maccabees led to establishment of The Feast of Lights, Hanukkah.

Sure, but none of the above helps to establish whether the 2300 prophecy relates to what Antiochus Epiphanes IV did. In fact, history shows that he couldn't possibly have been the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies.

Daniel, the entire Chapter 8, relates the "2300 prophesy" to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Read the whole chapter again, rapidly and prayerfully, then repeat the reading, starting with a prayer for understanding. Don't tell me "he couldn't possibly have been the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies" until after you read my next separate post, which will parse Daniel 8, showing that Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and only Antiochus IV, could fulfill the prophesy of Daniel.

There are a number of important characteristics of the prophecy that Antiochus did not fulfill. One of these is that Antiochus IV never grew greater than the male goat in Daniel 8: 8. The prophecy was that this power would "grow exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land." But instead, Antiochus IV was stopped in Egypt by a single man in 168 BC, the Roman legate, G. Popilius, who drew a line in the sand and told Antiochus IV not to cross it. At that point Antiochus obediently and submissively withdrew. It's hard imagine this as a fulfillment of the prophecy that "the little horn" would "grow exceedingly great" toward the south.

Another way in which it can be proved that Antiochus is not the fulfillment of the prophecy is that it predicted that he would would do these things "in the latter time of the indignation" and "at the appointed time of the end." None of this was fulfilled in the experience of Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

The setting of the Book of Daniel is the time of Babylonian and Persian capture, some four hundred years before the advent of Antiochus barbaric invasion.

I agree.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

The desecration of the sanctuary lasted something over three years, 168 BC until 165 BC.

But everyone agrees that this desecration didn't last 2300 days. That's why a lot of people try to get fulfilment out of 1150 days, but even that is not a fulfillment of the prophecy.

The deseration lasted 3 years and 10 days. See 1 Mac 1: 57 and 4: 52-54.

1Ma 1:57 And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death.

This verse does not help me with relevant dating at all.

1Ma 4:52 Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning,

1Ma 4:53 And offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings, which they had made.

1Ma 4:54 Look, at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it, even in that was it dedicated with songs, and citherns, and harps, and cymbals.

Not especially helpful, unless you know the hundred forty and eighth year of what, or or whose reign.

This passage is more confusing than helpful. We had originally agreed that the Temple was first desecrated in 148, and "cleansed" in 143. Over the past two days, I have looked at the dates surrounding those events. From all sources, including Maccabees 1 - 4, Josephus, and others, the exact dates are uncertain. Antiochus may have entered and despoiled Jerusalem as early as 169 BC.

2300 literal days is 6 years and 140 days.

The temple was profaned in 168 BC and was rededicated December 25, 164 BC.

Will it help if we say 1150 days (or half the 2300)? Not a bit. 1150 days comes to 3 years and 130 days. That is not even close to 3 years and 10 days. It's 120 days too long.\\

Not so fast, John. No matter that the time given in prophesy 3 years and 10 days. We still have no reliable start date for the desecration of the temple. If you look at one source for a start date, then other sources will give different dates.

I will parse the 8th Chapter of Daniel in my next post, showing you that not only could Antiochus IV possibly be the "little horn", but also that he was certainly the "little horn".

This is proof that Antiochus IV could not possibly be the fulfillement of the prophecy. On top of this, there's the fact that Daniel 8: 7 says the vision refers to the "the time of the end." However, in what sense did Antiochus desecrate the temple "at the time of the end"?

Proof? Hardly. See my next post. As far as "the time of the end", this indicates a different temporal location from "end times". The "time of the end" refers to the end of the power of the various Hellenistic thugs on Israel, "The Beautiful Land". For proof of that statement read, read, and re-read again the 11th Chapter of Daniel. Fascinating chapter.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Therefore the obvious start point for the 1250 days [correction to 2300 days,ed.] of evening and mornings would be 168 BC.

After three days of trying to get a handle on the actual date of the beginning of desecration of the Temple, I cannot decide whether 169 or 168 BC, or possibly even some other date. There are no obvious start points. It was around 165 to 170 BC.

But why is this, since the descration by Antiochus Epiphanes IV didn't last 2300 days and therefore could not be what the prophecy was pointing to?

The reason is that some individuals insist on using the discredited time unit as days, when it should be X days of 2300 evenings and mornings. There is only one evening and one morning per day. Meaning 2 evening and morning sacrifices per day.

2300 sacrificial events = 1150 days

2 events daily

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

The start point as stated in Daniel, as far as I can reasonably determine, is indefinite, but considering that Daniel was set during the Babylonian and Persian capture, some 400 years before the advent of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the prophecy is astounding.

But if you think a fulfillment of prophecy of 400 years is astounding, how about if that prophecy is predicting something over 2000 years beforehand?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

It's not my start point, but one well founded in history: the start point would be 168 BC. 1250 day of evenings and mornings, divided by a Jewish year of 360 days, would be

3.47 years.

After review of historical sources, I am now not so certain of the start point. It would be sometimes between 170 and 167.

Did you do the math here? How did you get that out of 1250 days? Can you show the math? If you can't get the math right, then you almost certainly don't have the history or the fulfilment correct.

John, I did the math. Did it on a figure that was itself in error. I've always been poor at cyphering. You are familiar with Robert Heinlein's works, I think. He said that one who can't do math is a somewhat less than civilized wretch. Sigh. : <

Jawge

Jawge