Moderators John317 Posted April 20, 2011 Moderators Posted April 20, 2011 1. Jesus Christ has gone into the Most Holy Place before 1844 for reasons other than the Investigative Judgment. I answered this a few posts before, and explained it. Not long afer Christ ascended to the Father following His resurrection, the heavenly sanctuary was inaugurated, anointed, or consecrated, and Christ was anointed as King and High Priest. Are you unaware of this? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted April 20, 2011 Moderators Posted April 20, 2011 I understand now that you use the word "inaugurate" when most people use the word "begin." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted April 20, 2011 Moderators Posted April 20, 2011 You didn't say whether I was right or wrong. 1. Jesus was in the Most Holy Place before 1844. We are not at this point specifying why He was there. Go back and read my post. I answered this already. Originally Posted By: John3:17 Not for the purpose of judgment, no. He certainly went in to the Most Holy Place at the time that the heavenly sanctuary was inaugurated, or consecrated. This took place shortly after His ascension to heaven. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Thank you. 2. Jesus Christ went into the Most Holy Place in 1844 for the sole purpose of beginning the Investigative Judgment. Is this correct or incorrect? Quote
Moderators John317 Posted April 20, 2011 Moderators Posted April 20, 2011 Jesus went into the Most Holy Place in 1844 for the sole purpose of fulfilling the antitypical Day of Atonement. But that includes the work of the daily sacrifices as well as the yearly. In other words, the work that Jesus did from the ascension until 1844, He continues to do today, but He is also doing the work of the antitypical Day of Atonement. I assume that you have studied these matters and know what that work is. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Thank you. Two down. 3. The Investigative Judgment was put on hold because the people who were supposed be God's People were not ready. Is this correct or incorrect? Quote
skyblue888 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 The investigative judgment of the living has been put on hold, yes, but not of the dead. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
miz3 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Thank you. Three down. 4. The people who were supposed to be God's People are at present still not ready. Is this correct or incorrect? Quote
Guest Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 ... I find SDA are often all over the place with their Doctrines. Are you SDA? If not, what church if any are you associated with or where do you worship and fellowship? What church is closest to your beliefs? Since John never got an answer to this, I would like to re-ask the question. miz3, Are you SDA or not? It's a fair question, and one that deserves an answer. Quote
miz3 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Boy are you smart. I don't know if I can stand your dazzling light. You are just too good for me. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted April 21, 2011 Moderators Posted April 21, 2011 Thank you. Three down. 4. The people who were supposed to be God's People are at present still not ready. Is this correct or incorrect? This has already been answered a number of times. In fact, it has been answered many, many times on the Forum. God's people-- Christians in general and SDAs in particular-- are not ready for Christ's return. Are you ready? Am I ready? What does it mean to be "ready"? What does the Bible teach and what does Ellen White say on this question? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted April 21, 2011 Moderators Posted April 21, 2011 Why the sarcasm? I think this person's attitude and spirit is showing. Truth "will out" eventually. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted April 21, 2011 Moderators Posted April 21, 2011 Answer my questions first. Miz3, please show where the SDA BC takes the position that ta hagia in Hebrews 9 and 10 refers to the Most Holy Place. Please quote and give the reference. Also, what edition of the SDA BC are you using? Earlier you said that the SDA BC gives the "official positions" of the SDA church, but page 18 of vol. 1 categorically denies this. So does volume 7. I do study it and enjoy it, but it is false to say that its comments are official positions of the church. It is certainly representative of the church, and its comments are in harmony with SDA doctrines, but that is different from saying that all of its interpretations are official positions of the SDA church. Be that as it may, I would like to see your evidence that the SDA BC states that ta hagia refers to the Most Holy Place in the book of Hebrews, as you've claimed it does. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted April 21, 2011 Moderators Posted April 21, 2011 As I have stated in a number of topics, Ellen White has been treated in such a shabby way throughout much of her Ministry. Without her there would be no SDA Church. If she is indeed a prophet that we say she is then why can't she be the originator of a Doctrine and even the lone writer to stipulate that Doctrine. If you are so concerned to defend Ellen White and if you believe she was a genuine prophet of God, why did you post a link to a book that attacks her and her writings? You posted this link: http://www.testimonypress.org/web_documents/reviving_the_original_writings.pdf Are you certain that this link contains the truth? And why do you say "IF she is indeed a prophet"? Wouldn't the word "since" have fit much better? That is, "Since she is indeed a prophet....?" But to answer your question: A true modern prophet (i.e., non-canonical) won't originate doctrine but will point us to God's previous revelations, because those must be the standard of truth. It doesn't mean that Ellen white's writings aren't an authority too, but it does mean that her writings must be judged by the Bible, and not the other way around. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
miz3 Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 The link does not attack Ellen White or the SOP. It attacks those "brethren" who have tampered and changed the Words God gave her. You have already taken the link out of context. You have already without looking at the evidence and reading the book made a judgment because you are afraid that such a writing will be TRUE and thus the "precious Church" will be under attack. It appears you would destroy Ellen White in order to preserve the "Church". Isn't this what the Jews did? Its the Church and the Church only! Willie White has indeed gotten his way! Its not about TRUTH! Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted April 21, 2011 Members Posted April 21, 2011 for just a minute mizIII, do you subscribe/adhere to the beliefs presented by http://www.testimonypress.org ? I looked over their website and all of their articles. No author is named. No persons are named as associates of testimonypress.org.. Why is that, do you suppose? The section on occultism was fascinatingly .... conspiratorial, at best. And the piece about the Jesuit conspiracy - my goodness. And the section on music...oh dear me. And we should only be using Sabbath School Quarterlies from 1888 and 1889? Truly, a website I would avoid using in trying to witness to anyone about Adventism Quote Pam      Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
miz3 Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 I did not give you the link that you mentioned. I GAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LINK WRITTEN BY J. LEE (WHOEVER HE IS). I GOT THIS LINK FROM SOMEONE ELSE ON THIS VERY FORUM! GO TO THE LINK I GAVE NOT THE ONE YOU GAVE. BE HONEST RUDYWOOFS IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONNECT ME TO SOMETHING. Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted April 21, 2011 Members Posted April 21, 2011 Miz 3. Calm down. Take a Valium. You posted a link to an article produced by testimonypress.org. I tend to be honest to the point of irritation to many people. Quote Pam      Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
miz3 Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 I know nothing about "testimonypress.org". All I know is the link I gave. That link and that link alone is the only one I care about. Anything else whether connected to that link or not at this point means nothing to me. I am only referencing that particular link and nothing else at this point. Quote
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted April 21, 2011 Members Posted April 21, 2011 okay. You don't like to dig down to the root of things. I would think one would want to know something about the .org putting out information that one is referring to. That's okay. Gives me an idea of where you're coming from. **back to topic** (such as it is) Quote Pam      Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
miz3 Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 rudywoofs, Whether the whole .org is good or not I don't know. However, I do know the part I referred to has at minimum some credibility. I will take the credible part only for now. Is that clear or are still [deleted by moderator] against me because you [deleted by moderator] to find some excuse or any excuse to discredit me and my assertions because you are [deleted by moderator] by them. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.