Without a Mediator

August 11, 2015

The "angel" is describes as "having a golden censer". Anciently - the only person to handle the "golden censer" was the High Priest, and he only handled the "golden censer" on the Day of Atonement. Knowing this - it seems the "angel" which John saw, standing at the Alter of Incense, was Jesus.

You had better have some very convincing proof of this one that you have not provided here. There is only on verse of scripture that speaks of a single golden censer, Hebrews 9:4:

⁴Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Here I quote from the KJV. Other translations call this item of furniture the altar of incense. Paul was aware that this piece of furniture was actually outside the veil but he teaches us that functionally it was our means of entering the direct presence of God through our prayers.

Leviticus 16 makes no mention of a golden censer being used by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, it only says "a censer" In the rest of the Torah there is no mention of a gold censer. In the few places where the material of the censers used in Israel is mentioned, whether for the temple service or otherwise, the material is bronze. The censers were used daily in the temple services.

In Solomon's temple we find that many censers were made of gold (1 Kings 7:50) and that probably every single censer in the temple and used for any reason was made of gold (2 Kings 25:15, 2 Chronicles 4:22, Jeremiah 52:19).

In the previous post you said;

"I saw the Father rise from the throne and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arise with him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness." Early Writings pg 55

To the "little flock" on earth who follow, by faith, Jesus movement into the MHP, Jesus says, "Wait here; I am going to My Father to receive the kingdom;." EW pg 55

I can actually agree with these two quotations.

Let's get a little context for this quote that you agree with so much.

I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, “If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist.” Before the throne I saw the Advent people—the church and the world. I saw two companies, one bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the other stood uninterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then He would look to His Father, and appear to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them. Some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light and rejoiced in it, and their countenances shone with its glory. {EW 54.2}

I saw the Father rise from the throne, [see page 92.] and in a flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and sit down. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him. I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after He arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who arose when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way. Then He raised His right arm, and we heard His lovely voice saying, “Wait here; I am going to My Father to receive the kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to Myself.” Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, standing before the Father. On the hem of His garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. Those who rose up with Jesus would send up their faith to Him in the holiest, and pray, “My Father, give us Thy Spirit.” Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In that breath was light, power, and much love, joy, and peace.

Because so many here seem to be entirely unaware of this resource I will link to my source here: https://egwwritings.org/singleframe.php#. This contains all of EGW's published writings in a searchable format. You should have no excuse beyond laziness for not searching out and locating any Ellen White quote you to which you wish to make reference. The official EGW Estate site also now has a search engine, which I find less useful, but also includes the ability to sears some of her unpublished manuscripts.

I have shown on this forum that it can be biblically proven that all prophecy is given in symbolism. In prophetic symbolism light is knowledge. Only one Bible verse, 2 Corinthians 4:6 makes a direct statement of this correlation but many scriptures do make less direct reference to it, it is well known in both Judeo-Christian circles and secular circles. I should not have to make any further proof of this matter.

The light is there, emanating from the father to the son, first in his preincarnate form on the mountain where he first told Moses:

²God also said to Moses, “I amYahveh . ³I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahveh I did not make myself fully known to them. ⁴I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they resided as foreigners. ⁵Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant. Exodus 6

Later God said to him,

⁹The Lord said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” Then Moses told the Lord what the people had said. Exodus 19

and still later, in his incarnate form, said of him,

⁴⁵“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” John 5

Still later, when Jesus found it necessary to prove the meaning of prophecy he set a pattern for us, a pattern I have not yet seen anyone in this thread even attempt to use:

²⁵He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! ²⁶Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” ²⁷And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke 24.

Adventists are very fond of quoting 2 Peter 1:20,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

and then in the very next breath giving "private" interpretation They say it is not private interpretation because this is what the church teaches. That is not the biblical standard for private interpretation, nor is it the SDA denominational standard for private interpretation. However, it IS the SDA denominational actual practice and it IS what Ellen White did in this passage. I won't say much more about this until I have finished reading this entire thread.

But I found it very interesting that you have these two posts back to back, telling us just much you believe the one quote from Ellen White, and in the very next post proving how little you understand it because you are one of the careless ones who will soon receive no light.

Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them.

The vision showed two kinds of people over whom the light is shining: Those who received it and those who did not. Of those who did not there were two types: Those who immediately rejected it and moved out from beneath it and those who were careless with it.

So far in this discussion, as with most discussions I see among church people, few are accepting the light, although all claim they are. Actually, when it comes to discussing Ellen White I have never encountered anyone who accepts the light of the Bible. This is a singularly polarizing issue, but the poles here are not "truth" and "non-truth", they are whether Ellen White is in-errant or to be rejected as totally false. Greg gave a third option, but even that one does not deal with biblical truth.

There are some here, who I will not name, who entirely reject the light that is proceeding from God through Jesus and to us; they use Ellen White as their justification so will never admit that they are in total darkness. Most are simply being careless with the word. They accept certain parts of it without question and very happily but they ignore other parts of it just as carelessly and very happily, pretending it is not there when they can. When they are not allowed the option to ignore it they explain it away if they can -- case in point: 11 times Moses says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, several of these are direct quotes of God saying before hand, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." However, four times Moses said, "Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart." The explanation? God would never do that; those four times Moses got it right and what he meant the other 11 was Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This is Ellen White's statement on the matter. Do you realize that Ellen White just called God and Moses liars? This is a problem and by doing so she placed herself in the company of those who would no longer receive light when Jesus stands up and leaves the judgment seat.

Let's stop being careless with the light. Every uncorrected error, whether it is that the golden censer is used only in the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, or if it is that God would never harden Pharaoh's heart, will completely invalidate any interpretation system built upon that falsehood, and will place you among those who will end up not receiving any additional light.

August 12, 2015

Jackson,

I try - not to use the "you" word. As in - You do this. or You have this agenda. or This is what you are trying to do. I feel that type of language is a personal attack. I could just ignore it, and keep posting my opinions, but I feel that personal attacks should be called what they are. Personal attacks are a way is discrediting a person, so as to dismiss him/her. It has been my experience that folks with strong arguments for their position, do not usually resort to personal attacks.

The reason that I continue to dialog, is to learn. Where my arguments are weak, I WANT to see it. That sends me back to study more deeply, or to rewrite, so that I can express my opinion more clearly. So - I thank you for pointing out contradictions or inconsistencies. I will work on those.

Rachel,

I know I said I probably would not write anything more until I had read the entire thread, but I cannot let this one pass. You are the one who made the statements. If they are just things you are presenting for comment you need to make that clear. If they are your statements, even if they are works in progress you need to be the one to defend them or change them as necessary. There is nothing inherently wrong in such personal attacks (and I have no objection to that word either -- whether this is true spiritual battle between opposing ideas, or whether it is just the normal sparring between students learning of the same God, either way it is attack and defend.) You name yourself a priest, that means spiritually mature (a priest, or any Levite, could not be consecrated and serve until they were 30 years old), so grow up and take the heat you generate.

As to the second part of this, I just don't see it, but this is only a preliminary assessment. I've been around off and on for a long time, gone for a long time and then about a year and a half ago invited back only to see none of my previous posts still here, (nor any of the posts I made shortly after my return, but those don't matter at all.) I have mostly lurked for the last year and a half, and while familiar with your ideas, this is the first thread I have read through to see your development of ideas. I could very well be wrong, but what I am seeing right now is someone with an agenda (I don't mean this in a negative way -- you aren't trying to force a belief system on anyone here, at least not that I can see), willing to ignore any evidence that does not agree with what she already believes. This is the most common approach among Christians of all types including Adventists, and it is not limited to religion or politics (is there a difference?) as nearly all science these days is wholly bought and paid for with the business interests who own it withholding any information that would damage their ability to get patents and product approval and sales. If you truly want to see where your arguments are weak and correct the problem you must be fully aware of this all too common and universal human trait.

August 12, 2015

Rachel, read my "thought for today" post in the Church Policies section. EGW Was not give to be used to decide doctrine, but read the quote.

Greg,

Oh, that more Adventist pastors and evangelists believed this were actually true. Sadly, too many do not believe this and sometimes I think the majority are of this opinion. One of our most influential evangelists who is regularly seen on our TV networks once chastised me, telling me I should know better because I would not accept his use of Ellen White's writings (not misuse -- this was one of the areas in which her teaching is in direct contradiction to scripture) to prove his viewpoint was right and the scriptural view was wrong.

Worse, the man had just spent 5+ minutes of his sermon excoriating pastors of other denominations for teaching falsehood that could easily be proven to be falsehood by reading the next verse, then in this instance he promptly started teaching falsehood that was proven false by the very next verse AND he used Ellen White as his proof.

Many pages of exchange and bible bible study in the matter would not sway him. Finally he simply said, "My God would never do such a thing." And there we reach the crux of the problem We none of us worship the God of the Bible; we all worship gods of our own making, either after our own image or in an image we wish we could emulate. Most of us will not allow anything to sway us from this worship. We will ignore any bit of evidence that does not support our personal god, and we will pull any other bit of evidence out of context and spin it however necessary to "prove" our god is right.

Three quotes from Ellen White have become extremely common fixtures in my exchanges with Adventists on this subject. These three quotes prove that these people do not really believe in Ellen White, they simply use her for their own purposes:

Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now. (Spaulding-Magan Collection, p. 174).

The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word.... Let all prove the positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. (Evangelism, p. 256)

The Bible is our rule of faith and doctrine. (Gospel Workers, p. 249)

August 12, 2015

The word "atonement" means "reconciliation". He is making reconciliation. We are reconciled to the Father, through the Son. WE are reconciled. The Father is not reconciled to us. WE are reconciled to HIM. The angels, and other heavenly beings - ALSO - needed a reconciliation of sorts, after Satan brought questions into their minds regarding the Father's character and government.

Atonement does not mean reconciliation; it means to cover. The Hebrew word is kaphar; it is the etymological source for the English word cover. This is the first step in reconciliation, but it is not reconciliation itself.

According to Stephen E Jones the Greek word in Romans 5 is not properly translated. I am unable to verify this for myself at this point but I have not tried very hard. According to Dr. Jones proper translation is conciliated. This is closely related to reconciled, but it is a one way transaction. These are diplomatic terms, and conciliation certainly fits the context of Romans 5 much better than reconciliation does. Conciliation is a one party transaction. God says I will treat you as a friend whether you agree to end the war or not; reconciliation says we agree together to end the war. Romans 5:10 says, "While we were still enemies," then states what God did to bring peace between us. Verse 11 then speaks of reconciliation between us when we accept the terms. This seems a reasonable explanation and does fit the context of verse 10 better than a reconciliation does. We do not reach out to God while we are enemies but Jesus died for his enemies thereby providing a means for their salvation.

So what actually happens in this process is that Father conciliates himself to us and in response we are reconciled to him.

The question of conciliation for the angels and other heavenly beings is questionable at best since scripture says very little about it. For all practical purposes there is only one statement in the Bible which addresses the matter, and that does not speak of reconciliation. Revelation 20 says,

¹⁰and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages. Young's Literal Translation

The lake of fire is later defined as the second death, but a study of baptism shows the second death to be repentance and surrender to God and his law. That is a somewhat simplistic definition, but it is adequate for most purposes, and while my study has shown me that there is more involved in it that than this, I have not studied it deeply enough to give a more thorough definition. This definition does suggest the possibility of some form of reconciliation for these beings, but the more common definitions used by the church, eternal torment or the Adventists preferred definition of total annihilation, both completely deny this possibility.

August 12, 2015

I believe that we human beings have been so thoroughly damaged by sin (sin within and sin around us) that it will take 1000 years in a healing environment before all the damage will be healed. I just don't believe the healing takes place in a moment, or even within the years of a single earthly lifetime.
If God will manipulate - if that is something He does - if that is consistent with His character, then He should have manipulated Eve/Adam, so they would not eat the fruit, and we could have skipped this whole painful mess. The length of this horrible, painful experience down here, tells me that my God does NOT manipulate human minds.

I believe that Passover is a TYPE, that tells us just how we are delivered from the last plagues. The Israelites gathered inside houses painted with the BLOOD of the Passover Lamb. Christ is our Passover. We gather UNDER His blood covering. That is HOW we are shielded from the final plagues. Anyone NOT under that blood covering - will suffer the last plagues. Far from removing His covering, the redeemed will be shielded by that covering.

There are many problems with these three statements. I will only address the first here and for the rest tell you that you are not studying the scriptures, especially the types and shadows and the sovereignty of God very thoroughly if you still hold these opinions.

The first issue you have partially right; the healing takes a lifetime However, you have the timing wrong. The 1000 years are not a time of healing for those who are raised in the first resurrection; if it were they would not be described in Revelation 20 as, "⁶Happy and holy [is] he who is having part in the first rising again; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." The earth is not desolate during this time either. If they are priests (intercessors) and rulers there must be someone on whose behalf they are to intercede and over whom they are to rule. Isaiah 65 gives us a clue to this answer.

²⁰“Never again will there be in it
    an infant who lives but a few days,
    or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
    will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
    will be considered accursed.

This is normally thought to be the earth made new, after all that is how this chapter begins, but this must be a transition time between this age and the age that follows the great white throne. Here there is still death. Adventists ignore this issue. People of other denominations argue over what it must mean because it does not fit into the understanding of any of them really. It certainly will not fit the SDA view of the earth being empty for 1000 years then being made perfect with no death afterward. It does not fit very well within the Scofield view which is so popular in the rest of the church today. I am less familiar with this view so I cannot say precisely how it does or does not fit into it. In my view, which is not shared by any other SDA I know of, the earth is occupied during the 1000 years; it will be a time of healing for most of humanity, but the elect will be resurrected to rule over the earth and begin the process of healing and perfecting the rest of humanity, which will still be mortal, but will have expanded life spans due to the healing.

Paul speaks of the other two issues that come up concerning those ruling at this time. Most will be raise from the dead to rule and reign with Christ but some will still be alive when Jesus returns. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul says,

6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? ²Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! ⁴Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? ⁵I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? ⁶But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

Apparently the Corinthian believers took a view similar to most of Christianity today which is an overly restrictive interpretation of Matthew 7:1 and ignores verses 2 - 5. This verse is not telling us we cannot judge, it is telling us to be careful that we do not judge until such time as we have learned the proper standard of judgment, God's law. Paul was concerned about a people who were not learning God's law and not applying it in judging trivial disputes among themselves now. Paul's main concern here is that we be judged only by God's perfect law and do not submit to the unjust laws of the courts of men. Yet he does show a secondary concern that if we do not have the competency to judge trivial matters among ourselves we also will not have the competency to judge larger matters of men and angels in the age to come. The time to learn, the time to heal, is now, not at the time we are to be ruling over others.

Romans 5:12 also speaks of matters relevant to this healing and your understanding (or lack thereof) of it. However, there is some bad translating of this verse in nearly every English Bible in existence, and probably even going back to Jerome's vulgate. Jerome did not know Greek well enough to handle some of the more complex ideas contained in scripture, nor was he all that good of a theologian and this book is not easy to understand. He introduced a number of errors in the vulgate that later Bible translators never corrected, even though they could see problems in the translation, simply because the theology that led to them was so strong and compelling.

Romans 5:12 says,

¹²Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

This translation reverses cause and effect as Paul presented them. The Greek words translated "because" are eph ho, which mean "on which". On which does not mean because, it means for the cause of which, or simply, causing. Therefore this verse should read,

¹²Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and mortality through sin, and in this way mortality came to all people, causing all to sin—

The proof of this is abortion and miscarriage. These children have not yet sinned, yet they can be killed. Death did not come to them because they sinned, it came to them because Adam sinned. Because my body contains the weakness of mortality I cannot help but sin. There is nothing I can do to prevent it. I can only restrain it, This is true no matter how sanctified I have become in this life. So long as I remain in this body I will sin. Once I get the glorified body I will no longer be able to sin. Paul speaks of this in a number of passages. He is also rather clear that this body must die, so even if I am alive at the second coming it will not be this body that I take with me into glory. 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul speaks of all this in greatest detail. There he says,

⁵¹Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— ⁵²in a flash (Gr. atomos), in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

The Greek word atomos is not a reference to time as this is usually translated. The word comes from Epicurean philosophy and is theoretically the smallest particle of matter which cannot be subdivided. In the 18th century when the atom was discovered scientists thought they had finally found this particle so they named the article the found the atom. Of course we now know that the atom is a comparatively large object and it is made up of at least three smaller particles and those are made up of more still smaller particles, although we cannot yet describe that composition. If Paul were writing this today he would say, "At the quantum level, in the twinkling of an eye ... " The word translated twinkling is rhipe. This word can reference time. It means a throw, a stroke or a beat, and references the darting of an eye as it quickly looks from one object to another. This is a very small moment in time; the quantum level change in the matter that forms our body will happen in an instant. The corruptible fleshly body will be gone (dead) and the glorified body will be placed upon us. At that point we will be fully healed and no longer able to sin. However, those who have not qualified by going through the sanctification process do not get these bodies. There is a form of healing we must go through in this life if we wish to obtain those bodies in the first resurrection.

August 13, 2015

Were the people INSIDE those houses "perfect" or "no longer sinning" ? No way!!!

There is good biblical evidence that we are not perfect. However to say that we're living sinful lives(practicing) reveals a god not powerfull enough to deliver us from sin until some time in the future.

2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)....2 Corinthians 6 parenthesis theirs' LHC

20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen....Ephesians 3

God is Love! Jesus saves!

August 13, 2015

GOLDEN CENSER

I don't know what "references" would satisfy. Let me just refer you to the Temple Institute's webpage. They have done exhaustive research into every aspect of Temple service, and history. Their intention - of course, is to provide furniture and vestments when the Temple is restored on the Mount. Just recently created are two incense chalice of solid gold. Every article and piece of furniture within the two apartments of the Temple was made of gold, or overlaid with gold. Silver was used for the bowls and shovels used in the courtyard, with the Alter of Sacrifice.

Incense was burned on the Alter of Incense in the first apartment, and on the Alter of Sacrifice in the courtyard. A "shovel" was used to move coals from the Alter of Sacrifice to the Alter of Incense. On the Day of Atonement, a golden shovel was used to move coals from the Alter of Incense, to a spot just in front of the Ark. Then incense was poured from the golden chalice into the priests hands, and from his hands onto the coals in the "shovel".

It is very possible that the vessel held by the "angel" in Revelation 8, is the small chalice of incense.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/vessels_gallery_10.htm

http://www.templeinstitute.org/yom_kippur/incense_service.htm

August 13, 2015

Rachel,

I know I said I probably would not write anything more until I had read the entire thread, but I cannot let this one pass. You are the one who made the statements. If they are just things you are presenting for comment you need to make that clear. If they are your statements, even if they are works in progress you need to be the one to defend them or change them as necessary. There is nothing inherently wrong in such personal attacks (and I have no objection to that word either -- whether this is true spiritual battle between opposing ideas, or whether it is just the normal sparring between students learning of the same God, either way it is attack and defend.) You name yourself a priest, that means spiritually mature (a priest, or any Levite, could not be consecrated and serve until they were 30 years old), so grow up and take the heat you generate.

As to the second part of this, I just don't see it, but this is only a preliminary assessment. I've been around off and on for a long time, gone for a long time and then about a year and a half ago invited back only to see none of my previous posts still here, (nor any of the posts I made shortly after my return, but those don't matter at all.) I have mostly lurked for the last year and a half, and while familiar with your ideas, this is the first thread I have read through to see your development of ideas. I could very well be wrong, but what I am seeing right now is someone with an agenda (I don't mean this in a negative way -- you aren't trying to force a belief system on anyone here, at least not that I can see), willing to ignore any evidence that does not agree with what she already believes. This is the most common approach among Christians of all types including Adventists, and it is not limited to religion or politics (is there a difference?) as nearly all science these days is wholly bought and paid for with the business interests who own it withholding any information that would damage their ability to get patents and product approval and sales. If you truly want to see where your arguments are weak and correct the problem you must be fully aware of this all too common and universal human trait.

Myron,

I do NOT call myself a priest. I believe that all of those redeemed at the return of Christ WILL BECOME "priests of God and of Christ" - including me. Which is why I call myself "8thdaypriest" to bring attention to that prophecy. Priests could not begin to serve UNTIL "the 8th day" - which I believe will be the 8th millennium.

You seem a very ardent EGW believer and defender. I do not fault you for that. I was the same for some 20 years. I used to quote her constantly. Now, I have grave doubts concerning her "inspiration" and would rather look to the Bible only for doctrine.

I have the EGW complete published writings CDs. I searched them for four solid years looking for her statements on the nature of God (two Beings or three Beings). That is how I "discovered" her seeming change of belief and teaching, (from two divine Beings TO three divine Beings) some 50 years into her ministry. That "discovery" upset me so much, that I have not been able to regard her writings in the same way since.

If you looked over my website, you may have noticed that I HAVE NOT disparaged Ellen White in any way, in anything published on that website.

You have spoken most disrespectfully Myron.

Father forgive.

Shalom,

Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

August 13, 2015

You have spoken most disrespectfully Myron.

Father forgive.

Shalom,

I have nothing to offer to this discussion; except to say that I agree with Rachel. You have treated her with a great deal of condesention and disrespect by calling her lazy and unstudied. Go to her website; look at her stuff, and say that. Just because she doesn't agree with you doesn't make her lazy or ignorant. She is far better studied than most people here; and is much more polite than you are about refuting or debating the view of others.

I know she doesn't need me to defend her - she's shown herself to be quite capable of defending herself. I just find it offensive that you would personally attack an intelligent and well-studied person like her over stuff just because she doesn't agree with your brand of theology. Have a little respect!

And again - please shorten your posts. Most people will not read the "books" you post - especially if they are using a mobile app.

August 13, 2015

Because my body contains the weakness of mortality I cannot help but sin. There is nothing I can do to prevent it. I can only restrain it, This is true no matter how sanctified I have become in this life. So long as I remain in this body I will sin. Once I get the glorified body I will no longer be able to sin.

None of this makes sense to me. I don't know how much is semantics or not, but I'll ask questions to clarify what's is not making sense to me.

First of all, the "weakness of mortality", especially in the context in which you wrote this, looks to mean simply that one dies. We die for various reasons, but what is it in the fact that we are mortal what would cause us to sin? I don't see the connection here. I especially don't see why mortality would make it so we could restrain sin, but not prevent it. What connection is there between mortality and being able to restrain but not prevent sin?

Secondly, why wouldn't you be able to sin with a glorified body? Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels were able to do this (or something equivalent, since they wouldn't have had "glorified bodies", per se, but they weren't mortal, and didn't have any of the weaknesses that mortality would bring).

August 13, 2015

Who were you just quoting pnattmbtc ?

August 14, 2015

Rachel,

Please allow me further explanation as to what is or is not acceptable evidence. The previous post on this subject tends to be more specific to that instance, this will be a little more general even though specifics of the previous matter will be discussed. For this I bring in the life of Saul/Paul as an applicable type or shadow for us. Scripture provides on other and that is Jesus, but that shows different principles due to a different starting point. The type of Paul is more applicable to you and I.

Saul was a Hebrew intellectual from a very influential family. Evidence given in the book of Romans and in early church historical writings shows that his mother later married into a noble family in Rome. The temple liked to recruit such intelligent young men into the school it ran and where it trained lawyers (often translated as scribes) most of whom were Pharisees. We do not know just when Saul was recruited into this school, but it would have been at a very young age. We see in Luke 4 an attempt to recruit Jesus into this same school in his 12th year, the year a young man was first required to go to the temple to celebrate the three main feasts. It is probable that Saul was recruited in his 12th year as well. We do know that he was a brilliant student and his teachers had great things in mind for him in the future. We know from the ministries of both Jesus and Paul that there were serious problems in that school and much false doctrine was taught.

Jump forward a few years. We are not told whether Saul was ever one of the students of this school who were sent to entrap Jesus or not. Because of the silence of the Bible on this matter most assume that the Sanhedrin had sent him to some other location on some other mission at this time. That is entirely possible, but I do suspect he and Jesus may have crossed paths occasionally in Jerusalem. Remember, Jesus did very little teaching in Jerusalem. When he did teach there is was usually during the feasts when thousands of extra people were in the city and it is entirely possible their paths may not have crossed or that Saul was simply another face in the crowd. The first we see of Saul in the scriptures he was at the stoning of Stephen holding the cloaks of those who were doing the stoning and in full agreement with what they were doing. There is considerable symbolic meaning in this statement which we will not examine here; I will simply remind you of a point I made before, stones represent law, in this case the traditions of men, not the law of God, and Saul was in full agreement.

After this incident Saul was made the chief prosecuting attorney in the Sanhedrin in the trials of these "heretics" and as such Paul continued these "stonings" for a few more years although we do not know if any more physical stonings took place or not. We do know the Romans had removed the right of capital punishment from the Jews long before and cared nothing of their internal religious matters. We also know that they would not have tolerated very many illegal executions. Who knows, maybe they didn't tolerate any and Saul simply escaped trial and execution for sedition or murder because he was not one of the ones throwing stones. Luke's point in making that statement is that Saul was as guilty as those who did throw the stones.

Fast forward a few more years. Saul's persecution (false prosecution) of the dissenters has driven most of them out of the region. The few who remain, such as James the brother of Jesus are largely untouchable, at least for the time being. Saul petitions the high priest and obtains a letter of certification empowering him as the prosecutor to try the dissidents in Jewish court, anywhere, not simply in Jerusalem. He then heads out to Damascus where Jesus knocks him off his horse and tells him, "Ok, now it is time for you to start using all this education for the purpose for which I gave it to you." He enters the city, goes through a bunch more prophetic signs which we will not examine here but of which you should be aware there is a much deeper meaning, and then begins to preach. The Christians won't accept him because they will not trust him. The Jews are so angry they have held court and passed a summary judgment that any Jew who sees him is to kill him on site (perhaps I am exaggerating a bit, but it gets the point across.) The Jews posted guards at the city gates and were going to assure that Saul could not leave alive. Saul was lowered in a basket over the city walls at night then went down to Mt Sinai in Arabia to receive instruction directly from God. Many believe he took refuge in the same cave where Elijah took refuge from Jezebel and where God hid Moses in the cleft to pass before him. This is simply a matter of speculation and cannot be proven.

Much of this cannot be proven from scripture and comes from historical sources only, but Paul does speak in Galatians of his time in Arabia being instructed directly from God, and that the subject matter of that book all came directly from this instruction and not from any of the other Apostles or from his training in the school of the Temple in Jerusalem. We do not know precisely what scriptural books Paul had there. For certain he had the torah, likely he also had the prophets, and perhaps some other books such as the book of Jasher and the book of Jubilees. I have not read Jubilees but I do know of a reference to the book of Jasher in 2 Timothy. This is the only other place I know of where Jannes and Jambres are named; they are not named in Exodus. Others have told me there are references to Jubilees in Paul's writings. The book of Jasher is referenced as source material for the Bible in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. So it is entirely possible that Paul had copies of these two books at his disposal at this time as well. He did not take with him the rabbinical writings and he did not have any teacher other than God himself. Whether this means God visited him in vision to instruct him or only spoke to him through the written word and the still small voice, we do not know. We do know that as a result of these years alone with God that he learned many things that even some of the apostles had difficulty accepting, even Peter (Cephas) who had a revelation of many of these things separate from Paul in Acts 10, 11, but later capitulated to the pressure some of the other apostles and would not eat with the gentiles at a church conference.

Paul tells us that only after three years of this intense study under God's direct tutelage did he go to Jerusalem and speak with Peter about what God had shown him. This three years was Paul's time of fulfilling the feast of unleavened bread in his own life. According to his testimony in his trial before the crowd (Acts 22) and the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) and to the churches of Galatia in Galatians 1 Saul had been the top student of Gamaliel, who was at that time the most influential teacher of the Law in the Sanhedrin, and that he excelled above all the other students. Historical writers indicate that many considered him to be Gamaliel's heir apparent until he converted. When Saul went to Arabia for his three years of solitude he put all this learning aside to learn directly from scripture. Then for another 14 years, having only studied with Peter for two weeks and during that time speaking only with one other apostle, Jesus brother James, Paul developed his theology on his own, without consultation with anyone but God regarding this work. Only then did he take this fully thought out and developed theology to the church in Jerusalem for their approval and received it.

This is the pattern for you and I. I do not know you, I do not know your background, but I have seen enough in your posts to know a great deal, even where you have not directly addressed your background, and others attempting to chastise me have spoken more in your favor. You have a good education in the "Sanhedrin" school. I did too. I will share with you a small portion of my background. Although I attended public school for elementary school my parents and grandparents made certain that I had a good training in the Bible as did my Sabbath School teachers, and I, along with a few other SDA students who did not attend the local SDA elementary occasionally witnessed among our teachers and classmates as we saw need. This didn't happen often, but we were not afraid of doing so.

From seventh grade until my junior year in college I attended SDA schools and became fully indoctrinated in SDA thought, and though I could not agree with every word of it I was, and still am in substantial agreement with the vast majority of it. It was very early in this time that God revealed to me during an assembly in 7th grade that I was called to be a teacher. Many of my friends and teachers thought I was called as a preacher and told me so; when I was in college many of my friends and even classmates though t I was studying theology. I knew my calling was something else. It was not until very recently when I started studying God's definitions for things that I began to learn what I had really been called to do. Most of the church, you included, still refuse to use God's definitions for things.

After that God showed me that I needed to complete my education in the world's schools. I had known for a few years that my calling was to the world, not to the church, and at God's leading in my junior year I started making arrangements to transfer to a state university. Years later after much frustration of the kind that is often felt by those with a legitimate calling from God but who first must be taught to do things his way and his way only, God finally sent me to my own Sinai (I tried negotiating to get one year; he gave me three and I needed every one of them to accomplish the work necessary while I was under that direct and personal instruction) where I began to learn God's definitions for things, saw even more clearly than I ever had before the problems within the church (Settle down SDAs; I almost never make reference to a denomination as the church or even a church. There is only one church, and all the denominations are only small parts of it, at least up to the point where they separate themselves from the rest of the body and thus the head as well. None of them are the true church and none of them are perfect. All need correction). Guess what? Most of those problems were resident in me, and to some extent still are. As long as I remain in this corruptible body they will remain in me, not matter how hard I fight it.

I know these things I speak to you of very well because everyone of them I have had to deal with in myself and there is not a one of them that does not still pop up from time to time and some are still a constant fight.

I don't know when God will be calling you to go through your own Feast of Unleavened Bread. That you have met me and this stuff comes up in this way is a strong indication that the time is now, not later, but that is between you and Father. You need to be putting all this other stuff aside and studying first and foremost from scripture, and never, ever, use this stuff to disprove scripture. If you do that you may as well hang up scripture all together, say it has no meaning at all, and stick only to your own thoughts and beliefs without ever trying to prove they are the things of God because that will be what you are actually doing. Dressing them up as this verse of scripture is right and that one is not, or as "This is the way the Jews did it" (remember they were rejected because they didn't do these things right?) does not help your arguments any. Both simply prove that you are not seeking truth, but validation for the falsehood you believe. If you cannot make two seemingly contradictory scriptures agree there is a problem in your belief system, there is information missing or your idols have added information that is not there and you have a false belief system. Period.

Before I wind up, here is the additional stuff directly related to the issue that brings this up. The information you linked me to is not only not your own information and understanding, even if it was used to formulate that; it is faulty at best and completely false at worst, although I do not believe the worst case scenario applies. The majority of the archeological and textual historical evidence available to us refers only to the second temple. The non-biblical writings that describe this stuff to us are all post-exilic. The archeological evidence available does not deal with the temple directly because Israel will not allow any digs in the vicinity of the temple mount. We do not have valid information for what happened in Solomon's temple beyond what the Bible says, and we know from the Bible as well as these other sources that the actual practice in both temples was not done according to God's command and that is part of why both temples were destroyed.

The Ark of the Covenant was removed from the Tabernacle at Shiloh because of the corruption of the priesthood, including the actual practice of ritual prostitution of a variety not practiced by the worshipers of Ba'al. More importantly the prophet told Eli that the arm or strength (depending on who translates this word) was to be removed from the priesthood, Further study proves this arm to be the office of the prophet and we see this being practiced by Samuel, who during his lifetime was defacto high priest, even if he was not qualified by birth to hold the office. Previous to this the last word in all judgment was the word of the High Priest. After this God always used the prophet as a judge against the priesthood, including the High Priest and we see the priesthood always seeking to bring the prophets back under their control. The priesthood of this denomination was largely successful with Ellen White.

When Isaiah comes along we see the priesthood being judged again, and it is specifically on their practices, which did not follow the law of God. For that matter, during much of the time of the kings the priests did not even know where the book of the law was located and a large number of the annual rituals were never practiced. You cannot properly practice the Day of Atonement ritual on in the seventh year if you do not have the book of the law. Torah specification is that this was to be done in the seventh year. The post exilic practice was to do it every year. If you are not looking at the rituals of the day as prophecy this change is probably a good thing, but since it is prophecy this change by man hides something God wanted to illustrate by this practice. We know that the Passover was not practiced during the time of the Kings until the priests found the book of the law and brought it to Hezekiah. This is during the time when Isaiah was condemning the priestly practices. The said of their teachings,

And these also reel with wine and stagger from strong drink:
The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink,
They are confused by wine, they stagger from strong drink;
They reel while having visions,
They totter when rendering judgment.
⁸For all the tables are full of filthy vomit, without a single clean place.

Isaiah 28

Later he says,

⁹Be delayed and wait,
Blind yourselves and be blind;
They become drunk, but not with wine,
They stagger, but not with strong drink.
¹⁰For the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep sleep,
He has shut your eyes, the prophets;
And He has covered your heads, the seers.

Isaiah 29

The practices of the priest at this time certainly cannot be used as proof that things were done God's way. First they were not acting and teaching according to God's instruction and later God made it impossible for them to act according to their instruction because they continued to refuse to listen.

In Ezekiel's day when God was finally preparing to destroy the temple he gave Ezekiel a vision, showing in various symbols how he saw the practices of the priests and the worshipers. None of this was stuff they would actually admit, and only did in secret in some form (usually by lying to themselves that what they were doing was even a sin at all if Jeremiah 3 is to be believed). This portion of the vision is recorded in chapter 8; the vision continues through chapter 11. While it is probable that few of these things seen in vision were actually occurring in the physical temp as Ezekiel saw them they were occurring every one of them was occurring in some way in the hearts of nearly every person in Judah and every one of them have some form of doctrinal equivalent in the church today. So the practice of the priesthood at this time cannot be used as a guide.

Ezekiel's vision continued; he saw a time of marking going on followed by judgment beginning in the temple itself and then passing throughout the city of professed believers. This does parallel events of Revelation and you would be well advised to study it in this context, and it even applies to this vision of Ellen White in some way. Then in Chapter 10 we see the Glory of God leaving the temple and pausing in the courtyard before it finally leaves the temple in Chapter 11 and settles on the top of the Mt. of Olives. This glory is first seen settling on this temple during its dedication services. The dedication of this temple was during the feast of Tabernacles and gives some more information in type for the fulfillment of Tabernacles as a result, and on the 8th day of Tabernacles when the instruments and singers reached the ultimate in harmony, the glory came into the temple so brightly that the priest were forced out of the holy place. This is a representation of the receiving of the fullness of the spirit during the fulfillment of that feast, just as the tongues of fire were the representation of the receiving of the down-payment of the spirit on Pentecost. Now, because of the corruption of the priesthood and the end of their probation the glory of God left that place and through Jeremiah God says of this,

¹²“But go now to My place which was in Shiloh, where I made My name dwell at the first, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. ¹³And now, because you have done all these things,” declares the Lord, “and I spoke to you, rising up early and speaking, but you did not hear, and I called you but you did not answer, ¹⁴therefore, I will do to the house which is called by My name, in which you trust, and to the place which I gave you and your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. ¹⁵I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brothers, all the offspring of Ephraim.

The practices of the priesthood of this time certainly cannot be used as a pattern for what God considers proper. But what about the post-exilic temple? This has its problems too, beginning most especially with the design of the building. The middle wall of partition was something that God never commanded, did not put in the Tabernacle in the wilderness, David's Tabernacle or Solomon's temple. It represented something that ran directly counter to Solomon's prayer of dedication and Isaiah's vision of the New Covenant temple. Solomon said,

⁴¹“Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name’s sake ⁴²(for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, ⁴³hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to ^[s]fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that ^[t]this house which I have built is called by Your name. 1 Kings 8

and Isaiah said,

I will bring these people to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. The offerings and sacrifices they place on my altar will please me, because my Temple will be called a house for prayer for people from all nations.” Isaiah 56:7

Solomon's prayer was not too difficult to understand, but Isaiah was absolute in this. Everyone is welcome in God's house, but in the second temple they placed the middle wall of partition with a sign saying, "No foreigners and no women beyond this point." They were allowed only so close to God and no further. Paul's teaching was,

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, Ephesians 2:14.

Paul's teaching restores the Godly order that the traditions of men forced on the temple service and its doctrines. This was a major problem from the time Christianity began and there were always people then, and remain people today attempting to change the commandments of God in this regard and many others.

Because the practice of the temple has always been so far from the command of God, whether in specific rituals or in ideas I will never accept this practice as conclusive proof of what God intended, and neither should you. Furthermore, when biblical evidence is given indicating God's intent, under no circumstances will I accept the practice of the corrupt priesthood as proving the Bible wrong or inadequate. Solomon's temple had multiple gold censers and it appears from the words of Jeremiah that only gold censers were used in all temple services. Neither Jeremiah nor 1 Kings states the matter conclusively so there will always be some doubt as to whether other censers were used, but the information they provide is adequate to indicate the golden censers were used for more than this one service, and you simply have not provided proof that can make me question this word of scripture.

Prophetic interpretation depends on the mind of God and not the traditions of men, no matter how much we wish to put our own interpretation on these things. The Law of God, including the portion he dictated to Moses, defines the mind of God with further refinements and details being supplied by later prophets. Any and all prophetic interpretation must fall into this framework and agree with it or it is invalid, and I will accept no evidence that in any way appears to be intended to invalidate this framework. If you can provide evidence that stays within the framework of this word I will listen to it and seriously consider it. If you cannot do this, do not waste your time or mine.

August 14, 2015

None of this makes sense to me. I don't know how much is semantics or not, but I'll ask questions to clarify what's is not making sense to me.

First of all, the "weakness of mortality", especially in the context in which you wrote this, looks to mean simply that one dies. We die for various reasons, but what is it in the fact that we are mortal what would cause us to sin? I don't see the connection here. I especially don't see why mortality would make it so we could restrain sin, but not prevent it. What connection is there between mortality and being able to restrain but not prevent sin?

Secondly, why wouldn't you be able to sin with a glorified body? Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels were able to do this (or something equivalent, since they wouldn't have had "glorified bodies", per se, but they weren't mortal, and didn't have any of the weaknesses that mortality would bring).

Good questions, pnatt, and I will tell you quite honestly that for the second one I don't have an answer. It bothers me every time I write this and I do not like to be so specific or categorical if I cannot also provide specific proof. I will ignore the part about Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels. We have no specific proof (although some broad indications in very contradictory statements in the Bible) as to the precise nature of spiritual beings and whether they have a body at all. Keep in mind that I just told Rachel that if we see contradiction in scripture it is because we are lacking understanding of something and need to seek the information necessary to fill in the gaps I don't have the information I need to reconcile these apparently opposed points of view.

That being said, I know Ellen White, with whom I seldom fully agree, says categorically that we will not be able to sin in those bodies, and Paul is rather clear on the matter in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5. There are other places in scripture that seem to be rather clear about this as well, but I have to admit that I have never studied them as closely as I should have and simply vomit out the words of those who have taught me this, such as Ellen White. We don't know the precise nature of the spirits, whether they have a body of their own, can simply take on a form when need be or possess the bodies of men or animals if they need a human form. I have my own beliefs on the matter but nothing can be proven clearly from scripture concerning this in my opinion. Please show me otherwise if you can give me a better answer.

I will address this matter from a different grounds, the one that specifically has bothered me the last several times I have written that statement to someone. Ellen White says Adam was created with this glorified body. I don't know if that is true, but scripture does appear to agree since Adam was created to be immortal. I do not recall that scripture actually makes a specific statement, "Adam was created immortal," but the assumption of all the Bible writers that tell the story or comment on it is that he was mortal. The assumption is that because Adam was created mortal he had the glorified body, and the doctrine of the Restoration (or restitution) of All Things, which the church today nearly universally rejects, but is the basis for Paul's discussions of the matter, demands that upon redemption we be restored to our former state, so this also indicates that Adam had the glorified body. Adam sinned. So if it is true that we cannot sin after we receive the glorified body there must be another mechanism involved that we ignore in our simplistic viewpoints and study. I have an idea what that would be, but have yet to develop definitive proof. So in the meantime you find me guilty of simply vomiting out that same simplistic and mindless drivel the rest of the church spouts on this matter. My apologies.

My current thinking on the matter is that if the mechanism for this inability to sin is something other than the glorified body it is probably a matter of education. Adam was created with the glorified body; the assumption is that he was not created with a full knowledge of God and thus lacked the New Covenant in which the whole law of God was written on his heart. This seems a reasonable explanation. I have always believed this at some level, but again, I am not sure it can be proven. Although it is not something any of the prophets or apostles have stated in these terms it is something that seems to fit into the discussions they do have.

The first question is much easier to answer although I don't know if you will like the answer any better than I like the one I just gave. You are being asked to look at a familiar problem from a different angle and it looks entirely different even though it is not. Some things look so different from a different face that the first time you see it from a new direction you cannot recognize it at all. I'm sure that is the only problem here.

Adam was created immortal. Supposedly disease was impossible, although the Bible does tell us sin is a disease and Adam sinned. Once Adam sinned something immediately changed and he knew he was naked. The normal explanation is he lost his robe of light. In my view this was more a legal condition having to do with the laws of covering and authority, but God often uses the physical to illustrate these spiritual concepts, so there could have been some physical manifestation as well. This legal or spiritual conception is the only explanation I can see for why Eve would not have seen her nakedness immediately and only saw it after Adam sinned. Eve's sin was against God, not against Adam, so she remained under Adam's covering and Adam remained under God's covering until such time as Adam also sinned. The legal issues illustrated would take considerable time to prove from God's law, but they can be proven through redemption law which is where covering is most clearly explained, and most thoroughly within the laws of bondsmen and bondswomen.

When this change occurred Adam immediately became mortal, in other words, Adam immediately died. Here I refer you to John 10:10 where Jesus speaks of the abundant life, and Matthew 5:21-26 where Jesus vastly expands our understanding of the Law of Murder. Anything that has reduced your vitality and happiness in any way has killed you a little bit. Adam had the fullest possible life. Something in him died that day and therefore Adam died that day. The death may not have been complete, but it did occur. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15 in Paul's discussion on the resurrection body he explains the bodily change that occurs in those who remain alive at the second coming. A change occurs in the matter of the body itself and we will not have the same body as a result. Paul described it as a change in the atoms. This is a term from Epicurean philosophy defined as the smallest particle possible which cannot be subdivided. It is a theoretical particle much smaller than the atom, but chemists did not know this when they chose that term to name their newly discovered "smallest" particle conceivable. A few years later they discovered this wasn't the smallest particle conceivable but they kept the name for the atom.

Adam received this instantaneous change in reverse when he sinned. It introduced a weakness in his body that allowed death, thus Paul calls that weakness mortality. This same weakness also weakened us to the point that we can no longer resist sin. Education in God's law and his character provides us strength to more completely restrain sin, but does not give us enough strength to completely avoid it. The context of the weakness of mortality is not simply that we can now die. The very weakness that makes death possible also eventually introduces other weaknesses after many generations, but all of them go back to this one.

Yes death comes from many causes, but death comes. Mortality simply meant that sometime in the next 1000 years my body will wind down and die, but Cain's murder of Abel proved the process could be greatly accelerated and over the years the addition of many other frailties continually shortened the expected lifespan so that David stated it as 80 years if you were strong, and biologists studying the decomposition of certain portions of the DNA strand have placed it at a maximum of 120 years if you do everything else right. A lot of variables remain. But at the end of it all, mortality itself remains the cause of death, these other things are only variables that can speed the process, and the weakness that this mortality is, according to Paul also makes it impossible for us to avoid sinning.

August 14, 2015