Two Models of Church: Which One You Choose Makes All the Difference


(George Tichy) #101

Those who came up with that “first lie” either didn’t study the book of Hebrews, or believed that nobody would ever study it. Big mistake!


(George Tichy) #102

This is the advantage of being a Sola Scriptura adept. If the date is not mentioned in the Bible, it’s not relevant. What is important is the event. So, I would say, according to the Bible (Hebrews, etc.), Jesus entered the Most Holy in Heaven right after His ascension.

And, who knows how long it took Him to travel from “here” to “there” anyway… :thinking:


(Christopher) #103

The alleged heir of Peter doesn’t even know what year it was (or he’s just being coy). How did you find out (Did Ellen tell you?)?
First of all you have isolated the phrase “Jesus did not enter the Most Holy in AD 31” from the previous portion of the statement. What I had meant was that Jesus did enter Most Holy in AD 31, instead the church teaches that Jesus did not enter until 1844, based on Ellen White’s approval of Crosier’s opinion.
You seem to be very rude and unreasonable in jumping to conclusions and saying things inappropriate. You have presented my comment in a wrong light.
I don’t know who you meant by "heir of Peter, and who was “being coy”, but one thing I am sure, that is Ellen white did tell that Jesus did not enter the Most Holy until 1844!


(Christopher) #104

Well said! This is the truth of which Adventists are uncertain to this day!


(Christopher) #105

Perhaps, you are more interested in the date AD 31 than the event it refers to. The date AD 31 has been generally accepted by all Christian scholars. What is more important to me is whether Jesus entered the Most Holy at His ascension or 1800 years later. New Testament writers make it very clear that Jesus ascended to his Father in the Most Holy and sat in His throne ever since.


(Steve Mga) #106

Heavenly Temple –
According to the END of Revelation there is NO Temple in the
New Jerusalem.
Was there actually one at the Beginning of Revelation, or was
the description of things only Representative of “ideas”. Or
“illustration” tools?

The Sinai “Pattern” shown Moses. Did THAT have Nothing to do with
what was in heaven? Was that JUST for down here in Earth as a Visual
“illustration” tool? And as Hebrews attempts to teach, the “illustration tool”
was no longer needed after the Resurrection?

When Jesus died, the huge curtain was shredded in two and the 2 worship
“spaces” then became ONE. Indicating that EACH worshiper had direct
access to God. And that is what Hebrews attempts to teach.
Paul and the other writers touch on it. But Hebrews writes about THIS topic
specifically. And perhaps Revelation needs to be read in the Light of Hebrews.
And maybe even the Book of Daniel???


(George Tichy) #107

HARMONY - UNISON - RESPECT

In my opinion, “harmony” is a very vague term. In music, there is no “harmony” if there are not several different notes present. One of the biggest challenges religious people experience is to respect one another’s positions even if they (we) disagree.

Unfortunately what is happening in the SDAC currently it that the GC is trying to impose UNISON to the whole church. The final product, the “music,” will be very poor. Imagine a music utilizing just the DO, or the RE, or the MI (C, D, E). Monotonous, poor, worthless.

Exception: A Brazilian musician and composer, Antonio Carlos Jobin, became very famous for (among other) his “Samba de uma Nota Só” (One Note Samba). Though the lyrics say that “other notes” will be added anyway; and it is good, otherwise it would be really boring.

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TCozrSpKMbMwYAQAJDEEOw&q=samba+de+uma+nota+so&rlz=1CAEAQE_enUS754US754&oq=samba+de+uma+nota+so&aqs=chrome.0.46j0l4j46j0.30143j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
(If you scroll down, there are other famous Brazilian musics, like "Garota de Ipanema, etc. WARNING: All based on harmony, not unison… :slight_smile: :rofl: )

I wonder why the GC wants to make the Church an absolute “one note samba”… :wink:


(David) #108

The pope claims to be the heir of Peter and yet he can’t even say what year Christ was crucified. Peter was in the courtyard where the trial took place. The fact that the pope can’t say when it was tells me he’s a fraud (or he knows and won’t tell - coy).

I agree, Ellen was wrong about 1844.

Your statement, “Jesus did not enter the Most Holy in AD 31” implies that Jesus ascended to heaven in 31 (regardless of where He ascended to). I was interested in your reference to the year 31 not 1844.

Pardon me for my apparent rudeness. I thought I clarified myself with, “in all seriousness”.

Yes, that was it. I’ve read a few scholarly articles on the date of the crucifixion and the opinions vary. The years 30 and 33 are the two most likely and popular dates from what I’ve read. I personally believe it was 33 (30 was too early) and that’s why I was interested in how you came to 31.

I understand your concern ABEN. I don’t believe there are two compartments in heaven. I believe the two compartments of the earthly sanctuary represent the experiences of the two feasts, unleavened bread and tabernacles. Each feast is associated with a lunar month (1 & 7). And it is the moon that exists in heaven.

Each feast brings with it an experience. The feast of tabernacles brings a greater experience than the feast of unleavened bread. It is the feast of tabernacles that all the nations are to keep, according to Zechariah.

Well you wouldn’t find AD 31 in the bible since it wasn’t invented for another 1500 years. You won’t find Christ or the Apostles referring to the Roman Calendar or the planetary week either (though it was in vogue in their day).

What is important is that Luke gives a very precise description of the time of Jesus’ baptism. (Luke 3:1-2). From that we can determine a start date. Then by using the length of His ministry and the rules of the Passover we can determine the date of the crucifixion (we need to ask the pope).

The date of the crucifixion is like a gold nugget. You have to sift through some sand to find it but it’s there.

@ABEN, @GeorgeTichy


(Patrick Travis) #109

Josephus implies death April 3 and resurrection April 5, AD 33. Book XViii, Ch.3. Not that precision is necessary.


(Michael Wortman) #110

Thanks for mentioning Jobim, George. Antonio Carlos “Tom” Jobim is one of my favorite artists. I am not sure how he is regarded in Brazil, but to me, he should be regarded as a national treasure.


(George Tichy) #111

Yes, he is recognized as one of the best ever. He actually lived/worked/performed for many years in New York. Very respected musician.
If you like Jobin and like the good Brazilian coffee (much better than Colombian! :roll_eyes: :innocent: ) you are already 50% Brazilian!!! … lol

And then there is Carlos Gomes and of course Villa Lobos!
Brazilians are very talented people, especially those who are naturalized Brazilians… :laughing: :rofl: :innocent: :innocent:


(Christopher) #112

John did see a temple at first when the temple in heaven was opened and the ark of the covenant was seen. I used “most holy” not that I believed in a two apartment sanctuary but in line with what our church teaches. Yes Christ has done away with the partition in the temple with his death. John towards the end of his vision saw no temple - in the new Jerusalem. The temple which he had seen earlier was in heaven I suppose. Whether it still remained or done away with after serving its purpose I do not know. In the new Jerusalem Christ would be the temple and the light. A living temple, not confined in a particular place or a structure. You are absolutely right in your view in this regard. Others may interpret differently but that does not affect our salvation.


(David) #113

My vote goes to Josephus!!!


(Patrick Travis) #114

Of course there have always been disputes about the comments and the dates are interpolated like the Ides of March. But it’s likely close.
Whats important is that at Christ ascension He sat down at the rt. hand Of the throne of God. I’d say that’s the essence of the OT MHP and the Shekinah glory above the Ark of the covenant.
From the throne Christ, our King-priest delivers both forgiveness and judgment as He guides His people.
Regards


(Christopher) #115

Ellen White did make the statement about Orion, but how did she know that? certainly not from God but from a human source. An astronomer by name Huygens was the first to discover Orion. following is the description of his observation as reported by Thomas Dick: Rev. Thomas Dick (1774-1857): “One of the most remarkable nebulae in the heavens is that which is found the constellation of Orion….When a common observer looks at that constellation, the first object that arrests his attention is the three brilliant stars equidistant from each other in a straight line, which is called the belt of Orion. Immediately below these, hanging down, as it were, from the middle of the belt, three small stars at nearly equal distance are perceived, which are termed the sword….The first who discovered this phenomenon was the celebrate Huygens , who gave the following description of it: …. “Astronomers place three stars close to each other in the sword of Orion; and when I viewed the middle –most with a telescope in the year 1656, three appeared that almost touch each other, and four more besides appeared twinkling as through a cloud, so that the space about them seemed much brighter than the rest of the heavens, which appearing wholly blackish, by reason of the fair weather, was seen as through a certain opening, through one had a free view into another region which was more enlightened. I have frequently observed the same appearance in the same place without any alteration; so that it is likely that this wonder, whether it may be in itself, has been there from all times; but I never took notice of anything like it among the rest of the fixed stars” (Sidereal Heavens, pp. 198, 201, 1840). Now compare this with Ellen White’s statements: “Dark, heavy clouds came up and clashed against each other. The atmosphere parted and rolled back; then we could look up through the open space in Orion, whence came the voice of God. The Holy city will come down through that open space” (EW, p. 41, 1882). " He related [ J. N. Loughborough (1832-1924)] the Astronomical vision of Ellen White as Bates told it to him[1846] as follows: “Next came the description of Uranus, with its six moons; then a wonderful description of the “opening heavens” [nebula of Orion] with its glory, calling it an opening into a region more enlightened. Elder Bates said her description far surpassed any account of the heavens he had ever read from any author….It is ahead of anything I ever read on the subject” (1Bio, pp. 113-114). She had added little more to what she had learned form others - that Jesus would come through the opening of Orion. About the number of moons, she copied that too. Here is the source: Alexander Copland (1774-1834): “But those great planets beyond mars have each several moons; Jupiter having four; Saturn, seven; and Uranus (or the most distant planet), six…One of them has also two immense broad flat rings…Mercury and Venus, have a moon each” (The existence of other worlds, pp. 69, 70, 71, 1834). She had described them exactly in same order! Was this all from God, and for what purpose?


(David) #116

Apparently not from God (at least her version).
Huygens was very upstanding and honorable man. He was the first astronomer to unlock the anomaly of Saturn’s strange appearance and as a result, he incurred the wrath of the Jesuits and Dominicans. Below is a quote of the first paragraph of his Systema Saturnium taken from an English translation I obtained.

“When Galileo directed his telescope, that most illustrious invention of my native Holland, to the investigation of the heavenly bodies, and was the first to reveal to mortals those most glorious phenomena, the planets, among his discoveries, it appears that what he found out about the planet Saturn was particularly worthy of our admiration. For although his other discoveries were rightly deserving of our respect and high esteem, they were not of such a nature as to promote such a diligent investigation into their causes. Yet the changeable shape of Saturn set before us a new and previously hidden working of nature, the reason for which neither Galileo himself not any subsequent astronomers (my intention is not to offend) could divine. He first espied it not shining as one simple disc, but with what one might call a threefold body, with two smaller bodies lying on either side close up to a centrally located larger one. When this shape persisted for about three years without any change, he convinced himself that beyond all doubt Saturn had two companions just like the four attached to Jupiter, but lacking all motion, and destined forever to be attached to the the planet’s sides in the same position. Yet he was compelled to change his mind when Saturn came forth as a solitary body, utterly bereft of its earlier satellite. When he had to his astonishment seen this and was attempting to conjecture the reason for this phenomenon, he made some prophetic utterances about the time of its return, at which this earlier phase would be renewed. It was however realized that this too did not occur as he had expected, and that Saturn was not content with only two differing appearances.”

@ABEN


(George Tichy) #117

Have you ever considered what the book of Hebrews teaches?


(George Tichy) #118

When people finally agree on the year of Christ’s crucifixion, then it will be a good idea to figure out on what day of the week did the Passover happened in that year… Maybe checking with the Jews can help…
Just sayin…
@niteguy2 - Steve, you have connections, why don’t you inquire your friends?


(Christopher) #119

Can you please tell me why I should consider Hebrews? What’s my comment to do with this? My comment was plain - I said what the “church teaches”, not what the Bible said.


(George Tichy) #120

Oh, yes, my fault indeed. I get it. You were not talking about Biblical teachings, but rather about Church teachings.
I only wanted to offer you an optional source of information aka Bible) that teaches something different (but certainly not more important) than what the Church teaches. … :roll_eyes: :innocent:
But I still think you should visit the book of Hebrews anyway - at your own risk, of course…
Careful though, because if your pastor catches you doing that (reading Hebrews too much)…, you may lose your membership… :wink: