Only because He is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." He has been applying the benefits of His blood atonement from the day A&E sinned - four thousand years before the cross. Jesus is not bound by our time-space continuum. Therefore, whatever is, will be, or has been is eternal.

THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. But SDA do not read the Bible. They just think they do when they read their own doctrinal books, and so they stumble and fall about in the dark. This is what Leviticus 4 says: ALL sin offerings were for UNINTENTIONAL sin.

1. for the anointed priest OR the whole congregation:

• blood sprinkled seven times before the sanctuary
• blood is put on horns of altar of incense INSIDE the sanctuary
• blood (the rest) is poured at the base of alter of burnt offering

2. for a ruler OR one of the common people:

• blood is put on horns of altar of burnt offering OUTSIDE the sanctuary
• blood (the rest) is poured at the base of alter of burnt offering

Who are you?

• the anointed priest?
• the whole body of the Church of Christ?
• a ruler?
• or one of the common people?

And based on your answer, where was the blood of your sacrifice taken: inside of, or kept outside, the sanctuary? READ YOUR BIBLE!!! READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!! FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!!

///

The blood of Christ is NOT the Holy Spirit.

Though the Holy Spirit brings home to the human mind the importance of cleansing.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. When we speak of "cleansing" we aren't talking about ordinary household cleaning of dirt and grim, but rather of cleaning away sin.
Cleansing with blood --
In our bodies the blood picks up toxins and transfers them to the organs like liver and kidneys that then remove them from us and cleanse us of toxins.

But James asks, "how can it be said that at a certain time the sanctuary shall be cleansed? Has not the blood of Christ continually been cleansing the living sanctuary, the church?"

That the living temple representing God's people must be cleansed of sin is very much a part of Christ's heavenly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Yet we see from scripture that God has a sanctuary in the heavens, and that Christ is priest there. That is obvious to anyone who reads the Scriptures.

So instead of trying to "take away from scripture" we need to realize that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (a work which immediately precedes the coming of the Lord) coincides with, and is very intimately connected to the cleansing of the people of God on this earth, preparing them to meet their coming Savior when He comes to gather His redeemed to Himself.





Of course I believe Jesus. At Christ's death, Satan's claims to this world were removed, Satan could no say -- "these people are mine", Jesus could tell him -- "no I bought them back with my own blood.
When Jesus was lifted up on the cross every heart that yearned for something better felt a drawing power. Fallen humanity could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So yes, we need to exalt the sacrifice of Christ?

The sacrifice made Christ's Priestly work possible.


Yet that is not the end of the story. Just because satan received a judgment at the cross, disinheriting him from his usurped claims as master of this world. Does not in any way do away with the texts pointing us to a heavenly sanctuary, nor do it do away with judgments in the future the execution of these judgments resulting from the evidence of the investigation previous.

Are you saying Rosangela is wrong in saying Christ is interceding for us on the bases of His death and His blood for us?

Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
7:26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
7:27 Who needs not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.



If I recall she shared a number of times that the priest EITHER took blood inside the sanctuary, or ate the flesh of the sacrifice (6:17) and thus also took the sins in that way.

Lev. 10:17-18 says, "Wherefore have ye (Aaron) not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded."

What does that mean? Have you seen it anywhere else? Think carefully, please.

///

I read my Bible, but apparently you don't read the discussion. This was my reply to Luis in the first page of this thread:

Which means that, for all sins, ultimately the priest took the blood inside the sanctuary.

Who told you so; or are you just reasoning that way?

Lev. 10:17-18 says, "Wherefore have ye (Aaron) not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded."

Have you seen that anywhere in the New Testament? And again I ask, "Who are you?"

1. anointed priest,
2. the whole congregation,
3. a ruler, OR
4. a common member of the congregation?

And based on your answer, where was the blood of your sacrifice taken: inside of, or kept outside, the sanctuary? There is a reason why the blood for one was taken in; and the other was not. Look carefully at the categorization, and you will see why:

1. Sprinkled IN the sanctuary: anointed priest & whole congregation
2. Kept OUTSIDE the sanctuary: ruler & commoner

///

I have some questions for you, too:
1) Have you noticed that after the victim of the sin-offering was slain, the priests were instructed to eat its meat in order to bear the iniquity of the sinner? What does that mean, in your opinion?

2) In which way do you think that the priest’s eating of the meat of the sacrifice could make atonement?


The symbolism was different; please notice that in one case the victim was the sin-bearer; in the other, the priest was the sin-bearer. Now I ask to you, Do you understand the symbolism? What does it mean?

John 6

53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

///