Also from Tuesday's study is the following EGW quote:

“The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption.” Counsels on Health – 222.2

That is a difficult pill to swallow.

1. John, speaking of Jesus Christ, said, "ALL THINGS were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." John 1:2
    
2. Paul goes even further in his song, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him ALL THINGS were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. ALL THINGS were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Col. 1:15-17
    
3. And again, speaking about Jesus Christ, "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile ALL THINGS to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." Col. 1:19-20

The Trinity is one of those doctrines that the human mind devised out of adoration for all things Divine, or related to the Divine. The Assumption of Mary is another example. Akin to both is the veneration of "the saints". So do people imagine a place for "THE Holy Spirit" on the left-hand of God; even though the Bible explicitly says that:


What does it mean: "ALL THINGS" repeated so emphatically everywhere above? Therefore, there are ONLY TWO from Eternity and all else are derived.

///

From Tuesday's Study, probably once again:

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/18b/less04.html#tue

The Holy Spirit has been misunderstood, almost as much as the Father.

Some theologians have thought of the Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. In other words, the Spirit is merely affection between the Father and the Son.

This means that He is diminished to a relationship between two members of the Godhead and is not a member Himself.

But Scripture proves His [Holy Spirit's] personhood.

Christians are baptized in His [Holy Spirit's] name along with the Father and Son (Matt. 28:19).

The Spirit glorifies Christ (John 16:14).

The Spirit convicts people (John 16:8).

He [Holy Spirit] can be grieved (Eph. 4:30).

He [Holy Spirit] is a Comforter (John 14:16), Helper (NKJV), Counselor (RSV).

He [Holy Spirit] teaches (Luke 12:12), intercedes (Rom. 8:26), and sanctifies (1 Pet. 1:2).

Christ said the Spirit guides people into all truth (John 16:13).

In short, the Holy Spirit is God, as are the Father and the Son. Together, they are One God.

• Mat. 28:19 is a strange thing for Jesus to have said. Previously He said, "ALL AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." If He had indeed come into possession of ALL AUTHORITY, shouldn't He have continued saying, "... baptizing them in MY name"? Think about it. If I were to tell you that I was now the CEO, shouldn't I continue by instructing you to tell everyone that they would henceforth be accountable to me?
   
• Furthermore, Jesus ended by saying, "and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." He did NOT say, "lo, We (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) are with you ...." but "I", i.e. He.
   
• Secondly (contrary to the SS author's assertion), everyone baptized, as recorded in the Bible, were baptized properly in HIS (i.e. Jesus') name, as it should be given that ALL AUTHORITY now resided in Him.
  
  
  Originally Posted By: Acts 2:38-39

  Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
  
   
• But why the strange Trinitarian baptismal "formula" as many follow? We know the Father. We know the Son. And we know the Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus Himself spoke. But notice it does NOT say, "in the names of" (as of three different persons), but "in the name of" (as of one).
   
• That is because the emphasis and point was NOT on a Trinitarian concept to be established as doctrine; but on a baptism, i.e. the occasion of being born again, into a family. And the NAME OF THAT FAMILY means something. It is associated with a completely different line of royalty apart from any on earth: the NAME OF THE FAMILY in heaven.
   
• The words of Jesus in Mat. 28:19 therefore were not meant to be taken as a formula for baptizing anyone, but to convey the idea that God's intention was that the world should be reconciled to Him, that His will in heaven was to be extended on earth, and that the name of heaven be used to cover the saints on earth as well.

I will reply to the other scriptures you quoted later. It is almost 1:30 AM.

///

In answer to some of what you posted, I am copying the following from Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary:

“III. Among the Jews, the controversy was about the true Messias; among the Gentiles, about the true God. It was therefore proper among the Jews to baptize in the name of Jesus, that he might be vindicated to be the true Messias. Among the Gentiles, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that they might be hereby instructed in the doctrine of the true God. - Let this be particularly noted.

IV. The Jews baptized proselytes into the name of the Father, that is, into the profession of God, whom they called by the name of Father. The apostles baptize the Jews into the name of Jesus the Son, and the Gentiles, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Was Adam Clarke inspired?

Sanctuary

Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

So according to Hebrews, it appears that Jesus entered the most holy place at His death, not in 1844?

Exactly.
I'm not sure where you stand on SDA/EGW theology, but a straight-forward reading of the Bible and Hebrews will immediately put an end to this "wind of doctrine" called the Investigative Judgement.

I was reading chapter 9 just a couple of days ago and I'm still studying it. I don't have time for a full response just yet or all the answers, but here's some important points to consider.


Verse 9:3 is the only one in Hebrews that actually specifies the Most Holy Place in the language used. Anywhere else in the entire book that a holy place is mentioned requires the context.

Verse 8 says "the holiest of all" in the KJV, but that's not the original wording and the actual word used is the exact same one that in 8:2 is simply read as "sanctuary" in most versions. The Greek word in 8:2 and 9:8 is actually plural, holy places, and so definitely refers to the entire sanctuary.

The focus here is to compare the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries and point the readers to the idea of Jesus as high priest working in the heavenly. The author isn't necessarily specifying which room Jesus is in or detailing the activities within the heavenly sanctuary.



Verse 25: Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Here, the term "holy place" is translated in some versions as "Most Holy Place", but a literal translation doesn't support this as it's not the term used in the Greek.

Because the Greek word could also mean sanctuary, which is what some other versions translate it as here, and because the work of the high priest on the day of atonement included work in both apartments of the sanctuary, it may be best to understand this verse as including all of the sanctuary and not specifically the Most Holy Place.



In Revelation 4 and 5 there is a scene in heaven with seven lamps. In the tabernacle that Moses made there were seven lamps in the Holy Place. Revelation 4 and 5 also show the throne of God with the Father sitting on it in the same room. In the earthly sanctuary the glory of God was also manifested in both the Holy and Most Holy places.

Jesus sitting on the right hand of God does not necessarily require Jesus to be in the Most Holy Place. Jesus was also evidently carrying on some work within the first Holy Place.


This lesson is where I'm getting some of this information from.

The word "TA HAGIA" (and it's variations) occurs ten times in the book of Hebrews. Translators have translated this term to suit their own agendas and understanding with seemingly little regard to the original.

Yet it is very interesting to note that the word used is with but one exception plural -- that is "holy places". Throughout Hebrews the wording tells us that Christ is ministering in the HOLY PLACES, or holies.

Let's just look to see how the original really reads:

HEBREWS 9:8 "The Holy Spirit is thus showing the way of the holies was not manifested while the first tabernacle was standing, which was a parable for the time present, with its gifts and sacrifices which were being offered, but which could not perfect the conscience...."

Heb. 10:19 the original reads
"Having therefore, brothers, confidence for the entering of the holies by the blood of Jesus which he dedicated for us,"

The only place the adjective is applied to specify the MOST HOLY PLACE is in Hebrews 9:3.

Here a specific adjective is added to which defines the place where the ark is seen, as the

HOLIEST OF ALL. Interestingly— notice also that in this one text that specifically identifies the MOST HOLY PLACE it also speaks of the SECOND veil.

Why would the author specifically indicate in this one place THE HOLIEST OF ALL which is beyond the SECOND veil, while in every other instance using a plural "holy places" to specify where Christ was ministering?

Note again that the original Greek here says "HOLY PLACES" plural, except in the one instance in Hebrews 9:3 where it speaks of the Holiest of all --

Hebrews 9 begins by talking about the earthly sanctuary which had two parts.
(vs 9:2) describes the holy place. (Here the word is holy-singular)
(vs 9: 3, 4) describes the most holy place. (Holiest of all)
( then the author says he wouldn't go into detail on the these things)

He then refers to the earthly priest's daily and yearly ministry.

The author makes the statement that while the earthly sanctuary was in operation the way into heavenly was not yet opened--
It was begun when Christ entered into the Holy Places (plural) with His own precious, saving blood.

Hebrews is speaking of Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary as a whole -- It is only through reinterpreting and re translating that those who down the 2 phase ministry can support their theory.

In Hebrews nine it identifies the two apartments, it identifies the work of the priests in both the daily and the yearly. It then says Christ is ministering in the heavenly Holy Places (plural)