Does sitting mean just that, sitting, or does it represent something else?

For example, when Congress is sitting, or in session, what are they doing, nothing?

In the same sense, when Christ is sitting as our High Priest, what is He doing, nothing? I think not!

What I said in the previous post was in relation to the following Bible reference:

When the House of Commons, or Parliament, sits as it is presently doing here in Canada, what are they doing? Nothing but sitting? Of couse, the answer is no.

In like manner, when Christ sat down, did He just sit down to do nothing? Does it mean that Christ has been sitting down ever since? Obviously not, as it is in reference to His responsibility as our High Priest in His work as our High Priest.

There is also another text in Hebrews that speaks about sitting.

Again, what does "He sat down" mean in this reference as well as in Hebrews 8:1 previously quoted in my previous post?

Does His sitting down mean that after His blood was shed for the sins of the world, that He, as our High Priest, simply sat down, as He had nothing further to do, or does it mean something else?

Daryl,

The main emphasis throughout the NT on the sitting was simply the recognition of Christ taking on rulership at the Father's right hand. Each text must be taken in its own context however, and here the author uses it to say a bit more.

The additional element here is the contrast with the earthly priest.


Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,



The author makes two primary contrasts here between Jesus and the earthly levitical priesthood.

1. The earthly priest continually offered the same sacrifices.

2. These sacrifices could not take away sin.

He particularly highlights the standing. There is no need to mention it as the audience would be aware of the stance of the priest. But he uses it as an illustration of the ongoing, never ending round of ceremonies which can never actually accomplish their goal. He offeres again and again fruitlessly. He never finishes his work.

Christ on the other hand offered one sacrifice which did take away sin. And then He did what the priest could never do--He sat down, having accomplished the goal.

The point is not that Christ hasn't stood up for all these years. We are particularly told He stood for Stephen. But the point overall is to emphasize His completed sacrifice and ministration of that sacrfice, having entered into God's presence by His own blood.

The little horn is judged for his activities. What the saints have done throughout their life is not the issue of Dan. 8. The saints are DELIVERED from the little horn by God. There is no question who the saints are and who the persecuting power are in the text.



Or recognize that Revelation is apocalyptic and often hard to understand. Why would we discard multiple texts from more plain contexts because of information in a highly symbolic book that does not even read the way we say it does.

But if you are harmonizing you must harmonize what it ACTUALLY says. Who does Revelation say is raised in the FIRST resurrection?



INDEED! But when did the sacrifice and ministration of the blood for ALL of them happen?

That is what you are ducking. Jesus fulfilled the part of the type that we apply to the IJ at His ascension—the sacrifice and ministration of blood.

As a further note, why do you interpret those feasts in the spring to be fulfilled in ONE day each but the others in periods of time?





A. Ongoing ministration for help of the saints in real time is of course continuing. Christ intercedes. But the basis for that intercession, the cleansing of sin, has already happened. Therefore we are said to come before the throne of grace to find help in time of need--not the altar.

B.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.


Why add any more explanation than the Scriptures do?

Peter seems to cover thousands of years.

But then the Adventist view, though likely done to explain the delay as the “tarrying time” drew on, despite their expectations, fares no better. If the issue is review of cases then God could do it all at once. Certainly He is not limited to our methods when communicating. But let’s say He did do it the conventional way. Then it would NEVER end because there are more and more people being born all the time.

Notice this comment from EGW regarding the IJ:


I saw that the time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished and that time can last but a very little longer. What leisure time we have should be spent in searching the Bible, which is to judge us in the last day. {EW 58.1}


According to the preface of Experience and Views this was published in 1851.

Now if the time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was NEARLY finished in 1851, after it had been going on for only seven years….what went wrong? What has He been doing for the years since?

Tall73,

How did your meeting with the Conference (or whoever it was) go? The one involving the IJ.

I wanted to elaborate a bit more on my view on Hebrews since it is the critical issue, and ties into the sin transfer one.

I believe that Jesus

A. Entered the equivalent of the Most Holy Place at ascension and sat down.

B. Jesus fulfilled the portion of the day of atonement service relating to the cleansing by application of blood.

A. On Jesus entering the Most Holy Place, first I should make it clear that I am not sure there is a two compartment sanctuary in heaven. Hebrews says Christ entered “heaven itself which suggests that the two apartments were symbols of something greater and that all of heaven is the true. But whether there are two compartments or not I see Christ entering into the equivalent of the MHP. Here are the evidences I see:

1. He inaugurated and all admit that inauguration involved all of the temple and the temple furniture, requiring Moses to go into the MHP.

2. Jesus is said to have gone into God’s presence, sitting down at His right hand.

In the earthly type despite the flexibility of the term "before the Lord", God made it clear where His presence was most completely manifested.


Exo 25:21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

Lev 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.

Num 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.


3. There is the question of why the author would even raise the high point of the Hebrews cultic year if he did not intend to show that Christ was better. That was the whole point of the book to show how Jesus went beyond Moses, beyond angels, His covenant was better, His blood was better, His priesthood was better, etc. By focusing special attention in his introduction of the earthly sanctuary on the Day of Atonement he sets up the later section where he details the fulfillment.

4. There is Day of Atonement imagery used.

Even Richard Davidson, who is probably the strongest inauguration proponent, is constrained to see at least one direct reference to the day of atonement:

I agree with Young that Hebrews 9:7 and 9:25 refer to Day of Atonement, because of the clear references to “once a year” and “every year” respectively.
Inauguration or Day of Atonement? Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 2002, pg. 79


5. The phrase “within the veil” which has been seen by some to be a reference to the Day of Atonement or the inauguration, but is admitted by most to be used consistently in the LXX in reference to entering the second veil, is another evidence, but since both Day of Atonement language and Inauguration language are used already it doesn’t add much to the argument. Therefore I won’t belabor the point other than to say that most Adventist scholars now admit this is a reference to entrance into the Most Holy, though some postulate just to inaugurate and then leave.


B. Jesus fulfilled the portion of the day of atonement service relating to the cleansing by application of blood.

As alluded to above the author makes reference to the Day of Atonement early in chapter 9.


Heb 9:6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties,
Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

Later in chapter 9 after speaking of the red heifer, the inauguration etc. he leads into the one section that all seem constrained to admit uses day of atonement imagery or language. Adventists have tried to resolve this in two main ways. Richard Davidson represents the modern inauguration view, and resolves the issue by saying that the language has an uncertain time element in regards to the necessity of cleansing of heavenly things, and ties into the later part, regarding Christ coming again not to bear sin, to point to it being future.

William Johnsson takes another approach, though not exclusive, as both incorporate it, saying that the emphasis is on the death of Christ, not the Day of Atonement ritual. It was the once for all sacrifice that mattered.

But the issue is that Christ is seen not just DYING in Hebrews but presenting the blood, in fulfillment of the type. The once for all sacrifice included the blood ministration in God’s presence, and is put in Day of Atonement language.

So there are two main issues to deal with.

a. Timing of cleansing—future or past.

b. Did Jesus offer the blood in God’s presence, or was the emphasis merely on His death?

They are so related that I will attempt to answer them at the same time. In doing so I will look at the texts that relate to Jesus’ offering in Hebrews 9 and 10 with the question in mind of what is the timing and whether the offering included the ministration of blood. Please note that I do not think Christ ONLY fulfilled the Day of Atonement imagery. Nor am I certain that He completed all of it at that time. The New Testament does not ever spell out the fulfillment of the azazel, and so we are left to inference from the type. But the author makes it clear that He DID complete the once for all sacrifice—EVERY sacrifice in the OT type. That would include the Day of Atonement sacrifice. My main point in this is that He did not just die but MINISTERED The blood once for all, and then sat down, having obtained cleansing for sin. In other words He in one death and ministration fulfilled the sacrificial portion of all feasts, the daily. the red heifer, the inauguration—everything.


Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Hebrews 9:12 He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.


Now where was He entering? I noted above a number of indications that He entered not only the sanctuary, which is clearly indicated, but that He entered into the equivalent of the Most Holy Place. Here the phrase is directly related to the earlier description of such entry.

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

Jesus entered by means of the blood. Blood was required to go into the Most Holy Place, into God's presence under the old covenant. Here Jesus is contrasted with the earthly high priest, not taking in limited animal sacrifice but entering by means of his own blood. This then involves not only the sacrifice but the blood of the sacrifice presented before God. It is using day of atonement language. And this entering by means of blood is in the past tense, indicated by εἰσῆλθεν in the aorist.



Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


This appearance includes ENTERING and "not offering himself repeatedly as the high priest ENTERS the sanctuary EVERY YEAR."

Now the offering of the high priest every year INCLUDED the entering with blood. So did Jesus' offering. Jesus’ offering, including the entering with blood, was not done "repeatedly". It was done once for all. Also it says that Jesus appeared in God’s presence. This is treated above more thoroughly.

Now, what is the timing of this entry? Verse 23 is in fact ambiguous as some of our scholars have pointed out.

Heb 9:23 ᾿Ανάγκη οὖν τὰ μὲν υποδείγματα των εν τοις ουρανοις τούτοις καθαρίζεσθαι, αυτὰ δὲ τὰ επουράνια κρείττοσιν θυσίαις παρὰ ταύτας.



καθαριζω (To cleanse) is in the infinitive. The main verb is an assumed “be” verb. The point of the argument doesn’t really require timing. It is arguing that the type requires fulfillment—things must be cleansed with blood. In the OT type the earthly was cleansed with blood. Therefore the heavenly things must be cleansed.

However, the next verse does not indicate a future action. Nor can we jump over verse 24 –27 to look at the future events referenced in verse 28 without dealing with the tenses of those verses and their relation to his previous argument.


Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Verse 24 continues the argument of the preceding section. This is picked up in the English “for”. He is now showing HOW the cleansing occurred, arguing that everything is cleansed with blood, and so was the heavenly. The English for is the translation of γαρ.

Jesus went into the true tabernacle, heaven itself, and appeared in God’s presence. This is parallel to the entrance of the high priest into God’s presence once per year. The ENTERED in this case is again past tense, εἰσῆλθεν. This then orients the timing of the entering with blood and associated activities.

Verses 25-26 make this even more clear through day of atonement references:


Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


1. Entered (earlier said to be once for all and with blood)
2. in the presence of God, parallel to the Day of Atonement
3. High Priest, who had a distinctive role on the Day of Atonement
4. Every year, reference to the yearly role
5. blood not his own, the high priest had to do this, but Jesus did not. It refers back direcly to verse 7 again: Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.
6. Put away sin.

Here Jesus is directly compared to the yearly offering. He offered HIMSELF as the earthly high priest enters the holy places every year with other blood. He entered in by means of His own blood. Jesus did not just die as the sacrifice but ministered the blood. He ministered it in our behalf. That part of the type is fulfilled.


Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.


Here we have reference to the daily priestly activity. But again, Jesus one time offering fulfills it too. The contrast is with the priest who OFFERS the same sacrifices. Christ also offered the sacrifice FOR ALL TIME. Again what did the OFFERING of the sacrifice entail? Both death and presentation were included in the offerings. Adventists have long understood this. We accept that Jesus fulfilled the other sacrifices AND appear to accept that He ministered the blood for them. But they were all one offering. He died and presented that blood for all time.

Here again I will note the sitting down. It was in contrast with the earthly high priests' standing, offering continually. It has in view their daily activities, again and again, never actually taking away sin. They never finished.

But Christ made one sacrifice and sat down—in contrast with the priests' endless duties and standing. He sat at the right hand of God, indicating that He is reigning with him. But the author also contrasts it with the standing of the priest. Christ presented His one sacrifice and now we can approach Him boldly at the throne of grace to find help in time of need (throne of grace could also be an indirect parallel to the mercy seat). He sat down, indicating a cessation of the need to continually STAND to offer sacrifices. Obviously this does not mean that He never stands nor is it truly a physical relationship in that sense. The point is the contrast of an incomplete and finished work.

Now what was the timing here? I suppose this is less disputed since the text is dealing with the daily. But it is in the past, εκαθισεν.
Now let us look at another aspect of these verses. What are the RESULTS of the offering?


Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.


The results were “eternal redemption”, “put away sin”, “take away sin” (argued by way of contrast), “sacrifice for sin”, “perfected for all time.”

Now, do those type of results which can be summed up in forgiveness or atonement happen just by the death of the victim or also by the presentation?

The rites for the sin offering note that the blood was used to make atonement. The sin offering is important because it is particularly said to deal with forgiveness and atonement, as did Jesus’ sacrifice.

Lev 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire.


The ministration of the blood was part of the process.

Again notice in chapter 4 of Leviticus:

Lev 4:27 "If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt,
Lev 4:28 or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.
Lev 4:29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering.
Lev 4:30 And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar.
Lev 4:31 And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

The presentation is included in the process bringing about forgiveness.

Now let’s look at another results indicator:

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification (καθαρισμὸν) for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.


Jesus not only died but “made purification” or cleansing, a cognate of καθαριζω, seen earlier in verse 23 in reference to the necessity of cleansing the heavenly things. Jesus brought that cleansing. This was accomplished not just at the sacrifice but at the presentation. The reference to cleansing again suggests the fulfillment of the offering of blood on the Day of Atonement.

Recently I went to Andrews to meet with Dr. Davidson and other scholars. When I arrived he directed me to more recent research than the other articles he had me read before and the DARCOM material, etc.Some were even unpublished as of now. They were directed toward the individual areas that I had questions on (Hebrews 9 and 10, Daniel 8, Day year, the Levitical type,etc.)

I have had some exchanges with Dr. Davidson and two other scholars so far by email after having talked in person.

The newer dissertations that Davidson pointed me to, and works by scholars in recent years, proved to be far better in some respects than earlier material.

I have learned a number of things that I had misconception on in details, or learned of some evidence I had not seen before. But the overall issues are still the same,and I have not been able to resolve them.

I am hoping to hear from Dr. Davidson soon on the Hebrews material as I emailed him some of my concerns that we had talked over before, but in more detail.

Tall73, you seem to be saying Jesus completed His work of atonement on the cross, that a future investigative phase of judgment (beginning in 1844) was and is unnecessary.

What difference does it make? How does it change your life?

I want to pursue further on what Christ's sitting down really means, therefore, I created a new topic devoted to this from some of the posts that were once in the other topic.

More on this later when I have more time.

These are the passages which use the expression "right hand":

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."
Matthew 22:44 ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"‘?
Mark 12:36 "For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."‘
Mark 14:62 Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Mark 16:19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.
Luke 20:42 "Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
Luke 22:69 "Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God."
Acts 2:33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
Acts 2:34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
Acts 5:31 "Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
Acts 7:56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"
Romans 8:34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Ephesians 1:20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
Colossians 3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"?
Hebrews 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
1 Peter 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

The question is, Should the verb be taken literally, or does it indicate Christ's position of honor as God's co-regent? 1 Peter 3:22, Romans 8:34, Acts 2:33, 5:31 don't say He is "sitting," and Stephen sees Jesus "standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55, 56).

Rosangela for all those Bible texts.

I was going to do something like that myself.

Seeing that there are numerous references of Christ being seated, what does this sitting of Christ mean?

Do any of these texts, and maybe others not quoted by Rosangela, convey the idea that Christ literally sat down indicating that His work was finished, that He didn't have any further work to accomplish in His obvious role as our High Priest?

Tall seems to think that Hebrews 10:11-12 together means that, as the Jewish priests had to stand daily and do their task, once Christ had done His task, He was able to sit down, as He only had to do His task once, whereas the Jewish priests had to attend to this daily, and, therefore, couldn't sit down, as Christ could and did.

This is what Adam Clarke said about this in his Bible Commentary:

I agree that Christ only needed to offer Himself once, unlike the continual offering of the animal sacrifices by the Jewish priests, however, does sitting down here mean that Christ had nothing else to do as our High Priest?

As we can't determine anything by only one Bible text, which I am still questioning in light of the others that Rosangela listed, what are all these other Bible texts saying that Rosangela listed?

Are they all saying the same thing, or different things, or a different thing from what Tall seems to think Hebrews 10:11-12 is saying?

As Tall posted this in reference to Christ sitting down in Hebrews 10:11-13, particularly in reference to verse 12, in a publically viewable forum outside of MSDAOL, I am also quoting, what he said there, here:

The "continual burnt offering" (morning and evening sacrifices) symbolizes the eternal efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice, which is also, by nature, eternal. That is, since Jesus is eternal so is His sacrifice. It is not subject to our time and space continuum. The efficacy of His sacrifice is eternal. It (the efficacy) has no beginning or end.

The "continual burnt offering" is not, as some seem to believe, in contrast to Jesus' one time sacrifice. The whole of the sanctuary symbolizes Jesus' ministry. The continual aspect of the eternal efficacy of His sacrifice is hereby represented.

Regarding "sitting at the right hand" it is clear God is not bound by time and space. He is omnipresent, therefore, how can He sit in one place? Obviously, therefore, this expression is symbolic. It cannot mean Jesus has been sitting in one place since His ascension.

Surely this expression implies, as a minimum, Jesus wields the authoritative power of God in matters pertaining to salvation, judgment, and damnation. God's "right hand man", as it were.

Luke
22:69 Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.

John
5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Romans 8:34 seems to teach that Jesus is not doing nothing while at God's right hand. Whether He is sitting or standing is irrelevant. In any case, He is interceding for us.

Yes, the sacrifice is done. But there's work left to do.

Yes, there is still work for Christ to do as our High Priest.


When Christ said "It is finished" He was referring to His work on this Earth was completed, that all the prophecies regarding Himself in relation to the work involved in His first coming were fulfilled, that the only thing remaining was for Him to die for all of us, which was the very next thing that happened right after He uttered those words.

From the resurrection of Christ and onward, a new phase of His work was begun, that work being the work involved with Him being our High Priest.

As I said previously, Christ didn't sit down in the sense that His work was finished and He no longer had anything else to do but wait until it was time for Him to return to this Earth to resurrect and translate His people. Christ is actively working on our behalf this very day. Christ is preparing a home for us, as He stated in John 14:1-3.

Christ's sitting down is obviously in reference to His function as our Saviour, Lord, King, and High Priest.

I just saw this split off.

I agree with your statement. The sacrifice is done. But mediation continues. We are to come boldly before the throne of grace to find help in time of need.

The reason the issue was important though is that it indicates the fished sacrifice.

The bigger issue to the overall theme, being discussed in the other thread, is that the type of cleansing was initiated before the author of Hebrew's time, with the High Priest entering by means of blood, specifically said to eclipse the entering of the earthly high priest, yearly, with blood not his own.

By the way Daryl, did you copy these to this thread or did you split them?

I haven't done anything here recently myself.

I think I understand what you mean by your question now.

Some of the posts you see here weren't copied, but rather split off from the other thread, however, as I already stated, nothing was done recently here.

The reason I asked is that it now appears to the reader of the other thread that I did not address her arguments on that point, when in fact I did.

I heard a Roman Catholic say something very simmilar when describeing the sacraficial aspect of Mass. He said that Mass did not sacrafice Christ anew each time but simply tapped into the eternal sacrafice, happening as you say Mike, beyond time. Seems there is yet another area where we thought the wadi was deep and wide between SDA and RC and with investigation its a mere weak brook.

(then again, maybe there is no such thing as outside of time, but thats an entire different question...)

Hello Thomas,


Was this Roman Catholic expressing a layman's opinion, or the official creed of Roman Catholicism?



Not sure who you mean by we, or to which investigation you refer. Please clarify - perhaps you are only stating your personal opinion?

Do you favour of the return of all protestants to the Mother Church of Rome?

Hello Gordon.
I do not know for sure, but the answer could be that Roman Catholics are as divided as are SDA on most any question.
Maybe my post should be read in context of other posts? Maybe it also relates to other posting trends at the forum? And what is this Mother Church of Rome you speak about? There is a Mother Church there?

Depending on the timing of those posts, that very well could have happened, therefore, if this is the more appropriate thread to discuss it, you could direct that person to this thread, but if not, then you could repost your response into the appropriate thread.