@@Cummings-ms5ez I love the book of Hebrews because it is one of the books of the Bible which YuShudNoe loves, I'm sure. We don't understand everything. Who was the intended audience? Let’s start with the most obvious clue, the title: “To the Hebrews.” It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the letter was written to Jews, to a Jewish congregation. Here are some key points to consider: 1 The audience of the book of Hebrews is believed to be Jewish Christians. 2 These Jewish Christians were likely facing persecution and struggling with their faith. 3 The author of Hebrews addresses the audience with a deep theological understanding of the Old Testament. 4 The book emphasizes the superiority of Christ and the new covenant over the old covenant. 5 The audience is encouraged to persevere in their faith and not turn back to Judaism. 6 Overall, the book of Hebrews is written to strengthen and encourage the Jewish Christian community in their faith journey. There is much to love about the book of Hebrews.
@@Cummings-ms5ez Understanding the book of Hebrews in its correct context and bending its context to fit into a denominational teaching are two different things.
Your content continues to be eye opening. You exposed me to things about EG White and other founders that permeate the church’s teachings in ways they don’t like to admit. I’m now shaking the bonds loose and have started regularly attending another church. I will always have a fondness for the Sabbath but I no longer agree with the church’s teachings considering it. Keep it up!
Wow!! Myles thanks a lot for these wonderful contents. I came across your channel roughly two weeks ago, since then I can tell I have learnt just alot. Thanks once again brother
The key to our understanding the gospel is knowing how Yahwah measures time as opposed to how Satan measures time Gen1:14-16/Dan7:25... The calendar you keep defines the God you worship
On Reason One: The claim is that Jesus had to be High Priest when “He offered Himself” in Hebrews. This claim is invalid because it conflates the types of Passover and the Day of Atonement, what they represented, and when they occurred. Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was the literal and historical fulfillment of Passover. Since Jesus died once, the Cross cannot also be the literal and historical fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. No one should disagree with this. Jesus did not offer Himself on the 10th day of the seventh Jewish month, the Day of Atonement, hence no need for this High Priest restriction. He offered Himself on the 14th day of the first Jewish month, the Passover. Paul says that “Christ, our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). Do Adventists believe and teach that the LORD’s goat on the Day of Atonement typifies the sacrifice of Christ? Yes, but that does not mean we believe that the sacrifice occurred on that actual day in history. The historical dates in these types are to be taken literally; they are not points that can be relegated to minutiae or brushed aside as insignificant, trivial details. On the Day of Atonement, the LORD’s goat does feature what happened or what would happen at Calvary. However, it does not replace the Passover as the direct type of the sacrifice of Christ. The fact that Jesus offered Himself does not alone prove that Jesus must have been High Priest at that time on Earth. His offering of Himself is indicative of the Passover, that had no such stipulation regarding who could perform the rite. Throughout Israel’s history, heads of homes, elders, as well as priests have sacrificed on Passover. The function was not limited to the High Priest.Your primary source on the SDA position does not claim that Jesus was inaugurated as priest in heaven, but High Priest. This is consistent with the anointing of Aaron, a type of Christ in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8. His clothes and breastplate are representative of His position as High Priest from the onset of his ministry. Aaron was not a priest that was later exalted to High Priest; as Israel’s first High Priest He was such from the start. In like manner, Christ needed not be a common priest first and then later be promoted to High Priest. Jesus, like Aaron, was anointed High Priest from the onset of His ministry, entitling Him to function in both apartments/phases in the Heavenly Sanctuary just as Aaron could in the Earthly one.
@@carltonmouzon9547 zero engagement with scripture. Scripture disagrees with you, Carlton. You didn’t refute the exegesis presented. You just presented other scripture creating contradictions. But at least you try and engage unlike a lot of SDAs. So I’ll give you that. Your comments are actually intellectually stimulating. So good on you for that. Your premise is flawed. You guys agree the day of atonement sacrifice took place at Calvary. The day of atonement sacrifice had to be offered up by the high priest. Furthermore, no, I already knew some of you would argue Jesus was only a priest on earth and inaugurated as a high priest at his ascension. You need to read Hebrews 2 and 4 again slowly. Jesus as the high priest offered up the day of atonement sacrifice which was himself and this happened when propitiation was made. Propitiation requires blood shed. This happened at Calvary which was the equivalent of the HIGH priest sprinkling the mercy seat. That’s what propitiation refers to. There is no way around this for your position. It isn’t just “Jesus was a high priest because he offered himself.” That wasn’t my argument. He has to be a high priest at Calvary BECAUSE scripture says he was a HIGH priest when he offered up himself. Scripture says the HIGH priest sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat during the day of atonement work. That’s what propitiation refers to. Scripture says this happened at Calvary. You didn’t prove that the exegesis presented is flawed. You just ignored it and tried jumping to other places in scripture.
@@answeringadventismwhat did the woman do when she poured oil on Jesus? She annointed him to be the sacfifice. I'm way too tired right now to get deeper into it.
Thank you Myles for this series it's a great idea. I am looking forward to relistening and fully absorbing the material. Blessings to you dear brother!! 🙏🙏🙏🕊️❤️
Have these "steps" been around a long time? I do not remember the concept of "steps" at all. Maybe it has just been long enough that I reassigned that cranial space to a different renter ~~~
Last time I knew Goldstein is not out of there! Too much money. I watched him make that original statement when it first came out.. and I was thinking the same thing that you are! Proof number one. Psalms 110:4.
I find that Myles is not really as conversant with "Adventism" as he thinks he is. The following is what I would call a "core" or "foundational" statement made by Myles, which is patently false, showing that one should seriously question what he says about the saving gospel of Jesus Christ FALSE statement by Myles [as just a mere sampling]: "So that when they [Adventists] say that Jesus was a “substitute”, they [Adventists] ONLY mean that He paid the penalty for sin which is death. It does NOT include that Jesus’ perfectly sinless life and record is credited to you the believer such that God the Father sees you the same way He does Jesus.” What do Adventists holding to the original faith REALLY believe? And we read: "“Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have NO righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God. But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. HE LIVED A SINLESS LIFE. HE DIED FOR US, AND now He OFFERS TO TAKE OUR SINS and GIVE US His righteousness. IF you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, FOR HIS SAKE you are ACCOUNTED righteous. Christ’s character stands IN PLACE OF your character, and you are ACCEPTED before God JUST AS IF YOU HAD NOT SINNED.” {SC 62.2}
@@garytraversy5231 Gary, I’ve done entire sessions on this subject discussing what is meant by that quote and what the “giving of righteousness” means in that context. That quote is referring to impartation of righteousness in gradual spurts on which the SDA system tries to affirm imputation and impartation. Notice I reiterated what Norman Gulley said and you claim I don’t understand what is believed. You then cite a quote to try and prove this yet the quote-when one understands how things are being defined-does not negate what I said or what I read from Norman Gulley. It sounds like you don’t actually understand the system as well as you think you might. Because that statement you cited still supports what Gulley says regarding “being fitted for heaven” and how that happens is allegedly through the gradual impartation of Christs righteousness. That quote only further affirms what Gulley said which I simply reiterated. So you didn’t prove your claim or what I presented here was false.
@@answeringadventism You see Myles...I do NOT care what "Adventist" theologians may say or not say [especially the Jesuit-infiltrated BRI] or how "Norman Gulley" may define "the SDA system" [whatever that is]. Unless they speak according to the law and the testimony, people like Norman Gulley do NOT speak for me...indeed most of these "theologians" don't even know how to defend the faith once delivered unto the saints. I find that in any given debate between an SDA scholar/Pastor/theologian who holds to error and who attempts to refute another of a different "faith" like you, a "former" adventist, who also holds to error edifies no one in truth. What a grievous state of affairs. Indeed...Some "core" beliefs of the current edition of the SDA denomination are not in harmony with Scripture and the original Adventist faith...like the "triune god" heresy/teaching. But all that aside... YOU sir are NOT being 'honest' with what you plainly stated...though you may believe otherwise You SPECIFICALLY stated: "when they [Adventists] say that Jesus was a “substitute”, they [Adventists] ONLY mean that He paid the penalty for sin which is death." NOTE: You said "ONLY mean"...and the quote I shared plainly contradicts the "ONLY" in that sentiment: "HE LIVED A SINLESS LIFE. HE DIED FOR US" and "FOR HIS SAKE you are ACCOUNTED righteous" and "Christ’s character stands IN PLACE OF your character, and you are ACCEPTED before God JUST AS IF YOU HAD NOT SINNED." Now...of course contextually there IS more...for the next paragraph begins: "MORE than this, Christ changes the heart."
@@garytraversy5231 “you specifically stated “when they…” Gary, I realize following along is difficult for you, but I was very clearly DEFINING SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT ACCORDING TO THE SDA MODEL. Hopefully the all caps helps break through your density. I didn’t claim the ONLY THING SDAs claim took place at the cross was that and nothing else whatsoever exhaustively. I said by SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT this is what they mean and it isn’t identical to penal substitutionary atonement. I literally explained this. I was explaining that what’s taught is NOT penal substitution. This platform is for Christian’s. You have no clue what’s going on here and are victim of dunning Kruger unfortunately. You think you more know than you do and are accusing me of such. Yes, in the realm of SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT that’s what the organization means. Impartation of righteousness is a different subject that wasn’t in focus. But don’t let the plain facts get in the way. I know facts tend to be a recurring problem for Adventism. But I do appreciate you admitting that Adventism is the exact thing you guys accuse everyone else of-riddled with doctrinal division and confusion. Now the BRI is apostate lol Yeah, you know more about the SDA system than Norman Gulley and the authors of Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology which Gulley was a contributor to. RU-vid Gary knows more than the organizations brightest and best 😂
@@answeringadventism I know better than others regarding the SDA system? Really? I am just a simple man who must bow down to your superior intellect...for it is clear that you are very intelligent...with a very high IQ...and I cannot match that. All those big theological terms! My my! The only thing I know is what I read in the testimonies...and that the many august 'theologians' who would arrive at the conclusions you credit them for, such as what "substitutionary atonement" means, are not speaking according to the testimonies, nor the Scriptures, that they should believe in...nor do they speak for me and others who actually read those testimonies allowing same to interpret themselves. I understood perfectly that you employed the term "substitute" in your statement; but now you state "substitutionary atonement" instead. So I imagine you are equating the two terms to have the same meaning. Good...So if the statement "THEY" "only mean" refers to "substitute" and/or "substitutionary atonement" per "the SDA system" as explained by certain "theologians then "THEY" are not speaking according to the testimonies [and the Scriptures] that they say they believe in. So according to the testimonies below, that the SDA organization is supposed to be in harmony with, your declaration is still false...notwithstanding the assertions of people like Norman Gulley et al: "Only by living a sinless life while clad in the garb of humanity, could Christ, as man’s Substitute and Surety, bear the burden of the sin of a fallen world."-Manuscript 107, 1903, 5. {17MR 29.7} "Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner’s stead;…” {CIHS 144.2} "Faith can present Christ’s PERFECT OBEDIENCE instead of the sinner’s transgression and defection. [as would be explained by the TWO Adams]. When the sinner believes that Christ is his personal Saviour, then according to His unfailing promises, God pardons his sin and justifies him freely. The repentant soul realizes that his JUSTIFICATION comes because Christ, as his SUBSTITUTE and Surety, has died for him, is his atonement and righteousness. {FW 100.3} And much more could be added. You cannot separate the "atonement" from the requirement of a sinless life by the Substitute...from the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the Substitute...a Lamb without blemish. You state: "But I do appreciate you admitting that Adventism is the exact thing you guys accuse everyone else of-riddled with doctrinal division and confusion. Now the BRI is apostate lol" And indeed you do promote many notions that are "-riddled with doctrinal division and confusion." And by the way, contrary to Scripture and the testimonies, the BRI teaches that Christ is not the Son of God literally...only metaphorically.
@@nonconformist4802 Hey Non. Could you imagine: To know a man who bought a brain surgery book and memorized it completely. He could quote out of it verbatim to any surgeon. Unfortunately, he could not find in his OWN HEAD the right itching spot.
Jesus became the third temple when he returned. We are the temple of God. The first temple represented our bodies before the flood, the second temple represented our bodies after the flood. The third is the body of Christ we get at the ressurection.
Everyrhing that a Christian do believe, hangs on the resurrection of Christ. SDA build their foundation upon 1844, out of the horses own mouth. Go figure.
You miss what is going on. The plan of salvation is the full 6000 years of sin. Christ fulfilled it all in his life and ressurection. Sin still lasts for 6000 years . But the 6000 years of humanity takes place in steps.
Hebrews 4:14 “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” Was Hebrews written prior to 1844? Did the author say Jesus will become a High Priest or did he say he already was? And if you wanna make the silly argument that he was a High Priest, but not fulfilling that ministry at that point then you render the next verses utterly meaningless to anybody prior to 1844. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” How could there be access for us to the Mercy Seat when Jesus wasn’t even there yet?
@@Cummings-ms5ez no he didn’t. Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 4:14. We looked at this. The HIGH priest had to offer up the day of atonement sacrifice which you guys claim took place at Calvary. The Bible says he functioned as a high priest in the act of making propitiation which took place at the cross. You didn’t refute any of this.
Additional problem with reason one: On the second point about Hebrews 2:14-17, this theory is making this a text about WHEN Jesus became a faithful and merciful High Priest, when it is actually about HOW He became one. The point is that He is able to minister to us in every way because He has experienced our humanity in every way. It applies to temptation, suffering, and even death. If He fails to identify with us in any of these areas, He cannot be empathetic to our situation, or a merciful and faithful High Priest. If He is High Priest before He dies, it could not be that He experienced everything that we do, because we, as humans, die. And as it relates to the word in Hebrews 2:17, translated “propitiation” in some versions, in others it is translated “reconciliation” or “atonement” which biblically have broader meanings in that they can apply to the Cross as well as the High Priestly ministry of Christ. Based on the context and intent of the passage, the High Priestly aspects appear to be more in view than the Cross. In other words, the intent of the passage is not to show what experience Jesus had to go through to be able to die for us on the Cross. The obvious intent is to assure us that in His taking on humanity, His experience gives Him the empathy to fully identify with us as our High Priest. According to Hebrews 8:1-2, that ministry takes place in Heaven. Hebrews 2:17 is addressing what makes Jesus able “to make reconciliation for sins” not when it happened, and that reconciling, based on the context of the book in general and chapter 2 in particular, is a part of His heavenly ministry. The text is about how Jesus qualifies to fulfill His current office as our High Priest based on His prior experience, not what qualified Him to die on the Cross, or when it happened. The verse begins with the word “wherefore” (KJV) which can also mean “how” or “by this means”, or “in this way” or “for this reason”, placing the emphasis on “how” rather than “when”.
@@carltonmouzon9547 again, Carlton you missed the point of what was said. I’m aware of what Hebrews 2 is referring to. Did you not listen to me say it refers to Jesus having to be made in human likeness to atone for human sin? I’m aware it speaks of HOW he became a high priest. This doesn’t negate the point made. It says he functioned as a HIGH priest when he made propitiation. This took place at Calvary when he was put forth scripture says. Saying “propitiation has a broad meaning” isn’t the case when the context is referring to the priesthood work wherein propitiation refers DIRECTLY to what the high priest did when sprinkling the mercy seat. The semantic range is dialed in based on the context of the usage of the word. Nothing you said refutes this.
One of the most obvious identifiers of a cult is that its adherents conflate lack of agreement with lack of understanding. The reality is that those who understand the teachings of cults like Adventism the most are the ones who oppose the cult the most fiercely. Likewise, the ones who believe the cult's teachings are those who actually understand them the least...
Seventh-day Adventism may look, smell and taste like Christianity, but it is a worm-filled apple, rotten to the core. Please understand that Seventh-day Adventism is a business, an organized religion, not Biblical Christianity. Satan is a master con-artist, a deceiver, whom the Bible warns appears as an angel of light (2nd Corinthians 11:13-15). Literally, the Devil and his sinister ministers are actors, pretending to be of God, but they are satanic. We are all in a spiritual war. SDA does its best to appear as a Christian organization, but it is a woeful deception of the Devil.
@@AighEnoughAlready none of that says blood transfers sin around. Notice you didn’t exegete the passage you just reasserted what SDAs claim as if it’s fact. No, the day of atonement ritual was not conducted because blood transfers sin around like a vehicle. The day of atonement subsumed the work that had taken place all throughout the year as a grand culmination of such which restarted the process. Nothing about sins resting in the sanctuary because it stored everyone’s sins until that once a year where they were then transferred again.
@@answeringadventismNo reasserting necessary. It’s implied, dear Myles. It’s implied. It’s what putting one’s hands on the animal symbolized. There would be no need to use the word cleanse in 19 or to write 33-34 otherwise. Besides, what proof do you have of your claim (above)? None. You just believe it. And empty assertions prove nothing.
James 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? God said Psalm 91:16 With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation. A SDA lives 10 year longer than other Americans proving that God will satisfy him with long life and shew him His salvation. JESUS SAID John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me Psalm 91:14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. Psalm 91:15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. The Lord Jesus is against the Church in Ephesus Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. EVEN THOUGH... (Rev 2:2,3) SDA better than YOU.
Christ had to repair the holy place first. That is where sin starts, the holy place, the woman, religion and knowledge. Then when this is pure, you can proceed to the modt holy place where the law is. Christ removes the veil. In 1844 the homy place was purified. The plan of salvation is 6k years and though done at the cross(which extended forgiveness and completeness forward and backwards, the syeps still had to take place in their time, which the feasts show us).
The disciples were criticised and ostracised for their beliefs, they were called a sect. Did that accusation prove that they were wrong? No. So is the case with the Adventists. These fiery darts directed against them fulfils the words of the Lord Jesus. Truth is stubborn. It can be painted with grease but it will triumph.
