Gerhard Ebersöhn
Save the Sabbath!
(Fourth delivery)
Ellen White and
Sunday-‘Terror and Confusion’
“Priest and prophet have gone off the road ... they err in
vision; they stumble in judgment ... To whom shall he teach knowledge, and whom
shall he make to understand doctrine? ... The Word of the Lord to them was law
upon law, law upon law, line upon line, here a little, there little, that they may go forward, but fall
backwards, and be snared, and broken, and taken.”
Is28:7-13.
Gerhard
Ebersöhn
Private
Bag 43
Sunninghill
2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
“All is
terror and confusion”
“All is terror and confusion. The priest is about to slay the victim;
but the knife drops from his nerveless hand, and the lamb escapes. Type has met
antitype in the death of God’s Son. The great sacrifice has been made. The way
into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. No
longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest.
Henceforth the Saviour was to officiate as priest and advocate in the heaven of
heavens. It was as if a living voice had spoken to the worshippers: There is
now an end to all sacrifices and offerings for sin. The Son of God is come
according to His word, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of
Me,) to do Thy will, O God.” “By His own blood” He entereth “in once into the
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Heb. 10:7; 9:12.”
(72/4)
For perspective, to begin
with, note two corruptions,
(1) “...“By His own blood””; “... He
entereth ... “in once” ...”. Mark the neat use of quotation marks.
(2) “...
in once into the holy place ...”. Mark the neat omission of quotation
marks. No one should accuse Mrs White
of abuse of the Scriptures! When she as much as changes “He entered in once”
into “... He entereth ... “in once” ...”, she has the
honesty to not put the word “entereth”
in quotation marks. (Who would bother,
“By his own blood He entered in
once”, or, “By his own blood He enters
in once”? What is the difference, anyway?)
Then, convinced of the
author’s purest of intentions, nobody would suspect anything sinister when
reading on, ““By His own blood” He
entereth “in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for
us.” Heb. 10:7; 9:1.” Does she not supply the Texts she is using? Now who would have guessed, this very Text
reads, “... into the holiest place
...”, and not, “... into the holy place, ...”? (What
is the difference? Who would bother, anyhow?)
Honesty lasts the longest; this time it lasted not long. That is what
one calls ‘hidden agenda’. The agenda? Everything Mrs White says in this
paragraph, she actually meant not for simultaneous with the death – or
resurrection for that matter – of Christ, but for future, and after Jesus’
death and resurrection; that’s why she wrote, “He entereth /
enters”, and not “entered”, and “into the holy place”, and not “into the holiest place”. And that is why one should carefully read, “... Type
has met antitype in the death of God’s Son ...” because “antitype” has not in the
resurrection of Christ from the dead abolished “type”— ‘as yet’;
Carefully read, “...
The great sacrifice has been made ...” because no atonement has been
made— ‘as yet’;
Carefully read, “...
The way into the holiest is laid open...” because this was the way into the holiest of the
earthly temple laid open; not
into the ‘heavenly’— ‘as yet’;
Carefully read, “...
A new and living way is prepared for all ...” because the new and living way for all has
not been opened or entered upon— ‘as
yet’;
Carefully read, “...
No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest
...” because he was the priest of the earthly temple; humanity need await the coming of the
high priest Christ, into the ‘heavenly sanctuary— ‘as yet’;
Carefully read, “...
Henceforth the Saviour was to officiate as priest and advocate in the heaven of
heavens ...” because here a bit of White-truth reveals itself, that the Saviour officiated “as priest and
advocate in the heaven of heavens”, not— ‘as yet’;
Carefully read, “...
It was as if a living voice had spoken to the worshippers: There is now an end
to all sacrifices and offerings for sin...” because that voice is Mrs
White deceiving the worshippers that “there
is now an end to all sacrifices and offerings for sin” but no officiating of Christ as Priest and Advocate in the heaven of
heavens and therefore no forgiveness of sins— ‘as yet’.
Carefully read, “...
The Son of God is come according to His word, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the
book it is written of Me,) to do Thy will, O God.” “By His own blood” He
entereth “in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for
us.” Heb. 10:7; 9:12 ...”, because one should read Mrs White here, as
follows,
“The great sacrifice has been made. The – future – way into the holiest is laid open
– not entered upon yet –. A new and
living way is prepared – not finished and perfected yet – for all. No longer – will – sinful, sorrowing humanity (need) await
the coming of the high priest. – Soon – (h)enceforth the Saviour was to officiate = would officiate
– as priest and advocate in the heaven
of heavens – as soon as He would have ascended into the heaven of
heavens –. It – now for the
time being – was as if a living voice
had spoken to the worshippers: There is now – that is, there will be – an end to all sacrifices and offerings
for sin. The Son of God – as soon as He will have entered into the
first room of the heavenly sanctuary –
is come according to His word, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is
written of Me,) to do Thy will, O God.” “By His own blood” He –
as it were, now, after
having ascended into the heavens –
entereth “in once into the holy place – or first room of the sanctuary
–
having obtained – to be exact, to obtain – eternal redemption – to make final atonement – for us.” Heb. 10:7; 9:12.”
A misrepresentation? You
don’t know anything yet!
“The time had come for Christ to ascend to His Father’s throne. As a
divine conqueror He was about to return with the trophies of victory to the
heavenly courts. Before His death he had declared to His Father, “I have
finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do.” John 17:4. After His resurrection he tarried on
earth for a season, that His disciples might become familiar with
Him in His risen and glorified body. Now He was ready for the leave-taking. He had authenticated the fact
that he was a living Saviour. His disciples need no longer associate Him with
the tomb. They could think of Him as glorified before the heavenly universe.
...
... Jesus had now
gone to share His Father’s throne. ...
... All heaven was waiting to welcome the
Saviour to the celestial courts. As he ascended, He led the way ... all are
there to welcome the Redeemer. They are eager to celebrate His triumph and to
glorify their King. But He waves them
back. Not yet; He cannot now receive the
coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence
of His Father (the first
time since his death!). ... He
presents to God the wave sheaf, those
raised with Him as representatives of that great multitude who shall come
forth from the grave at His second coming. He approaches the Father ... When upon the cross He cried
out, “It is finished,” He addressed the Father. The compact had been fully
carried out. Now He
declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have
completed the work of redemption ... Satan is vanquished. Christ’s ... are
“accepted in the Beloved.” ... they are declared justified ... From
that scene of heavenly joy, there comes back to us on earth the echo of Christ’s own wonderful words, “I ascend unto My
Father, and your Father, and to My God, and your God.” John 20:17.”
(119/1, 121/4, 122/3, 123-124)
Absolute distance exhibits between what Christ had finished and what
He was about to begin.
(1) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at
proving the Father’s absence at all in
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, from
the moment He had died, until the moment “He enters into the presence of His Father”. Not
until “After His resurrection”
and He had “tarried on earth for a
season” “was (Jesus) ready for
the
leave-taking”. Only after He “had
authenticated the fact that He was a living Saviour” had “Jesus gone to share His Father’s throne”.
During all this time, Jesus was assisted by angels, at most, and whatever He
had done in this period in between having died and having enter(ed) into the presence of His Father, He had done on
His own without the Father’s participation or presence.
(2) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at
proving the mere intermediatory and relatively passing value and merit of the Resurrection.
The Resurrection is no more than a – be it necessary – stop on Christ’s journey
into the heavens and ‘heavenly sanctuary’ where at last He will accomplish
continuous and real atonement or forgiveness of sins. “Continued pardon”, I once had an Adventist explaining to me what
they have stamped “The Investigative Judgment”.
(3) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at
proving Christ was not High Priest
of the Most High God as He made sacrifice of Himself and as He rose from the
dead, but only was made a Priest after He had ascended into the heavens. It meant – for Seventh Day Adventism –, that
only after the Resurrection and
after that Christ had ascended into the ‘first
room of the heavenly sanctuary’, that
only “Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I
have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption”.
It means, for every common Christian, Jesus had not ‘completed the work of redemption’ in or through, during or
with, by or for having risen from the
dead and grave!
We therefore have for
reason for saying Mrs White teaches a resurrection of Jesus wherein the Father was absent,
(1) This, her teaching
of a ‘heavenly work of
redemption’ instead of Jesus’ earthly
work of finished atonement for sin perfected in resurrection from the dead.
(2) Her teaching a
Resurrection visible for mortals – a
Resurrection the guard could look upon without dying as any mortal would, had he
seen the Father raising the Son.
(3) Mrs White’s
arguing of Jn20:17a, “Touch Me not; for I am not ascended yet to my Father.”
(4) Her arguing of
Lk23:43, “I say unto thee, Today shalt
thou be with Me in paradise.”
(5) Her making the angel the caller-forth form the grave
of Christ. Which resurrection could only
have been the resurrection of one who
is not God, for God who is not, or God who works not as being, and in
being, the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit, is not, nor can
be, God. Romans 1:23a.
(6) Her making “the wave sheaf” not Jesus Himself
as and when the Father raised Him from the dead, but “those raised with Him”
(123/6), whom Christ “after His resurrection” —after He
had “tarried on earth for a season”
and after He “had gone to share His
Father’s throne”— as “He approache(d) the Father”,
“present(ed) to God”.
(7) Her avoiding Scripture that might indicate
or imply the Father’s involvement in
the Resurrection. White’s omission of such Scripture is conspicuously intentional
and conspicuously meaningful— the Father’s absence must appear total. Therefore
not a single reference to or from a vast number of most powerful Scriptures.
I consequently
re-emphasise my allegation against her, that Mrs E.G. White no matter how nice
it may appear at first reading, corrupts
the Word of God where she wrote, “...
Type has met antitype in the death of God’s Son. The great sacrifice has been
made. The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared
for all. No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high
priest. Henceforth the Saviour was to officiate as priest and advocate in the
heaven of heavens. It was as if a living voice had spoken to the worshippers:
There is now an end to all sacrifices and offerings for sin. The Son of God is
come according to His word, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is
written of Me,) to do Thy will, O God.” “By His own blood” He entereth “in once
into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Heb. 10:7;
9:12.” (72/4)
Mrs Whites excels in the
art of the White lie, and the fact her statement at first reading appeared
good, confirms my allegation Mrs White wrote every word with premeditated
intention, so that she cannot be trusted the length of any of her sentences.
She confuses in order to deceive. Her sinister and obscure aim is to bereave
the believer his eternal security by destroying his assurance of a finished redemption
in and through Christ in and through resurrection from the dead.
Bringing Sabbath and Salvation together
Whether one places
atonement for sin in purgatory after
Christ’ resurrection, or in an investigative judgment after Christ’s resurrection, one places it outside Christ, outside the actuality of its effectiveness and the
effectiveness of its actuality— and thus outside the reach unto salvation of any. Salvation is in Christ only, in the Full
Fellowship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and, of man through Christ, which
Full Fellowship is found only in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
in body of glorified resurrected flesh, nowhere else, no how else, never else.
God the Seventh Day from all his
works rested, nowhere else, no how else,
and never else, through
Christ, in Christ, and because of Christ. The Sabbath was made for Man even
this Man, Jesus Christ, and in Him,
and through Him, and for or because of Him,
in, through, and because of, yea, for
His Resurrection from the dead.
There is no other Sabbath rest than this Sabbath-Rest of God because there is
no other Rest of God but this Rest of God— God’s Rest in the Son.
Bringing the Glory of God and Christ together
“By the Glory of the
Father raised ... and declared the Son of God with power according to the
Spirit of Holiness by the resurrection from the dead ... according to the
working of his mighty power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from
the dead and set (and exalted) Him at his own right hand in heavenly realms.” Ro1:4, 6:4, Eph1:19-20. From the heights of triumph, Christ’s Resurrection-shout echoes, “Glory to God in The
Highest; and on earth, Peace; and goodwill toward men”. And from
the depths, his Cry of Victory
resounds, “I
ascend before My Father and your
Father— indeed before My God, and your God.”
Jesus says not, ‘I must’,
or, ‘I will ascend’ – He says, “I do ascend”; and He says “before-‘pros’”, before his Father’s face, which is, in
his Father’s Presence. Yes, Jesus had
not yet gone up to His Father or where the Father is, which is ‘in
heaven’. Yet exactly therefore does Jesus say to Mary, “Don’t touch Me even
because I have not yet ascended to My Father”— which was saying, “There is no time to stand there; go without delay; go straight on forward to my brethren,
and tell them: Know, that I ascend before my Father’s Presence who (now that I am risen) is your Father too, and before my God’s
Presence who (now that I am risen) is your God as well.” Jesus
not in the least meant to say He had been without His Father’s presence! Jesus
wanted to tell Mary one thing, the very opposite: That every step of the way He
had been with His Father and His Father with Him, but the time has come for Him
to leave His own on earth and must go to His and their Father, where He is ‘in
heaven’. So there is no time for you to waste, Mary: Do not delay, go on, tell
my disciples so that they may be comforted and believe! But no, Mrs White wants, ‘I have to go to My
Father first before I can do anything for you or you can do anything for Me.’
Mrs White’s, “From that scene of heavenly joy
(long after Jesus’ resurrection),
there comes back to us on earth the echo of Christ’s own wonderful words, “I
ascend unto My Father, and your Father, and to My God, and your God”,
is Christian Faith backwards, and in retreat.
Mrs White dedicates the
climactic chapter of her book to the subject, “To My Father, and Your Father”. But her praises are hollow
and kaka phonic because she is denying the Father’s very own undividable and
unshareable power, prerogative, glory and honour of having raised Jesus from
the dead, from death and from the grave when there and then He, the Father and
none else or at his side, or in his stead, “exalted”
Christ to his own Right Hand of heavenly Majesty “When He raised (Him)
from the dead”. The resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead ought to have received Mrs White’s dedication of the
chapter, and she might have paid the Father due honour and glory and praises.
Unfortunately as typically and consistently Seventh Day Adventist, the
resurrection of Christ receives but insultingly little or no attention or respect.
The True Temple of God’s Holiness —the
very resurrection from the dead of the Son of God— is trampled underfoot,
and in the void from the Father’s
absence, and in the stead of God’s innermost,
most intimate and Private Presence of Almighty Power and Working, the
abomination of desolation is found standing. Angels are being worshipped in an emptied Holy Place, and in the
Sanctuary where should be the Full Fellowship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
the mere voice of a created being is heard — in its Ark of the Covenant of
God’s Faithfulness and Holiness. Whoso readeth, let him understand. (Mt24:15)
Mrs White serves her own
purpose, to create and give substance and credibility to her dogma of an
‘investigative judgment’. No sacrifice of principle is too great for reaching her
objective. Like in the times of the temple it was used for the open worship of
‘no-gods’ – false ‘gods’ – so Seventh Day Adventism shows no fear of God, but
serves and worships its own doctrines as were they God. They will rape all
Truth to vindicate themselves.
Keeping the Glory of God and Christ apart
What more central and what
more basic Truth is there to the Christian Faith than the Truth the Father
raised the Son from the dead? than the Truth God in having brought the Son into
the Most Holy and Intimate of the Full Fellowship of God the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit, raised Him from the
dead— exalted Him, far above all principality and power and might, and
dominion, and every name? What more central
or what more basic Christian
Truth is there than the
Truth God in having raised Christ from
the dead, brought the Son into the Most Holy and Intimate of the Sanctuary
of God’s innermost Being and Presence, of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? No
temple can contain God but the
What more central or what
more basic Christian Truth is there than the Truth God in having raised Christ from the dead, from all his works, rested? Christian Faith is nothing, and the
Christian Sabbath Day, is nothing— yea, is an abomination –, were it not God in having raised Christ from the
dead, from all his works on the Seventh Day, rested! But because Mrs White for her own agenda refuses
the Father His Presence on His holy Sabbath Day, she must refuse the Sabbath
Day the honour of God’s Presence in having raised the Son “In the Sabbath”.
Then by having transferred what belonged to God’s Sabbath Day to the First Day
of the week, Mrs White heartily with antichrist raises her voice in lifting up
Sunday instead of the Sabbath, “He is risen, He is risen! ... what
a day is this to the world!”
(97/2) But to God’s true day of
Triumphant Rest, Mrs White offers “glorious
... promise of the future (the very following Sunday). ... with this scene (in the grave)
the day (the Sabbath) upon which Jesus rested, is forever
linked.” (Chapter, ‘In
Joseph’s Tomb’, second paragraph.)
But she and the Adventists claim they are for, the Sabbath and against,
Sunday?
God in having raised
Christ from the dead brought the Son into the Most Holy and Intimate of the
Full Fellowship of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit— which is, into
the Rest of God, which is, into the Sanctuary of God— ‘Sanctuary’ means ‘Place of
Rest’. “Therefore
the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God”.
Were it not God, in having raised Christ from the
dead brought the Son in into the
Most Holy and Intimate of the Full
Fellowship of God, the Father,
the Son and, the Holy Spirit, there would be no Gospel!
no rest! no Sabbath! no salvation— but eternal damnation. Eternal damnation, because the Christian religion would
have differed from the false religions of the world not in the least; would
have differed in no respect, because God, the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, in perfect co-operation of Full and in Unison Fellowship and Preferment
—their all exterior exclusive Synergy— would be denied, were it not God, in having raised Christ from the
dead brought the Son in into the
Most Holy and Intimate of the Full
Fellowship of God, the Father,
the Son and, the Holy Spirit.
Had not the Father – in having raised the Son from
the dead and grave – “declared
Him to be the Son of God with
Power according to the Spirit of Holiness”, there would have been no
salvation, no life, no Truth, no Faith, possible,
but a nightmare for ever going on in the disillusionment, fright and despair of
death’s sweltering furnace. Why? Because “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in
earth”— not after I shall have
ascended, but “is
given”, already and because of and
through having, “take(n)
up my Life again”! There would have been no “working” of God’s “exceeding greatness of power to us-ward” reaching end and availing purpose; no “hope of His calling” ever come to fruit; no “glory of His
inheritance in the saints” given or
received, had not the Father – in having raised the Son from the dead and grave – “declared Him to be the
Son of God with Power
according to the Spirit of Holiness”.
Away with the blasphemous,
to death disappointing and fear-imprinting figment of their strange enthusiasm
of a Christ who by degree, a bit here, a bit there, received power and glory
and title and office; Away with their strange enthusiasm of
a Christ who not at
once and for all, as and when and where the Father instantaneously raised Him from-the-dead-and-grave-was-invested
with all Divine Power and Authority, above all the Power to forgive sins!
O you holy
Sunday-worshippers! What do you think your Sunday-dogma is different? Not a
Truth standing up against Seventh Day Adventism, does not also stand up against
your Sunday Dagonic Baal! In fact this
very fundamental Truth of the Father having raised Christ from the dead
against Seventh Day Adventism, which Truth you as much as they trample down and
abuse for your Sunday-worshipping, is standing up against you in your
idolisation of Sunday. Don’t try to answer a word, for it must turn against you
like a dog that bites the hand that feeds it. The Word of God is a two-edged
sword!
But remember the Sabbath
Day, for God the Seventh Day from all his works rested – in the Son, through
the Son, and because of the Son— the Son in resurrection from the dead, the Son
through resurrection from the dead, and the Son because of resurrection from
the dead.
The time had come for Christ
to ascend to His Father’s throne. The time had come for the Father to raise Him
from the dead. The divine conqueror Jesus, is about to return the trophy of
victory to His heavenly Father. Before His death Jesus had declared to His
Father, “I
have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do.” John 17:4. Christ from the earth or hell for no moment waits, nor makes
His Father wait, but in the time and season appointed Him
“on the
third day according to the Scriptures”,
Christ as He rises, rises to the occasion—
“Thy will
be done!” Christ is glorified, “on earth as it is in
heaven”— even in the flesh of the glorified
body of His resurrection from the heart of the earth. Now Jesus is ready forthe leave-taking and enters in “into His own rest as God in His own”. Christ authenticates the fact He is the Living
Saviour. He dissociates from the tomb. He is glorified before the heavenly
universe. The Father enthrones the Son. All heaven awaiting is not
disappointed: Welcome to the Saviour in
celestial court! The Father descends and elevates and exalts the Son. The
Father leads the way ascending Throne, and the Son at His Right Hand takes
Royal Seat ... Not behind, but at His Right! All! Bow before the Redeemer! Celebrate
His Triumph and glorify your King! And
God was refreshed. And so they sang the Song of Moses –Exodus 15, and of the
Lamb –Ephesians 1 and Revelation 14. But
Mrs White, and Seventh Day Adventism, protest, “Not yet!” They
also protest, Not this Song, this Sabbath’s Song! He “cannot now” receive the
coronet of glory and the royal robe. Not “on the Sabbath”, stay! He is not gone
into the presence of His Father, yet! Stay! say they.
Yet Christ presents to God
the Wave Sheaf, Himself, raised from
the dead the Representative of that great multitude who shall come forth from
the grave at His second coming. Emmanuel, God with us, Salvation is with men.
The Song of Nativity; the New Jerusalem Song. Christ here and now in being
raised from the dead, approaches the Father as He is being approached by the
Father. When upon the cross Christ cried
out, “It is finished” and addressed the Father, so here, while from death’s
pains, calls He out, and addresses His Father and answers His cry, “Come
forth!” The compact is being fully carried out. Now Christ declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will,
O My God. I have completed the work of redemption ... And those Christ’s Own
are “accepted in the Beloved”. Those Christ’s Own by the glory of the Father are
declared justified from this very scene
of heavenly joy of most intimate Divine Fellowship at the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... “from the dead”! From the grave of Joseph and the garden in that
earthly place, the Word of the Father as of His Christ goes forth, “Let us make
men over again in our image!” From the
grave of Joseph and the garden in that earthly place, the Word of the Father as
of His Christ goes forth, Ascend unto Thy Father, and to Thy God! Sit Thee at
my right hand in heavenly Majesty! (And so “Your life is hid with Christ in God.”) “Christ Jesus who having died— rather, who
having been raised, is He at the
right hand of God who also makes intercession for us.” Ro8:34b.
Mrs White abuses Romans
8:34, trying to make it say that Christ only
after He died and rose again, and only
after He ascended to the right hand of God – only then – have begun making
atonement for sin. “After His
resurrection he tarried on earth for a season ... Now He was ready for the
leave-taking ...” off to ‘heaven’ and the right hand of God ‘up there’,
to start act High Priest and make ‘reconciliation’
— even ‘intercession’,
according to Seventh Day Adventist definition of atonement. “Jesus refused to receive the homage of
His people until He
had the assurance that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father. He ascended to
the heavenly courts, and from God Himself heard the assurance that His
atonement for the sins of men had been ample, that through His blood all might
gain eternal life.” 98/3. But
had Jesus not the assurance that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father, the
Father would not have raised Him from the dead in the first place! The bringing
again from the dead his Son, was God’s acceptance of and reward for Jesus’
atonement made for sin by the sacrifice of Himself— was God’s recognition to the Waving of the First Sheaf before His Face.
Christ needed not to ‘ascend to the heavenly courts’ to
receive God’s assurance – He availed nothing short when He rose from the dead.
The Father’s coming down and raising Him up from the dead was Christ’s
assurance, reward and glory. Had the Father not been well pleased, Christ would
not Himself have taken up again the Life He Himself had laid down. The
resurrection of Christ from the dead not only was proof of God’s well pleasing;
it was, God’s well pleasing in the Son.
God because of Jesus’
triumph over sin and death is justified in justifying the unjust. The
resurrection of Christ from the dead was the only condition for God’s accepting
His chosen; and Jesus’ intercession is the further benefit on their behalf from
his obtainment of eternal salvation by resurrection from the dead. Christ’s ‘intercession’
does not forgive sins— He by the Sacrifice of Himself had forgiven sins – that
is, had made atonement for sin and obliterated
sin once for all –, and by his resurrection had made righteous, many— in
fact as many as are saved eternally, for by His Resurrection they are co-raised
with Him, in Him and through Him. Christ by interceding does not forgive the sins
of the ungodly, for He intercedes in behalf of those justified, the righteous,
only. By interceding for them, Christ exercises his faithful in holiness. The
sinner is forgiven his sins by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and is justified
in the resurrection of Him from the dead— once for all and for evermore. Christ’s
intercession in behalf of the saints is the assurance and guarantee of the Good
News of their Salvation and Perseverance in the Faith.
These contemplations have
drawn the main lines between and around the White-lie and the Stark Truth of
Scripture. Now we can return again to some stark detail that – like when we
began – in the light of this same Scriptures will confirm the overall picture
of the manipulating deceit of Mrs White and Seventh Day Adventism.
I ended my third delivery
with the consideration of Mary Magdalene’s ‘Last Stand Visit’ at the tomb when Jesus appeared to her, “Early on
the First Day of the week”, Jn20:11-17 and Mk16:9. I enumerated the visits to
the tomb of the women, and counted four during the course of the Saturday
night, Luke’s, Mark’s, John’s in 20:11-17, and Matthew’s in 28:5-10. These were
four instances of recording though, rather than of incidence, come to mind
Mary’s ‘Last Stand Visit’ actually
was the elongation of her ‘Mark
16:2-8’ visit together with the other women, when – we must understand by
inference – the other women, “fled from the sepulchre
… neither told they anyone anything”,
“But” –according to John now– “Mary had had stood
after”.
We have seen Mrs White
joined Mary’s ‘Last Stand Visit’
directly with the visit Peter and John
brought the sepulchre. I have also showed how these two visits cannot so be
linked in chronologically uninterrupted sequence. See my various arguments
there. One argument I did not then
raise, was John’s style of writing—
his making use of parenthesis.
So that the Peter and John-visit must be seen for the interlude, or for John’s
interpolation, it is. John’s telling about Mary Magdalene is the golden thread woven
through his Resurrection-story. Peter and John’s story is but incidental. Such
parentheses are very characteristic of John, and the Peter and John-visit is no
exception. Point is, it is not allowed
for anyone to decide the Peter and John story must stay linked in unbroken time-sequence with Mary’s
‘staying-behind’ story. To persist in such a view would require one must close
one’s eyes to the valid reasons against
a continuous time-sequence here – to persist in, no honest man could once those
reasons have been brought to his attention.
An uninformed person because
of the way verses 10 and 11 are almost without exception translated and
presented, admittedly scarcely would be
able to notice the (implied as well as mentioned but in translations
invisible) break in time in between verses 10 and 11. However, even accepting
the standard translations at face value, the same uninformed though sincere
person, when he will try to further consolidate and harmonise these two stories
in John in their broader context, as
well as in the context of all the other stories the other Gospels have to offer, must definitely come up against
unanswerable questions. In other words,
anyone reading John 20:1 through to 20:17/18, also considering the other Gospel-stories,
will be forced to conclude the two stories from several points of view impossibly are of the same time-slot. Only by denying
the far-separated time-indication given by John in 24:1, “While still being early
darkness”, could the Peter and John
visit and the Mary staying behind-visit be projected
as both having taken place within
the time-span of the sun’s rising above the horizon. Yes, in fact, then also
the Mark-visit should be reckoned in as of the same event, personae and
time-equilibrium— tumbling everything
into chaos and destroying time-equilibrium at once.
But admitting and
accepting Peter and John immediately after Mary went to the tomb and again
returned home from the tomb “While still being early darkness”, then Mary’s “‘heistehkei’-had had stood
after”-visit as the sun appeared above the horizon and the gardener would have
started work, could not have taken place in
immediate time-sequence. Then virtually
all night had passed in between Peter and John’s visit and Mary’s “had had
stood after”-visit— allowing the
required and reasonable time of the Mark-visit, after which “Mary had had stood
after”, from “very early sun’s rising” until “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9) as the sun appeared above the horizon
and the ‘gardener’ would have started work. To deny
or ignore these intricacies of reality, would be such obvious hypocrisy no
one could attempt. Nevertheless it is
this very option of denial and ignoring Mrs White and many others as regularly
as the clock strikes, take for granted and use as point of departure when they
must explain the hour, the day, the place, the who, the how and everything else
about the Resurrection.
Most obvious in and about
this ‘terror and confusion’ is
the mix-up of Resurrection and Visit per se. The attempt invariably is to make
the Resurrection happen at any one moment of time-description found wherever in
the last episodes of the Gospels – no matter which. If it is “The night of the first day of the week
had worn slowly away. The darkest hour, just before daybreak, had come”, OR, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way
to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body.
... Ignorant of what was even then taking place, they drew near the garden,
saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the
sepulchre?””, OR, “And low, the heavens were suddenly alight
with glory that came not from the rising sun. The earth trembled. They saw that
the great stone was rolled away. The grave was empty ... ”, OR, “Mary Magdalene was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing
that the stone was
removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples.
Meanwhile (blatant lie!), the other
women came up. A light was shining about the
tomb, but the body of Jesus was not there ...”, OR, “As they lingered about the place,
suddenly they saw that they were not alone. It was the angel who had rolled
away the stone. ... about him the light of the heavenly glory was still shining
... The women turned to flee, but the angel’s words stayed their steps. “Fear
not ye,” said he; “for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is
not here: for He is risen, as He said ...”, OR, “Come, see the place
where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen
from the dead. Again they look into the tomb, and again they hear the wonderful
news. Another angel in human form is there, and he says ...”, OR, “ “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but He is
risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The
Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified,
and the third day rise again ...” ... in other words, regardless which Gospel it is ... it’s
all the same: Resurrection-time!
It is possible one way
only: There is NO respect for individual
stories, NO respect for particular events
each in its own right or time! It’s all Resurrection-time although the
Resurrection is of little or no real consequence. All that counts is what could
be misapplied to the one or to the other dogmatic
preclusion— to either (pro-Adventist) support ‘The Investigative Judgment’,
or (pro-Tradition), Sunday-sacredness. They all make the same horrid mess of the
faultless historically true anecdotes of the Gospels. Of the Sunday protagonists it must be said
nevertheless, to their credit (if it were possible), that they don’t chase
after the ‘investigative judgment’ phantasm which Seventh Day Adventism plotted,
while the Seventh Day Adventists above and beyond their utmost, help strut and
defend their Sabbath-opponents’ Sunday-argumentations – mainly by their mix-up
of the different Scriptures about the resurrection, the appearances and the
visits to the tomb and the times and days of each. Seventh Day Adventism never in
this regard helped clear up one mistiness of tradition; it only contributed and
in fact introduced many more and foggier enigmas. Sunday-argumentations even came
to rely on arguments before Seventh Day Adventism never dreamt of, most
illustrative of which is Mrs White’s infamous ‘Sabbath-rest in the tomb’-dogma.
Disparity and Desperation
Now here is the strangest
of contradictions of Mrs White’s inspired visions. We have seen how Mrs White denies the Sabbath
the glory invested in it by the resurrection of Christ. We have seen how she emptied the Sabbath of God’s Presence,
and as a result was forced to reach all her further conclusions of a ‘Still
Sabbath’ deprived of all honour and dignity and as still as the stillness of
the
grave. And then we have
seen how Mrs White gave all the honour that she should have given to the
Sabbath Day, to the First Day of the week. (A day, had to receive that honour
because Jesus did rise from the dead, on a day— a day could not escape or
refuse the dignity attributed it by the eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection,
just as a redeemed could not escape or refuse his salvation attributed him by
the eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection. Which day or which person, is the only
question. And the only answer is, that which only God willed and appointed.)
Mrs White went therefore
and bestowed on the Sunday the Sabbath’s divinely given virtues and glory—
divinely given virtues and glory due to and contained in and consisting of
absolutely nothing but the eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; and which eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection
from the dead again, received divinely given virtues and glory due to and
contained in and consisting of absolutely nothing but the Presence of the
Father in raising Christ from the dead.
So Mrs White was stuck
with the dilemma, I have given Sunday now that which belonged to the Sabbath
Day, namely Christ’ resurrection, and the glory and honour that go with his
Resurrection. But I removed the Father’s Presence from Jesus’ resurrection, so
I cannot allow Sunday that honour that in the last analysis, comes with the
Presence of the Father. I’ll make Christ sneak in into God’s Presence on the
First Day of the week! Nobody after all would notice! The passion of deceit knows no limits!
Do I commit defamation of
character, and that to a person who cannot defend herself? I say, Mrs White is here to present her case
herself. This is ‘Mrs White’ – here, between this cover. And she is granted
every opportunity to speak in her own defence. Do you have anything to say, Mrs
White?
Mrs White: I witness,
“Jesus refused to receive the homage of His people until He had the
assurance that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father. He ascended to the
heavenly courts, and from God Himself heard the assurance that His atonement
for the sins of men had been ample. ... While the Saviour was in God’s
presence, receiving gifts for His Church, the disciples thought upon His empty
tomb, and mourned and wept. The day that was a day of rejoicing to all heaven
(Resurrection-day, Sunday) was to the
disciples a day of uncertainty, confusion, and perplexity.” (98/3,4)
This was not after “forty days”; this was not Acts 1:3 or 9! This was Matthew
28:5-8, Mark 16:2-8, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:11-18 time! This was First Day
of the week time! And if any doubt still, the next page, page
99, paragraph 4,
“Tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into
“When Mary Magdalene told them she had seen the Lord, she repeated
the call to the meeting in
“When Mary Magdalene told them she had seen the Lord, she repeated
the call to the meeting in
But Mrs White must still
prove where she got her “third time the message was sent” from! She of course did not
explain, but we, could easily see; that she got it from three separate
incidences of the ‘message’ being told which she completely confused. She put
her foot in it.
On three different
occasions,
(1) Lk24:5-7, Two angels who “stood ...” and “said unto them”;
(2) Mk16:5-7, The angel “sitting on
the right side”, who “Saith unto them ...”;
(3) Mt28:5-7, The angel who “Answered / explained
and commanded the women”.
Each event or visit has
its own angel or angels; each event or visit has its own women; each event or
visit has its own message, each message with its own main point of emphasis;
each event or visit has its own observations and reactions on the part of the
women. Each event or visit has its own time-slot in night or day. There was a
time-sequence, and because of it, a “third time the message was
sent”.
But none of these visit-events was accompanied by an appearance of the Lord,
and none of these visit-events was that of Mary Magdalene only.
So now, says Mrs White –
her living, inspired, own witness self,
“Tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into
Never forget what she
immediately goes on to write: “Christ’s
first work on earth after His resurrection was to convince His disciples of His
undiminished love and tender regard for them. To give them proof that He was
their living Saviour, that He had broken the fetters of the tomb, and could no
longer be held by the enemy death; to reveal that He had the same heart of love
as when He was with them as their beloved Teacher, He appeared to them again and again.” Throughout this
review of Jesus’ resurrection, Mrs White still hasn’t mentioned the Father’s Name once, or referred to Him
in any way. And it is there for everyone to see, Mrs White ascribes no inherent
power of ability to the Resurrection as such. She emphasises the power of the
Appearances, “again and again”.
But that’s not what I’m
actually busy on; We were explaining how Mrs White in order to invest Sunday
with holy meaning, was obliged to
bring into play the Presence of the Father.
And here it is exposed, open and clear, how she takes Jesus up into the
Father’s Presence after having appeared to Mary Magdalene, but brings Him down back again before
having appeared to the other women, so that Mary was prohibited to touch Jesus,
but the other women were allowed to clutch him at his feet.
It is during this
‘interlude’ that this must have happened: “While
the Saviour was in God’s presence, receiving gifts ...”, 98/4. I just
wondered, for what then was this, “Christ’s ascension to heaven (after forty
days) was the
signal that His followers were to receive the promised blessing. For this they
were to wait before they entered upon their work. When Christ passed within the
heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as
this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in
rich currents, and Christ was indeed
glorified,
even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. The
Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven’s communication that the Redeemer’s
inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise He had sent the Holy
Spirit from heaven to His followers as a token that He had, as priest and king,
received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over
His people.” AA p 38/39”?
O, I see! ‘gifts’ only— any ‘gift’
except being exalted, or “inauguration”, as “Redeemer”, “priest”, “king”, or “Anointed”.
For no avail His Resurrection from the dead!
What further confirmation
can any honest person ask for what I say Mrs White is teaching? That she
teaches the Father was uninterruptedly
ABSENT from that Jesus died, until that Jesus between his first two
appearances, had – quickly – gone up into the Father’s Presence and – quickly –
had appeared back again. Now all this r-u-b-b-i-s-h in spite of Mrs White’s other r-u-b-b-i-s-h talking, that
Jesus only after He had entered into the ‘heavenly sanctuary’ and the Presence
of the Father there, started pleading for the forgiveness of sins— the
implications of which r-u-b-b-i-s-h are infinite and infinitely blasphemous. Hundred and sixty four years
after, and Seventh Day Adventists still claiming and proclaiming for the Gospel
of Jesus Christ?!
Just the Presence of the Father in the resurrection of Christ from the dead would have made all the
difference— would have prevented the
whole farrago and gigantic hoax of an ‘investigative judgment’. Just the Presence
of the Father in the resurrection of Christ from the dead
would have made all the difference— would have ‘given’ the Sabbath of God’s will (and not the Sunday of devilish design),
Jesus’ resurrection its very reason for being Christian Day of Worship-Rest.
SDA:
Quoting
Gerhard Ebersöhn [ GE ]
The Sinister, ‘John 20:17 and Hebrews
8:4’, say the same devout Seventh Day Adventist, ‘tell us why Mrs White
declares it was the angel who ‘called’ Jesus to “come forth”, that is, to ‘come
out’ of the grave. ‘Come out’, your Father is not here; He is not in there with
you, He calls you through me, his messenger, ‘angel’. Mrs White is a
word–artist;
Dear
unsuspecting reader –– in the above – GE devotedly quotes himself –– and then
drifts in and out of ranting about Ellen White –– whilst quoting himself
repeatedly. Confusing indeed. Not sure
if he intends it to be confusing or if this is just "normal" for GE.
John
20 tells us clearly that Christ had not yet ascended to the Father. Sadly – GE's objections that are all of the
form 'but Mrs White said" does not change that fact.
John
14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go
away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I
said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Hint:
The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." ––
rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual
point raised.
Jesus' prayer TO the Father, John 17
13 "But now I come to You; and these
things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in
themselves.
14 "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because
they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
So
while it is also true that Jesus was in fellowship with God on earth (and yes I
"could" add an "as Ellen White said" if I was bent on
ignoring the text as some are here) – at the same time HE CLAIMS that He is
going TO the Father and HE claims that immediately after his resurrection He had
not YET been TO the Father.
Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..."
–– rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual
point raised.
Quoting
GE listing his complaints –– in his own words no less – “The Father wasn’t present when Jesus was raised from the dead, is her
whole point. Jesus made no atonement on earth, He was not Priest of God on
earth, He first had to ‘go to heaven’”
I
posted previously [ See ‘Lord’s
Day’ Book 6/1 ] about one part of GE's rant
–– namely GE's denial of the writings of Paul in Hebrews where Paul tells us
that When Christ ascended to heaven He began his work as our High Priest. Dear reader – read PAUL for yourself to see
how GE opposes Paul’s views. Between
"quoting himself" ranting against E.G. White (as if THAT is where all
his problems lie) and "denying Paul" it is no wonder GE "appears
confused". But should one welcome a
voice of clarity on this subject –– let it come from Paul...
Hebrews
8
1 Now the main point in what has been
said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right
hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, not man.
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it
is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a
priest at all, since there
are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned
by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, SEE, He says, THAT YOU
MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.
Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..."
–– rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual
point raised.
Heb
9
11 But when Christ appeared as a high
priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He
entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Hint:
The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." ––
rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual
point raised. Christ becomes our High
Priest – NOT while on earth – but when He ascends to heaven.
Heb 7
22 so much the more also Jesus has become
the guarantee of a better covenant.
23 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they
were prevented by death from continuing,
24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His
priesthood permanently.
25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through
Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent,
undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
27 who does not need daily,
like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and
then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He
offered up Himself.
28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the
oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.
Hint:
The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." ––
rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual
point raised.
It
is no wonder then GE struggles with this text –– but why in the world
"blame that on Ellen White"?? Just
simply study it and deal with the text until you can finally accept it –– a
much more honourable solution if you ask me.
Leave all the ranting and railing for someone with more time on their
hands. Not that GE does not have enough
time to dedicate to "ranting" –– I was just making a constructive
suggestion.
GE:
Not that I didn't know that you will never admit deceit. Your response is
exactly as I expected and what I wanted. Everybody reading can now see for
himself. And there are some reading –
Your reference to John 14:28 is as irrelevant as referred you to Baruch 2:3. I
challenge you again: Answer: Who raised Christ from the dead? You give me John
14:28. You now apply this text to my question, and you with it confirm what I
accused you of, that you say the Father was not there to raise Christ from the
dead. Thanks, It's what I wanted to hear. Therefore who may read: See for
yourself.
Quoting
SDA, “So while
it is also true that Jesus was in fellowship with God on earth (and yes I
"could" add an "as Ellen White said" if I was bent on
ignoring the text as some are here) – at the same time HE CLAIMS that He is
going TO the Father and HE claims that immediately after his resurrection
He
had not YET been TO the Father."” Again you evade the question. Can't you look me in
the I man? Read my lips, "Who raised Jesus from the dead – Who called Him
from the grave? Don't give me y-o-u-r 'ranting' – give me your answer; give me
Scripture!
First, It – what you wrote here – is not, what Jesus said to Mary. That – what
you have written here – is a large, glaring, lie.
Next, Even had your lie been pardonable, what Jesus said to Mary was that He
had not yet gone away to His Father –– which was, He had not left them – his
followers – behind yet; which is as obvious as can be. That is and that was the
point then; not what you try to tell everybody here.
Three, I ask you again, who raised the Son? The Father? Who else? So where was
the Father when and as and where He raised the Son? Was the fact the Father
raised Jesus in his very Own Glory a hindrance to His being present on earth,
in the grave, "working" to the exceeding greatness of His Power while
raising, in raising, through raising Christ from the dead?
Like God formed the first
Adam from the dust of the earth, God formed the Second Adam from the body of
his grave, the Christ. Were I to write in Hebrew (which I cannot nevertheless
might), I would have used God's Name, Elohim, the Plural Name, for God in Three Persons was God who raised Christ from that very
earthly grave from that very earthly body, and on that “Mortal, put on
Immortality”.
I wish you applied your 'hints' to yourself! ("Hint: The answer to which is
NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." –– rather you need to
"deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised.") And, hint, Kindly deal with the actual
Scripture under consideration?
The actual Scripture of
John 20:17 from whichever point approached does not exclude that Mary in fact
could have 'touched' Jesus. In fact, many who know say this word may mean,
"Don't keep on holding fast to me", or, "Don't cling to me (so)
but go now". So that, if that is correct – which there is no reason why it
should not be correct – then by your way of thinking it is undeniable Jesus had
have had contact with, and had have been, in the very Presence of His Father all the while, dismissing your silly
notion Jesus and the Father had no contact for more than three days.
My personal viewpoint I
have also given I cannot tell how many times already – which you of course
would have reckoned too low your consideration – that this text has nothing to
do with a clinging or touching or not for whatever reason, but that it has to
do with the Gospel–Command: Go on straight, don't even turn back to look at Me
again, and go tell my brethren. Because:
This Good News is not by seeing, but by hearing and believing!
Your latest edition:
"Christ
becomes our High Priest – NOT while on earth – but when He ascends to heaven." It's no longer the older version, Christ
becomes our High Priest – NOT while on earth – but only after He had ascended
to heaven and had entered into the 'first room'.
Said you, “It is no wonder then GE
struggles with this text –– but why in the world "blame that on Ellen
White"??” Well, here's why:
(1) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at proving the Father’s absence
at all in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, from the moment He had died, until
the moment “He enters into the presence of His Father”. Not until “After His
resurrection” and He had “tarried on earth for a season” “was (Jesus) ready for
the
leave–taking”. Only after He “had authenticated the fact that He was a living
Saviour” had “Jesus gone to share His Father’s throne”. During all this time,
Jesus was assisted by angels, at most, and whatever He had done in this period
in between having died and having enter(ed) into the presence of His Father, He
had done on His own without the Father’s participation or presence.
(2) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at proving the mere intermediate
and relatively passing value and merit of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is
no more than a – be it necessary – stop on Christ’s journey into the heavens and
‘heavenly sanctuary’ where at last He will accomplish continuous and real
atonement or forgiveness of sins. “Continued pardon”, I once had an Adventist
explaining to me what they have stamped “The Investigative Judgment”.
(3) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at proving Christ was not High
Priest of the Most High God as He made sacrifice of Himself and as He rose from
the dead, but only was made a Priest after He had ascended into the heavens. It
meant – for Seventh Day Adventism –, that only after the Resurrection and after
that Christ had ascended into the ‘first room of the heavenly sanctuary’, that
only “Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God.
I have completed the work of redemption”. It means, for every common Christian,
Jesus had not ‘completed the work of redemption’ in or through, during or with,
by or for having risen from the dead and grave!
We therefore have for reason for saying Mrs White teaches a resurrection of
Jesus wherein the Father was absent,
(1) This, her teaching of a ‘heavenly work of redemption’ instead of Jesus’
earthly work of finished atonement for sin perfected in resurrection from the
dead.
(2) Her teaching a Resurrection visible for mortals – a Resurrection the guard
could look upon without dying as any mortal would, had they seen the Father
raising the Son.
(3) Mrs White’s arguing of Jn20:17a, “Touch Me not; for I am not ascended yet
to my Father.”
(4) Her arguing of Lk23:43, “I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in
paradise.”
(5) Her making the angel the caller–forth form the grave of Christ. Which
resurrection could only have been the resurrection of one who is not God, for
God who is not, or God who works not as being, and in being, the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, is not, nor can be, God.
(6) Her making “the wave sheaf” not Jesus Himself as and when the Father raised
Him from the dead, but “those raised with Him”
(123/6), whom Christ “after His resurrection” —after He had “tarried on earth
for a season” and after He “had gone to share His Father’s throne”— as “He
approache(d) the Father”, “present(ed) to God”.
(7) Her avoiding Scripture that might indicate or imply the Father’s
involvement in the Resurrection. White’s omission of such Scripture is
conspicuously intentional and conspicuously meaningful— the Father’s absence
must appear total. Therefore not a single reference to or from a vast number of
most powerful Scriptures.
To which now must be added
an eighth reason, Mrs White’s taking
Jesus up after He had appeared to Mary, in order to bring Him to the Father, in
order to return Him down again in order to be touched by the other women –
which surmising could not have been possible had the Father raised the Son from
the dead and they since had been in the perfect Fellowship of the full Godhead.
Which basic Truth of Christian Faith you keep on denying and blaspheming
against for no reason but to find something for your ‘investigative
judgment’-fallacy to stand on. Of course this heresy goes hand in
hand with your other
heresy the Father had been absent when Jesus died, blatantly ignoring the fact
Jesus ‘surrendered spirit’ to the Father when He died!
SDA:
B+
ranting –– (and of course you are improving in that area). But an f– substantive response to the quote
from John 14. Can you be convinced or
prompted in any way to "respond to the point" as raised from
scripture? Today? Ever?
"The point" is that Christ claims "I GO to the Father" as
in a level of "presence" anticipated that He did not enjoy BEFORE
going. Even MORE so when He says "My God my God why hast thou forsaken
Me?". And so When Christ is RAISED from the tomb He can rightly state that
"I have not yet ascended to the Father". That much–anticipated event
had not YET taken place.
Get it? (It is important in that case to stay focused on the point) Amazingly in all the GE "but Ellen White
said.." smoke fury and sound we get NO response to the fact of Scripture
raised regarding the high Priesthood of Christ taking place post cross.
GE:
Thank you, SDA, You supplied us with an
answer as straight as an arrow. It was not my imagination, it was not my
intelligence that noticed and understood exactly what you here state as your
belief and confession of faith. For no moment think I did not 'get the point'.
I got it long ago, even before I have read Mrs White. I learned it from you,
and I am a good learner. I got the point!
I believe everybody else had, too.
Now tell us, dear SDA,
what poison have you smeared over that 'point'? “"The point" is that Christ claims
"I GO to the Father" as in a level of "presence"
anticipated that He did not enjoy BEFORE going”, which “level of
"presence"” was the ‘level’ away from those He would leave on earth –
never any ‘level’ where absent from His Father or His Father absent from Him!
“Even MORE so when He says
"My God my God why hast thou forsaken Me?"” --- which is
totally another matter. We are here talking of the Son’s Presence with the
Father, and the Father’s Presence with the Son in the resurrection of Him from the dead and forever inseparable
ever after— in, and while, and where and with and through and for, Christ being raised from the dead, “in (that) moment, in (that) twinkling of an eye”— all eternity
being contained in it, all forgiveness of sin and all justification and all
righteousness of God being contained in it, and all the sanctification of men,
contained in it and in it, perfected, finished, sealed, for evermore. This is
the ‘point’, at present and of present relevancy, in your own words, “... When Christ is RAISED
from the tomb ...” At this ‘point’ it may rightly be stated the Father had
descended or in spatial terms just as well, had ascended, to the Son, and that
the Son had taken in place “at the right hand” of the Almighty Father “in
heavenly realms” of utter Divine Glory and Honour and Power and Authority of
utter Unification and Unity of Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. That much–anticipated event throughout history of the
revelation of God had not until then,
taken place. Now “in the fullness of time” it happened in Jesus in the flesh of His
being resurrected body, in the grave, on earth, “from the dead”— “from”, where just before, He had been in death. ‘Get it? It is important to stay focused on the point!’
While Jesus in the body of
His flesh had not yet ascended to the Father, and He still had to ascend 'to
heaven' in the body of his risen and glorified flesh, in order to "be with you always" (Mt28:20), was He in the Father's Presence?
Was Jesus the First Sheaf Waved “Before the LORD”, or was He the First Sheaf waved before the cry
of an angel in the sight of mortals?
In other words, was Jesus God, and no mere created being, in and through his
resurrection from the dead? Are you a Neo–Docetist? Can you answer my question (which I have
given you the answer for) Who, raised Christ from the dead? Can’t you, not
because you do not know, but because you do not believe? Is it because you
are a Docetist you refuse to answer? Do you believe the Divinity and the Deity
of Jesus Christ? Was Christ in having been raised from the dead in the Father's Presence, and was He in having been raised from the
dead, God’s Presence with men and men’s presence with God? Like, and as
Jesus in having become God Incarnate,
was, God’s Presence with men? In fact yes, while Jesus in resurrection from the dead was in the Father's
Presence, He was, God’s, presence— God’s
full and only, Presence between God
and men.
No one has an issue with John 14:28 except SDAs. No one except SDAs has an
issue Jesus ascended before He ascended. So here with Christ's Priesthood no
one except SDAs have an issue with Christ having been High Priest before and
after He had been perfected High Priest through resurrection from the dead. Therefore
you must ask yourself the question, Nobody else who has a problem with Jesus
having been High Priest – in Truth, having been High Priest of the Most High
God since eternity according to the Law of Indestructible LIFE? Nobody else
than SDAs?
But herein in fact you,
confirming, expose your very error, deceit and defeat, because If Jesus could
not have been High Priest while on earth, He could not have been God on earth
–– and especially so according to your thinking, in his death and after his
death while according to you not in the Presence of God the Father. For to be
High Priest of Almighty God He had to become Man –– this same Jesus, God, whom
man crucified; this same Jesus, God, Whom God had raised; this same Jesus, God,
Who from eternity was with God and was God, and always had been and has been,
God, Mediator and Intercessor – God of the Substance of God as the Father is of
the Substance of God. You divorce Christ' Priesthood from His Divinity as were
His Priesthood a prize merely and no Condition for having made atonement of sin
while not having been The Atonement for sin. You divide Christ and High
Priesthood of Christ; you divide Christ and God. And of all things impossible
for God, you place ‘them’ – Christ and God – in separate compartments of time
and metrical space. What absurdity; nay what blasphemy! With this 'priesthood'–story of yours, you
thought you had a sword in hand; while you had a snake that bit you, in hand.
We may thank SDA for this
Quote, Hebrews 9,
“11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of
the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He
entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”
When was this? "When
Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come".
Who, was this? "Christ, appeared, as, a high priest." (Then He had to
be High Priest from evermore to evermore.)
How “Entered He”? "Through His own blood."
Where was that? "The holy place."
Which '
SDA:
GE saying, “Now tell us, dear SDA, what poison have you
smeared over that 'point'?” That
would be "me" quoting Scripture –– paying attention to what it says
and accepting it. That would be
"you", ranting. See? The point
is that when Jesus is raised and says "I have NOT YET ascended to the
Father" –– "he meant it".
John 20:17, “Jesus said to her,
"Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to
My brethren and say to them, "I ascend to My Father and your Father, and
My God and your God.” As much as you
may now prefer to resort once again to low–brow ranting and whining –– why not
address the Bible point "instead"??
Amazingly
in all the GE "but Ellen White said.." smoke fury and sound we get NO
response to the fact of Scripture raised regarding the high Priesthood of
Christ taking place post cross. Now as it turns out, this "only gets
worse" when we observe that WHILE ON EARTH Christ is NOT High Priest ––
but "when He Goes to the Father" (John 20) at that point He
"appears as our High Priest". Amazingly
GE quotes this devastating point against his own argument while ignoring the
significance of it.
GE,
quote, “... He entered the holy place
once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
WHEN? When He ascended
"to the Father"” (Notice John 20 yet again). That is WHEN He appeared as our
High Priest. No amount of "whining
about Ellen White instead" is going to change scripture in this case.
GE:
Yes,
“That is WHEN
He appeared as our High Priest”. But let us change the emphasis to, “That, is when He appeared as our
High Priest”, and we have changed the same words, from yours, to mine, and we
have changed the meaning, from yours to the Word’s. Describe, define, indicate,
the concept, ‘That’! ‘That’,
is as, where, when, and how, “He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal
redemption”. Where, when and how, and as, was ‘That’? You, SDA, will die
but admit it was the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead by the Father,
in the Glory of the Father! You will die but admit it was, Where?— at; it was When?— in and while; it was, How?— by and through, the resurrection
of Jesus Christ from the dead by the Father, in the Glory of the Father, in the
flesh of his glorified body in the grave,
but, at the same time and in the same place, in the Most Holy of the
Sanctuary of the Presence of the Full Fellowship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit! That’ why I say your ‘view’, is
blasphemy— blasphemy for keeping on
denying the Truth of Jesus’
resurrection from the dead that is the Full Gospel of God in Christ.
And,
What, double, ‘devastating point against
your own argument – while ignoring the significance of it –’, is this?: “"Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the
Father...”
while your ‘point’ was to show that Mary could not touch Jesus until such time
as He would ascend to His Father? According to yourself, Mary touched Jesus;
yet could not have had touched Him because He had not ascended to his Father
yet. And once Jesus would have had ascended, what would be the point in saying
‘Don’t touch me now’, for then He would not be present any more to touch?
SDA:
And
as we continue to read in Heb 9 –– Paul argues this NEW role of Christ was
STILL ongoing at the time of His writing – Hebrews 9:22 “And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed
with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be
cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
than these. 24 For Christ did not enter
a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, 25 Nor was it that He
would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by
year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to
suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the
consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself.”
And "yes" it is still true that –– No amount of "whining about
Ellen White instead" is going to change that fact. Deal with scripture ––
accept it and end the ranting and ad hominem "methods" that you have
exchanged for "Bible study". (Recall that in the Gospel there is
something called "the New Birth")
So in John 20 When Christ said "tell my Disciples I ASCEND to My Father
and to your Father" –– he meant that he was indeed GOING to do that.
And then HAVING done it – He SAT DOWN at the right hand of God UNTIL His
enemies should become His footstool.
GE:
‘New
birth’? Thanks to God I am a believer – a ‘Reformed’, Protestant’, believer.
God is my Judge; not you. So that one will roll off my back like water from the
proverbial duck’s back.
“So in John 20 When Christ
said "tell my Disciples I ASCEND to My Father and to your Father" ––
he meant that he was indeed GOING to do that. ... And then HAVING done it – He SAT DOWN at the right hand of
God UNTIL His enemies should become His footstool.” What “it”? “Having done”, what? “Then”, “Having done”, “it”? “Then”, after what? After “Having done” “ASCEND(ing) to My Father”? Did Jesus “then”, “S(I)T DOWN at the right hand
of God”?
No matter how long after, no matter “UNTIL His enemies should become His footstool”? “When”, “SAT Christ DOWN at the right hand of God”? At the end after He would have come again? No?
No!; At any point in time in between
since He rose from the dead and will have come again? Your answer, “Yes”? ‘Yes’ when, ‘in between’? “Not
before after forty days after his resurrection”? I knew that!
Everybody knows that’s the SDA-‘view’!
That’s the lie, which SDAs like you deny and maintain. You talk a lot about ‘Scripture’; give us the
Scripture! Not your ‘rant’, but Scripture!
I’ll
give you the Scripture that says when and where and how and at, “And then HAVING done it” – when and
where and how and at, ‘and then having
sat down at the right hand of God’, was— “That
ye may know … what the riches of His Glory … and what the exceeding greatness
of his Power … which He wrought in Christ, when
He raised / raising Him from the dead and set Him at His Own Right Hand
in heavenly Majesty, far above all (‘His enemies at His footstool’)
principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named …
and hath put all things under his feet …”. And there are many more!
SDA:
“Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after
time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered
one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13 waiting from that time
onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying ...” Thus "ends" your gaming this point
for all this time.
GE:
"SDA – Inspired
writings", is the name of your game, SDA.
I have one question that will settle the issue, one question directly as
if asked from the pages of these very writings: Who, raised Christ from the
dead? Now is it too difficult a question to answer? Then let me change my
question and ask, Did the Father raise Jesus from the dead?
You see, the answer – from these writings and from nowhere else – will tell,
are these writings inspired? And if inspired, inspired by whom? God or the
devil? No SDA. You break my heart.
Yours is a another gospel that is not the Gospel.
"WHEN?" Christ appeared our High Priest since God first “spoke to us
through the prophets”. Christ appeared our High Priest since when born a Child;
He appeared our High Priest since every step of His earthly ministry; He
appeared our High Priest since when He made Sacrifice of Himself; He appeared
High Priest since when giving His Spirit into His Father's very own hands; but
above all He appeared our High Priest since when in resurrection from the dead
He made offering of his Sacrifice "Before the LORD". And ever since
He for no moment and at no stage of His ‘Intermediatory Office’ (John Owen) has
not been, Priest and High Priest of
the Most High God. At no point in time in
or after His resurrection has Jesus not been both Priest and High Priest. That is WHEN and HOW, and WHERE Christ
appeared as our High Priest: Quote: "When God raised Him from the dead", ‘Then’,
was He, quote: "Perfected", our High Priest. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If anyone
is offended by it, then must he be offended. But I, “I am not ashamed of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, because it is the Power ––– of God! unto salvation” of this lost but saved soul, me!
Have I not said, Jesus by
interceding on behalf of the saved, exercises them in sanctification? Well what
are, "those who are sanctified"? Did I ever deny Jesus' Mediatory
Office? I did not!
When and where and how – exactly – did Christ, "having offered one sacrifice for sins
for all time, sat down at the
right hand of God "? These words
are telling! You need not look anywhere else: "having
offered", He "sat down at the right hand of God ". “When God raised Him from the dead and set Him at his own right hand in
heavenly realms ... and hath put
all things under his feet". Not a
second later; nowhere else; no other way! In no other Office than of High
Priest of the Most High God.
Here's another of those speaking–for–itself–texts: "But now once at the
consummation of the ages He has been
manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice
of Himself". "Manifested" – that's 'when' –
'manifested' to do what? "To put away sin by the sacrifice of
Himself" – that's 'when': Sin was put away the moment, "in the
twinkling of an eye", when "the sting of death, sin" with death,
were "swallowed up" when, where, how? In Victory! That was, in and
with, at, the moment of Jesus' resurrection from the dead! Nowhere else; no
other time, no other occasion! Where is the Triumph of Jesus' resurrection if
not in his resurrection?
SDA:
At Jesus'
resurrection –– but as Jesus said even then "I have not YET ascended to my
Father" John 20.
GE:
I asked my questions: Did the Father raise Christ from the dead? Did Jesus give
His Spirit to God the Father when He died on the cross? I shall – I honestly mean it from the bottom
of my heart – be very thankful to receive your answers. Anyone who might have
read this, Are any of you prepared to answer?
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag 43
Sunninghill 2157