I agree wholeheartedly with this conclusion.



People never depended upon the ceremonial sacrifices and on the high priest to obtain forgiveness for their sins. As Paul points out, the blood of bull and goats could never take away sin.

David clearly understood this, as pointed out by what I quoted earlier:



Also Romans 4 touches on this same idea:



The ceremonial sacrifices had value only insofar as they pointed to Christ. There has never been any way to be justified other than by faith in Christ, which is to say, there has never been any way to be forgiven of sin than by faith in Christ (since justification by faith and forgiveness are one in the same).

Similarly, the priests had no ability to forgive sins. Only God can forgive sins. So there was no dependence upon the people on human priests either, except as an object lesson to point to Christ, through whom they could obtain forgiveness of sins.



There was no longer a need for ceremonial sacrifices, since type had met antitype, but the reality has always been that one could obtain forgiveness only by faith in Christ, and that forgiveness was as real before Christ died as afterward.

Here is another statement which speaks of the rending of the veil.



This is simply making the point that type had met antitype, which is also her point in the DA quote. She's not saying there was a change in how human beings are forgiven. The dependence upon a priest to typify Christ's priestly work was no longer needed.

Yes, they did, because God required it. Their obedience in this point should just be an outward manifestation of their faith, but yes, God required them to present a sacrifice, and on the Day of Atonement God required that the high priest performed the whole ritual in order that atonement for the people and for the sanctuary was achieved. Of course this was symbolical, but God required it. Could they, in ordinary circumstances, obtain forgiveness without the ceremonial law? No. This would demonstrate their indisposition to comply with God's requirements, and their lack of faith.


Obviously.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and a contrite heart. God did not require sacrifice in order for one to obtain forgiveness:



The one and only requirement is and always has been faith in Christ. Paul makes this point in Romans 4 where he says:



Paul is using David as his example of one who is forgiven apart from works. If David obtained forgiveness by works, such as offering a sacrifice, then Paul's whole argument falls apart.



God required it, but not as a means to obtain forgiveness. Forgiveness is given as a free gift, not by means of performing works of some sort.



Yes, they could. David's psalm makes this point perfectly clear.



This is the right way of looking at it. If they refused to offer a sacrifice, that would be like one in our time refusing to be baptized. This could be seen as a sign that one had not been forgiven, but to conclude that baptism in our time, or sacrifices in their time, was a necessary work to perform in order to obtain forgiveness is a wrong conclusion. As Paul points out:





Well, if this is obvious, why are you taking issue with any of the points I'm making? All my comments are predicated on this one simple fact, that the means of obtaining forgiveness has not changed.

For example, I wrote:



Now if it is true that "obviously" Ellen White is not saying how human beings are forgiven has changed, then how can you dispute what I wrote here? If the way people are forgiven has not changed, and people now do not depend upon ceremonial sacrifices and a mortal high priest to obtain forgiveness for their sins, then people never did. Either that or the way to obtain forgiveness changed.

Her parallel was directly to the OT MHP and the presence of God.

So if you admit the veil referenced is the inner veil then how do you suggest that Christ going within the inner veil is not indicative of ministry in the MHP? It clearly is.

We have direct access BY BLOOD (only the MHP required blood to enter) to the High Priest, through the new and living way. His ministry is within the veil, in the MHP.

And the reference to waiting for a High Priest was also a reference to the ministry of the earthly high priest on the day of atonement, who would go in for them, and they would await his blessing.

They no longer await the high priest in the once per year ministry which represented the limited nature of the first covenant. Now they can go directly into God's presence in the MHP anytime, through the blood of Christ.

[quote=Rosangela]



offer repeatedly what?

Let's try this another way.

Does the text say...

“It is not that he has to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest kills the sacrifice every year"

Or does it say :

“It is not that he has to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest enters every year"

It says "as the high priest enters." The offering spoken of is the entry.



No, because 24 and 25 are both speaking about the entry, not the death.



Vincet explains the mention of the sacrifice. Offering refers to the entry. And if He were to enter many times the text goes on in verse 26 to say that he would have had to SUFFER many times. But Neither was the case. He entered once, and He suffered once. That was Vincet's point.



That is AFTER the reference to "suffer" which was the explanation of the reason why Jesus did not enter many times...then he would have to suffer many times.



And the entry was the theme in vs. 12, 24, 25, and 10:19. What does that prove? You must evaluate each verse on its merits. Let me post again what verse. 25 says:


Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;


The offering is directly compared to an activity of the earthly high priest. What is that activity? Is it killing or entering? It is clearly entering.

Let's make this simpler. What is your explanation of the following verses?

Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

So you quoted I Corinthians and then use another source to say what I Corinthians was saying? I Corinthians explains itself.

And I think I noted before that Rev. is the only book that mentions anything about a 1k years, and that it doesn't match up with the rest. But then Rev. is a symbolic book and people have debated the 1k years for as long as Revelation has been around.

Yet Hebrews describes Jesus as already within the veil.


So, for that matter, does EGW:


Still bearing humanity, He ascended to heaven, triumphant and victorious. He has taken the blood of the atonement into the holiest of all, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat and His own garments, and blessed the people. Soon He will appear the second time to declare that there is no more sacrifice for sin." ST April 19, 1905 par.4

Doesn't Hebrews describe the veil as being Jesus' flesh? So "already within the veil" would mean "already within His flesh," wouldn't it?

No, it’s not, and Ellen White never meant to say this.
The comparison she draws is that only priests and high priests could approach God’s direct presence, and that now every believer can approach God directly. This obviously is a metaphor, because we do not behold visible signs of God’s presence in the same way priests and high priests sometimes beholded. The point is that we no longer need a human mediator, but go directly to God through Christ. As I said, the comparison ends here.


We have direct access to God through Christ’s SHED blood, that is, by His sacrifice, or the rent veil of His flesh, as the verse itself makes clear.


So the offering spoken of in v. 25 is presentation of blood, but the offering spoken of in v. 28 is the sacrifice? Just three verses apart and the same word means different things?
It’s much more probable that they mean the same thing, and that v. 26 is confirming that the reference is to Christ’s sacrifice.
Besides, everything depends on where you put the emphasis. It’s different if you say,
“Not that He should OFFER Himself often, as the high priest ENTERS the holy places year by year with blood not his own.”
And if you say,
“Not that He should OFFER Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy places year by year WITH BLOOD not his own.”
In the first case the emphasis is on the entrance. In the second case the emphasis is on the sacrifice. If there is a repeated need for blood, there is a repeated need for sacrifices to be made.


First, it would be a different kind of entry, if Paul is speaking about the dedication in v. 24 and if he is speaking about the day of atonement in v. 25. And second, the emphasis on v. 25 is on the sacrifice, not on the entry, as v. 26 and the subsequent context make clear.


Yes, and I disagree with his explanation, as I have already explained why.


No. The words “priest” and “high priest” are most of the times interchangeable in Hebrews, because the priest was just an assistant of the high priest, and what he did was considered as having been done by the high priest himself.

Hebrews 7:27 who does not need DAILY, as those HIGH PRIESTS, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Besides, doing a search about the expression kat’eniauton, I’ve come upon an idea which makes much sense. Who said that “year by year” must refer only to yearly sacrifices? The verse would also make sense if it referred to any offering whose blood had to be taken inside the sanctuary. “Not that he should offer himself often, as the high priest (which expression may include the priests) enters the sanctuary year by year (or year after year) with blood of others.”


Obviously the key verse is v. 8. To me, what it is saying is, “The Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the holies [the heavenly sanctuary] was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle [the earthly sanctuary] was still standing.”


Yes, because I accept all the books of the Bible as inspired.


Behind the veil. But the question is, which veil? It doesn’t say it is the second veil.


Not by any means, for this is obviously a reference to the dedication of the heavenly sanctuary and to His own inauguration as High Priest (notice the words, “and His own garments”).