How I understand the cleansing of the sanctuary is that the books in heaven reflect the reality that is happening below. So as believers, in the time of the end, are being cleansed from sin, the books of heaven reflect that reality.

I understand, from what you are writing, that you view the cleansing of the sanctuary as a even which has already been completed, having been completed when Christ ascended and entered into heaven. However, I'm guessing that you would agree that Christ's work as a High Priest continues as long as there are sins being confessed (please correct me on this point, if you disagree).

So Christ has completed the work which corresponds to the Day of Atonement, the yearly service, but His work which corresponds to the daily service continues. Is that correct?

Also, can Christ come at any time, without there being any connection to a cleansing of God's people? (by "God's people" I mean those who have accepted Christ and long for His coming).

_I_ do NOT have a prophet. EGW did not call herself a prophet and neither should anyone else.



I think you meant 1840's.

The key word is "seemed."



Yes and no. The time was right, the event was wrong.



The conclusion is false.
===


History has already shown otherwise.

Semantics. Let's look at what she said:



Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies. {1SM 32.4}


She explains why she did not take the title prophet because it had taken on bad connotations due to other recent prophets and that her work includes MUCH MORE than the word 'prophet' signifies.

Ie. her work included more than that of a prophets and she didn't take the title due to controversy.

Note also that she had no issue with others who called her a prophet.

To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them.
{1SM 34.5}


And indeed many people do refer to her with the common designation of prophet.

Now whether you personally hold her to be inspired I can't say . Perhaps you don't.

But if you do consider her inspired and prefer the semantics game just insert "messenger of the Lord".

So...it is your supposed "messenger of the Lord's" claim, it is up to you to show it.

No, I meant 1840 when his book was published.



Up to you to prove otherwise since he made an appeal for winning souls, etc.

Is your position that EVERY minister who objected based on the Scripture was false? And that Ellen and Miller who went against the Scriptures and who's message failed were true?




Even Adventist don't claim anything happened in 1843, and Ellen said God was behind the preaching of that time.

But of course the bigger issue was that the ministers rejected it precisely because of the event--the timing of that particular event is not known. Hence the time and the message were one package. Miller's message was that Jesus was coming in 1843. That was a false, time-setting message.



What conclusion is false?

Did or did not Ellen and Miller preach the time of Jesus coming? Yes. Was that said to be unknown. Yes.

Did Jesus come in 1843 or 1844? No.

If you wish to prove that wrong you need to show why.




The other quote was apparently for someone else, so I will let them address it.

After some thought on the issue I think at this point it is time for me to stop discussing this here. I had intended to before, but decided to get in a bit more discussion, which was probably a mistake. It has been a good conversation and kind throughout. Thank you all and may God bless you.

History has shown that SDA rather than christianity as a whole is Gods organised body on earth? You have to do more than merely state it for there to be any weight to your words.

I'm not sure who you're addressing, but there's two different people involved here. I wrote the original thing you have commented, and someone else, David I think, made the comment about history. So you'd have to address him as to why he made the comment he did.

Didn't I? But if you also want to reply, I wouldn't want to stop you.

No, you didn't. You wrote, "You have to do more than merely state it for there to be any weight to your words" which implies the same person making the comment wrote the words upon which weight was attempting to be added.

Not a big deal. I was just letting you know there were two people involved in what you were quoting, rather than just one, because you comment indicated you weren't aware of that.

I have usually regarded a quote to be directed towards the name on the last quotebox.
When posts are made with a depth of quotes attached, those older quotes are part of the context to which the reply is made. Mr Conklin wrote that history has shown. Shown what? The only reasonable reply is that history has shown your post which is the first in the list. Therefore, since Mr Conklin is basically supporting you, it is reasonable for either of the two of you to reply to my question. I thought this was the obvious way to read post history.