My Dialog With A Dissident SDA (Lovey Maize) On The Sanctuary and 1844 (Edited/Revised)

MY FACEBOOK DIALOG WITH AN SDA DISSIDENT
ABOUT THE SANCTUARY AND THE 1844

INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT MESSAGE OF SDAs!!
Lovey Maizeto Derrick Gillespie
April 29 at 11:02am (2016)
The sanctuary message has been a Thorn in the SDA since its inception. Yet this seems to be the
most unique doctrine of the church. With its fall, it seems everything else crumbles. It has been
known by scholars within and without that it was based on faulty exegesis, wrong premise, and
a myriad other problems. Almost all who have had an issue with this doctrine have not been
looked upon with favor by the church. Dr Ford who was brave enough to bring out the
complexities in a clear way was defrocked because of it. Does the sanctuary message as taught
by sda have a strong HONEST biblical support to warrant its overemphasis? Does Paul agree
with it? Does the sanctuary in daniel 8 refer to the heavenly one? These and other tough
questions will continue to come up if the sda do not provide strong HONEST HONEST HONEST
HONEST answers. Many have lost their footing because of this. It is one of the doctrines Elce
Thunder Lauriston, I and many others refuse to believe for it falls under the biblical magnifying
glass. In a nut shell the following is a summary as I understand.
1. Miller and others started preaching of the second coming and disobeyed the words of Christ
when he warned of date setting and knowing of the times which God himself has put. They
were zealous and after calculations, they arrived at a specific date. October 22 1844.
2. The date passed by uneventful. Miller et al were bitterly disappointed, ridiculed and
embarrassed. But Miller still firmly held on to his faith in Christ and recanted his former
understanding claiming it a mistake. He apologized and rejected the idea that probation was
closed on that day which he had thought to be the case consistent with the parable of the
virgins of Matthew 25 which they believed was fulfilled in their time.
3. Other followers refused to believe that they were mistaken. They still held on to the view
that they right and so they believed probation was indeed closed on that day. Hiram Edson had
a "vision" in which he saw Jesus move from the holy place to the most holy place. This they
believed now explained the disappointment. It was not Jesus coming to the earth but his
moving from one apartment to the other in the heavenly sanctuary. At this time they actually
believed probation had closed for those who had rejected Miller as a false teacher. Crosier in
defending this belief even wrote out an explanation of the sanctuary message in 1846
explaining its meaning. Mrs White recommended the book he wrote. However after discovering
that he was mistaken and it was built on faulty exegesis, he abandoned the shut door and
started explaining his prior error in regard to the sanctuary.
4. However the rest continued on being given guidance and comfort by visions of Mrs. White
who actually also believed in the close of probation for sinners and those who had rejected
Miller.
5. Later on they abandoned the idea of probation being closed but believed that while one door
was closed, another was open in the most holy and only those who would understand this
change of position would be benefited by heaven. Hence called the present truth. The rest
were left in darkness under Satan's power. Thus as a group, only these were favored of God.
Those who had not rejected Miller or who had not heard about him where not shut out.
Probation was opened.
5. A further study of this led them to believe that Jesus was doing a work of judgement when he
entered the most holy place. That work was to remove the sins of his people which had
accumulated there. Starting from everyone who had ever believed, names came for review and
some names where retained whist others rejected. The process has been ongoing starting from
those who are dead and it will move to the living. Once a name is judged, the person is either
set for heaven or hell. However none can know when that time will be for his or name to be
read.
6. After this process, referred to as the investigative judgement, ends, Christ will return to take
those who have passed the investigation. The investigation of the wicked takes place at a later
time not in this process. This is strictly for those who have ever named the name of God.
This is the summarized history of the investigative judgement (sanctuary message) as I
understand it.
Is it an erroneous teaching or can it stand biblical scrutiny. We first go to the book in the bible
dedicated to explaining the sanctuary to find out if this is so.
Brother Elce Thunder Lauriston and brother Derrick Gillespie what say you?
Derrick Gillespie I am ready to untangle all the cords of misconceptions, one by one (and in
my own way; or as I see fit). But gimme a couple of days starting over the weekend, as you can
appreciate I am veery busy multi-tasking as a full-time teacher, husband, father, and evangelist
who's dealing with various people on varying topics, et al!! I am ever ready to share in a timely
and non-combative way!!
Lovey Maize In your response you made the assertion that no sda was in 1844 and the
mistake done by Miller was not by sda. Hence sda can not be said to be time setters. Fair
enough. Yet I see your claim missing the most important issue which is....
1. Miller was wrong.
This aspect should not be swept under the rag and say sda were not there. By doing this you are
being dishonest. Why do I say so? Well, a bit of history would help us be honest and clear.
Miller, a former freemason, deist had a conversion experience where he studied scripture for
two years. And he came to the conclusion that Jesus was going to come between 1843 to 1844.
He used 15 points to come to this. For the sake of being fair, especially to those who rejected
his teaching, let me review the 15 points he used. Allow me to complete this aspect and then
you can comment on it so that we move together. I shall signal that I have finished for your
correction and comment.
Like Reply April 29 at 11:16am
Derrick Gillespie No problem, Lovey Maize. I am well aware of all the counterarguments of
the critics, and can wait. I am ready with the answers.
Like Reply April 29 at 12:01pm
Derrick Gillespie In the meantime, my already published responses to brother Thunder on
this issue (which Lovey Maize referenced above) can be the starting point from me. Read it to
start out, dear readers:
"Can the charges leveled against the Sanctuary and the 1844 Investigative Judgment Message
of the SDA Church, by former member, Elce "Thunder" Lauriston on "Religious Hardtalk" in
2016, be responded to in any reasonable way, and refuted ? You owe it to yourself to find out
in this Part 2 presentation by Derrick Gillespie. Download freely, and share widely."
https://www.scribd.com/.../PART-2-Refuting-Thunder...
Like Reply Yesterday at 4:09am Edited
Derrick Gillespie Just to say in preamble before I become fully engaged, the death and
resurrection of Jesus has been a "thorn" in the side of Christianity ever since its inception...a
notion rejected and opposed even by the Jews, our doctrinal predecessors (to them it is a
"stumbling stone" to them accepting Christianity). If that teaching falls everything else in
Christianity crumbles, and yet not many Christians can properly explain why the resurrection of
Jesus is indeed a fact; not just a faith engagement. But does the fact that some/many cant
properly defend this fundamental teaching of Christianity render it a falsehood? Hardly!!
There's an object lesson in there somewhere about the most unique doctrine of SDAs
concerning the ongoing Judgment "hour", and I do hope at the end of this engagement
(hopefully brother Thunder will become fully involved; he has refused to dialog quietly with me)
God's Spirit would have done what only he can do; lead the discussion in a timely and revealing
way and then convict hearts when a much contested/ridiculed truth needs to be understood!
See you guys in a little while when I will discuss the issues CANDIDLY and openly and commend
all to the Scriptures!!

Derrick Gillespie POINT OF INFO:
Lovey Maize, I see where you briefly wrote on brother Elce Thunder Lauriston's wall (where he
has blocked me from commenting/contributing) regarding you reading my published responses
to him on the issues. You said:
"I [Lovey Maize] have read through the responses [you made to brother Thunder]. But since
you are not a Greek scholar of course I skipped areas where you tried to explain the Greek,
unless of course you tell me you have been schooled in Greek, I would assume you borrowed
your understanding from those who have answered such charges before you." ---Lovey Maize,
Facebook comment, April 29, 2016
Well, you yourself admitted to me in private conversation that, quote:
" I am a lay person. Not at all a pastor. Never been to theological school at all." ---Lovey Maize,
Facebook Inbox conversation, April 28, 2016
You said this when I inquired about who you really were, and why you were operating
'incognito' as a purported "confused SDA" and not revealing your true identity in cyberspace,
but instead using a "fake name".
If I take what you said above at face value, I therefore take it that (correct me if I am wrong)
you are not a speaker of Greek, nor a trainee in Greek/Hebrew or theology via theological
school, hence any explanation of Greek or Hebrew YOU YOURSELF will furnish as we delve into
the issues hereafter would be "borrowed understanding" as well. Would that be fair on my part
to assume? And if so, should I likewise "skip" over any explanation you may attempt to give on
any Hebrew or Greek word, on the basis that it is a "borrowed understanding" from someone
else (like Desmond Ford, maybe, or anti-SDA critics, maybe)? My hope is that it will not be your
approach/feeling that unless one is "schooled in theology" one cannot understand the deep
things of the Word, or properly define a Greek or Hebrew word via research on it. After all,
aren't all Greek scholars using a "borrowed understanding" of the Greek and Hebrew they are
taught by another? Isn't the very English Bible we read (e.g. the KJV or NKJV) a regular exercise
involving a reliance on the "borrowed understanding" of the translators of the Greek and
Hebrew? As a teacher for nearly thirty years, I am of the view that education is not confined to
PhDs, nor is it only trained "scholars" in a field who can articulate complex issues.
Let me hope that this will never become an obstacle to a proper definition of terms from the
Greek and Hebrew, because it would be a paltry excuse to not hear each other out in every
way.
Am just saying.
Will get into the issues as soon as you complete your first post (as promised) on the 15 points
William Miller (the BAPTIST preacher) and the *multi-denominational "Millerites" used in the
1840s to indicate why he/they wrongly believed Christ would have returned in 1844.

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, hope you saw the above comments too?
Derrick Gillespie Still no response to the above? I wonder why????
Like Reply May 2 at 12:35am
Lovey Maize Hi Derrick Gillespie. I did not think you wanted me to respond. They were
more of statements. And you said you were going to get into the issues as soon as I was done.
So well, I was done and you skid off. The issue which you say is about the 1st and 2nd angels
message. You had the opportunity to explain it and clear all misconceptions but due to the
difficulties I presented and your own responses you saw how it was going to be difficult to "turn
the wheel". How could you, when you detached yourself from the 1844 to 1863 movement and
indeed the "multidenominational" millerites? You were in a difficult corner and so decided to
move on without facing the issues and the obvious implications as far as your views are
concerned
1. On the Greek issue.
Indeed I am no Greek scholar. At all. I don't even know how to construct a greeting in Greek or
the gramma gymnastics. As I told you I have never sat in an official theological class except for
sabbath school and bible studies etc at church.
So no. No Greek.
Therefore I cannot speak authoritatively on a Greek word as to what it means and when it's
used, how its used or how it's not used.
What I can do, is compare the explanations given by commentators who are experts in Greek,
look at the biblical context in which the word is used and pray about it. And have a teachable
spirit as I can be wrong. So I am not dogmatic as to say "I cannot be moved" etc. Nope.
If you say you have studied Greek and know the gramma and the rules on interpretation of the
language, of course then you will be one of the commentators and I can listen to you with
"respect". Otherwise you must be honest and fair by quoting who explained that to you. Who
taught you. Giving you a dictionary of an English to native aborigine language does not make
you an authority. You can learn enough to get you around but not enough, to say, translate a
passage for use in aborigine schools. For that the experts who know the language ought to be
given that power. Also given the fact that languages tend to evolve over time, it's only fair that
one who is well versed with the current language explain.
At least as a minimum one MUST BE ABLE TO READ IT AND KNOW THE RULES OF GRAMMA.
Even if they are not able to speak it, at least the above must be met. That's how I look at it.
I hope you are not still wondering why I have not responded. You can make your comments or
questions for clarity if there was something you had wanted me to address and I have avoided. I
have no problems at all in doing so.
Like Reply May 2 at 7:08am Edited
Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize I just wondered if you had seen the above response I made
earlier. That's all. Plus it was important to have an understanding about how to relate to Greek
and Hebrew definitions which are bound to come up later, based on the nature of the topic we
are addressing. Now that we are on the same page on that matter we can proceed. All other
comments you made above which are unrelated to the matter of Greek and Hebrew definitions
and how we both should relate, I will "skip over" due to their irrelevance here.
Lovey Maize Noted.
Lovey Maize Due to your insistence despite my refusal you insisted that I find a site where I
can link the 15 points of Miller and delete the long post. Fine. Reader please Google kai arasola
dissertation on the end of historicism. I could not do a link I am comfortable with but Derrick
Gillespie suggested I use even critics websites which I wanted to avoid due to their issues. Here
is a concise place for all the 15 points.
http://www.truthorfables.com/Miller's_Time%20_Proved_15...
TIME PROVED IN FIFTEEN DIFFERENT WAYS By Wm

truthorfables.com
Like Reply Remove Preview April 30 at 6:08pm Edited
Lovey Maize Now let's us be dramatic. Miller is going about preaching that Jesus was going
to come. He used the above proof text to substantiate his claim. Would you believe him?
Would you throw away Jesus' own words for this??????? Obviously not.
Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, I did insist on a link to the 15 points William Miller used
(instead of you copying and pasting all fifteen points in multiple posts), and so that readers may
know why I made that request, here's what I wrote to you privately (inbox):
"Lovey Maize, I have seen and read all of the 15 points years ago. I would suggest that instead
of really burdening the thread/discussion with all those separate posts related to the one point
you are trying to make, you could have linked us to an article where you copied and pasted all
the above from. Don't you think? Please delete all the disjointed separate posts on these 15
points of William Miller and link us to one article online showing (in one place) all you copied
and pasted so far. Is that possible?
If that is not done, then immediately it makes your approach to this discourse a little "too
much" in terms of the many posts you have made so far just to make one point. It will
discourage readers from really following your points being made when they have to wade
through so much copy and paste. Can that approach be corrected as I have suggested above,
for the benefit of all concerned? ...it will take some burden off the readers you are trying to
reach with the arguments you want me to respond to, plus it will make the thread less bulky
and intimidating for readers to read. If we are going to do this, we MUST do it in an organized
way ...Remember we are doing this not so much to find a "winner" or "loser" [in this discourse]
but to reach hearts with the truth being discovered along the way, so lets be strategic and
prudent about how best readers can be reached with what we both will submit. OK"
----Derrick Gillespie, Facebook Inbox message, April 30, 2016
Now that you have tried to reduce the excessive BULK you earlier posted, Lovey Maize, my
response will follow after you re-post your summary arguments about William Miller's 15
points (it seemed to have been accidentally deleted with the rest of the BULKY/MULTIPLE
posts).
P.S. I am not just responding to you Lovey Maize, but also to critics out there from which you
get some of your arguments, or who use similar arguments to try and castigate the SDA
Sanctuary and 1844 Judgment Hour Message. So I will also respond to the linked article you
'reluctantly' posted above to highlight Miller's 15 points he and the multi-denominational
"Millerites" wrongly used to suggest Jesus was coming in 1844.
Like Reply April 30 at 11:53pm Edited

Lovey Maize The article above was actually quoted from Miller. The full discourse is given
by an Adventist scholar in his dissertation phd. Kai arasola. Scholarship is honest in that there is
no one to please save good research. It's guided by integrity and well thought out ideas and has
to have backing from credible references. I do not believe the sda is a cult even if they are cultic
minds which can be found in almost all groups. Yet there are problems which makes one lean
closer to that mindset. This is a fact and when innocent but faithful people discover that they
have been taught half truths or have received poor explanations, they rebel and become
vehement opposers. We are dealing with peoples lives, with families and asking them to believe
truth. Jesus is TRUTH . through out our discourse I pray that that shall come forth. And he shall
be on the throne and out love for Him shall be closer than before in spirit and truth. All lies and
untruths must be shed off at any cost.
I accidentally deleted the post I had earlier put. give me a few hours as i am a bit busy now but
will do so soon. Thanks for being cordial. Blessing.
Derrick Gillespie Typing errors are seen in the above, Lovey Maize. Please address.
Lovey Maize Addressed . Thanks.

Lovey Maize The facts are as follows?

1. Jesus told us he would come again but of that day no one knows the day or hour.
2. Miller however was convinced that the bible did tell exactly when that would be. He
explained away the rebuttals of those who used Jesus' words to disprove him.
3. He used a number of verses in a faulty way to arrive at that time. In short the event he
pointed out to happen at the end of his prediction, when taken as a whole, can only be the
second coming. Apart from Daniel 8, all the other points he used clearly, according to him,
talked of Jesus coming and ended at Jesus' coming. He used texts where he spoke of 6000 yrs
etc etc and calculated that after this Jesus would come. And with precision he traced how that
date came to be using many bible texts. Daniel 8.14 talked of the cleansing of the sanctuary and
that he saw as a cleansing of the earth of sin at the second coming. Every puzzle was solved.
Not just by one verse here and there but by many "witnesses". It was clear to him. Jesus was
coming in 1843/44. He finally some weeks before oct 22 accepted the definite day of October
22.
4. Miller was wrong not only by time setting but by the way he used scripture to substantiate
his views. He errored by having a conclusion of what he believed and saw everything ending in
that conclusion. Thus he proof texted and took texts irresponsibly to come to that end
irrespective what those those texts actually meant to those who heard them in their day.
6. The movement he led was likened to the 10 Virgins of Matthew 25. In that story, 10 Virgins
went out to meet the groom. They groom delayed. They all slept. They heard a cry at midnight
of the groom's coming. 5 had extra oil and went to meet him. The other 5 went to look for oil.
The door was shut by the time they returned. The groom opened and told them he never knew
them and it was too late. They were thrown out in outer darkness. After the door was shut
there was no more salvation. Now, this parable was talking of Jesus' coming and the condition
before he comes. After he comes, probation is closed. There is no more salvation. Only those
who have believed in him and carried the oil were saved. No other.
7. Consistent with the above description, after oct 22 happened. Miller and associates believed
the groom had indeed come but there was a time before the actual punishment was delivered.
However, they still believed probation was closed. Completely. Others, including egw, got
discouraged and did not believe in the "coming of the bridegroom" as having happened and
pushed it yet future or that the door was shut meaning probation closed.
8. Miller later abondoned his position of the shut door. Due to fanaticism that rose out of that ,
he and fellow leaders decided it was fair to make things clear. And they held some meetings
were they made their positions known. And denounced fanatism and the like.
9. James white et al did not go along. They believed the door was indeed shut and their work
was done. Only the "wise virgins" were to be laboured for. However as time moved on, they
abondoned this extreme view but still maintained that the door was shut though there was an
open door which they proof texted from rev 3. of course that departed from the meaning of the
parable and leaves honest questions. Did the bridegroom come? What did Jesus mean. Honest
approach to this MUST BE ADHERED AND NO PROOF TEXTING OF IT OR REWRITING HISTORY
WILL STAND.
Miller was honest. HE WAS SINCERE. He knew what verses he had used and knew what he was
talking about. Without it being the second coming, all his points fell. He was honest and
apologised. He was a good man. We shoild emulate. It does not pay to rewrite history. Twist it
to say what those who lived in that time did not believe.
Honest christian who have studied this have become frustrated and confused because the
whole truth was not taught them yet they go around calling others Babylon and saying they
have the truth . When they discover problems as i have put above, they get angry and bitter.
We are dealing with human hearts. It's better the shock is felt now. The more it delays, the
deeper the shock and bitterr the people as can be seen by folk like Elce Thunder Lauriston. They
move from one position to the other and throw away even the good. All because the truth had
not been taught clearly and honestly. People are not dull. They think and reason and pray. Let
us respect them and tell the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. "Sanctify them by
thy truth, thy word is truth". Error never sanctifies, truth does.
Lovey Maize Over to you Derrick Gillespie before we move on.
Derrick Gillespie *GILLESPIE'S REBUTTAL No. 1:
Lovey Maize, I am hoping that you take careful note of my tone and approach to you since we
have met. Its cordial, friendly, brotherly, avoids all forms of sarcasm, toxicity, negativity,
personal attacks, et al; its all about engaging the issues and being willing to fully talk in a nonconfrontational way over the issues. I INVITE YOU TO DISPLAY THE SAME APPROACH, and
address the issues, and not seek to color my character by sitting in moral judgment on my
person. I say this because you started out by earlier saying this:
"In your response [to brother Thunder Lauriston] you made the assertion that no SDA was in
1844 and the mistake done by Miller was not by SDAs. Hence SDAs cannot be said to be time
setters. Fair enough....[but William] Miller was wrong. This aspect should not be swept under
the rug and say SDAs were not there. By doing this you are being dishonest."
--- Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, April 29, 2016
Now the above statement from you evidences, first, you attacking my character and sitting in
judgment on my person by deeming me to be "dishonest" (an approach that's uncalled for, and
will not score you any points for seeking to do this), and second it demonstrates double talk
and lack of careful reading and logical thinking on your part. Why do I say so? First, you say in
one instance that my utterances were "fair", and then just a few lines after you turn around to
deem me being "dishonest" in those same utterances, and "sweeping things under the rug".
Hmm. So which is it, really, Lovey Maize?
Pages 4-7 of my Part 2 response to brother Elce Thunder Lauriston ---"PART 2- Refuting Thunder
Lauriston's Hardtalk Charges (2016)" ---made plain that the SDA Church was formed in 1863
(nearly 20 years after 1844), and hence it is plain that the SDA *Church cannot be attributed the
1844 date setting for the coming of Christ. Now if you want to sidestep that glaring truth of
history, and try to prove otherwise, then your attempts will be quite futile.
Also, if you seek to appeal to the notion that because later SDA members (of the later formed
1863 Church) were around when the 1844 date was set for the coming of Christ by the multidenominational "Millerites" and the Baptist preacher William Miller, then that makes the 1863
SDA Church culpable of this earlier mistake, then right away you are delving into illogical
reasoning. Am I to then charge the Christian Church with being 'Christ killers', or for being
preachers of a false type of Messiah who would just be a military leader to conquer the
Romans, simply because it was Jews who crucified Christ, and Jews (including Jesus' first
apostles) largely believed and preached this falsehood leading up to the formation of the
Christian Church by those same Jews? Not at all!
Out of the above described situation, and with the very same misguided Jews the Christian
Church was *later formed, and yet you don't go around castigating Christians because of their
Jewish predecessors and the later Jewish Christian converts earlier having misguided notions
about the nature of the Messiah, or their Jewish predecessors being the very ones that rejected
and crucified Christ.
Hands down (we now in hindsight can say), the Jews were certainly wrong to have had these
misguided beliefs about who the Messiah would be and what the nature of his kingdom would
be, and the Jews were wrong to have rejected and crucified Jesus by way of false accusations
leveled at him!!! Likewise the *Baptist preacher, William Miller, was wrong in his date setting
for the coming of Jesus, and the multi-denominational "Millerites" were wrong to do the same
(matters not if they even honestly felt that the "unsealing" of the book of Daniel in the very last
days might have had the earlier-concealed date of Jesus' second coming being revealed, despite
Jesus had earlier said that "no man [*then] knows the day nor the hour")!! But here again we
have a similar situation in that just as in the bible itself it was the earlier misguided Jews who
later formed the Christian Church (with their earlier misconceptions taking years to unlearn and
abandon), so too, some of those same earlier misguided "Millerites" of the 1840s constituted
the later formed SDA Church of 1863 (with their earlier misconceptions taking years to unlearn
and abandon).
Now, its kinda futile to be spending time over-analyzing why the multi-denomination Millerites
were misguided leading up to the disappointment in 1844, while ignoring the biblical fact that
the very first Christians were also disappointed when their mistaken ideas/expectations about
Jesus as the Messiah were dashed at Jesus' death, and when they saw that their years of
believing and preaching (as Jews) that the Messiah would have been a military leader to
overthrow the Romans was totally wrong in terms of how and when that would happen.
Finally, never forget that it was in the very midst of Jews preaching for years about the coming
of the Messiah, and in the midst of Jews preaching about the false type of Messiah that the true
Messiah arose. The Jews sensitized the world to the coming of a Messiah, even while they were
mistaken about the true nature of his Messiahship and his kingdom. The core truth in all of
these mistaken ideas was that a Messiah was prophesied, and he was to arise among the Jews,
and when he came something cosmic was to be realized in human history, and prophecy was
certainly to be fulfilled. There's an object lesson there in all of this that we should not miss as it
concerns the multi-denominational Millerite movement of the 1840s.

In the midst of all of William Miller's "15 points" of largely misguided proof texting was a kernel
of truth...and it is that something was to happen in 1844 based on Bible prophecy. He certainly
got it right in his use of the Daniel 8 and 9 prophecies, but he and the multi-denominational
"Millerites" certainly got it wrong on what was to have happened at the end of that 2300 years
prophecy. But, just like with the Jews who believed and expected and preached about a coming
Messiah, God also accomplished much via the Millerite movement; in bringing serious focus
back to the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, and also in having the later formed SDA
Church consistently, ever since, pointing to the fact that something momentous, of serious
cosmic importance, did happen in 1844. The early Christians Jews were NOT just 'saving face'
when they preached a risen Lord who's coming again after their great disappointment in him
being killed and him not being the type of Messiah they earlier expected, and it is not just a
'face saving' doctrine for SDAs (as later formed in 1863) to now preach that something of major
importance did happen in 1844!!
It is my intention in this whole discourse to show how valid the 1844 Judgment hour message of
the later formed SDA Church is (as based on the Daniel 8 and 9 vision; singular), and it is my
prayer that it will become clear to readers as we proceed; no matter the fierce opposition from
you Lovey Maize and all the critics in the world.
Over to you...Lovey Maize, for final remarks on this first issue you raised (after which I will also
make my final remarks).....
Derrick Gillespie Apple Gidden, keep watching and praying. You do know why I asked you.
Smile. smile emoticon
Lovey Maize I will try not to call you dishonest. I don't think you are. Yet when I see that
you may not be saying things as accurately as I may be seeing I will have to make my case as
clear as noon day. If you are mistaken, and I show you so, you need to be fair and accept the
mistake. That's all I am calling for. I too will do that. If however we disagree and can't agree, it's
ok. We can move on. It's possible for Christians to disagree. We don't have to see things exactly
the same. In all this all I beg for is honesty honesty honesty. That's all.
Derrick Gillespie You do sit in judgment, Lovey Maize, when you seek to ascertain the moral
fiber of someone, or their level of honesty, and you do realize that what you call "you seeing
accurately" compared to another person is all subjective based on your own finite judgment
(you may be wrong). So give place for the possibility that your sight or insight may be wrongly
influenced by presuppositions, biases, limited judgment, et al.
P.S. Are you a male or female, Lovey Maize? That, I am sure you can say despite your bid to
remain 'incognito' (and for whatever reason). I'd like to be able to say "he" or "she" when I am
referring to you while speaking to another about you or your arguments.
Like Reply May 2 at 8:24pm Edited

Lovey Maize Now for my response...
I am glad with your response. Thank you. What you don't realise is that in that statement you
have concluded the following. Correct me if I am wrong.
1. Miller was an honest christian gentleman.
2. Miller was wrong and used wrong theology to come up with the dates.
3. It was wrong for Miller to have set the date.
4. Those who believed Miller were wrong and if the sda church was present in Miller time, they
would have rejected him. They do not condone date setting and believe Jesus word "no one
knows the day nor hour".
5. God sometimes overlookes an error and will gently guide and correct those with a heart to
serve .
Is this a clear representation of your response? If not kindly correct with numbering.
You use the jews and relate them to the millerites.
One issue you forget and is at te heart of this is this...honesty.
Let me illustrate. With say the disciples' experience as i understand it.
1. Jesus told the disciples of the nature of his kingdom.
2. Jesus time and again told the disciples that he would die and be resurrected. He did not hide
it from them.
When they got disappointed, it was not that he had not told them. No. They did not believe it.
They ignored his words.
BUT WHEN HE AROSE, AND THEY REALISED THEIR MISTAKE, THEY ACCEPTED THEIR MISTAKE.
UNDERSTOOD BETTER THE NATURE OF HIS KINGDOM.
this is how God works. Sometimes we may be mistaken and may not understand his ways. But
through his providence he gently guides us.
WHAT HE DOES NOT DO IS TO TEST US AGAINST HIS OWN WRITTEN WORD. NO. HIS WORD IS
WHAT HE HAS GIVEN US so that we know HOW WE MAY TEST AND CORRECT OUT MISTAKES AS
WE GROW IN HIM. WHILST MAKING MISTAKES.
This is where the main issue is.
1. Miller accepted his MISTAKE and repented. He was honest yet believed he was right . His
attitude was to serve God and prepare people for Christ coming. When he realised his mistake
he asked for forgiveness and bore responsibility and tried to correct misconceptions and further
date setting and explanations others were giving. That's a gentleman...
2. Whist you distance the sda pioneers , seemingly to say that they could not have agreed to his
mistake, i wish to remind you of an important issue.
THEY BELIEVED IN THE PRESENT TRUTH . THAT TRUTH WAS THAT GOD TESTED THE WORLD
THROUGH MILLER AND THOSE WHO REFUSED were rejected of God. This is what was taught.
This is what EGW taught. That God rejected those who refused Miller. So for you to distance
the sda church from that which was a testing truth is shocking.
My question to you which I ask for an answer is:
Did the people who read millers exposition of scripture and found them wanting get rejected by
God? Do some today who reject millers experience as sanctioned by God as a testing truth, get
rejected by God?
Derrick Gillespie My final response to your first point re the Millerites will follow by the
latest tomorrow....am busy at the moment!!
Derrick Gillespie And you have not answered whether you are male or female. That would
help me to use the correct pronoun when speaking of you, Lovey Maize.
Lovey Maize Use any...
Derrick Gillespie Are you saying I can deem you a "shemale", seeing I can deem you "any"?
These days we have people so 'liberated' that they can be any gender, or be fluid, or be both.
Come on. What's your beef with simply saying you are a male or female, Lovey Maize? I am
cooperating with you in so many ways, and you cant even say whether you are male or female
so I can refer to you properly by way of a personal pronoun? Oh dear!!
Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize OK, it therefore means that if I should refuse to cooperate with
you in any way, you cant feel affronted, since you are refusing to develop even a normal
interpersonal relationship in the usual way. You could be treated by me then as a robot in
cyberspace, for all you care. Well, so be it then....
Lovey Maize That cartoon is male Derrick Gillespie. ..That's my gender. So "he" is how you
would refer me.
Derrick Gillespie Are you a 'cartoon character' then, or are you being a sly fox? Hmm. LOL.
Dont answer that...am just teasing since you 'went there'. Smile. smile emoticon
Like Reply 1 May 1 at 11:34am Edited
Derrick Gillespie GILLESPIE'S REBUTTAL No. 2 (final remarks on the Millerites):

Lovey Maize, I see where you want to get bogged down in the issues related to the early
Millerites, and the period before the formation of the SDA Church in 1863, and our subsequent
proclamation of our distinctive SDA message about something VEEEERY significant happening in
1844, based on the prophecy of Daniel 8 and 9. While I can/could accommodate you in that
aspect of things, and argue back and forth until the cows come home on those issues related to
the period between 1844 and 1863 before the SDA Church was officially formed, but I am sorry,
I am not going to miss the forest because of individual trees you want to spend an inordinate
amount of time on. Here's the cream of my argumentation:

1. In the midst of all that the Millerites brought to people's attention in the 1840s was the fact
that a prophecy from Daniel 8 and 9 ended in 1844, since Daniel 8:17 made plain that the vision
involved would actually relate to the time of "the end" (obviously running unbroken and
historically in sequence long after Greece and Antiochus Epiphanes left the scene), but naturally
starting from within the Medo-Persian period when "the vision" began (Daniel 8:13) and
continuing right up into a period related to the time of "the end". The times of "the end" only
related to the periods after Jesus came; never to periods before that!!
2. It is this aspect of the Millerite focus/preaching upon which the post-1863 SDA Sanctuary and
Investigative Judgment Hour Message is based, and it is that which all critics like yourself MUST
prove false before you will get my attention. Let's cut to the chase, and go to the heart of the
issue. SDAs formed in 1863 were not alone in believing that a major time prophecy ended in
either 1843 or 1844 (a fact I can easily prove), and if it can be proven that no such
interpretation is tenable, then and only then can the SDA position on the issue be deemed
misguided.
Let's get into it, and stop skirting around it. I say prove me and all SDAs wrong in our
interpretation of that time prophecy between Daniel 8 and 9, and then after I am (or we are)
'debunked' in the 2300 days/yearstime prophecy then we can deal with all the other side
issues you want to get into, Lovey Maize. I promise you that if you can do that, then I will come
back and deal with all the other issues you want to spend so much time on.
Start with the questions I answered brother Thunder Lauriston regarding the SDA interpretation
of Daniel 8:13, 14, i.e. about the little horn, about which sanctuary would logically be in view at
the end of the period covered by the entire vision, as expressed in Daniel 8:13, 14, etc, etc.
Those issues are clearly laid out in my Part 2 responses to him, and in my booklet defending the
SDA Sanctuary Message. I see where you seem to deem historicism and the day-year principle
to have been debunked by scholars like Kai Arasola, and hence I now signal to you that I am
willing to start there (I do have Kai Arasola's book and several critical reviews of his thesis, and
thus can adequately relate to his theories). Is the vision in Daniel 8 and 9 applicable to a time
prophecy beyond the Grecian empire, and in fact could it end in the 1800s? Let's get into the
meat of the matter man!!
P.S. [*Note carefully, readers, my signal given here to Lovey Maize at this juncture] If you wish
not to get into the heart of the matter this way (i.e. quickly), well, it would seem that we will
have to part company, since I am one who believes in cutting to the chase, and dealing with
what's most important first, and less important issues later. I have to do that seeing that I am a
very busy person and must manage my time in the most prudent way.

Marlon Robinson I am addding my voice to the conversation. The issue of "tamid and
nitsdaq" in Daniel 8:13-14 has been misconstrued by liberal scholars especially of the higher
criticism school so that they can apply the text to Antiochus Ephiphanes. However, a close study
of the context of Daniel 8 along with the linguistic rendering of the passage in the Hebrew and
the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) will shed light on the meaning of the
text.TheHebrewtermforcontinualistamidanditoccurs124timesintheTanak(Hebrew
Bible)ortheOldTestament.Whentamidisusedasanadjectiveoradverb it conveys the
meaningofcontinualorperpetual.However,whentheusageis ordinary adjective, it
describes a variety of things, such as continual employment (Ezekiel 39:14), continual sorrow
(Psalm 38:17), and continual hope (Psalm 71:14). Tamid refers to the morning and evening
sacrifice in Daniel 8:13, which is different from nitsdaq.NitsdaqaccordingtoDanielrefersto
2300 evening and morning.
Notice the difference between morning and evening (tamid-dailysacrifice)andnitsdap(2300
evenings and mornings). When evening and morning are used in the Bible it refers to a 24 hour
daybutthisrenderinghasneverbeenusedwithtamid(morningandeveningsacrificeinthe
context of Daniel 8:13). Secondly, the textual school of criticism is not playing by their own
rules. For example they argue that the older/oldest manuscripts are the better ones as in the
cases of Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. If they were playing by their own rules then they
wouldaccepttheSeptuaginttranslationofnitsdaqasthebettertranslation.TheSeptuagint
translationofnitsdapintoGreek is "katharisthesetai", which comes from "katharizw", which
meansmakeclean,cleanse,purify.Thiswordcanbeliterallytranslatedasbecleansed.The
factthattheSeptuaginttranslatedNitsdaqas"katharisthesetai"isaclearindicationofhow
the text was understood by those who were closest to the time of Daniel.
Furthermore, the usage domestic animals (Sanctuary animals) in Daniel 8 suggest that the
Daniel wanted us to think Sanctuary. In addition, we need to pay attend to the usage of
"Hazon" (the whole vision) and "Mareh" (the small portion of the vision that was not explained
in chapter 8). The fact that all the vision (hazon) was explained except the 2300 days suggests
thatthe2300iswhattheprophetreferstoasthemareh.Thesetwo words appeared in
chapter 9 with the same characters (Daniel and Gabriel) and vocabulary. It is significant to note
that they were discussing the same topic that chapter 8 concluded with, the explanation of the
mareh.Daniel9:21states,"Yes,whileI was still praying, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen
previously in a vision (hazon), was approaching me in my state of extreme weariness, around
the time of the evening offering. 22He spoke with me, instructing me as follows: "Daniel, I have
now come to impart understanding to you. 23At the beginning of your requests a message
went out, and I have come to convey it to you,for you are of great value in God's sight.
Therefore consider the message and understand the vision (mareh) (Daniel 9:21-23).
Furthermore, notice the parallels between the identification of the little in Daniel 7 and 8.
Daniel uses similar prophetic symbols for the little horn in both chapters. The little horn in
Daniel 7 and 8 appear and arise at a somewhat similar time in history and they begin small and
become great (7:8 and 8:9); both are blasphemous powers (7:8, 25; and 8:11, 25); both
persecute the saints of God (7:21, 25 and 8: 11,25); both appear to endure for protracted
periods of prophetic time (7:25 and 8:14); and both eventually suffer similar fates (7:26 and
8:25). This kind of parallelism is no accident by the author.
Daniel 2, 7, and 8 are related because of several common characteristics found in all three
visions. Daniel 8, like Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, consists of supernatural revelation and explanation,
and thus, all three chapters end with the supernatural intervention of God. A plain reading of
the text clearly illuminates this idea and therefore these chapters must be studied in
connection with other. These three chapters concludes with common elements: Daniel 2
concludes with the stone cut out without hands; Daniel 7 ends with the judgment scene in
heaventhatultimatelyleadstothedemiseofthelittlehornandtheestablishmentofGods
kingdom (Daniel 7:25-28); Daniel 8 ends with the destruction of the little horn, according to
8:25,withouthand.Understandingtheinter-relatedness between these chapters will
certainly help you to understand their relationship to each other.
Unlike Reply 2 May 1 at 12:20pm Edited
Derrick Gillespie Well put, Marlon Robinson.
Like Reply 2 May 1 at 5:22pm
Derrick Gillespie And of course, Marlon Robinson, if God chose to give a prophetic lesson
and message via the use of kingdoms which spanned centuries, then it is plain it touches on
issues which go beyond just happenings within a few literal days. Also, seeing that the TRUE
Sanctuary in the great salvation plan is NOT the one on earth, then the Devil would most
certainly hate the heavenly one being faintly depicted/foreshadowed by the earthly one. It is
the heavenly Sanctuary where Jesus now ministers that Satan would most hate and be most
incensed by its role (and hence seek to obscure), and it is plain by the context of Daniel 8:13-14
that the heavenly Sanctuary (as intimately tied to the Church; the spiritual sanctuary) would be
the only remaining candidate as a TRUE sanctuary to be "cleansed" or "justified" at the end of
period covered by "the vision" (Hebrew, "hazon") in its entirety. No power on earth can ever
rob me of that understanding, because it is firmly rooted in the Scripture between Daniel 8 and
9!!!
Like Reply 2 May 2 at 8:31pm Edited
Marlon Robinson Sure. Moreover, based on the context of Daniel 8 and 9, 490 days
extended from the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple down to death of the Messiah.
Therefore, these days cannot be literal days but have to prophetic days.
In addition,ifJesuspriestlyministryisnotaccordingtotheLeviticallineageofAaron,butthat
His priesthood is of a special origin, which is after the order of Melchesidec. Consequently,
priests do not function apart from temples or sacred things and as a resultJesuspriesthood
must consist of a temple and sacred things. Hebrews 8:24 identified that as the heavenly
temple.
Unlike Reply 2 May 2 at 4:13pm
Derrick Gillespie Some argue that the "messiah" in Daniel 9 is not preceded by the definite
article and hence it was simply "an anointed one", or a normal leader of Israel who was being
referenced, just like all other leaders are termed, and not Jesus as that "messiah". But when I
come to that aspect of things I will certainly ventilate the issues in terms of the strength of the
SDA viewpoint. Just keep watching. Thanks for your input Marlon Robinson, but like I said, this
thread is mainly about my discourse with Lovey Maize, so....
Lovey Maize Like I thought... I deliberately laid a trap for you to see where issues stem
from. You do not want to get to the root and see how things develop. That's where we began.
You Derrick Gillespie promised to answer the issues one by one. THOSE WHERE YOUR WORDS.
but now I have put you in a place where an answer to my questiions would put you in a very
awkward position.
I have been very cordial to you. There are questions that stem from our inception which
scholars know. But you as an evangelist is not schooled in this. You simply proclaim what has
been handed to you and have believed. That's where Elce Thunder Lauriston found himself. In
your very shoes. And when he discovered that there really are problems in our history he got
annoyed. He was taught that he was procliming "the truth". But he had a wrong or incomplete
understanding of history of the church. So when he found out problems he got annoyed and
threw out everything. Purely human behaviour.
Now you distance yourself from the movement of 1844 to 1863 because I trapped you and you
fell right in. I am a good debater. I also wanted to CLEARLY SHOW YOU WHY THESE PROBLEMS
ARE THERE AND WHY THOSE WHO QUESTION ARE NEVER GIVEN ANSWRRS. IT'S BECAUSE
THERE ARE NO GOOD ANSWERS. That's why I wanted to start with the origin. See the
development of the doctrine and see how it ended up being the investigative judgement. You
promised to answer my and other peoples questions. You then run off and say you like to cut to
the Chase. You are a teacher by profession. You promised honesty. You promised a good
debate where you would answer my question. But now that you know that your honest
answers will bring real issues, you back off. Were my questions that difficult? I set up those
questions in order to make you think through carefully and answer honestly.
How ever since you have decided to go this route, fine. Let those reading judge for themselves.
I don't care for nothing but the truth. Its the only thing that can set free not half truths no
matter how faithfully or honestly held.
Pipim usually says" when an honestly mistaken man is faced with the truth, in that moment he
ceases to be mistaken or honest".
So let's go to Daniel. However as you may realise, I follow careful reasoning. Slowly and clearly.
It must be honest and must be factual. As a history teacher I thought you were going to really
use that power inherent in ' history studying which illuminates and makes the present to be
understood. The good part about history is it's there. Folk may try to change it or re interpret it,
but it stands. Without history we can never know why we are here. How we are here. And
where we are going. I lovve history. Wait...am i really giving a lecture to you? I feel like Jesus
saying to nicodemus "are you not a teacher of history and knoweth not these things?"
Ok. Let's go to Daniel. However we must first still look at history. We can't run away from that.
We have to understand what sanctuary that is in Daniel. We have to know the history of the
sanctuary. We have to know what the sanctuary services stood for.why were they there? What
was their use? Why don't we offer sacrifices anymore? Etc..the idea is to not simply "win" an
argument or debate but understand what the word says.
As a teacher you must understand that students do not start from an unknown and then move
to the known. No. They start from the known or clear word to the unclear word. The clear word
must be the platform on which to build the unclear word.
That's seems correct to me. If Miller started with the clear word of "no one knows the day nor
hour" he would have not ended up where he ended. A mistake and heartache.
You and I should not make a similar mistake. A clear word to unclear. So to me, I wish to start
with the clear word. The sanctuary. Know it's meaning and see how it affects me. Then go and
see what cleansing of the sanctuary meant etc.
Therefore allow me to give a brief overview of the sanctuary and what it meant as expounded
by scripture itself as i understand it. You can correct as we proceed.
Derrick Gillespie [*Note this response again dear readers] There you go, descending into
the personal attacks and ad hominem, Lovey Maize, and even blowing your own trumpet about
being, oh, such a "good debater". Hmmm. It never took you long, did it? The real you now
comes out. Oh well. Anyway, my stance remains the same. Let's get to the heart of the issues
and then come back to all those other matters you want to address after you debunk me in the
most important issue. What's there to lose, really? smile emoticon
By the way, you call you judging me to be "dishonest" at the very start of our discourse as you
being cordial? And you deem hiding yourself in cyberspace behind a chipmunk profile pic, and
later a cartoon fox character, and a fake name "Lovey Maize" as you being cordial? Hmm.
And, incidentally, me addressing every misconception about our SDA teaching on the Sanctuary
doesn't mean I will spend inordinate amounts of time being a 'slave' to what you want to focus
on, and no matter for how long, or how circular and round about you may want it to be. I
answer all the issues as I deem fit, and leave all readers (NOT YOU, Lovey Maize) to decide for
themselves what is truth; while leaving you to triumphalistically declare who "trapped" who, or
who lacks knowledge about aspects of SDA history and who doesn't. I am of the view that a
triumphalistic approach to any part of this conversation by any of us is a signal that SELF is the
center of this discourse, and not Jesus and his truth!! Look in the mirror, Lovey Maize, and see
who has embarked down that road so far!!
P.S. Its interesting that you presume to know so much about me that you are even describing
me and brother Elce Thunder Lauriston (who sadly defected from SD Adventism) to be at the
same place or in the same shoes as it concerns our doctrinal journey with SDA teachings on the
Sanctuary. Hmmm. Bwoy, Lovey Maize, you are sooooo 'insightful', just as you self-declare you
being such a "good debater". Smile. smile emoticon

Derrick Gillespie Also, you are sooo confident, it seems, as to what I have been exposed to,
and the limit of what I know, Lovey Maize, even while sooo confidently declaring yourself such
a "good debater". Hmm. Careful you are not blowing your vuvuzela and dancing in the ring
before time? Am just saying.

Lovey Maize What can say... you have denied the 1844 to 1863 and distanced yourself
from what is there in that period. You know it's not good. AND THAT'S WERE ISSUES
ARE...THAT'S WERE I HAD QUESTIONS. THAT'S HISTORY. YOU REFUSE TO STAY THERE. WHY???
YOU KNOW BETTER. MY GUESS IS YOU ALSO DON'T HAVE GOOD ANSWERS. That's where they
built the theory from and yet you won't stay there. Why?
Like Reply May 1 at 1:39pm
Derrick Gillespie [*Readers note carefully my response] I have "denied" nothing, and
careful reading would show that (i.e. if you read each word I used carefully). It is clear you (like
many others) cant distinguish between the words "Adventists" (i.e. the multi-denominational
"Millerites" of the 1840s) and "Seventh-day Adventists" (who only became such after 1863).
Pity. Anyway, I have already addressed as I see fit your overall arguments on that period in
history, Lovey Maize, but if you are not satisfied, then so be it. You earlier agreed that we wont
agree on everything or share the same views on everything (and, of course, that would include
what areas of study need to be labored more than others), and you expressed that would be
fine by you, and that we can "move on" when that happens. Why not apply that principle now?
You are turning this into an issue about YOU, and descending into making personal jabs when
you don't have your way. Its telling. Hmmm. smile emoticon
Bye for now. I resume tomorrow.
P.S. Lovey Maize, pages 23-24 (Question 7 or Section 7) of my booklet linked below addresses
the matter of the "shut door" controversy involving the early "Adventists" before the new SDA
Church was officially formed in 1863 (that's it for now until we address the Daniel 8 and 9 vision
and its meaning; the heart of the SDA Message):
https://www.scribd.com/.../SDAs-CAN-TRUST-E-G-WHITE-a...

Lovey Maize No. I had made statements wanting you to correct me if I am wrong. All you
had to do was say" yes, I agree. You heard right. Or no. Here is what I said. The of course I will
hear you. You ought to be clear. If I was not clear or misrepresented some info you should tell
me. Trust me I have no allegiance any particular view. If it's false and doesn't stand scripture it's
gone.
Lovey Maize Good night.
Lovey Maize Derrick Gillespie,The issue of the shut door is a pandora box which since you
have refused to look at histoory will have to wait. That issue is thorny and will shock you. I will
make it as Crystal as glass. So I won't go there now as we are trying to discuss the sanctuary.
Even though its quite related. Somehow. But for now I wont read your response as i am sure
the temptation to respond will be too high.
Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, you seem to think you have so many "shocking" 'surprises'
for me up your sleeve. Hmm. I am just smiling through it all. Time will reveal all, my friend.
Never underestimate your opponent...even in a discussion!!
Derrick Gillespie Ball in your court about Daniel 8 and 9, Lovey Maize. Let's go. I will be
available again starting tomorrow (Monday, May 2, 2016).
Lovey Maize 1.God has always wanted to be close to his people. A communion never
broken. Based on loving service to him. This was so till Adam and eve sinned. The principle is
found in Isaiah 59.2
2. When sin entered the world, there was a gap that was created between man and God. A gap
that could only be bridged by the death of God's only Son, Jesus. Genesis 3:15 called the first
messianic prophecy.
3. In exodus 25.8 after rescuing the children of isreal, God said let them make me a sanctuary
that I may dwell among them. He formalised the sacrificial services which already had began
but now in a coherent and specific manner.
4. He took Moses to a mountain and showed him in vision a pattern of the sanctuary he was to
make. Moses was told to make the sanctuary exactly as he was shown. Exodus 25.8 -10.
5. Moses made the sanctuary. In summary it Had 3 compartment. Outer court. And the main
tent which was divided in two; the inner compartment also called the most holy place where in
the arc, commandment, and the mercy seat and aaaron staff where put. The other
compartment was the holy place. Exodus 25-27
6. The priests offered sacrifices and worked within the holy place and outer court. Daily people
came in families or individual and confessed and offered sacrifices. If one person sinned he took
his offering and killed it there and the priest did some ritual after which the man's sins were
forgiven. The killing signifying the death that he was to have died. A substitute died in his place.
He went away rejoicing. Very happy. Leviticus 4
7. Once a yr the high priest now offered sacrifices for the entire congreagation. Unlike the daily
priestly works, the high priest offered confession for everyone. The entire congregation. All the
sins done unknowingly were confessed and after the whole procession, the entire congregation
was said to be free. And a "new yr" would begin. Leviticus 16.
8. That in a nutshell was the sanctuary services as i understand it.
Now what did all these things represent? There is one book in the bible which explains these
sacrifices. I suggest we go there and find out. Hebrews. Are you game?
Derrick Gillespie The above summary ORIGINALLY lacked Scripture references to prove your
points, and seeing that of paramount importance is the Scriptures when dealing with this issue,
I am glad that (upon my suggestion) you went back and at least tried to post what you deem to
be some of the relevant Scriptures at the end of each point made. I aim to do the same when I
return starting tomorrow, Lovey Maize.
Have a great day. Family matters now demand my attention, and other matters too, as I
prepare to return to work tomorrow!!

Lovey Maize Blessings to your family. Noted. And a blessed week at work.
Sorry for "judging" you. It will appear so time and again due to the nature of our discussions.
Derrick Gillespie [*Note again dear readers my growing annoyance with Lovey Maize] No,
you are not "sorry" (in my humble estimation). It is the nature of all your discourses I have seen
so far, and seems to be very much a part of you. Your discourses are judgmental and are always
in attack mode and seek to psychoanalyze and morally judge people's honesty, et al, even while
you present this air of moral and informational superiority. It seems to be your approach
generally. I saw it in your discussion on the Clear Word paraphrase (seen linked below), and I
have seen it on Thunder Lauriston's page with others as well. And again it has popped up here
in this thread/discussion. "By their fruits ye shall know them", and "Can a leopard change its
spots...?". Hmm. I rather doubt that!! But with Jesus, and through him all is possible.
https://www.facebook.com/jayso.../posts/10201409949046766...

Lovey Maize I am not a psychologist. Dont know how to psychoanalyse people. What i do
know is to fair and honest. I have no problems with changing my views. If I do see that an
untruth is not challenged of course I will say it AND DEMAND THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT. SO
IN THAT WAY,YES I COULD APPEAR LIKE JUDGING. By the way it's ok to judge. The Bereans
heard and judged what was being said. We ought to judge and make things right. I want you to
judge me too. Not condemning me to help butvehen I am wrong or behave dishonestly with my
handling of issues, rebuke me. I would be glad to be correct.
Derrick Gillespie Its easy to rationalize, Lovey Maize, and to misapply unrelated Scriptures
to try and gloss over one's failings and weaknesses. I've seen it many times. "Judging" between
ISSUES and ideas (as did the Bereans) is not the same as judging PEOPLE, which Jesus himself
told us NOT to do (a commandment many find hard to obey), since only he is qualified to judge
people, and he is certainly doing that since the "time appointed" (see 2 Cor. 5:10-11 with Acts
17:31 and Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14):
"Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the
beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and,
behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
I say Amen!!

Lovey Maize Ok
Derrick Gillespie I will be available again starting tomorrow (Monday, May 2, 2016), so post
your preamble points on the sanctuary, as you so desire, and I will return, read and respond
starting then. Bye for now, "Lovey Maize"!!

Lovey Maize Paul explains What the sacrificial system did.
Having briefly summarised the sacrificial system above Why don't we start with what they
meant. Who did the sacrifices symbolise? When were they fulfilled? Are we still supposed to
offer sacrifices?
Paul was faced with a number of difficulties with those that still wanted ceremonies done
before Calvary to continue. He tried to solve the diffuculties but what I see uplifting is this. The
cross. Jesus. The gospel. He says if anyone should come even from heaven itself and say
something else, let him be accursed. Thus we must line up to his teaching, inspired by the Holy
Spirit, as a textbook for understanding.
Hebrews has 13 chapters. Can be read in one sitting. Context context context must rule in
understanding it. This means we have to read it as if we are in the audience which Paul is
directly addressing. So again let's be dramatic. Let's sit and listen to him... here is the summary
as i understand it.
Lovey Maize Chapter 1:
Affirms that Christ is the Creator and express image of the father. " God , who at sundry times
and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets , Hath in these last
days spoken unto us by his Son , whom he hath appointed heir of all things , by whom also he
made the worlds ; Who being the brightness of his glory , and the express image of his person ,
and upholding all things by the word of his power , when he had by himself purged our sins , sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high ;
Here Paul says that after purging our sins He went and Sat down on the right hand of the
majesty.
He goes on to show the exalted status of Christ.
Chapter 2.
1. He warns about letting those things they had heard slip.
2. He warns about neglecting this great a salvation after all effort has been made for us.
3. Then He shows the relation of man, angel and The humble Christ, made a Lowe than angels
and tasted death for every man.
4. The in verse 11 he reintegrated by saying that the bridge is done. He who santifieth and
those that are being sanctified are one. We can call Him our elder brother.
5. He finishes off by saying how empathetic He serves as high priest, " make reconciliation for
the sins of the people."
Chapter 3
Talks unbelief and hardening our hearts when we hear him.
Chap4.
Talks about how we are to enter into his rest, Christ. How that one who has entered into that
rest ceases from his own works, and says there is an effort on our part to enter into that rest.
Other homiletic issues can occur but the rest here primarily is Christ.
Hebrews 5.
Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec, not Aaronic.
It's pointless to make every comparison fit the Aaronic priesthood.
Chapter 6
A stern warning of being enlightened and being partakers of the heavenly gift, and turning
away. Encourages us to grow forth in Christ unto the end. He concludes by saying" But , beloved
, we are persuaded better things of you , and things that accompany salvation , though we thus
speak . For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love , which ye have
shewed toward his name , in that ye have ministered to the saints , and do minister . And we
desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the
end : That ye be not slothful , but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the
promises . For when God made promise to Abraham , because he could swear by no greater ,
he sware by himself , Saying , Surely blessing I will bless thee , and multiplying I will multiply
thee . And so , after he had patiently endured , he obtained the promise . For men verily swear
by the greater : and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife . Wherein God ,
willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel ,
confirmed it by an oath : That by two immutable things , in which it was impossible for God to
lie , we might have a strong consolation , who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set
before us : Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul , both sure and stedfast , and which
entereth into that within the veil ; Whither the forerunner is for us entered , even Jesus , made
an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec .
Here he says this high Priest, Jesus entered " within the Veil". The early Adventist believed this
to mean first apartment. But exegetical honesty has made this view to be adjusted and Pr
Andross in answer objections of Balleger to this text agreed that "within the veil" means the
second veil as all other instances in scripture indicate. Though it is said it was for "inauguration"
then he went to the holy place.
Chapter 7
He makes it clear the Christls priestly ministry is of the order of Melchizedec and not levitical (
Aaronic)
The significance being He is eternal and able to "save them that come to God by Him, seeing he
ever liveth to make intercession for them." Emphasis is placed that he does not have to offer
sacrifice for himself but he did that it once and for all.
Lovey Maize Chap 8
He starts off now by saying this " is the sum". The main thing.
" we have a high priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the
heavens."
" a minister of the sanctuary , the true one pitched by God not man." There he has a " more
excellent ministry,...mediator of a better covenant, .....established upon better promises."
He then talks of the new covenant being that the laws are placed into our minds and written on
our hearts....and shall not teach Everyman his neighbor and every man his brother, saying know
The Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest,..."
Chap 9
He explains the first covenants ordinances; the holy place articles, most holy place articles, the
priest went always in the holy place but the high priest only once a year, with blood for himself
and for the errors of the people. Bare in mind that on the day of atonement there was no
personal sacrifices done. These would have been prior in readiness for this high day. Then verse
8 says the " 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: ..." Verse 11 continues " Christ being
come an high priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made
with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
To be fair the part " holiest of all" is better translated as sanctuary or holy places, according to
the specialists. The context could help. One need not be a Greek scholar to at least get Paul's
context.
Similarly verse 12 can read, " neither by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood he
entered in once into the holy place ( holy places, sanctuary) having obtained eternal
redemption for us. Verse 14 shows that the sanctification process was already in effect in Paul's
day not future, it says
" how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Purge
can be translated as cleansed. Just like Old Testament purging on the DA.
Verse 23 says " it was therefore necessary for the patterns in heaven to be purified with these;
but the heavens with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands , which are the figures of the
true ; but into heaven itself , now to appear in the presence of God for us : Nor yet that he
should offer himself often , as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood
of others ;
I hear argument say that in the presence of God does not necessarily mean " immediate
unveiled presence of God", that it could mean holy place but that but that is still in the
presence of God.
However we ought to ask Paul himself to tell us what he means, and if we go back to those
verses we see that He meant" on the right hand of God on His throne" . It is so clear if we just
allow him him to speak for himself.
He even alludes to the fact of the high priest entering year by year as follows:
Nor yet that he should offer himself often , as the high priest entereth into the holy place every
year with blood of others ; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the
world : but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself . And as it is appointed unto men once to die , but after this the judgment : So Christ
was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation .
It's clear thus that Paul has no idea about another future " putting away of sin", to him the next
grand occasion was his second appearing.
The DA was the most holy day of the year, and Paul equates it to that which was accomplished.
Not a future 1000 years later.
"Tis done, the great transaction done!"
Chap 10
Verse 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices
, which can never take away sins : But this man , after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever , sat down on the right hand of God ; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made
his footstool. . For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified .
Just re enforcing the day of atonement analogy. After he completed, He sat down. That's why
Jesus shouted it is finished!
Verse 19 caps it off, Having therefore , brethren , boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood
of Jesus , By a new and living way , which he hath consecrated for us , through the veil , that is
to say , his flesh.
That's why am not too sure we ought to think the tabernacle in heaven is exactly as on earth.
Yes he was shown a pattern but was that pattern the heavenly sanctuary. However this to me
doesnt matter and the other facts stand out, Christ entered the Holiest at his ascension after
having obtained redemption for us. That is enough. other pieces should fall in that clear frame
work.
He ends by admonishing us,

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come , and will not tarry . Now the just shall
live by faith : but if any man draw back , my soul shall have no pleasure in him . But we are not
of them who draw back unto perdition ; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul .
Chap 11
Faith chapter for our purpose, not so relevant
Chap 12
Again the apostle reminds thus
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith ; who for the joy that was set before him
endured the cross , despising the shame , and is set down at the right hand of the throne of
God .
And he then talks about the sanctification process..we are to patient as The Lord deals with us,
for as he disciplines us it shows we are His.
Lovey Maize Chap 13
He makes a pastoral counsel which we do well to read:
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines . For it is a good thing that the heart be
established with grace ; not with meats , which have not profited them that have been
occupied therein.
Let brotherly love continue . Be not forgetful to entertain strangers : for thereby some have
entertained angels unawares . Remember them that are in bonds , as bound with them ; and
them which suffer adversity , as being yourselves also in the body . Marriage is honourable in all
, and the bed undefiled : but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge . Let your
conversation be without covetousness ; and be content with such things as ye have : for he
hath said , I will never leave thee , nor forsake thee . So that we may boldly say , The Lord is my
helper , and I will not fear what man shall do unto me . Remember them which have the rule
over you , who have spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith follow , considering the
end of their conversation . Jesus Christ the same yesterday , and to day , and for ever . Be not
carried about with divers and strange doctrines . For it is a good thing that the heart be
established with grace ; not with meats , which have not profited them that have been
occupied therein. . We have an altar , whereof they have no right to eat which serve the
tabernacle . For the bodies of those beasts , whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the
high priest for sin , are burned without the camp . Wherefore Jesus also , that he might sanctify
the people with his own blood , suffered without the gate . Let us go forth therefore unto him
without the camp , bearing his reproach . For here have we no continuing city , but we seek one
to come . By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually , that is , the
fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name . But to do good and to communicate forget not : for
with such sacrifices God is well pleased . Obey them that have the rule over you , and submit
yourselves : for they watch for your souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it
with joy , and not with grief : for that is unprofitable for you .
Pray for us : for we trust we have a good conscience , in all things willing to live honestly . But I
beseech you the rather to do this , that I may be restored to you the sooner . Now the God of
peace , that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus , that great shepherd of the sheep ,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant , Make you perfect in every good work to do his
will , working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight , through Jesus Christ ; to whom be
glory for ever and ever . Amen . And I beseech you , brethren , suffer the word of exhortation :
for I have written a letter unto you in few words . Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at
liberty ; with whom , if he come shortly , I will see you . Salute all them that have the rule over
you , and all the saints . They of Italy salute you . Grace be with you all . Amen. . ,
So Derrick Gillespie I do understand the IJ but who should I choose, Paul or our doctrine. The
answer is obvious.
We should start with a clear revelation and then to that which is obscure. That's the mistake
miller made, Harold camping made,etc. they should have started with the clear word," no one
knows the day nor the hour" they explained it away and disappointment which God did not
wish for them happened. But God still works with his erring ones and through mistakes if we
are willing to learn and unlearn in all honesty casting oout arrogant pride, he will lead us on.
Lovey Maize Over to you Derrick Gillespie
Derrick Gillespie PREAMBLE TO MY RESPONSE ON THE SANCTUARY:
[*Note again dear readers another problem I had with Lovey Maize] Lovey Maize, it does
appear that you do believe that you must flood and inundate your reader or the person you are
speaking to with a large mass of material in one go in order to make one point. Its actually not a
good way to communicate. Start with small portions, and then add incrementally as you go
along; allowing the other person to relate to the points you make incrementally.
All of six (!!!) posts before you have me coming in and responding? Wow!! And then you expect
me to respond to all of that in one go. Please adjust your approach in the future, and don't turn
off your readers with too much at one time. You tend to be a little burdensome in this
department, and it doesn't help. Remember we are having an interactive conversation; not just
reviewing opposing theses.
I guess that's why you are probably not a teacher of young kids or the youth (correct me if I am
wrong). Smile!! smile emoticon
Anyhow, regardless of the above described, this is what you have presented, an so I will
respond, and then present my arguments on the Sanctuary. OK!!
P.S. Please do not respond until I am complete with my full rebuttal of your six posts, and
indicate clearly that its then over to you. Thanks!!

Derrick Gillespie GILLESPIESREBUTTALONHEBREWS&THESANCTUARYNo.1:
[*This the first part of my rebuttal, Lovey Maize. Please allow me to complete before you
resume your responses...since you did post six times before I did].
*Lovey Maize, you closed your six posts by saying:
IdounderstandtheInvestigativeJudgment[ofSDAs]but who should I choose, Paul or our
[SDA]doctrine.Theanswerisobvious[Paulinstead]---Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, May
2, 2016
Well, to start off I must say that the teachings of Paul are organized by every Church (including
the SDA Church) into doctrines on varying subjects, so to make the claim that for one to accept
the SDA teaching on the Sanctuary would mean to reject Paul, or vice versa, is kind non
sequitur,sinceitdoesntnecessarilyfollow.Yoursixpostsabovecompressedtheexpressions of
Paul into a view YOU HOLD, which is a doctrine most certainly, and so if I reject YOUR
INTERPRETATION of Paul that does not necessarily translate into me rejecting Paul; only YOUR
OPINIONSconcerningPaulsmessage!!
POINTS WE AGREE ON (BUT WITH SOME DIFFERENCES):
POINT1.ChristisapriestaftertheorderofMelchisedec,notAaronic.It'spointlesstomake
everycomparisonfittheAaronicpriesthood.---Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, May, 2,
2016.
We are agreed on that, but while not all things are exactly comparable, obviously many points
of comparison must be made, since that is what Paul teaches by saying:
Hebrews8:5[theearthlypriests]serveuntotheexampleandshadowofheavenlythings,as
Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he,
thatthoumakeallthingsaccordingtothepatternshewedtotheeinthemount.
Intheshadow(theearthlypriesthood)isreflectedthegeneraloutlineoftheactualheavenly
priesthood of Jesus that was tocome(thetrueblueprintrealityinheaven,asitwere),despite
theactualrealitydoeshavemoregloriousdetailsthanisseenintheshadowonearth.If
there were not many points comparable then there would be no sense of Paul speaking of
earthlypriests[plural]fromHebrews8:4servinguntoexampleofheavenlythingsinan
earthlyshadowthatscast,asitwere.Ashadowisnotdissimilarfromtheactual,evenifthe
shadow lackS the glories and details of the actual. INTELLECTUAL HONESTY compels me to see
this.
Since Hebrews 8:1-6showsthatthenormaldailypriestsandtheirdailyservicesserveuntothe
exampleandshadowofheavenlythings,thenJesusasAdvocate(Priest)*MUSTcarryout
heavenly work typified by the normal daily priests as well (see Heb. 8:4, 5), and not just the
HighPriestsdistinctiveone-day work at the climax of the year of all temple activities. That is
whyIrejecttheviewsofthose(likethedissidentinsiderDesmondFord)whosayJesus
ascended to only accomplish the distinctive work of the High Priest as carried out only on the
Day of Atonement. If that was the case then the normal earthly priests and their daily round of
services, and even the normal daily work of the "annointed" high priest himself as seen in Heb.
7:27 (even going into the first apartment with blood for sins; and Lev. 4:7, 16-8), these would
have no counterpart in heaven itself (in contradistinction to Heb. 8:4, 5); only the distinctive
one-day or Yom Kippur work of the High Priest would find fulfillment (according to Desmond
Ford misguided claims).
But we see Jesus carrying out BOTH roles, but obviously in two phases as typified repeatedly on
earth by the repeated yearly cycles of temple services in the outer and inner apartment (see
Heb. 10:1-12). Jesus in Heaven fulfills the eartly "shadow" of the repeated yearly rounds of
activities carried out by BOTH the daily priests and the High Priest as well. He does this by one
sacrifice of himself as the Lamb on earth (i.e. outside the true sanctuary), by one entry as the
human priest into the heavenly sanctuary, by one ongoing period of advocacy as Mediator, as
typified by the daily priests (and the high priest as well), and he climaxes that one heavencentered cycle (singular) of activities, or the one period covering the process of
redemption/atonement, with one special occasion (typified by the day of Atonement) with
himself also being the High Priest.
MostcriticsfailtoappreciatethatthePROCESSofatonement,astypifiedbyshadowson
earth, was one carried out throughout the year (including the work of the normal priests with
thedailyatonementsacrifices);notjustinitsclimaxingphaseonthespecialdayof
Atonement (Yom Kippur) when the High Priest did a distinctive climaxing workofatonement.
As on earth with the earthly sanctuary, so it MUST unfold in heaven as a process over time, and
inphases,orelsetheshadowsonearthwouldfindnocounterpartinheavenasthebookof
Hebrews explains!! These truths I find gripping and cannot ignore, despite all the rantings of the
critics.
It is also quite logical that the unfolding of the salvation plan in Jesus, serving in his various
capacities, this does have a certain time table, and will unfold in its proper sequence according
toGodsplan.Thatiswhy,despite Jesus was expected to return immediately after his
ascension by New Testament Bible writers (even by Paul) and apostolic Christians alike, yet
almost two thousand years of waiting has demonstrated quite convincingly that the
redemption time table is spread out over more time than had been previously thought. No
doubt this is what Jesus alluded to just before he ascended. Note carefully!
Acts1:6Whentheythereforewerecometogether,theyaskedofhim,saying,Lord, wilt thou
at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for
youtoknowthetimesortheseasons,whichtheFatherhathputinhisownpower.- KJV
Timesorseasons[plural]naturallyunfoldinsequence and naturally have a timetable!
Was Jesus' priestly work completed immediately upon his ascension? Certainly not. It was/is an
ongoing process, as my next rebuttal posts will further prove, Lovey Maize!!
[TO BE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST...Please wait until I finish my full rebuttal of your earlier
six posts on the Sanctuary, Lovey Maize]

Derrick Gillespie [*This is the second part of my rebuttal on Hebrews and the Sanctuary,
Lovey Maize. Please allow me to complete before you resume your responses...since you did
post six times before I did].
MORE POINTS WE AGREE ON (BUT WITH SOME DIFFERENCES):
POINT2.[Hebrews9]verse8saysthetheHolyGhostthissignifyingthatthewayintothe
holiestofallwasnotyetmademanifestwhileasthefirsttabernaclewasyetstandingTobe
fair the part " holiest of all" is better translated as [the whole] sanctuary or holy places,
accordingtothespecialists.Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, May 2, 2016
On this particular point we are perfectly agreed, Lovey Maize. In fact it is because of this why
SDAs differ with so many who try to say that wherevertheexpressionholiestofall[Greek,
tahagia]ismentionedinHebrewsitmeanstheMostHolyPlaceorthesecondapartmentin
the Sanctuary. In my previous responses to brother Thunder Lauriston, I have shown where
even Desmond Ford himself concedes this, when he said (while quoting from a newer and
misleading translation):
"[Hebrews 9:12] He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the
most holy place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.....the word
[ta hagia] that is here translated "most holy place" is literally "holies.".....The word itself can
mean the sanctuary as a whole, or it can mean the first apartment, or it can mean the second
apartment. You can prove nothing from the Greek, because it has these possibilities..."
-Desmond Ford, The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?
Here Desmond Ford, a staunch critic of Adventism's doctrine of the Sanctuary, admits freely,
and rightly so, that the pluralterm"holies",sometimestranslatedholiestofallor"holy
place", other times "holy places" (coming from "ta hagion" or "ta hagia" in Greek) is
*AMBIGUOUS, and at times it means the sanctuary as a whole, sometimes the outer
apartment, and other times the inner apartment, so it is CONTEXT that must be appealed to in
order to ascertain meaning. This ambiguity of the Greek word is similar to the AMBIGUOUS
word "law" in the Bible (from the Hebrew "torah", or the Greek "nomos"), and hence context is
crucial.
TheexpressionholiestofallinHebrew9:8(areferencetotheentiresanctuaryinheaven)is
NOT exactly the same Greek expression used in Hebrews 9:3 to mean the Most Holy Place
apartment;despiteitsalsotranslatedastheholiestofallinthe KJV. The writer of Hebrews
simply made the point in Hebrews 9:8 that while the earthly sanctuary was still standing, or
fullyfunctional,thewayintotheheavenlysanctuaryortahagia(translatedastheholiestof
allintheKJV)wasnotyetmanifest, i.e. Jesus was not yet operating as priest in the heavenly
sanctuary during the old testament age. He first had to become human to become the priest in
the heavenly sanctuary, and also had to have a perfect blood sacrifice to offer, in this case it
wouldbehimself,beforehisministryaboveinthetahagiaortruetabernacle(alsocalled
theholiestofall)couldbegin(sinceHebrewsdoesshowanongoingpriesthoodofJesussince
his ascension; not an already completed work of priesthood, as some would want us to
believe). In contrast to Hebrews 9:8, we find that when the writer of Hebrews wanted to clinch
amorespecificmeaning,i.e.withspecificreferencetothemostholyplaceasthesecond
apartment in the sanctuary as a whole (which is alsocalledtheholiestofallintheKJV),he
usedthecompoundGreekexpressionhagiahagion,orhagiahagia,tospecificallymeanthe
holyofholiesorinnerapartmentofthesanctuary!!ThuswecannotjustreadtheEnglish
expressionholiestofall(translatedfromtheGreektahagia)andassume(asmany
opposersoftheSDASanctuarydoctrinedo)thatitautomaticallymeansthemostholyplace
specifically.TheexpressiontahagiaisAMBIGUOUS,asevenDr.DesmondFordhimself
unwittingly admits.
[TO BE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST...Please wait until I finish my full rebuttal of your earlier
six posts on the Sanctuary, Lovey Maize]

Lovey Maize I am following Derrick Gillespie. With utmost intensity. It will be an
interesting discussion. So go on...Do not remind me about my waiting for you to finish. I am
patiently waiting and making sure I understand what your view is...go on.
Derrick Gillespie [*This is the third part of my rebuttal on Hebrews and the Sanctuary,
Lovey Maize. Please allow me to complete before you resume your responses...since you did
post six times before I did].
MORE POINTS WE AGREE ON (BUT WITH SOME DIFFERENCES):
POINT3.IhearargumentsaythatinthepresenceofGoddoesnotnecessarilymean
immediateunveiledpresenceofGod",thatitcouldmeanholyplace but that but that is still in
the presence of God. However we ought to ask Paul himself to tell us what he means, and if we
go back to those verses we see that He meant" on the right hand of God on His throne" . It is so
clear if we just allow him to speakforhimself.---Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, May 2,
2016
This too I agree with you on (despite some SDAs limited in their study argue otherwise), and if
you remember I presented to brother Thunder Lauriston the fact that it is true that Jesus
ascended to the very presence of His Father, but his ONGOING (not already completed) work as
both the Lamb, our Advocate (Priest) and High Priest cannot be proven (despite all the
protestations of the critics) as being without natural phases and or happening within its own
timetable. Remember the sanctuary and priests [plural] operating in it on earth was serving as a
shadowofheavenlythings,i.e.theheavenlypriesthoodofChrist!!IfJesusneverhadan
ongoingpriesthoodsincehisascension,thenalltheshadows(viapriestsinthesanctuary)
would have had no heavenly reality to point to. Plain and simple, and absolute honesty compels
me to see this irrefutable truth.
If the earthy sanctuary and priests served as "shadows" reflecting heavenly things, but more
glorious in nature obviously, then there must be a meaning to the two apartments of the
earthly sanctuary. Its either pointing to a two-phased work within the sanctuary itself above, or
to a two apartment ministry; or both. I usually ask the critics to furnish another meaning of this
earthly "shadow" and I have seen none that's compelling.
IamconvincedthattheSDAteachingaboutJesusbeinginGodsverypresence(Rev. 3:21) even
while his work is undergoing phases in the twoapartmentstagesof ministry can be easily
accounted for. In heaven there is no sinful being or person, and so there is no need to separate
heavensinhabitants(includingangels)fromGodsdirectpresence,asnecessaryonearth
among the ancient Jews in the earthly temple services. Angels (sinless beings) freely have full
access to the throne room of God, and they stand in his very presence daily (see Matt. 18:10,
Luke 1:19 and Rev. 5:11); unlike sinful humans on earth who were/are separated from him
because of our sinful nature. And even though Jesus remains a human, a glorified human (see 1
Tim. 2:5), yet because of his inherent divine nature (Heb. 1:8) as well as his spotlessness or
sinless condition as our Advocate he, like all the other inhabitants of heaven, has direct access
totheverythroneroomofGodaswellastoGodsveryenthronedpresence.ActuallyJesus
shares the very throne of God (Rev. 3:21).
However it is quite interesting that in Revelation 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and Rev. 4:5 the presence of the
heavenly alter and the symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) is seen
directly BEFORE (literally 'in front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in
Rev. 3:21). ON EARTH THIS "LAMP" AND THE ALTER (WHERE JESUS MEDIATES OVER THE
PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS) WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF THE SANCTUARY (A PATTERN OF
THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY), AND WAS RELATED TO BY THE PRIESTS IN THE FIRST PHASE OF
THEIRYEARLYWORK!!Andthisiscompellingevidenceformeandotherdoctrinallysettled
SDAs that John's visions of Heaven before the arrival of the pre-Advent Judgment scene (of Rev.
11:18, 19 or Daniel 7: 9, 10) seem to place God's MOVEABLE throne in the first apartment of
theHeavenlysanctuary;Isaymoveablethronebecausethatiscertainlywhy in visionary
symbolithaswheels,andwhyGodinDaniel7:9,10isrepresentedinvisionas(afterhis
throne, among others, is set down; obviously where it wasn't before) he seemingly coming in
fromelsewheretositinJudgmentandthereafterexamine the records of human lives (i.e.
both the wicked and the righteous; see Eccl. 3:17).
I find it very gripping that only when the pre-Advent Judgment "TIME" was introduced in Rev.
11:18,19(i.e."theTIMEofdeterminingrewardsandpunishments;even the rewards of the
saints)BEFOREJesusreturnswithallrewards;seeRev.22:12)thatJohnmadereferenceto
the Ark of the Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER APARTMENT (a container for holding the main
moral standards which even the saints will be judged by; see James 2:10-12;1Kings8:9)thus
stronglyindicatingthattheinnerapartmentoftheheavenlywasfigurativelyopenedfor
business,inamannerofspeaking,ONLYwhentheINVESTIGATIVEJudgmentarrived(which
did not cover the whole Christian era, butaspecificallyappointedtimethatwasstillfutureto
Luke writing the book of Acts decades after Jesus ascended. See Acts 17:31). The above cited
references, i.e. Rev. 11:18, 19 and Acts 17:31, as well as the fact the we see in Daniel 9:7-10
angels andGodsseat(thrones)beingputinplace,obviouslywheretheywerenotbefore,anda
Judgment scene taking place, are all veeery pregnant revelations of truths!!
Also with allusions being made to the place where the Ark of the covenant is usually found, i.e.
the inner sanctum of the sanctuary, and only made in the context of Judgment of not just the
wicked, but also of the saints (see again Eccl. 3:17 with 2 Cor. 5:9) then the SDA position is
compelling enough for me. By all this we know that a Judgment of both righteous and the
wicked is connected to the inner sanctum of the sanctuary. If Jesus' saving work was already
completed upon his ascension then there is no way so many Scriptures would point to a "time"
future to Paul (as seen in Acts 17:31) when even the righteous must be examined and destinies
and rewards decided.
The question is, did the Bible predict when this pre-Advent Judgment would take place? You
already know that I fully accept the SDA teaching that indeed it does (matters not who
disagree, including you, Lovey Maize). Later posts between us will grapple with this reality. But
we will come to that!!
[ONE FINAL POST WILL FOLLOW THIS ONE TO COMPLETE MY FULL INITIAL REBUTTAL ON YOUR
TAKE ON HEBREWS AND THE SANCTUARY. THAT REBUTTAL WILL HIGHLIGHT THOSE AREAS
WHERE WE TOTALLY DIVERGE IN OUR VIEW OF THE SANCTUARY AND JESUS' WORK. ]
Lovey Maize This will be interesting...following keenly...

Derrick Gillespie My rebuttal showing where we TOTALLY disagree, and why, is seen
linked below, Lovey Maize. After you've read it (the linked "Note") we can do a cross
examination of each other, and then we can submit our final summary/rebuttal points and
counter-arguments on this part of the discussion.
Lovey Maize Sounds like a fantastic idea. Owesome.

Derrick Gillespie My areas of TOTAL disagreement with you on Hebrews, Lovey Maize,
demanded much writing on my part (since you earlier posted so much on Hebrews at one go
for me to respond to) so it is documented in the Facebook format called "Notes" and the link to
it is seen below:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/derrick-gillespie/points-of-disagrement-with-lovey-maizeon-hebrews-and-the-sanctuary/10209946530566183
[*Readers: SEE THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE LINKED NOTESINTHEAPPENDIXATTHEEND,
IF YOU WISH NOT TO VIEW IT ONLINE]

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, hope you saw the above?
Derrick Gillespie Over to you now, Lovey Maize. [*Now notice readers that again I made
another signal to Lovey Maize] After you make one final rebuttal on Hebrews, we will have to
move on to Daniel 8 and 9, since (apart from time not allowing me to drag this on and on for
too long; due to my veeery busy schedule) its time for you to make me make my case on that
matter. It is there you need to debunk me before I will reconsider my stance as an SDA. That's
at the heart of my SDA Message on the Sanctuary, and if you cant debunk me there, then your
'end game' of intending to publicly prove me wrong overall will fail. Smile. smile emoticon

Derrick Gillespie Remember to adjust your approach by submitting shorter posts and
making points incrementally, Lovey Maize, and allowing me IN-BETWEEN to respond first to
each point expressed in short posts before moving on to another point. Don't flood your
readers, including me, with too much material at once. Its a bad way to communicate or
interact. Remember!!
Derrick Gillespie Take note of this developing discussion, my brethren, and keep watching
and praying that truth will unfold for all readers (whatever that truth may be):
Ted Ochola, Dean Thompson, Meric Dale Walker, Keith Thompson, Gary Thompson, Keith
Thompson, Tyrone Thompson, Nichole Crawford-Thompson, Thomas Rose, Northern Caribbean
University, West Jamaica Conference, Leon Wellington, Balvin Braham, Venton Duncan, Sofi'a
Walker, Michael Morris, Charles Evans, Ken Will, Schrice Will, Wentworth Kelly, Antonio
Bernard, Jo So, Joshuell K Campbell, Viviene Latty, Harrone Guthrie, Ryan O'Neil Seaton,
AlthAndrea White, Paul White, Janice Gayle-Brown, Damian Chambers, Petal RichardsChambers, Elcando Citeron, JaNice Scott, Jeanette Parris, Courtney Parris, Alicia Keis, Billy
Mirander, Nigel Coke, Kevin White, Edgar Bennett, Oneil A Blake, Sriya Yulissa, Christopher
Alphanso Thorpe, Bertram Bromfield, Marlon Robinson, Martin Hanna, Barbara Henry-phillips,
Apple Gidden, Lackett Cuff, Joy Bailey, Elcando Citeron
Lovey Maize Very well noted. Will keep my posts short also...
Unlike Reply 1 May 3 at 5:53am
Derrick Gillespie Please...

Lovey Maize Hi Derrick Gillespie,
To re - echo your sentiments, I must say that the views you are presenting are also your OWN
opinions. The way you understand Hebrews. I really wished we went to the original views as
held earlier and see how they wiggled to and Fro to answer questions. I have not yet read the
disagreement portions so will start with where we agree. Then as i read it you can respond to
this if need be.
I like the term you used. Intellectual honesty. Let's make sure we both uphold that.
So basically we are agreed. Paul did say that the earthly was but a shadow. There is a more
glorious one. Jesus the high priest NOT AFTER AARON BUT MICHIZEDEC. Thus we must be
careful not to line everthing according to that pattern. Exactly. It just can't stand. We have a
better sanctuary. A better sacrifice and better highhpriest.
Paul here was simply saying that all the so sacrifices pointed to Jesus at the cross. Those were
individual sacrifices. Read lev 4. After the person killed the lamb, his sins died with that lamb
and he was clean. Some animal died for him. He went away rejoicing. God did not want his
children to have sin. Plain and simple. But he made provision for sin. A sacrifice. Once that
sacrifice died, it does the death of the sinner. Basically he was dead. Except now it's the animal
that died in his behalf. The priest sprinkled the blood in the sanctuary and that act cleansed the
individual of sin. He went away rejoicing. He was free. But ON the DA, the entire congregation
was to meet the Lord and be forgiven as a whole. The sacrifices done were for the whole
congregation. After that act the entire congregation was made right. Is this an accurate
depiction of what happened? I went to look at the Jewish encyclopedia you had earlier posted
for me. And it said the same.
So now when was the sacrifice to cleanse the world made? Undeniably at Calvary. That is the
HIGHEST DAY EVER! On that day the son of man does the death for everyman. For sins known
and unknown. If we accept him , and believe on Him and He that went Him, we have eternal
redemption. That's the core of chap. .8 and 9. Not just a sacrifice. That sacrifice represented
both the daily and the DA. A better sacrifice we are taught. Once and for all. So if it represented
the DA then obviously DA issues started at Calvary not 1844. No.
Could you quote where Ford says that sacrifice only represented the DA? So we are agreed. But
since to me that sacrifice happened at calvary, reconciling the world, it just seems it logical it
fulfilled the DA.
The "process" you are talking about is simply a twist to fit in 1844. Paul had no clue what
youbare talking about. His listerners had no clue what you are talking about. After that
discourse, what they knew was that the could go boldly before the mercy seat and obtain
mercy thru Christ who represented the veil. His flesh was rent and heaven and earth kissed.
Hebrews 10:19,20.
Tell me, practically, what is the difference between you as you approach God today in 2016 and
say those who lived in Paul's day? THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION. WHAT IS ALL THE
FUSS ABOUT???
When they sinned they could boldly go before the throne in grace. When you sin, you can
boldly go before the throne of grace. So what's the problem?????
If there is no difference, why make so loud a noise over it and start crying apostacy apostacy?

Derrick Gillespie [*Readers take note] We are NOT agreed on much. Don't misrepresent
the facts about our level of agreement, Lovey Maize!! It is clear you misunderstand the
atonement process, the sanctification process, as well as the Judgment process, and you are so
antagonistic to the SDA view that its actually clear to me that you will never change your view;
no matter the biblical evidence presented. But that's fine. In the end I know you will go your
way and I go mine. Each man needs to be convinced in his own mind. We are simply disagreeing
on issues you contacted me over, remember? And I AM IN NO WAY MAKING A FUSS, BUT
LETTING EVERY MAN KNOW THAT GOD'S ONGOING JUDGMENT SINCE 1844 IS INESCAPABLE.
That we will deal with from Daniel 8 and 9 as soon as you finish responding to my earlier
disagreements with you on Hebrews and the Sanctuary...if you are game.
But for now, I will simply explicate the issues a little further for the benefit of readers to decide
for themselves what is what. Here's a worthwhile link further explaining the SDA position on
the atonement involving not just the sacrifice of the Lamb, but the application of the benefits of
the atonement in an ongoing Priesthood above:
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q30.htm

Lovey Maize Derrick Gillespie of course I am game. It's you who talked of how we are
agreed with some differences. I am sure readers have a bible a mind and a prayer on their lips
to find out FOR THEMSELVES IF THIS IS SO.
Acts 17:10.
I have read the disagreements. I see your view as a little confusing. Please clear my mind by
answring the following questions so I know exactly where you stand.
1. When Jesus died, did that sacrifice represent the sacrifice offered on the day of atonement
and also all the other sacrifices? Yes or no.
2. If it represented the sacrifice, why should you focus on 1844 when the sacrifice is in the past?
That which reconciled the whole world to heaven.

3. Was the DA in your view the highest day in the Israel culture? Yes or no.
4. Which in your view was the equivalent highest day for the world? The cross or 1844?
Don't you think that the analogy of the DA, being a day when the whole of Israel was made
perfect is equivalent to the time when Christ made "perfect" the whole world by the death of
Himself?
And no. I am not completely made up. I am just looking for good answers.
6. My final question.
What is the difference between the person in Paul day and that one in my day. In short, what
could the person in Paul's day not benefit which you and me, are benefiting as far as Christ's
ministry is concerned. And why should it matter? THIS IS VERY PRACTICAL. I ASK THIS
DELIBERATELY SO THAT YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
As far as I know, according to you, on Oct 22, Christ entered the most holy place to begin a
work of judgment. Meanwhile the work of intercession still went on for some whislt he was
judging others. Those being judged are ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE EVER CALLED ON CHRIST. The
wicked and those who have never asked for forgiveness are not part of this judgment. THIS IS
STRICTLY GODLY PEOPLE OR AT LEAST THOSE WHO HAVE EVER PRAYED AND HENCE DEFILED
THE SANCTUARY ABOVE AS THEIR SINS ACCUMULATE IN HEAVEN. Names are brought up and
examined closely. Every word, motive and deeds with their far reaching consequences are
examined. Once a name is examined it is either accepted or rejected. Then another name.
Starting from Adam.
(Meanwhile could you please explain the cases for those who have already gone into heaven
like Elijah, Moses, enock and those who resurrected with Christ. Did they have a special
investigative judgement before being ushered into heaven or they were told to go their rooms
as their cases where being looked at to see if they were fit to remain in heaven? Smile )
Thus as we speak, if our names are being passed before God, and say tomorrow, they are
judged, it reasons that after that one has to live a sinless life. My question to you is this, will
you, or anyone who passes the investigative judgement of the living, live a sinlessly perfect life
in thought word and deed. No mistakes, no working up late, no being late for a meeting, no
asking for forgiveness from the spouse? Perfect. Perfect. Until Jesus comes. What is your view
on this?
I ask this evangelist because after you deliver your tear drenched plea about the judgement and
1844, people have to go out there and face everyday living. Some have even been told that
they ought to be vegetarians or else translation won't be there. They shall fail to overcome
because meat eating lifts up the baser passions. I know I used to be worried. I am not perfect,
obviously, so whenever I did wrong I would wonder if my name has been called. I was always
uncertain of my standing with Christ. I just don't know the outcome. Have I passed? Has my
name been called? What of this lustful thought I entertained a whole ago, has the Lord forgiven
it am I doomed? Am I saved? And I am not alone. This is practical living after your seminar
evangelist which unfortunately you may not appreciate. If you do, kindly answer these
questions.
Of what benefit is it to me that Jesus is judging. Is it not enough for me to believe and trust his
in his perfect sacrifices to cover all my nakedness. Clothed in precious robe? That there iS now
no condemnation to those who are in Christ who walk in the spirit? Why not emphasis this than
threaten with dates after making so many calculations?arent Jesus parables about the kingdom
enough for me to know how to prepare? By putting on that righteous robe and live by faith
alone?
I have asked these questions with a sincere heart to know your views. Please answer them with
numbering.
The points of disagreements are views that I have seen before but are not the original views.
That's why I have asked the above questions to see how you will answer them.
Derrick Gillespie [* Readers note carefully my utterances hereafter] Cut the pretense, Lovey
Maize. Your entire motive here is NOT to learn anything, or to discover answers, but, as so
"good a debater" that you declared yourself to be, you seek to "lay traps" for me to so-called
"fall in", as you indicated earlier, so that thereafter you can dance around your 'victory bonfire',
as it were, when, in your own head, you think you have scored points. You already know the
SDA position and nothing new is being revealed to you, so the endless series of questions which
you expect me to answer, and answers which will do nothing to have you alter your view, is
kinda pointless!! I am NOW kinda seeing this as an exercise in futility to continue to engage
YOU. If you really want to know what my answers would be in relation to the Investigative
Judgment RE-READ all I already said both to you and brother Lauriston in my discourses
(booklets), and read the link I already supplied on the process of the atonement. (See it again
below):
And if you don't want to accept that Daniel 8 and 9 should be explored any at all, since [*Note
dear, reader] you keep *sidestepping it and *putting it off, and *coming up with a new
*cornucopia of questions each time, seemingly, to avoid going there, then *its time we part
company!! I am prepared to call it a day!! I would lose nothing, and my ministry would continue
with those who are willing to learn; not just with those like you who love to debate and "lay
traps", and then gloat over what you feel was accomplished polemically!!
[*Dear readers, this is where I decided to discontinue the conversation with Lovey Maize for
all the above reasons, and for the problems I kept alluding to earlier; i.e. Lovey Maize
engaging in personal attacks, prideful self-praise, burdening me and the readers with
burdensome detail and an increasing barrage of new questions seeking to divert from Daniel
8 and 9, and drawing me into an unending series of "vain babblings", etc.]

Derrick Gillespie Jayson Downer, view the above...
Derrick Gillespie CHRISTIANS IN GENERAL ARE RUNNING AWAY FROM JUDGMENT
TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE!!
Many people, including much of Christendom, do not want to hear about being judged or
examined by the Great Judge (John 5:22), despite what Eccl. 3:17 and 2 Cor. 5:10-11 says
(thinking that God's people being also examined just like the wicked, and then
judged/rewarded, is incompatible with the gospel of God forgiving all Christians their sins). Well
let Scripture speak above all the misguided OPINIONS heard all over Christendom:
"Ecclesiastes 3:17 God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for
every purpose and for every work."
"2 Corinthians 5:10 We [Christians included] must *ALL appear before the judgment seat of
Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done,
whether it be good or bad.
2Co 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made
manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences."
"Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his
commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work
into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
"Malachi 3:16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD
hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that
feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
Mal 3:17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my
jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
Mal 3:18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him
that serveth God and him that serveth him not."

"James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of
all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no
adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye [i.e. Christians], and so *DO, as they that shall be judged by the law of
liberty."
"Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying,
Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that
they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets,
and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them
which destroy the earth.
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the
ark of his testament..."
"1 Kings 8:9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there
at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of
the land of Egypt. 1Kings 8:21 And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant
of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt."
"Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea,
and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the
LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet
in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for
all Israel, with the statutes and judgments."
"Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man
according as his work shall be.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of
life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and
idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to
testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the
bright and morning star."
CAN WE NOW SEE THE ISSUES FOR OURSELVES STRAIGHT FROM THE BIBLE? THE FOLLOWING
WAS PENNED BY SOMEONE USUALLY MISREPRESENTED, BUT NOTICE....
"...multitudes do not want Bible truth, because it interferes with the desires of the sinful,
world-loving heart; and Satan supplies the deceptions which they love. But God will have a
people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines
and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds
or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which
they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as
evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept,
we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support."
-E.G. White, The Great Controversy (1911), pgs. 594- 595
DO YOU SEE IN THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE THE NOTION THAT GOD WILL NEVER JUDGE/EXAMINE
HIS CHRISTIAN PEOPLE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR SINS WERE ALREADY FORGIVEN? BE
ABSOLUTELY HONEST WITH YOURSELF!! HERE'S WHAT I SEE:
"1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first
begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1Pe 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
1Pe 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of
their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator."
HE THAT HATH AN EAR, LET HIM HEAR!!!

Lovey Maize For point 2 on points we are agreed on...I pass.
On point 3. Basically you are saying, the apartments represent phases not actual apartments.
This is better twist as it avoids many problems. But as a history teacher, you better look at what
it was taught earlier. The official statement is that Jesus entered the Most holy place at his
ascention Hebrews 6:19. But that was to to inaugurate it. To dedicate it. Then he went back to
the holy place. Then back to most holy place. Ever heard of this view? To my understanding
that's the official view. But that is also a newer view. The older view, to which Sr white herself
subscribed was that Hebrews 6:19, meant the veil before the holy place not the most holy
place. Did you know that? That was ballenger challenge after studyig the phrase"within the
veil". He noticed the it's usage and concluded we white was wrong. She did not respond to over
his concern challenging her to prove biblically why she said so.
So you view is just another in a myriad of views as adjustments keep occuring just to somehow
fit 1844. I find it intellectually dishonest. Jesus went to the very throne of God. He has made
atonement. He was making the benefit of his completed work to whomsoever will. And he was
"tarrying" so many can be saved. Simple. Dont complicate it just to excuse Miller. He asked for
forgiveness why do you tenaciously clung in just when it's not even practically important. Or is
it? Well, tell me. How different practically am I from Paul as we approach Jesus. He believed we
could approcah him direct on his throne. Thru Jesus. I do too. What's the big deal? Oh I see!
1844 MUST BE SQUEEZED IN SOMEHOW. IMPOSSIBLE TASK. AT LEAST FROM HEBREWS.
Derrick Gillespie [*Readers note again] Right before my eyes I see you
twisting/misinterpreting/ misrepresenting my words to you, Lovey Maize. It therefore explains
much. No wonder you misunderstand and misrepresent so much in SD Adventism's teachings
and history. You don't read well and you misunderstand much, but pridefully think you are
sooooo bright. Pity!! Daniel 8 and 9 and the ongoing Investigative Judgment it points to since
1844 are not going away; no matter how you try, Lovey Maize!! People will be warned, some
will hear God's voice and follow; of that you can be sure. I am now prepared to explicate Daniel
8 and 9 for readers; not so much you, Lovey Maize, who's simply playing a 'cat and mouse'
game behind a fake persona hiding in cyberspace!!
[*Dear readers, this is precisely where I blocked Lovey Maize from further dialog, and I
respectfully sent him an inbox email to explain.]
Like Reply 9 hrs Edited
Derrick Gillespie "2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."
Dear readers, based on the above command (especially verse 16) I am going to end the ongoing
conversation with the fake persona Lovey Maize, and unfriend/block this persona operating
incognito in cyberspace; who's someone simply bent on producing an endless round of
questions seeking to go over ground already covered, and to draw me into endless rounds of
"vain babblings" which I am commanded by the Bible to avoid. This is vexatious to the spirit and
accomplishes little if that continues.
Others who are willing to learn, and not just endlessly debate and so-called "lay traps" while
conversing, those persons I will be willing to further engage and explain to them why SDAs are
preaching from Daniel 8 and 9 that we are living in the day of Investigative Judgment. I sense in
my spirit that that's the way to go at this time. Lovey Maize, will now be unfriended and
blocked, so that truth will now go forward unhindered by "vain babblings". He has played his
part in laying the foundation I can work with to fully expound on the issues. Its time to change
gears. Marlon Robinson, and others willing to join me in really seriously looking at Daniel 8 and
9, are now invited to engage. You have my full attention hereafter!!

Derrick Gillespie Jayson Downer, you may wish to see in this thread (especially the above
message to readers) why Lovey Maize has been blocked from my page and why he is now
posting flame messages (spam) on your wall, and under an unrelated thread (the Clear Word
paraphrase thread), all meant to attack and 'trace me out', as they would say in Jamaica. LOL.
grin emoticon
Derrick Gillespie [*Note dear reader this message I sent to Lovey Maize after I evicted him
from this thread/discussion]
Lovey Maize, a combative and triumphalistic ('touch-down' and 'celebratory' type) approach to
discussing the Gospel or the Bible by any of us is a signal that SELF is the center of this
discourse, and not Jesus and his truth!! Take self off the throne when God's Word is under
discussion, and allow the humility of the Savior to be your Example!
Always remember that in either incessant or heated debates:
"Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than the arguments of its opposers."
William Penn
See 2 Corinthians 12:20 and Romans 1:29-30 about God's attitude to a "boastful" spirit and one
of "debate", and why we should avoid BOTH!!
"Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
I AM SIMPLY BEING OBEDIENT TO MY MASTER'S WILL!!
Derrick Gillespie Marlon Robinson, hope you saw the above developments and are willing
to continue the dialog in a way that's meaningful; not one that's roundabout and engaging in
ceaseless rounds of "vain babblings". Join me if you wish to continue the promulgation of the
truth for sincere readers who want to know the truth about the prophetic message of DANIEL 8
AND 9; and who are not just seeking to trample on and deny truth of Scripture!!
Derrick Gillespie NOTE READERS:
Hereafter, I intend to answer every major question/issue earlier asked that remains
unaddressed, both from Lovey Maize, as well as the issues he refused to allow to be quickly
addressed from Daniel 8 and 9; but this time without the ceaseless "vain babblings" from
someone like Lovey Maize who was only intent on trampling on, ridiculing and denying the
truth of Scriptures!!
Derrick Gillespie ISSUES NOW BEING ADDRESSED UNHINDERED:
Issue No. 1: How could Jesus have resurrected the body of Moses, or translated Enoch or Elijah
from the Old Testament era, or even assured anyone/everyone in the Old Testament (including
the inspired Bible writers) that they were saved BEFORE he came to earth and died on the
Cross, and even BEFORE their records were later examined in the Judgment (as seen in Eccl.
12:13, 14 and 2 Cor. 5:10-11)?
Simple!! God sees the future, and he KNOWS what the outcome of all will be, so he knew that
the promise to send Jesus was very assured (that's why he was deemed "the Lamb slain from
the foundation of the world"-- Rev. 13:8-- or the "seed of the woman" that would crush the
serpent's head; Gen. 3:15). God knew he would NOT have failed the mission (despite he could
have, as a genuine human), and he knew that in the future Judgment Jesus' already assured
righteous account would have covered them all. Yet still, all in its own time, what God already
foresaw had/has to unfold in its own time in human history...including allowing all the hosts
(angels) of heaven in the "appointed time" of "the end" (see Daniel 7:9-11 and Rev. 11:18-19)
to go though the records of all to see why those of faith are indeed saved through Jesus despite
their records!! Its simply a principle of transparency being employed!!

Derrick Gillespie ISSUES NOW BEING ADDRESSED UNHINDERED:
Issue No. 2: Why does God need to examine the records of anyone, despite he already knows
all, and all the sins of the righteous have already been paid for by Jesus' death and by their faith
in him they have been forgiven. And why does God still keep a record of sins already forgiven?
The answer is so simple (despite some, the misguided, think otherwise):
"If God alone were concerned, there would certainly be no need of records. But that the
inhabitants of the whole universe, the good and evil angels, and all who have ever lived on this
earth might understand His love and His justice, the life history of every individual who has ever
lived on the earth has been recorded, and in the judgment these records will be disclosedfor
every man will be judged according to what is revealed in "the books" of record (Dan. 7:10; Rev.
20:12)."
"Ezekiel 18:20-24: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous
shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will
turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is
lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath
committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he
shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that
he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his
righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the
wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be
mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them
shall he die."
In these verses, two men are brought to view. The one, a wicked man who turns from his sin
and becomes obedient to God. He is forgiven, and if he walks in the way of righteousness, none
of his former sins will ever be mentioned unto him. The other, a righteous man who turns from
the path of righteousness, and goes back into sin. If he continues in iniquity, none of his
previous manifestations of goodness will ever be mentioned. He forfeits all the blessings of
salvation and goes down into death (verse 24).
Dr. H. A. Redpath (The Westminster Commentaries, on Eze. 18:24), says:
All his [the righteous'] previous goodness will not count: he shall die in his sins: . . . "if, after
they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse . . .
than the first."
Christians Counseled to Make Their Election Sure
The apostle Peter, evidently sensing a possibility of failure in the Christian life, writes to those
who had been "purged" from their "old sins," urging them to give diligence to make their calling
and election sure (2 Peter 1:9, 10). And this, by divine grace, they can do. He says, "Add to your
faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance
patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly
kindness charity" (verses 5-7). Then he says: "For if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so
an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ" (verses 10, 11). Therefore, we believe that to make our entrance into
the everlasting kingdom sure, we must by the indwelling of Christ grow in grace and Christian
virtues.
He closes his letter with a warning, reminding them that some unlearned and unstable were
wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Then he says, "Beware lest ye
also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in
grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (verses 17, 18).
Paul sets forth the same principle in his epistles, although it is stated in different language. He
tells us to put on the whole armor of God; to fight the good fight of faith; to watch unto prayer;
to search the Scriptures diligently; to flee from temptation and turn away from ungodliness;
and as citizens of God's kingdom to yield ourselves to the control of the King that we might live
out the principles of His kingdom. To do any of these things, even the least of them, we need
the enabling power of the indwelling Spirit. But doing right, complying with God's
commandments, meeting any or all of the conditions we have mentioned, has never saved a
soulnor can it ever preserve a saint. Salvation proceeds wholly from God, and is a gift from
God received by faith. Yet having accepted that gift of grace, and with Christ dwelling in his
heart, the believer lives a life of victory over sin. By the grace of God he walks in the path of
righteousness.
While Adventists rejoice that we receive salvation by grace, and grace alone, we also rejoice
that by that same grace we obtain present victory over our sins, as well as over our sinful
nature. And through that same grace we are enabled to endure unto the end and be presented
"faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24).
The great judgment scene of heaven will clearly reveal those who have been growing in grace
and developing Christlike characters. Some who have professed to be God's people, but who
have disregarded His counsel, will in amazement say to the Lord, "Have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful
works?" His reply to such will be brief but emphatic: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that
work iniquity" (Matt. 7:22, 23). Since they have proved themselves unworthy of His kingdom,
the Lord in His justice can do nothing else but reject them. They could have done the will of God
but they chose their own willful way.
...it seems to us abundantly clear that the acceptance of Christ at conversion does not seal a
person's destiny. His life record after conversion is also important. A man may go back on his
repentance, or by careless inattention let slip the very life he has espoused. Nor can it be said
that a man's record is closed when he comes to the end of his days. He is responsible for his
influence during life, and is just as surely responsible for his evil influence after he is dead. To
quote the words of the poet, "The evil that men do lives after them," leaving a trail of sin to be
charged to the account. In order to be just, it would seem that God would need to take all these
things into account in the judgment.
That there should be a judgment is not strange; the Scriptures reveal it as part of the eternal
purpose of God (Acts 17:31; 2 Cor 5:10-11), and all His ways are just. Were God alone
concerned, there would be no need of an investigation of the life records of men in this
judgment, for as our eternal Sovereign God, He is omniscient. He knows the end from the
beginning. Even before the creation of the world He knew man would sin and that he would
need a Saviour. Moreover, as Sovereign God, He also knows just who will accept and who will
reject His "great salvation" (Heb. 2:3)..."
[SEE WHERE THE ABOVE WAS TAKEN FROM, AND THE FULLER EXPLANATION OF THE SDA
POSITION, AT THIS LINK:
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q36.htm ]

Derrick Gillespie JESUS IS DEPICTED AS *BOTH "SITTING" AND "STANDING" AT THE RIGHT
HAND OF GOD EVER MAKING INTERCESSION FOR US!!
"Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who
is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."
"Acts 7:55 But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and
saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right
hand of God."
"Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high
priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not
man"
COMMENTS: When we read the Scriptures and allow all passages to give a full picture together,
we see that Jesus' work as our Saviour/Redeemer is still ongoing, where he is now applying the
benefits of his perfect atoning Sacrifice on the Cross, and the following link further explains the
SDA position on these issues:
Derrick Gillespie DEAR READERS:

Could it be that brother Elce Thunder Lauriston is the one hiding in cyberspace behind the fake
persona called "Lovey Maize"? Or could it be they are in collusion together? Could it be? One
wonders!! The reason I say this is because I have seen him personally launching attacks against
me on his page simply because I DISCONTINUED my talk with the persona with the fake name
Lovey Maize. It is kinda puzzling that immediately after that discontinuation of the conversation
with the fake persona Lovey Maize brother Thunder came forward ridiculing and attacking me
on his own Facebook page; the same brother Elce Lauriston who had refused to engage me
quietly and in a non-combative way, and after weeks of me being respectful and kind to him as
a person while I published my responses to his concerns. Now could it be that the real
"Thunder" is now showing up?
And I ask again, could it be that the fake persona Lovey Maize is really brother Lauriston, or
could it be they are in collusion as friends? When one hides behind a fake name on the Net,
then you have nothing to lose in public, and you can be as pride-filled, self-centered, or
boastful as you want with no personal accountability, since no one knows who you really are.
And of course, there's no personal face to 'save' if/when anything does not go according to
plan or the image you want to 'play act' does not come off as planned. Hmmmm. If it was
brother Elce Lauriston hiding behind that fake name, Lovey Maize, well, so be it... even if its
lying and dishonesty in a rather disturbing way!! I will give him the benefit of the doubt, even
though the question remains!! But if they are just in collusion together, both aimed at working
against the SDA Church, then so be it too.
My work continues quietly, and my love for brother Elce remains steadfast; I forgive him for
what I see transpiring on his wall coming directly from him!! I will follow his own advice given
years ago in his sermon that's now on YouTube..."Let God defend you, and when God defend
you, you are well defended"
https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/videos/10209796457854459/
Derrick Gillespie DEAR READERS:

Please note that I aim to continue the series showing why Daniel 8 and 9 prove that the
Investigative Judgment has been going on since 1844, since I have already adequately
demonstrated (as seen above) why God must have a pre-Advent Judgment in these very last
days before Jesus return with rewards for all (see Rev. 22:12-15).

Derrick Gillespie BY THE WAY, DEAR READERS:
Since Lovey Maize and brother Elce Thunder have both launched an attack/ridicule campaign
against my person on Facebook simply because I refused to continue a conversation with the
fake persona called "Lovey Maize" (for reasons already explained above), many persons are
showing interest in this unfolding thread. I am sure many persons are quietly reading and
following this thread, and it might just be the interest level needed to have people pay
attention to the issues I am here ventilating. Who knows, it may again be God turning around
what the Devil meant for evil (i.e. to cast a negative light on SDAs like myself) as a way to get
people's attention!!
I am not in this for self-aggrandizement, or to prove how well I can debate, or "lay traps" in a
conversation for the other person (like Lovey Maize was bent on doing), but simply to be used
of God to humbly promulgate his truth as a witness (whether it be accepted, or whether it be
ridiculed or trampled upon by critics). I leave all things in God's hands and pray that he will do
what only he can do...make all things work together for good!! Many seminarians (some not
even yet a graduate) proudly seem to have an attitude to laymen like myself (thinking that only
trained theologians can delve into the deeps things of God's Word), but "not by might nor by
power but by God's Spirit" his truth will go forth. I remain humble in God's hands; not
"overconfident" or "arrogant" or mistakenly thinking myself a "top notch bible scholar" (as
brother Elce Thunder now sneeringly labels me online), but one willing to be used by God to do
my little bit for him!!
Marlon Robinson If we get rid of the contextual and linguistic interpretation of Daniel 8
and 9, we open the door for many issues. Doing this will shift the historical identification of the
little horn, by all protestant denominations, to Antiochus Ephiphanes. Furthermore, the
activities of the little horn will be missed and the historicity of the sanctuary itself will be
challenged. The book of Daniel is clear about the theme of Judgment and chapter 8 is no
exception.
Daniel 2, 7, and 8 substantiate the idea of a pre-advent judgment before the second coming of
Christ;whereGodspeoplearevindicatedandthewickedarepunished.Thepre-advent
judgment leads to the demise of the little horn, and as a result could not refer to Antiochus
Ephiphanes.
Marlon Robinson This is the overall goal of Higher Criticism, they want to reverse the
reformation understanding of the little horn and the reformation itself. Notice that most
Protestant denominations are renouncing their long held position in this regard.
Derrick Gillespie That's why, Marlon Robinson, the vast majority of Protestants are
ecumenically in the arms of the "little horn" power once again (the Papacy, which is today the
smallest but most influential religio-political power on the planet) just as prophesied by E.G.
White that they would be...hence fulfilling the skilfully laid counter-Reformation agenda of the
Jesuits!!
Like Reply 1 Yesterday at 5:01am Edited

Marlon Robinson Derrick Gillespie That is the reason they started the preterist and futurist
interpretations, which were to reverse the effects of the reformation.
Derrick Gillespie And Marlon Robinson, Daniel 8:17 gives one compelling signal that the
vision contained in that chapter (and further explained in Daniel 9) would run into or relate to
the time of "the end"...naturally unfolding HISTORICALLY from its starting point in the period of
the Medo-Persian (ram) empire. Antiochus Epiphanes does not even come close to entering the
period of the time of "the end" (Daniel 8:17), i.e. the period beginning after Jesus' ministry on
earth!! Only the historicist method is valid in this prophetic scheme. We could delve into that
issue later, and debunk the anti-historicist views like those of Kai Arasola (which Lovey Maize
alluded to when he was here). Here is a link showing how Kai Arasola is debunked:
http://www.perspectivedigest.org/.../in-defense-of-the...
In Defense of the Year-day Principle :: Perspective Digest

perspectivedigest.org
Like Reply Remove Preview 1 9 hrs Edited
Derrick Gillespie But thank God, Marlon Robinson, for E.G. White's "Great Controversy"
prophecies making plain what would have happened regarding the Reformed Churches and
their embracing once again of the "little horn" (or Roman Papal) power, and we see it unfolding
right before our very eyes....
Marlon Robinson It is also clearly cited in Revelation 13 and 14.
Derrick Gillespie And by the way, Marlon Robinson, if one reads the first two of the three
angel's messages in Rev. 14:6-12 (the very messages Lovey Maize is now claiming I so-called
"debunked" or "ran away" from facing up to), one immediately realizes that:
1. The 1844 awakening, based on the fact that something momentous was to have happened in
that year (as for instance based on Daniel 8 and 9), this awakening was actually God's way of
using the early multi-denominational "Adventist" or "Millerite" Movement to start to prepare
the unsuspecting world and the later formed SDA Church of 1863 to recognize we had entered
the period of the Investigative Judgment!!
2. The Churches of Christendom, since that time in the 1840s, have been becoming so re-united
with the Papacy, and once again forming such a colossal ecumenical system described Biblically
as "Babylon" and her "daughters", that its plain the second angel's message, warning of
"Babylon" being "fallen", is certainly a message the early Adventists had unwittingly started to
preach (from the 1840s through to 1863) without even realizing how far that system would
have "fallen" today in 2016 (i.e. with almost all Protestant Churches now fully reunited with the
very Papacy the Protestant Reformers fought hard against and even died to reveal it as the
Anti-Christ "beast" power; a power which should be shunned and denounced at all cost).
Derrick Gillespie Here's more debunking the anti-historicism of Kai Arasola which Lovey
Maize seem to be a 'disciple' of:
http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/25
Derrick Gillespie Marlon Robinson, there are sooooo many reasons why the vision in
Daniel 8 and 9 is in no way related to Antiochus Epihanes, and it's simply the Devil's ploy to
keep people from seeing not just the career and agenda of the real "little horn" or Roman Papal
power (the mystery of iniquity), but more importantly the role of the the real/true sanctuary in
heaven in the climaxing stages of history why there is such a 'crowd of agreement' in
Christendom about Antiochus Epihanes; a 'candidate' who woefully fails the "little horn"
identifying marks criteria in Daniel 8. But let the truth be known once and for all, and in its
compelling details (click the link below to see):
Like Reply 1 Yesterday at 5:09am Edited

Marlon Robinson The heavenly sanctuary is a clear teaching in Scripture. In Isaiah 6, the
prophet was in vision and he saw the heavenly temple. As you and I understand, priests do not
function apart from temples (sanctuaries) or sacred things and if Jesus is a different kind of
priest from the levitical priesthood, where is He carrying out his priestly ministry seeing that he
did not function as a priest on earth?
Derrick Gillespie Precisely!! That reality has been more than abundantly proven already,
Marlon Robinson, while Lovey Maize was around carrying out his temporary but pride-filled
role in this discourse...i.e. the role of raising the questions/challenges usually asked/raised by
the critics, which have been and are being (i.e they continue to be) addressed, one by one, in
this unfolding discussion (all in their own time, of course).
Dorrett Brown U've hit it dead on Marlon, I'm learning so much from u all!!!
Unlike Reply 1 8 hrs
Derrick Gillespie Let's now delve in to the potency of the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8
and 9, and show how it reveals the fact that we are living in the day of God's final pre-Advent
Investigative Judgment that's happening even as we speak in the true Sanctuary above since
1844!!

Marlon Robinson I rather you term it, the contextual and linguistic understand of Daniel 8
and 9. The rational for my choice here is that any true Christian reading with a honest heart
based on the context of the passage will come away with this understanding.
Derrick Gillespie Marlon Robinson Fair enough. I do take your point!!
Like Reply 22 hrs
Marlon Robinson First of all based on Daniel 8:17 the angel told Daniel that the vision
refers to the time of the end. Therefore the vision must come down to our time.
Derrick Gillespie Marlon Robinson, allow me to lay out the main points in my next post
about Daniel 8 and 9, and then we can flesh it out afterwards. I have a certain plan to have it
presented. So don't preempt it. Thanks!! We resume tomorrow
Derrick Gillespie THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF DANIEL 8 IS SO VITAL THAT I NOW
SEEK THE AID OF AUDIO VISUALS TO ENHANCE IT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stS77qfBqNo
Stephen Bohr on Daniel 8

This is from Pastor Stephen Bohr's series: "His Way in theSanctuary".Youcanyoutube.com
Like Reply Remove Preview May 4 at 10:18pm
Derrick Gillespie HERE'S WHY DANIEL 9 IS CLOSELY CONNECTED TO DANIEL 8 (Part 1):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiie5_1lu9Q
12. The Santuary Shall be Cleanses part 1 -Pastor Stephen youtube.com

Like Reply Remove Preview Yesterday at 2:19am
Derrick Gillespie THE CONCLUDING AUDIO-VISUAL ON DANIEL 9 (BEFORE MY COMMENTS
FOLLOW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sHCQ9fBAFQ
13. The Sanctuary Shall be Cleansed part 2 -Pastor youtube.com

Like Reply Remove Preview Yesterday at 2:46am
Derrick Gillespie THIS IS A VITAL CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE VIDEO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU5Ml-jXWL0
15. The Prophecy of the 70 Weeks part 1 - Pastor youtube.com

Like Reply Remove Preview 8 hrs
Derrick Gillespie CONCLUSION:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H30WxwOKsQA
16. The Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (part 2) - Pastor youtube.com

Like Reply Remove Preview 8 hrs
Derrick Gillespie Now, Marlon Robinson, we can start to flesh out the implications of
Daniel 8 and 9 as summarized in the foregoing videos. I aim to write out the points in my next
few posts and show how 1844's Judgment Hour Message and the "Cleansing of the Sanctuary"
after 1844 are interconnected!!
Like Reply Yesterday at 3:20am
Derrick Gillespie WHY ARE SDAs SO INSISTENT ON A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF DANIEL
8 AND 9?
Here its is (click link to read): http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q23.htm

Derrick Gillespie THE REASONS WHY DANIEL 8 AND 9 ARE CLOSELY TIED IN THE SDA
UNDERSTANDING ARE ROCK SOLID:
(click link to read): http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q24.htm

Derrick Gillespie THE PROPHETIC PROOF OF JESUS' MESSIAHSHIP IS CLOSELY LINKED TO
HIS WORK AS PRIEST AND JUDGE IN THE SANCTUARY ABOVE:

Derrick Gillespie THE SDA POSITION THAT A SYMBOLIC PROPHECY ENDED IN 1844 IS NOT
WITHOUT HISTORICAL OR SCHOLARLY PRECEDENT:

Derrick Gillespie CLIMAX AND CONCLUSION:
1844 is the culmination of the Daniel 8 and 9 time prophecies, and its when the only remaining
TRUE sanctuary in heaven above is being "cleansed" in anti-typical fashion foreshadowed by the
day of Atonement ceremonies in Leviticus 16. Never forget that the Jews themselves have long
seen Yom Kippur (the day of atonement in Leviticus 16) as closely tied to a day of investigative
judgment (see Yom Kippur online at this link:
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur).
The Jewish Encyclopedia I cited at the link above puts it this way:
"In rabbinic Judaism the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] completes the penitential period of
ten days...[with] the annual day of judgment, when all creatures pass in review before the
searching eye of Omniscience..."
This Jewish understanding is in reality quite ironic, seeing that just as Daniel 7 shows a
vindication of God's people AFTER a judgment scene (obviously occurring in the heavenly
temple above where God dwells), and AFTER an event which results in the "little horn" power's
ultimate demise (Daniel 7:9, 10, 26, 27), LIKEWISE Daniel 8 also brings into focus a "cleansing"
of the only remaining LITERAL sanctuary at the very time of "the end" (i.e. the sanctuary
above), and that too results in the "little horn" power being "broken without hand". With this
evident parallelism SDAs firmly believe that the heavenly ceremony of "cleansing" is also one of
investigative judgment that looks into the records of people's lives, and determines their final
destiniesandrewards,justastheJewsbelievedabouttheearthlyshadowor counterpart
(the Day of Atonement) was a time of divine investigation of the lives of the people of God.
How can the above described connection, as made by SDAs (and Jews), be Biblically supported?
Hereshow.
God has appointed ONLY ONE "day", or event, or period (not more than one), for *JUDICIALLY
judging/assessing *BOTH the wicked and the righteous *BEFORE establishing his glorious
kingdom and punishing the wicked at Jesus' second coming (see Acts 17:31, 2 Cor. 5:10 with
Ecclesiastes 3:17). When Jesus returns he would have rewards for all (Rev. 22:12)...including the
judicial punishment of the anti-Christ power in 2 Thess. 2:8, and hence THIS JUDGMENT OF
ASSESSMENT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TIME OF "THE END" BUT BEFORE JESUS RETURNS
(see Revelation 11:1,18,19roughlylocatingthatinvestigativeeventintheperiodwhenthe
nationsareangry,i.e.intheperiodinvolvingWorldWarsforthefirsttime,orafterthe1844
date).
From the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, SDAs have learned that when the prophetic period covered
by the entire vision of Daniel 8 (see Daniel 8:13) is complete (expressed in symbolic language as
"2300 days", but symbolically meaning years) then an event of sanctuary "cleansing" would
take place, and would also be a period of divine Judgment in heaven (the same one identified in
Daniel 7:9-11); one that is "Investigative" in nature, and that would result in not just the demise
of the opposing little horn power, but also a judging and vindication of God's people by way of
their Advocate and High Priest (Jesus Christ) at his throne. This is what "1844" is all about (the
year that ends the period covered by the singular vision of Daniel 8 and 9), and it has a more
solid footing in the Bible than the critics do realize.
HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD JOHN THE REVELATOR SEE THE TRUTH IN VISION (IN REVELATION
11:1,18,19)THATTHEJUDGMENT/ASSESSMENTOFALLISALSOTIEDTOTHEOPENINGOF
THE MOST HOLY PLACE AND THE ARK OF THE COVENANT BEING SHOWN? ONLY ON THE DAY
OF ATONEMENT OR YOM KIPPUR WAS THE INNER APARTMENT OF THE TEMPLE VIEWED BY
THE HIGH PRIEST, AND YET HERE IS JOHN SHOWING THE HEAVENLY COUNTERPART, AND ITS
INNER SANCTUM BEING SYMBOLICALLY "OPENED", AND THAT BEING TIED TO A DAY OF
JUDGMENT ON ALL. I think that is rather telling, and gives credence to the Jewish Rabbinical
viewthatYomKippurisalsotiedtojudgment/assessmentofpeopleslives.
Is it any wonder JohntheRevelatoralsotiestheopeningoftheMostHolyPlacewiththe
"TIME" APPOINTED (SEE AGAIN ACTS 17:31) for judging ALL people of earth in Revelation 11:
18,19, INCLUDING GOD'S OWN PEOPLE? To those too blind to see it will not be obvious, but the
SD Adventists have long seen the connection and will continue to preach it no matter the fierce
opposition from within and without the Church.
https://www.scribd.com/.../PART-2-Refuting-Thunder...
*Dear reader, after a careful review of the Biblical data, and even in the face of the
opposition earlier presented by Lovey Maize, I have come to the conclusion that what I
previously presented to former SDA, brother Elce Thunder Lauriston, (see the "part 2" link
above) as a defense against his charges against the SDA teachings on the Sanctuary above
and the 1844 Investigative Judgment Hour Message is valid, and I commend it once again to
all]
Derrick Gillespie EPILOGUE:
Dear readers, this thread/discussion is for those who seriously want to TAKE THE TIME to
seriously read on and review the SDA position on the 1844 Judgment Hour Message which SDAs
are distinctively noted for. Read the information presented in this thread slowly and in your
own time, check out the facts presented at the links provided and draw your own conclusions
based on the facts presented, but ALWAYS while engaged in much prayer. Also check out my
most detailed work on this issue as seen linked below, and let every man be convinced in his
own mind!! God bless you one and all!!
https://www.scribd.com/.../The-S-D-A-Sanctuary-Message...
Dorrett Brown THNX MY BROTHER, I'M PRAYING FOR U!!
Unlike Reply 1 8 hrs
Derrick Gillespie Thanks my dear sister, Dorrett Brown!!!
Like Reply 8 hrs
Randy Joseph Take note Concilia Awuor
Like Reply 3 hrs
Derrick Gillespie Epilogue: IF ANY MISSED THIS INFORMATIVE POST (read it online at the
link below or see the following Appendix):
https://www.facebook.com/notes/derrick-gillespie/points-of-disagreement-with-lovey-maizean-sda-dissident-on-hebrews-and-the-sanc/10209946530566183
APPENDIX:
This note is published on Facebook.
Points of Disagreement with Lovey Maize [an SDA dissident] on Hebrews and the Sanctuary
Derrick GillespieMonday, May 2, 2016
11 Reads (as of May 6, 2016)
HERE'S WHERE WE TOTALLY DISAGREE, AND WHY!!
Lovey Maize, you made a couple of points in your Facebook review of Hebrews chapters 1-13
whichItotallydisagreewith,andbelowIhaveitemizedthemandsaidwhyIcantagreewith
you any at all (understanding fully well that we may never agree on these matters, but that's
fine, and so we can move on after discussing them).
POINT 1: "[Hebrews 9] verse 14 shows that the sanctification process was already in effect in
Paul's day not future, it says " how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the
living God?" Purge can be translated as cleansed. Just like Old Testament purging on the Day of
Atonement---Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, May 2, 2016.
Hereswherewedigress,LoveyMaize,because,first,atonementandsanctificationdo
meandifferentthings(despitetheyrerelated),andmyexposuretothefulldatainScriptureas
well as intellectual honesty compels me to think differently from you in some things. You (and
manyothers,likeDr.Ford)seemtothinkthatpurificationandpurgingwasonly
ceremonially related to the Day of Atonement, and that is why so many misinterpret Hebrews,
asifitwasonlydepictingissuesrelatedtotheDayofAtonementinJesusheavenlypriesthood,
and nothing more. You are, oh, so wrong!!
Theideaofbeingmetaphoricallypurgedorpurifiedwasapplicableinvaryingcontexts,and
applied to various rituals connected to the earthly sanctuary. And Paul, who himself
participated in a soon to be abolished purification ritual in Acts 21:26, knew the various ways
thetermspurificationandbeingpurgedcanapplydaily;notjustonthedayofatonement.
Forinstance,thefamousprayerofDavidwherehecriedpurgemewithhyssopandIshallbe
clean(Psalm51)wasnotareference to the day of Atonement, but rather to the daily
purification and cleansing rituals officiated by the priests, and if these priests and their temple
andtempleritualsserveduntotheexampleandshadowofheavenlythings,thenofa
certainty we can expect to find the anti-typicalrealityinJesusheavenlyministrywherehe
can/doesdailypurgethesinnereachtimehecomestohiminprayer,confesseshissinsand
repents.Itsanongoingprocessofsanctification/atonement,andthatiswhyheever liveth to
makeintercessionforus(Heb.7:25).If his priestly work of atonement was already complete
(andnotjusthisperfectsacrificeontheCross,whereuponhesaiditisfinished,i.e.the
earthlypartofhismissionwasfinished),thenthere would be no need for this ongoing
application of the benefits of his sacrificial atonement by his intercession for us. See the
followingScripturesofthedailypriestsapplyingdailyritesinvolvingthepurgingand
purification of the sinner (rites orshadowswhichMUSTserveuntoexampleofheavenly
things)--- Leviticus 14:4, 6, 49, 51
In addition, Moses himself carried out a purification and dedication ceremony of the entire
earthly sanctuary, as seen recounted in Hebrews 9:19-24, and if this ritual must have and did
haveaheavenlyrealityitpointedto,thenofacertainthatswhyweknowthatJesusnever
ascended to only deal with the inner sanctum of the heavenly sanctuary alone, and its one item
of furniture (the ark of the covenant) in an anti-typical day of atonement, but in fact also
ascendedtodedicateandmetaphoricallypurifytheentiresanctuaryhewastothereafter
serve in at his ascension. Paul captures that very well by saying:
Hebrews9:19ForwhenMoseshadspokeneveryprecept to all the people according to the
law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and
sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament
which God hath enjoined unto you. Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the
tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law
purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Heb 9:23 It was therefore
necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the
heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered
into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself,
nowtoappearinthepresenceofGodforus
Now imagine that!! IfJesusworkuponhisascensionhadonlyappliedtoonlytheMostHoly
Place apartment, and his priestly atoning work was finished at his ascension, why dedicate and
purifythecorrespondingPATTERNS(plural)intheheavenlysanctuary(orasfoundinthethe
holyplaces)justasMosesdid*BEFOREthesanctuarycameintouse?AndifJesusheavenly
ministry also fulfilled even this aspect of the earthly shadow at the start of his heavenly
ministry, then it is plain that the anti-typical day of atonement would likewise complete the one
ongoing process of his heavenly priesthood; just as typified on earth at the end of the yearly
round of daily atonement activities. Ever rememberthepriestlyatonementworkwasdailyas
well as once yearly on the climaxing Day of Atonement; but as one process in an ongoing cycle
forayear.Godseparatedthestartandendoftheprocessofatonementthatwayonearth,
and it MUST find fulfillmentinJesusministrytooasaprocessovertime;otherwisehowcould
theseserveasanexampleandtheshadowofheavenlythings?Andaswesee,ifthenotionof
heavenlyrelatedthingsbeingmetaphoricallypurifiedisnotabsentfromheaven, despite it
being a place of absolute purity, then the notion of a climaxing day of atonement involving the
climaxing and metaphorical purification and atonement of the saints is certainly not farfetched.
HereweseeJesusheavenlyministryisverycomparable in so many ways to the earthly
priesthood and the yearly cycle of rituals, but being done only once; not repeated yearly.
Also, while it is true Hebrews 9 makes reference to purification, bulls, goats, calves, heifer,
sprinkling of ashes and blood, and refers to the high priest entering the most holy place once
yearly, etc., and while it is true its mainly an imagery of the specific Day of Atonement (Yom
Kippur) and references the work in the most holy place, yet these descriptions are NOT ONLY
about that. Bulls, calves and goats were used other days of the year, for instance (with blood
enteringthefirstapartmentbywayoftheanointedhighpriestonothercrucialoccasionslike
in Lev. 4:7, 16-18), and the sprinkling of ashes of the heifer, and dedication or symbolic
purificationofallthevesselsandfurnishingsoftemplewithblood(allactingaspatternsof
theheavenlythingsJesuswouldrelateto;Heb.9:23)theseallrelatedtootherdaysinthe
yearly round of activities as well. This again debunks the claim of Dr. Desmond Ford that it was
only the inner apartment work Jesus entered upon. And so theSDApositioninitsSanctuary
Messageremainssound,despitetheattemptsofdissidentslikeDr.Ford(notoriouslythe
greatest detractor and misleading teacher in Adventism in modern times) to use ambiguous
biblical references to try and overturn it.
Some, like Desmond Ford assume that because the book of Hebrews does not specifically
address the prophetic issue of the sanctuary "cleansing" (in the mode of Daniel 8:14), then it
denies the "INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT" doctrine as understood by SDAs, but that is a paltry
polemic against the SDA teaching since Hebrews was *NOT a book meant to explain prophetic
issues in detail, but it simply gave a sweeping overview/view of how Jesus ministers and will
minister in THE true heavenly sanctuary (AS BOTH THE SACRIFICIAL "LAMB" AND PRIEST,
INCLUDING BEING THE DAILY ANTI-TYPICAL PRIEST AS WELL AS THE HIGH PRIEST) and that, no
doubt, ALL the earthly symbols/figures in the earthly sanctuary would eventually find fulfillment
in the ongoing ministry of Jesus in the heavenly one (ALL IN THEIR OWN TIME, OF COURSE).
And he[Jesus]beingsaidtoenteronceintotheheavenlytemple,aspriestandhighpriest all
in one, is simply comparative language in terms of this heavenly action being compared to the
overall services of the earthly temple being repeated year after year. Jesus did not need to do
the repeated yearly round of services year after year, but doeseverythingoncebothinterms
of his one sacrifice on the Cross outside the temple while on earth, his one entry into the
heavenlytempleoverall,hisonededicationandpurification(Heb.9:23)ofthethings
[plural] in heaven (not just the later symbolicpurificationoftheoneitemoffurnitureinthe
most holy place; the ark with its mercy seat), his one ongoing intercession as the daily priests
would have done (but in their case in repeated yearly cycles), and also in terms of what he will
once accomplish in the distinctive and climaxing Day of Atonement service the high priest did
AT THE CLOSE OF IT ALL (but in their case would have repeated it year after year).
This now takes me to the next point with which I certainly disagree with you on, Lovey Maize.
POINT2:[Hebrews10]Verse11Andeveryprieststandethdailyministeringandoffering
oftentimes the same sacrifices , which can never take away sins : But this man , after he had
offered one sacrifice for sins for eve , sat down on the right hand of God ; From henceforth
expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. . For by one offering he hath perfected forever
themthataresanctified.Justreenforcingthedayofatonementanalogy.Afterhecompleted,
He sat down. That's why Jesus shouted it is finished![Hebrews 10] Verse 19 caps it off, Having
therefore , brethren , boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus , By a new and
living way , which he hath consecrated for us , through the veil , that is to say , his flesh. Christ
enteredtheHoliestathisascensionafterhavingobtainedredemptionforus.Thatisenough
---Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, May 2, 2016
Here is where many make the Bible contradict itself, because the entire book of Hebrews
speaks about the ongoing ministry of our Priest or Advocate or Mediator, and yet many read
Hebrews10andassumesthatJesuspriestlyworkisfinishedandthatswhyhesatdown!!Oh,
howsadtomakeitseemthatJesusworkaspriestisfinishedbyhimsittingdown. The verses
youquotedaboveLoveyMaizesimplyrelatedtohimoncecompletingthesacrifice(a
sacrifice which purges from sin; but only when accepted to be such by the sinner), and hence
he did not need to repeat the sacrifice part of his work. With that partcomplete(i.e.ITIS
FINISHED),heeffectivelysecuredoursalvationviafinishingthatpartofthework.Acts7:55
hasaHolyGhostfilleddiscipleseeingJesusseveralyearsafterheascendedstandingonthe
righthandofGod(notsitting),obviously in his ministerial role as our Priest and Advocate
(sincethatiswhatheEverlivethtodo...makeintercessionforusasaPriestwould.Thus
JesusbeingdepictedassittingdownonGodsrighthandafterhissacrificeonearthcould
simply mean that his royal re-exaltation as King of kings is being being depicted, or it could
mean him being satisfied with his work on earth which secured everything else connected to his
ongoing ministry in the Sanctuary above; and not that it means his Priestlyworkwasfinished
at that juncture. Not at all!!
But why the use of all this past tense language, am sure you would ask me, Lovey Maize? And
that would be a fair question. God and his prophets and bible writers often speaks of things
assured in the futureasiftheywerealreadyareality,andthatwaswhyJesuswasdeemedthe
lambslainfromthefoundationoftheworld(Rev.13:8),andyetstillhadtocomeearthanddie
to fulfill the assured prophecy. He certainly has already secured our salvationandbyone
offeringhehathperfectedforeverthemthataresanctified(allpasttense)andyethehasbeen
ministering on our behalf for nearly 2000 years, and applying the benefits of his atonement on
the Cross, even as (united with him) we workoutoursalvationwithfearandtrembling
(Phill. 2:12), and even as we go through the sanctification process daily (which is the work of a
lifetime;ofdyingdailytosin).Thatisalsowhysaintsaredeemedalreadypassedfromdeath
tolife(John5:24;1John3:14),andalreadyhas[presenttense]eternallife,andtheywere
promisedthattheywillneverdie,despitetheactualconferringofimmortalityisstillafuture
event (1Cor 15:51-55), and saints still die the first death today, i.e. since Jesus secured eternal
life for all.
POINT3:...wehaveasananchorofthesoul,bothsureandstedfast,andwhichenterethinto
that within the veil ; Whither the forerunner is for us entered , even Jesus , made an high priest
for ever aftertheorderofMelchisedec.Herehe[Paul]saysthishighPriest,Jesusentered"
within the Veil". The early Adventist believed this to mean first apartment. But exegetical
honesty has made this view to be adjusted and Pr Andross in answer objections of Balleger to
this text agreed that "within the veil" means the second veil as all other instances in scripture
indicate.---Lovey Maize, Facebook comments, May 2, 2016
The final key area in which I disagree with you is in you speaking of Christ enteringtheholiest
andministeringwithinorbehindtheveilanddeemingittomeantheMostHolyPlacesince
his ascension. But, again, my exposure to all the biblical data and contending scholarship
compels me to see that as a picture of him in the sanctuary as a whole when Paul wrote; not
just the Most Holy Place. It matters not what some SDA might have conceded, there is no
irrefutableScripturetoprovethatthetermwithintheveilcannotmeanjustthesanctuaryas
a whole, i.e. after Jesus earned therighttoministerbehindtheveilorintheholyplaces,
butassecuredby/throughJesusfleshwhichheofferedforus!!Sincethemuchdebated
expression, "the [temple] veil", needed a qualifying term by the very writer of Hebrews i.e.
"*after [or within] the *SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3), so as to clinch a more specific meaning
withreferencetothehagiahagion(themostholyplace),andsincethereweretwoveilsto
the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was referring specifically to behind the
"veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written. Even the writer of Hebrews SYMBOLICALLY
uses the term "the veil" to mean Jesus' flesh (Heb. 10:20). It is obvious that to be in the Temple
demanded that one pass through, and is behind or within the first "veil" to the door of the
Temple. Thus the expression in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to being "within" or behind any of
the two "veils", since Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his incarnation, as He must have been
made human to even minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in the first place (Heb. 5). So his
incarnation, obedience, and crucifixion opened the way, or gave Him the right to His ministry in
the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He earned the right via his state of being in the flesh (another
typeofveilaswell;Heb.10:20)tobeminister"withintheveil"orjustsimplythesanctuary
itself. There is no evidence in the expression itself, i.e. "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19 that this
meantSPECIFICALLYThemostHolyPlace",andnotjustwithinthesanctuaryitself!!
In fact as we consider the earthly sanctuary we realize that the common people could only see
the courtyard. They could not enter or see into the sanctuary itself; only the priests (i.e. the
daily as well as the high priest). Thus when either the priest or high priest disappeared from
their view he was entering through the first veil into the sanctuary as a whole, and only by faith
they acceptedwhattookplaceinside.Thustheexpressionwithintheveilcanlegitimately
meanBOTHbeinginthetempleasawhole,aswellasbeinginthemostholyplacebehindthe
secondveil(Hebrews9:3).
The verses of the entire chapter of Hebrews 9, discuss all the services of the priests and high
priests in their daily rounds, as well as that once a year event involving the High Priest going
into the second apartment. The people could not see the priests in ANY of the work done in the
holyplacesbehind the veils of the sanctuary itself, whether it was in the holy place OR the
most holy. In the same way, when Christ ascended to heaven we could no longer physically see
Him.WemustfollowHiminfaithasHeministersforusintheHolyPlaceswith all its original

patterns(plural)inthetruesanctuaryofheaven;notjustintheMostHolyPlace/apartment.
---Facebook 2016

My Dialog With A Dissident SDA (Lovey Maize) On The Sanctuary and 1844 (Edited/Revised)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

My Dialog With A Dissident SDA (Lovey Maize) On The Sanctuary and 1844 (Edited/Revised)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MY FACEBOOK DIALOG WITH AN SDA DISSIDENT

ABOUT THE SANCTUARY AND THE 1844

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:11am Edited

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:12am Edited

TIME PROVED IN FIFTEEN DIFFERENT WAYS By Wm

Like Reply April 30 at 11:53pm Edited

Lovey Maize Addressed . Thanks.

Lovey Maize The facts are as follows?

concerns the multi-denominational Millerite movement of the 1840s.

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:32am Edited

Like Reply May 2 at 8:24pm Edited

Derrick Gillespie GILLESPIE'S REBUTTAL No. 2 (final remarks on the Millerites):

amount of time on. Here's the cream of my argumentation:

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:35am Edited

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:37am Edited

Like Reply May 2 at 1:23am Edited

Like Reply May 3 at 9:58am Edited

Like Reply May 2 at 2:41am Edited

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:40am Edited

Like Reply May 2 at 2:14am Edited

Like Reply 1 May 1 at 5:32pm Edited

He ends by admonishing us,

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:42am Edited

Like Reply May 3 at 4:55am Edited

Like Reply May 2 at 8:46pm Edited

Like Reply 1 May 3 at 5:06am Edited

Lovey Maize This will be interesting...following keenly...

Lovey Maize Sounds like a fantastic idea. Owesome.

Like Reply May 2 at 6:55pm Edited

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:44am Edited

Like Reply May 3 at 6:19am

Like Reply May 3 at 12:36pm

Like Reply May 3 at 1:34pm Edited

That which reconciled the whole world to heaven.

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:52am Edited

that serveth God and him that serveth him not."

Like Reply May 3 at 1:22pm

Like Reply 9 hrs Edited

Like Reply May 3 at 4:02pm Edited

Like Reply May 4 at 5:27am Edited

Like Reply May 4 at 6:13am Edited

Like Reply May 4 at 5:29am Edited

Derrick Gillespie DEAR READERS:

Like Reply Yesterday at 3:33am Edited

Derrick Gillespie DEAR READERS:

Like Reply Yesterday at 4:59am Edited

Like Reply Yesterday at 3:30am Edited

Like Reply 1 Yesterday at 5:01am Edited

In Defense of the Year-day Principle :: Perspective Digest

Like Reply 1 Yesterday at 5:09am Edited

Like Reply Yesterday at 5:10am Edited

Stephen Bohr on Daniel 8

12. The Santuary Shall be Cleanses part 1 -Pastor Stephen youtube.com

13. The Sanctuary Shall be Cleansed part 2 -Pastor youtube.com

15. The Prophecy of the 70 Weeks part 1 - Pastor youtube.com

Derrick Gillespie CONCLUSION:

16. The Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (part 2) - Pastor youtube.com

Like Reply 9 hrs Edited

Like Reply 8 hrs Edited

Like Reply 8 hrs Edited

Like Reply 8 hrs Edited

Him.WemustfollowHiminfaithasHeministersforusintheHolyPlaceswith all its original

Вам также может понравиться