Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[tall73]

According to the scriptures in Leviticus 16 is the the yearly ministration of the Priesthood that is responsible for the removal of all sin from the presence of God and the cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of Gods' people brought into the Sanctuary and the presence of God through blood atonement which is then transferred in the same manner that the sinner transferred their sins to the sin offering but this time to the live scapegoat.

You view all these things as one continuous system. The sin comes in piecemeal throughout the year. Then it is taken out, then it is placed on the scapegoat.

What does atonement even mean to you?

Every instance where atonement is made by the blood it is not because of transfer to the sanctuary, or removal from the sanctuary. It is a picture of Jesus' death providing the atonement for all sin by paying the penalty.

In the sin offering during the year the blood application brought atonement.

In sin offerings such as for the high priest or the whole camp they are shown to bring atonement, and are specifically stated to make atonement in the holy place, the same phrase used in the yearly.

The blood cleanses. The blood atones. It does not just shuffle sin from place to place. It is not one continuous system. It is individual portraits of cleansing, each illustrating a different aspect of Jesus' death for us, and cleansing blood.

Note: It is "the Lords goat" that is the sin offering that is killed for the people (not the scapegoat Azazel) and it is "the Lords goat" whos blood is used for final sin atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary

Agreed, the Lord's goat shows the blood atonement and cleansing of sins of Jesus. By the way, this is what is shown in Hebrews as happening in the first century.

while "the scapegoat; Azazel" remains alive.

Not per Ellen White, who has him taking on the sins of God's people, and suffering for them, and being destroyed, suffering the penalty of the law for them.

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They “shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.” Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished “according to their deeds.” The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch—Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. GC 673.1


But the scapegoat is another aspect of atonement made by Christ.

satan cannot be represented by a ceremonially clean animal, exactly like that used for blood atonement. satan is sinful, not clean. Nor have you explained how he can take on someone else's sins when he is unclean. The sins of God's people were of their own doing. Satan is guilty of his own sin, including temptation, but the sinner is still guilty for his own sin. The righteous were also guilty of their own sin, but Christ paid the price.

Two ceremonially clean animals can be used to show two aspects of the same atonement, both blood atonement by death, and total removal of sin from the camp while alive.

The statement by Ellen White that Satan suffers for our sins, has our sins placed on him, and meets the penalty of the law for our sins is totally wrong.

Jesus bore our sins, suffered for our sins, and satisfied the penalty of the law for us.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@Leaf473

I agree, this is a huge issue. LGW asserts that the scapegoat is not used for atonement.

However, the text says:

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

No, this is also a misrepresentation. What LGW really asserts is that according to the scriptures, "the scapegoat" is not used for atonement for sin in the same sense that atonement is made for the removal of the death penalty for sin and blood atonement that is needed to receive Gods' forgiveness. This is because "the scapegoat" is kept ALIVE and that it is "the Lords goat" that represents Jesus in blood atonement. The atonement used in context of "the scapegoat" is in returning all of the sins of Gods' people to the originator of all sin who will then in return receive the death penalty for these sins.

As posted earlier; a view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" in the anti-type under the new covenant is impossible. As posted earlier making Jesus "the scapegoat" in the new covenant runs into all kinds of problems.

How can Jesus being "the Lord's goat" that makes blood sacrifice for the sins of God's people also be "the scapegoat? That has all of the sins of God's people confessed on it by the great high Priest that also represents Jesus? In the anti-type you would have Jesus as our Great high Priest, who is also our sin offering for blood atonement (the Lords goat), laying His hands on himself, confessing all the sins of all God's people and re-transferring all the sins of God's people to himself (this was already done by the sinners in the daily) where he then is led out from the presence of God by a strong man to remove all sin from the presence of God? How is Jesus led by a strong man into the wilderness alive to remove the Sins of God's people from the presence of the Lord? There is no application for this in the bible.

By making Jesus the scapegoat your saying that blood atonement is inadequate for God's people to receive forgiveness of sins. The problem arises for your view here because by the time this final part of the Day of Atonement ritual had arrived, all blood sacrifices had been completed. The "Lord's goat" had been slain and its blood sprinkled before the mercy seat. This sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people. This expiation in your view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" makes Christ's blood atonement inadequate, partial, incomplete, needing further remediation from the scapegoat. Christs sacrifice however and blood atonement however was complete, finished. No supplement, no other sacrifice, could be required. "When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Leviticus 16:20). Making Jesus "the scapegoat" you have the further problem of it thus appearing as though the Calvary sacrifice was deficient, that Christ did not there complete His work of expiation, or that some other figure was necessary to illustrate its sufficiency.

As posted earlier, in examining the transferal of sin to "the scapegoat" after all sin is atoneed by blood atonement already through "the Lords goat", it is significant to note that the goat was not treated in the same way as all other animal sacrifices were — slain as atonement for sin.

Only a sacrifice for sin was valid as an atonement for transgressions only as it died, as there was spilled blood (blood atonement for forgiveness). Thus, Jesus was "set forth to be a propitiation [for us] by his blood" (Romans 3:25). It is "through his blood" that we have redemption (Ephesians 1:7). Preserving the goat alive tells that Azazel had another purpose because shed blood was necessary for a sin offering, in what way could an animal kept alive be considered such an offering? In what respect would it represent Christ? - It cannot. To say that the scapegoat, which played a part only after the atonement was complete, represented Christ is to blur the atonement, to suggest it is not sufficient, that something else was needed to complete it and make it effective. Such an idea as having Jesus representing "the scapegoat" is simply not biblical.

If you think this through to new covenant application having Jesus as "the scapegoat just does not work. Scripture has been provided to support everything else in this post that I see no need to respond to because I believe it is your understanding of these scriptures that have already been addressed elsewhere in our discussion that are not supported in the scriptures your seeking to use here.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

If your view were true it deletes the yearly ministration of the Priesthood because there would be no sin to atone for no cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of God's people that were brought into it through out the year and not sin to transfer to the scapegoat.

Incorrect. Each is a separate picture of aspects of Jesus' atoning.

The sin offering in the year shows cleansing for one sin of the person, showing the price of sin, that the sacrifice must die for the sin of the person.

The cleansing at the end of the year shows cleansing blood for removal of all sins of the camp--the same thing we see in the fulfillment when Jesus by His one sacrifice for all time, and entry by means of His own blood secured eternal redemption through one blood ministration.

In both cases they are pictures of cleansing, lessons for the people.

The atoning blood happened when the high priest went into the sanctuary, just as it happened when Jesus went into the true sanctuary, heaven itself.

The scapegoat also was a clean goat, the same as the one that provided blood, clean, without blemish. It showed the total removal of sin from the camp.

Jesus when He comes from the sanctuary will entirely remove everything associated with sin from His kingdom. Even the old earth and heavens will be destroyed, and new ones in their place. He does this, not satan.

They are all showing different aspects of what Jesus does.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
LGW asserts that the scapegoat is not used for atonement.

However, the text says:

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

@Leaf473

No, this is also a misrepresentation. LGW asserts that "the scapegoat" is not used for atonement for sin in the same sense that atonement is made for the removal of the death penalty for sin and blood atonement that is needed to receive Gods' forgiveness.

The text says that that scapegoat was used to make atonement.

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

satan can never make ANY kind of atonement for the sins of God's people. Only Jesus does that. It doesn't matter what form you see satan making atonement for our sins, it is impossible.

The atonement used in context of "the scapegoat" is in returning all of the sins of Gods' people to the originator of all sin who will then in return receive the death penalty for these sins.

satan instigated sin. satan tempts people to sin.

But your sin is still your sin. satan did not force you to sin. You chose it. satan did not force me to sin. I chose it.

satan cannot in any way make atonement for sins of God's people. And satan cannot take on your sins. He cannot be represented by a clean unblemished animal, the same as Christ. Both of the goats were brought for a sin offering:

Lev 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

Both goats had to be suitable for a sin offering, unblemished, clean, and that cannot picture satan.

He has no part in atonement for the sins of the God's people.

As posted earlier; a view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" in the anti-type under the new covenant is impossible. As posted earlier making Jesus "the scapegoat" in the new covenant runs into all kinds of problems.
How can Jesus being "the Lord's goat" that makes blood sacrifice for the sins of God's people also be "the scapegoat? That has all of the sins of God's people confessed on it by the great high Priest that also represents Jesus?

You just acknowledged Jesus is both Sacrifice and High Priest. It sounds like He can represent different things in the sanctuary service, which we both agree with.

Now how can satan be represented by a ceremonially clean sacrificial animal just like the one used for blood sacrifice? He cannot.

In the anti-type you would have Jesus as our Great high Priest, who is also our sin offering for blood atonement (the Lords goat), laying His hands on himself, confessing all the sins of all God's people and re-transferring all the sins of God's people to himself (this was already done by the sinners in the daily) where he then is led out from the presence of God by a strong man to remove all sin from the presence of God? How is Jesus led by a strong man into the wilderness alive to remove the Sins of God's people from the presence of the Lord? There is no application for this in the bible.

Because you are interpreting the shadow instead of the reality. Jesus removed sin from the camp. But in the shadow the goat didn't just go out of the camp.

By making Jesus the scapegoat your saying that blood atonement is inadequate for God's people to receive forgiveness of sins. The problem arises for your view here because by the time this final part of the Day of Atonement ritual had arrived, all blood sacrifices had been completed.

Quite the opposite! In my view all of these are pictures of what Jesus does. He does it all. In your view you have the final blood atonement being made, but then satan has the sins of the people of God placed on him, suffers for them and satisfies the penalty of the law? The law was already satisfied!

To you atonement means shuffling sins around. No, Jesus dies for the sins. And He also removes all sin from the dwelling place of God.

Satan cannot take the sins of others on himself.

The "Lord's goat" had been slain and its blood sprinkled before the mercy seat. This sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people.

By the way, in your haste to try to say that satan doesn't bear your sin, even though Ellen White says he does, you actually got this part of the service right.

Jesus took cleansing blood and sprinkled it before the mercy seat. His sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people! Amen! Jesus did that in the first century. He made purification for sins. He entered by means of His own blood, securing eternal redemption.

Now stop trying to turn that into your strange IJ to justify why it took so long after Adventists got everything wrong before and after 1844.

And stop claiming that after atoning for all sins Jesus takes them out as though they were not atoned for and sticks them on satan to suffer for them. That is sick!

All of the rites point to Jesus. And all of them show aspects of His work. He paid the price for sin in His death. He presented that completed sacrifice, making purification, in the sanctuary.

Then when He leaves the sanctuary He will remove every trace of sin from the dwelling of His people.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@Leaf473

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ According to the scriptures in Leviticus 16 is the the yearly ministration of the Priesthood that is responsible for the removal of all sin from the presence of God and the cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of Gods' people brought into the Sanctuary and the presence of God through blood atonement which is then transferred in the same manner that the sinner transferred their sins to the sin offering but this time to the live scapegoat.

Your response here...

You view all these things as one continuous system. The sin comes in piecemeal throughout the year. Then it is taken out, then it is placed on the scapegoat.

No. That is what scripture says in regards to the two ministrations of the Priesthood in the work of the Sanctuary in daily atonement for the individual sins of the people of God through blood atonement in Leviticus 4:22-35 and the yearly collective final atonement for all the sins of Gods' people brought into the Sanctuary throughout the year, and the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal of all sin from the presence of God to the scapegoat in Leviticus 16.

What does atonement even mean to you?

A question already addressed to you many times now as shown through scripture in the ministration of the daily and yearly ministration of the Priesthood in blood atonement for sin and the removal of sin from the presence of God as outlined in the Sanctuary system that was only a copy of the work and ministration of Jesus as Gods' true sacrifice for the sins of the world once and for all who as God' High priest ever lives to make intercession for us as shown in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22. Gods plan of salvation is revealed in both the earthly and heavenly Sanctuary in the ministrations of Jesus in the daily atonement for the individual sins of the sinner and Gods' final atonement for all sin and the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the final atonement and removal of all sin from the presence of God that is finally fulfilled at the second coming of Jesus.

Every instance where atonement is made by the blood it is not because of transfer to the sanctuary, or removal from the sanctuary. It is a picture of Jesus' death providing the atonement for all sin by paying the penalty.

No, as shown through the scriptures many times now all sin must be brought into the Sanctuary through a sin offering and blood atonement in the presence of a Priest and the Lord in order to pay the penalty for sin in the death of the sin offering and for the sinner to receive Gods' forgiveness through blood atonement that can only be made by the Priest in the presence of God in the Sanctuary. This is the daily ministration of the Priesthood (Leviticus 4:22-35). The final cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of the daily ministration of the Priesthood takes place in the yearly ministration on the great day of atonement where all the sins of the Sanctuary are cleansed from the presence of God and final collective atonement is made for God's people and all the sins of Gods' people are removed from the presence of God. If your view was true there would be no yearly ministration of the Priesthood as there would be no sin in the Sanctuary that needs to be cleansed and removed from the presence of God. Therefore the yearly atonement or the great day of atonement and yearly ministration of the Priesthood proves your teachings are not biblical.

Not per Ellen White, who has him taking on the sins of God's people, and suffering for them, and being destroyed, suffering the penalty of the law for them.

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They “shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.” Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished “according to their deeds.” The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch—Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. GC 673.1

Already addressed in some detail already. Please see post # 459 linked and post # 462 linked. The application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" is not the same. Only "the Lords goat" makes blood sacrifice for sin to pay the penalty of sin (death) and receive God's forgiveness of sins. The transfer of all the sins of the people of God as shown in Leviticus 16 is the returning of all sin to the originator of sin who then is responsible for his own sins at the second coming. Please read the linked posts above.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Incorrect. Each is a separate picture of aspects of Jesus' atoning.

The sin offering in the year shows cleansing for one sin of the person, showing the price of sin, that the sacrifice must die for the sin of the person.

The cleansing at the end of the year shows cleansing blood for removal of all sins of the camp--the same thing we see in the fulfillment when Jesus by His one sacrifice for all time, and entry by means of His own blood secured eternal redemption through one blood ministration.

In both cases they are pictures of cleansing, lessons for the people.

The atoning blood happened when the high priest went into the sanctuary, just as it happened when Jesus went into the true sanctuary, heaven itself.

The scapegoat also was a clean goat, the same as the one that provided blood, clean, without blemish. It showed the total removal of sin from the camp.

Jesus when He comes from the sanctuary will entirely remove everything associated with sin from His kingdom. Even the old earth and heavens will be destroyed, and new ones in their place. He does this, not satan.

They are all showing different aspects of what Jesus does.

I would respectfully disagree because that is not what the scriptures teach. According to the Sanctuary system there is two ministrations of the Priesthood in the daily ministration of of the Priesthood for sin atonement through blood sacrifice for the individual sins of the people of God and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood which is the final collective atonement for the sins of Gods people brought into the Sanctuary throughout the year and the cleansing of the Sanctuary for all the sins of the people of God and the removal of all sin from the presence of God as shown in Leviticus 4:22-35 for the daily forgiveness of specific individual sins and the cleansing and removal of all sin from the presence of God in Leviticus 16. It is the yearly ministration of the Sanctuary system the show that your application of the scriptures is not biblical.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

tall73 said: ↑
LGW asserts that the scapegoat is not used for atonement.

However, the text says:

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.




The text says that that scapegoat was used to make atonement.

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

satan can never make ANY kind of atonement for the sins of God's people. Only Jesus does that. It doesn't matter what form you see satan making atonement for our sins, it is impossible.



satan instigated sin. satan tempts people to sin.

But your sin is still your sin. satan did not force you to sin. You chose it. satan did not force me to sin. I chose it.

satan cannot in any way make atonement for sins of God's people. And satan cannot take on your sins. He cannot be represented by a clean unblemished animal, the same as Christ. Both of the goats were brought for a sin offering:

Lev 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

Both goats had to be suitable for a sin offering, unblemished, clean, and that cannot picture satan.

He has no part in atonement for the sins of the God's people.



You just acknowledged Jesus is both Sacrifice and High Priest. It sounds like He can represent different things in the sanctuary service, which we both agree with.

Now how can satan be represented by a ceremonially clean sacrificial animal just like the one used for blood sacrifice? He cannot.



Because you are interpreting the shadow instead of the reality. Jesus removed sin from the camp. But in the shadow the goat didn't just go out of the camp.



Quite the opposite! In my view all of these are pictures of what Jesus does. He does it all. In your view you have the final blood atonement being made, but then satan has the sins of the people of God placed on him, suffers for them and satisfies the penalty of the law? The law was already satisfied!

To you atonement means shuffling sins around. No, Jesus dies for the sins. And He also removes all sin from the dwelling place of God.

Satan cannot take the sins of others on himself.



By the way, in your haste to try to say that satan doesn't bear your sin, even though Ellen White says he does, you actually got this part of the service right.

Jesus took cleansing blood and sprinkled it before the mercy seat. His sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people! Amen! Jesus did that in the first century. He made purification for sins. He entered by means of His own blood, securing eternal redemption.

Now stop trying to turn that into your strange IJ to justify why it took so long after Adventists got everything wrong before and after 1844.

And stop claiming that after atoning for all sins Jesus takes them out as though they were not atoned for and sticks them on satan to suffer for them. That is sick!

All of the rites point to Jesus. And all of them show aspects of His work. He paid the price for sin in His death. He presented that completed sacrifice, making purification, in the sanctuary.

Then when He leaves the sanctuary He will remove every trace of sin from the dwelling of His people.

Already addressed in detail this is simply repetition. Please see post # 459 linked and post # 462 linked. The application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" is not the same. Only "the Lords goat" makes blood sacrifice for sin to pay the penalty of sin (death) and receive God's forgiveness of sins. The transfer of all the sins of the people of God as shown in Leviticus 16 is the returning of all sin to the originator of sin who then is responsible for his own sins at the second coming. Please read the linked posts above.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

Already addressed in some detail already. Please see post # 459 linked and post # 462 linked. The application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" is not the same.

There is no atonement for the sins of God's people of any sort provided by satan, and never can be.

The transfer of all the sins of the people of God as shown in Leviticus 16 is the returning of all sin to the originator of sin who then is responsible for his own sins at the second coming. Please read the linked posts above.

Take Care.

I note you did a little edit there of what Ellen White said. You say he is responsible for his own sin. But Ellen White says he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he caused God's people to commit.

The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. Great Controversey

 

[LoveGodsWord]

There is no atonement for the sins of God's people of any sort provided by satan, and never can be.

I believe it is your understanding of the meaning and application of atonement between the Lord's goat and the scapegoat that is in error here. This has already been addressed in detail. Please see post # 459 linked and post # 462 linked. The application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" is not the same. Only "the Lords goat" makes blood sacrifice for sin to pay the penalty of sin (death) to receive God's forgiveness of sins. The transfer of all the sins of the people of God as shown in Leviticus 16 to the scapegoat is the returning of all sin to the originator of sin who then is responsible for all sins at the second coming. Please read the linked posts above.

I note you did a little edit there of what Ellen White said. You say he is responsible for his own sin. But Ellen White says he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he caused God's people to commit. The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. Great Controversey[/user]

No not at all, I agree with the statement and have shown why I believe it is true from the scriptures from the very beginning of our discussion. Perhaps you have a misunderstanding? That is why all sin is transferred to "the scapegoat" and removed from the presence of God into the wilderness as reflected at the second coming in Revelation 20:1-3 and when the devil and his angels are finally cast into the lake of fire. If your view was correct this could not happen and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood would cease to exist. Fact is though it exists as shown in the yearly ministration of the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the final atonement of Gods people and the removal of all sin from the presence of God as shown in Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 23:23-32.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

No not at all I agree with the statement and have shown it from the scriptures from the very beginning of our discussion perhaps you have a misunderstanding.

You and Ellen White who see satan as taking on your sins and suffering for them is the misunderstanding.

And it is a terrible one.

 

[tall73]

Which brings up the idea of prophecy, one of the subjects of this thread.

Years ago I read some sections of The Great Controversy. My impression at the time was that it was not a message from God.

These latest details about the final bearer of the sins of the world confirm that feeling.

The irony is that they found one manuscript of Ellen White's that has a totally different view. But it was never published.

Ms 112, 1897

Some apply the solemn type, the scapegoat, to Satan. This is not correct. He cannot bear his own sins. At the choosing of Barabbas, Pilate washed his hands. He cannot be represented as the scapegoat. The awful cry, uttered with a hasty, awful recklessness, by the Satan-inspired multitude, swelling louder and louder, reaches up to the throne of God, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” [Matthew 27:25.] Christ was the Scapegoat, which the type represents. He alone can be represented by the goat borne into wilderness. He alone, over whom death had not power, was able to bear our sins.


This article by the White Estate then explains this comment away:

Ellen G. White® Estate: The Scapegoat in the Writings of Ellen G. White

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You and Ellen White who see satan as taking on your sins and suffering for them is the misunderstanding. And it is a terrible one.

No not at all. I believe it is the other way around as already proven through the scriptures in the daily and the yearly ministrations of the Priesthood as shown in Leviticus 4:22-35 and Leviticus 16 which are the two ministrations of the Sanctuary system further revealed in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22; Revelation 20:1-3 and Revelation 22:11-15. The daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood outline the work of Jesus as our true sacrifice for sin and as our great high Priest that ever lives to make intercession for us under the new covenant. It is the yearly ministration of the final atonement of the sins of God's people the prove your claims and teachings are not supported by the scriptures here and you making Jesus as "the scapegoat" makes the sacrifice of Jesus and blood atonement insufficient as demonstrated already in post # 459 linked and post # 462 linked. The application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" is not the same. Only "the Lords goat" makes blood sacrifice for sin to pay the penalty of sin (death) and receive God's forgiveness of sins. The transfer of all the sins of the people of God as shown in Leviticus 16 to "the scapegoat" Azazel is the returning of all sin to the originator of sin who then is responsible for his own sins when judgement is given at the second coming.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The irony is that they found one manuscript of Ellen White's that has a totally different view. But it was never published.

Ms 112, 1897

Some apply the solemn type, the scapegoat, to Satan. This is not correct. He cannot bear his own sins. At the choosing of Barabbas, Pilate washed his hands. He cannot be represented as the scapegoat. The awful cry, uttered with a hasty, awful recklessness, by the Satan-inspired multitude, swelling louder and louder, reaches up to the throne of God, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” [Matthew 27:25.] Christ was the Scapegoat, which the type represents. He alone can be represented by the goat borne into wilderness. He alone, over whom death had not power, was able to bear our sins.


This article by the White Estate then explains this comment away:

Ellen G. White® Estate: The Scapegoat in the Writings of Ellen G. White

It does not explain the article away it adds the context that this was the view of those in the late 1840's and 1850's which was not made clear until the 1880's until God showed differently. Context always matters here. Context provided here linked.

Happy Sabbath!

 

[tall73]

It does not explain the article away it adds the context that this was the view of those in the late 1840's and 1850's which was not made clear until the 1880's until God showed differently. Context always matters here. Context provided here linked.

Happy Sabbath!

I recommend people read the article. And they will indeed see they try to explain this statement away.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I recommend people read the article. And they will indeed see they try to explain this statement away.

For me I recommend that context should always be considered as to when and why things are said at various times in history. That said Tall I have enjoyed my discussion with you as always as I love sharing Gods Word and I pray you may consider our discussion in a friendly Christian manner in love as we love God and prayerfully seek to know him through His Word. I am only sharing with you what I believe from the scriptures. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. That is never in question and of course what we believe is between us all and God as everyone only answers to God come judgement day for the Words of God we accept or reject and of course we can always agree to disagree and remain friends.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

For me I recommend that context should always be considered as to when and why things are said at various times in history. That said Tall I have enjoyed my discussion with you as always as I love sharing Gods Word and I pray you may consider our discussion in a friendly Christian manner in love as we love God and prayerfully seek to know him through His Word. I am only sharing with you what I believe from the scriptures. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. That is never in question and of course what we believe is between us all and God as everyone only answers to God come judgement day for the Words of God we accept or reject and of course we can always agree to disagree and remain friends.

Take Care.

Thank you for taking time to discuss. God bless

 

[Leaf473]

@Leaf473 here is a response to the misinformation provided to you earlier.

I believe you are misrepresenting what I have posted to you here despite me telling you exactly in earlier posts what I believe our main differences are. Firstly, no. As posted earlier to you I believe in context to the scriptures already shared with you that the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the yearly atonement as shown through the scriptures in Leviticus 16 that the sins of God's people that are brought into the Sanctuary for blood atonement is the reason why the Sanctuary needs cleansing. It is sin that causes uncleanness and defilement of the Sanctuary. According to the scriptures, it is because of the sins of Gods' people that have been brought into the presence of God in the Sanctuary that the sanctuary is cleansed on the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16).

This ministration of the Priesthood is different to that of the daily ministration and atonement for sin. As shown through the scriptures already this includes the cleansing of all apartments of the Sanctuary from the most holy place, the holy place and the courtyard. This ministration also includes the final atonement for the collective sins of Gods' people through "the Lords goat" before the final work of removal of all sin from Gods' presence which according to the scriptures is transferred to the scapegoat which is then taken out by a strong man into the wilderness. As pointed out to you many times now I believe our main area of difference is in the understanding of the ministration of the High Priest and what his work is on the great day of atonement and the ministration of the Priesthood between the daily and yearly removal of sin from the presence of God. Your trying to disregard the yearly ministration of the Great high priests work in the cleansing of the Sanctuary on the great day of atonement. This is where the main area of difference is.

Let's look at this in some detail. You agree with me that all sin offerings for God's people were to be made inside the Sanctuary as shown already though the scriptures in Leviticus 4:5-7; 18; Leviticus 4:27-35; Numbers 15; Leviticus 6:24-30. In the daily ministration of the Priesthood the sinner was to bring a sin offering to the Sanctuary and inside the Sanctuary you agree that the sinner transferred their sin by placing their hands on the sin offering in the presence of the Priest and the Lord transferring the sin from the sinner to the sin offering correct? From here the scriptures tell us that the sinner after transferring their sins to the sin offering had to kill the sin offering with their own hands (which is what we have done to Jesus) and at this time the Priest collected the blood of the sin offering to make atonement for the sinner by the sprinkling of blood on the alter of burnt offering and the remaining blood was poured out at the base of the alter. This in turn resulted in the atonement and cleansing of sin from the sinner and is also reflected in 1 John 1:9. Now note: Where was the sin transferred to inside the Sanctuary? The sinner transferred their sins to the sin offering. We are in agreement. Now where the sin offering pays the penalty of sin (death) in order to atone for sin and the cleansing of sin happens with the sprinkling of the blood on the alter of bunt offerings. This is the cleansing of the individual from their sins that takes place in the daily ministration of the Priesthood. The yearly ministration of the Priesthood is the cleansing of the sanctuary and the removal of all the sins from God's people from the presence of God which are transferred to the scapegoat which is led by a strong man into the wilderness.

[8], And AARON SHALL CAST LOTS UPON THE TWO GOATS; ONE LOT FOR THE LORD, AND THE OTHER LOT FOR THE SCAPEGOAT [עֲזָאזֵל that is ʻăzâʼzêl].
[9], And AARON SHALL BRING THE GOAT UPON WHICH THE LORD'S LOT FELL, AND OFFER HIM FOR A SIN OFFERING.

Note: The Lords goat is for sin atonement for Gods’ people, while the other goat is the scapegoat. Also, please note that the Hebrew word used for the English translation to “scapegoat” is עֲזָאזֵל that is ʻăzâʼzêl.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged - H5799

H5799. azazel
עֲזָאזֵל noun [masculine] entire removal (reduplicated intensive (Ges§ 30 n. Sta§ 124 a), abstract, √ [עזל] = Arabic remove, see BährSymb. ii. 668 Winii. 659 ff. Me SchenkelBL. i. 256; > most, proper name of spirit haunting desert, Thes Di DrHastings, DB [a fallen angel, Lev 16:8ff. being late, according to CheZAW xv (1895), 153 ff., Ency. Bib., who derives from עזזאֿל; compare BenzEncy. Bib.], as in Jewish angelology, where probably based on interpret. of 16:8ff.; name not elsewhere); — ׳ע 16:8, 10 (twice in verse); 16:26 in ritual of Day of Atonement, = entire removal of sin and guilt from sacred places into desert on back of goat, symbol of entire forgiveness.

Note: while the daily ministration of the Priesthood removes all sin from God's people in the Sanctuary through the ministration of transference of the sin of the sinner to the sin offering the sin remains inside the Sanctuary where it is applied to the alter of burnt offering and at the base of the alter through animal sacrifice where the remainder of the sin offering is prepared and eaten by the Priests.

According to the scriptures in Leviticus 16 is the the yearly ministration of the Priesthood that is responsible for the removal of all sin from the presence of God and the cleansing of the Sanctuary from all the sins of Gods' people brought into the Sanctuary and the presence of God through blood atonement which is then transferred in the same manner that the sinner transferred their sins to the sin offering but this time to the live scapegoat.

[10], But THE GOAT, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE THE SCAPEGOAT [עֲזָאזֵל that is ʻăzâʼzêl], SHALL BE PRESENTED ALIVE BEFORE THE LORD, TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT WITH HIM, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Note: God is making the final atonement through the cleansing of the sanctuary and removal of sin from His presence, by sending all sin from Gods’ people back to the originator of all sin Azazel (scapegoat) Satan. Leviticus 16:11-14 then talks about the High Priest offering sin atonement for himself and his family and using the censor of incense and continues in verse 15...

[15], Then shall HE KILL THE GOAT OF THE SIN OFFERING, THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE, AND BRING HIS BLOOD WITHIN THE VAIL, AND DO WITH THAT BLOOD AS HE DID WITH THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, AND SPRINKLE IT UPON THE MERCY SEAT, AND BEFORE THE MERCY SEAT:

Note: It is "the Lords goat" that is the sin offering that is killed for the people (not the scapegoat Azazel) and it is "the Lords goat" whos blood is used for final sin atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary while "the scapegoat; Azazel" remains alive.

[16], And HE SHALL [the Lords goat] MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR THE HOLY PLACE, BECAUSE OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS IN ALL THEIR SINS: AND SO SHALL HE DO FOR THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION, THAT REMAINETH AMONG THEM IN THE MIDST OF THEIR UNCLEANNESS.

Note: it is "the Lords goat that is used for making atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary and Gods' people. Scripture defines sin as the cause of uncleanness and defilement which is why the Sanctuary was to be cleaned once a year on the great day of atonement (see Isaiah 6:5-7; compare Matthew 15:7; 18-19; Isaiah 64:6 etc).

[17], And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT IN THE HOLY PLACE, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
[18], And HE SHALL GO OUT UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE LORD, AND MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR IT; AND SHALL TAKE OF THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, AND OF THE BLOOD OF THE GOAT, AND PUT IT UPON THE HORNS OF THE ALTAR ROUND ABOUT.
[19], And HE SHALL SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD UPON IT WITH HIS FINGER SEVEN TIMES, AND CLEANSE IT, AND HALLOW IT FROM THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
[20], And WHEN HE HATH MADE AN END OF RECONCILING THE HOLY PLACE, AND THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION, AND THE ALTAR, HE SHALL BRING THE LIVE GOAT:

Note: blood sacrifice is used here for the cleansing of the Sanctuary and Gods people on the Great day of atonement in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood.

[21], And AARON SHALL LAY BOTH HIS HANDS UPON THE HEAD OF THE LIVE GOAT, AND CONFESS OVER HIM ALL THE INIQUITIES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS IN ALL THEIR SINS, PUTTING THEM UPON THE HEAD OF THE GOAT, AND SHALL SEND HIM AWAY BY THE HAND OF A FIT MAN INTO THE WILDERNESS:

Note: The great high Priest on the day of atonement was to lay his hands on the scapegoats head just like the sinner did in transferring his sin to the sin offering under the daily ministration of the Priesthood. The high Priest was to confess all the sins of the children of Israel brought into the Sanctuary throughout the year and transfer them to the scapegoat (Azazel). So we see here there is a contradiction in your teachings. If the sins of Gods people were no longer inside the Sanctuary throughout the year then there would be no need to transfer them to the scapegoat.

[22], And THE GOAT SHALL BEAR UPON HIM ALL THEIR INIQUITIES UNTO A LAND NOT INHABITED: AND HE SHALL LET GO THE GOAT IN THE WILDERNESS.

Note: Just as the scapegoat who bares all the sins returned to it from the yearly ministration alive to the wilderness, Satan the originator of all the sins of the people of God have their sins returned to him and led away by an angel bound 1000 years in a bottomless pit (Revelation 20:1-3).

[23], And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
[24], And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, AND OFFER HIS BURNT OFFERING, AND THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE, AND MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
[25], And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
[26], And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
[27], And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in TO MAKE ATONEMENT IN THE HOLY PLACE, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.
[28], And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.
[29], And THIS SHALL BE A STATUTE FOR EVER unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

My view is shown above through the scriptures outlined in the daily and the yearly ministrations of the Priesthood.

This is not difficult when viewed through the scriptures as seen in the daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood. Both have a different purpose in the Sanctuary service and Gods' plan of salvation for all mankind. Your view here is combining the daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood into the daily only. This is not biblical or is it supported anywhere in the scriptures.

This of course was simply a distraction and a change of subject matter to something we were not discussing earlier. We were discussing the process of sin atonement under the old covenant Sanctuary system in context to the daily and yearly ministration of the Priesthood in application to the heavenly Priesthood under the new covenant with Jesus as our great high Priest ministering on our behalf based on better promises. Your claims fall apart here when viewed in light of the yearly ministration of the Priesthood as shown in our discussion and the cleansing of the Sanctuary on the great day of atonement and the removal of all sin from the presence of the Lord.

more to come...

Is it fair to say that you were taking this position?

The building neutralizes or absorbs the sin in the offering.

And then at a later point the sin is sucked back out of the building and placed on the scapegoat?

 

[Leaf473]

Saying that Satan

...in turn bears the ultimate responsibility and final punishment from God for all the sins atoned for Gods' people by Jesus as well as all the sins of the world.

is what I meant by Satan bearing the sins of the whole world.

...places his hands on the scapegoat transferring all the sins to the scapegoat and removing it from God's presence into the wilderness...

This is fulfilled as the last act and final removal of all sin from the presence of God at the second coming...

This idea of all sin being removed from God's presence and placed on Satan is what I was talking about here

...the idea of sin in the end being all borne by Satan. If I were Satan, that's just the kind of thing I'd like to have said about me. It makes it sound like I have these really broad shoulders, capable of bearing the sin of the whole world.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Is it fair to say that you were taking this position?
And then at a later point the sin is sucked back out of the building and placed on the scapegoat?

No not exactly. Leviticus 16 is only about the final yearly atonement and ministration of the Priesthood that included both the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal of sin from the presence of God to the scapegoat in the Sanctuary system. The ministration of the Priesthood under the Sanctuary system included both the daily (Leviticus 4:22-35) and the yearly ministration of the Priesthood (Leviticus 16). Under the old covenant the daily ministration of the Priesthood was for the forgiveness of individual specific sins of the sinner as sin was brought into the Sanctuary and then transferred to the sin offering and blood atonement was made at the alter of burnt offerings in the presence of the Priest and the Lord. It was both Priestly ministrations (daily and the yearly) that outlines God's plan of salvation for all mankind under the new covenant with Jesus as Gods' true sin offering for the sins of the world and Jesus as our true great High Priest who now ministers on our behalf in the heavenly Sanctuary not made with hands as shown in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22.

Take Care

 

[Leaf473]

@Leaf473

I will just touch on this a little and make this the last response for now. I think what your not considering here is that there is two goats here in the yearly ministration of sin atonement. Of the two goats listed above cast by lots it was only "the Lords goat" that was used for blood atonement. "The scapegoat" was not used for sin atonement for the people of God so your claims of Satan being the atonement for sin is misleading as he does not atone for anyone's sin in context to sin atonement through blood sacrifice. The only way the sins of God's people could be atoned for was always and only through blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of God's people. Therefore it is impossible for "the scapegoat" to atone for the sins of God's people because it wad kept alive once the sins of God's people are transferred to it. At this time however the sins of God's people had already been atoned for through the blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat". (Leviticus 16).

Now let's apply the types now and see if in your view "the scapegoat represents Jesus in the new covenant as applied in the Heavenly Sanctuaries application to the yearly ministration of the Priesthood. We agree that Jesus represents Gods true sacrifice for the sins of the world once and for all through blood atonement. Therefore Jesus represents "the Lords goat". We also agree that in the heavenly Sanctuary our great High Priest also represents Jesus who makes intercession before God on our behalf.

So this is where your dilemma starts if your applying "the scapegoat" to Jesus....

1. In the great day of atonement as applied in the new covenant Jesus being our great high Priest and the Lords goat. How can Jesus represent "the scapegoat"? This does not make any sense because in your view of Jesus being "the scapegoat" you have Jesus as our Great high Priest, who is also our sin offering for blood atonement (the Lords goat), laying His hands on His head confessing all the sins of all God's people and re-transferring all the sins of God's people to himself where he then is led out from the presence of God to remove all sin from the presence of God? If you think this through to new covenant application it just does not work.

2. You also run into further problems here by making Jesus "the scapegoat". By making Jesus the scapegoat your saying that blood atonement is inadequate for God's people to receive forgiveness of sins. The problem arises for your view here because by the time this final part of the Day of Atonement ritual had arrived, all blood sacrifices had been completed. The "Lord's goat" had been slain and its blood sprinkled before the mercy seat. This sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people. This expiation in your view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" makes Christ's blood atonement inadequate, partial, incomplete, needing further remediation from the scapegoat. Christs sacrifice however and blood atonement however was complete, finished. No supplement, no other sacrifice, could be required. "When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Leviticus 16:20).

3. If a scapegoat represented Christ bearing away, finally and for all, the sins of His people, we have the erroneous situation as outlined above. The high priest was to lay his hands (in this case, and this case only, both hands) upon the scapegoat, thus ritually transferring confessed sins to that animal. To make this application to the great anti-typical service unfolded in the book of Hebrews, we would have Christ (the High Priest) placing believers' sins upon Himself (the scapegoat). Not only does this not make any sense; you have the further problem of it thus appearing as though the Calvary sacrifice was deficient, that Christ did not there complete His work of expiation, or that some other figure was necessary to illustrate its sufficiency.

In examining the transferal of sin to the scapegoat, it is significant to note that the goat was not treated as all other animal sacrifices were — slain as atonement for sin. A sacrifice was valid as an atonement for transgressions only as it died, as there was spilled blood. Thus, Jesus was "set forth to be a propitiation [for us] by his blood" (Romans 3:25). It is "through his blood" that we have redemption (Ephesians 1:7). Preserving the goat alive tells that Azazel had another purpose because shed blood was necessary for a sin offering, in what way could an animal kept alive be considered such an offering? In what respect would it represent Christ? - It cannot. To say that the scapegoat, which played a part only after the atonement was complete, represented Christ is to blur the atonement, to suggest it is not sufficient, that something else was needed to complete it and make it effective. Such an idea as having Jesus representing "the scapegoat" is simply not biblical. (Source: The scapegoat)

Take Care.

Thank you for the post.

Who is the "you" that you refer to here:

I think what your not considering here...

Are you talking to me or @tall73 ?