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

BobRyan · Dec 10, 2021

pasifika said:
So Satan the "scapegoat" takes our sins to azazel?

More accurately Satan IS represented by "Azazel"

1. In Lev 16 - the scapegoat plays no part in the atoning sacrifice of the sin offering in Lev 16:15. By contrast Christ IS the sin offering.

2. In Lev 16 we are told anyone who touches the scapegoat after sins are placed on it "is defiled". By contrast coming into contact with Christ "never defiles".

3. In Lev 16 the scapegoat has none of its blood shed nor does it have blood sprinkled on it. It forgives no one in the sanctuary because the sanctuary work is over by the time anything is done with the scapegoat. By contrast Christ's blood is shed and is the first work prior to the start of the heavenly sanctuary service as we see with the "sin offering" in Lev 16.

4. Lev 17 - 6 The priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the Lord. 7 And they shall no longer offer their sacrifices to the goat demons

Lev 16: 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the ahazel (or Azazel), shall be presented alive before Avinu, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a ahazel (or Azazel) into the wilderness.

from: Azazel - Wikipedia

In the Bible, the name Azazel (/əˈzeɪzəl, ˈæzəˌzɛl/; Hebrew: עֲזָאזֵל‎ ʿAzāʾzēl; Arabic: عزازيل‎, romanized: ʿAzāzīl) appears in association with the scapegoat rite; the name represents a desolate place where a scapegoat bearing the sins of the Jews during Yom Kippur was sent. During the end of the Second Temple period, his association as a fallen angel responsible for introducing humans to forbidden knowledge emerged due to Hellenization, Christian narrative, and interpretation exemplified in the Book of Enoch. His role as a fallen angel partly remains in Christian and Islamic traditions.

It can only represent Satan in that case.

ChetSinger said:
I typically use the ESV and NET bibles for reading. They both include the results of modern scholarship, and both say "for Azazel" in Leviticus 16:8.
One thing I like about the NET is the richness of the footnotes provided by the translators. The footnotes for a chapter are typically longer than the chapter itself, and Leviticus 16 is no exception.
So I looked up the verse in the NET and here is the footnote for the word "Azazel":

...

(3) The most common view among scholars today is that it is the proper name of a particular demon (perhaps even the Devil himself) associated with the wilderness desert regions. Levine has proposed that it may perhaps derive from a reduplication of the ז (zayin) in עֵז combined with אֵל (’el, “mighty”), meaning “mighty goat.” The final consonantal form of עֲזָאזֵל would have resulted from the inversion of the א (aleph) with the second ז. He makes the point that the close association between עֵז and שְׂעִירִים (shя’irim), which seems to refer to “goat-demons” of the desert in Lev 17:7 (cf. Isa 13:21, etc.), should not be ignored in the derivation of Azazel, although the term ultimately became the name of “the demonic ruler of the wilderness.” The latter view is supported by the parallel between the one goat “for (לְ, lamed preposition) the Lord” and the one “for (לְ) Azazel” here in v. 8. The rendering as a proper name has been tentatively accepted here (cf. ASV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV). Perhaps a play on words between the proper name and the term for “goat” has occurred so that the etymology has become obscure. Even if a demon or the demonic realm is the source for the name, however, there is no intention here of appeasing the demons. The goal is to remove the impurity and iniquity from the community in order to avoid offending the Lord and the repercussions of such (see esp. vv. 21-22 and cf. Lev 15:31).

pasifika said:
So those sins are not atone for are those sins that the "Satan" the scapegoat will take azazel...which means the blood sacrifice cannot always atone for All sins??

No. Even Tall73 admits that Adventists teach that Christ's once for all Atoning Sacrifice on the cross -- the "SIN offering" of Lev 16:15 is for ALL sins of all mankind in all of time. Full and sufficient.

The sacrifice of the sin offering happens before any work at all is done in the Sanctuary as Lev 16 points out - and before anything at all is done with the Scapegoat later in that same chapter. So there is no "Scapegoat reduces payment made by sin offering" in God's teaching no matter how much suffering is assigned to the Scapegoat and no matter how many sins are confessed over it. The suffering of a wicked person - even of Satan himself -- is in no way salvific. Christ alone pays the debt the law demands because he alone is sinless, perfect.

(This is not a debate about "is satan perfect")

In Lev 16 - anyone that touches the goat that is finally identified as the scapegoat as it is contaminated by all the sins - is thereby ceremonially defiled. But it is never true that someone who comes into contact with Christ - is ever defiled.

pasifika said:
The other point is, those two goats belongs to the Lord, in which one is sacrifice and the other set free...so in that interpretation of Satan being the scapegoat means he also belongs to the Lord alongside Christ in taking our sins away...

Once the scapegoat is identified - it is never called 'The sin offering" and from then on only ONE of the animals can be referred to as "THE Lord's goat".
Lev 16:8 "one lot for the Lord"...
Lev 16: 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering.

Once they are assigned roles - only one is the Lord's goat.

Lev 16:20 “And 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."

Nothing happens with the scapegoat until the sin offering is completed and all the atonement in the sanctuary work is ended.

The scapegoat cannot affect any of what has gone before much less "diminish" it.

tall73 · Dec 10, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
Absolutely not! The goat IS Azazel. The Hebrew name for scapegoat here IS עֲזָאזֵל (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'). The casting of the lots was to determine who "the scapegoat" (Azazel) IS and who "the Lords goat" IS.

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

Incorrect, it says one goat for the Lord and one for azazel. And "to be" is not in the text.

What is there is "for azazel" with the preposition prefixed to the noun.

Hence:

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. ESV

This is in line with the various translations that show it such, and with views of scholars who hold that azazel is a proper name.

The two he-goats he was to place before Jehovah (see Lev_1:5), and “give lots over them,” i.e., have lots cast upon them, one lot for Jehovah, the other for Azazel. The one upon which the lot for Jehovah fell (עָלָה, from the coming up of the lot out of the urn, Jos_18:11; Jos_19:10), he was to prepare as a sin-offering for Jehovah, and to present the one upon which the lot for Azazel fell alive before Jehovah, עָלָיו לְכַפֵּר, “to expiate it,” i.e., to make it the object of expiation (see at Lev_16:21), to send it into the desert to Azazel, Keil and Delitzsch commentary

From Azazel and the “Scapegoat” John Walton, for Zondervan Acedemic where he cites various scholarly works that address this:

Rather than the traditional "scapegoat" translating la ‘aza,zel here, we should read instead "to Azazel" (NRSV; NJB).1 We know that ‘aza,zel should be the proper name of a party capable of ownership because a lot ceremony designated one goat layhwh, "belonging to Yahweh," and the other goat as la ‘aza,zel , "belonging to Azazel" (16:8).

The fact that Yahweh, owner of the goat slain as a purification offering (16:9, 15), is supernatural suggests that Azazel, owner of the live goat, is also some kind of supernatural being. Because transporting a load of Israelite toxic waste, consisting of moral faults, to Azazel in the wilderness and abandoning it there by the command of Yahweh (16:10, 22; cf. Zech 5:5–11) is a singularly unfriendly gesture, it appears that Azazel is Yahweh’s enemy. Therefore, Azazel is most likely some kind of demon (so Jewish tradition recorded in 1 En. 10:4–5), who dwells in an uninhabited region (cf. Lev. 17:7; Isa. 13:21; 34:14; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2).

If Azazel is a proper name, la ‘aza,zel in 16:10 following the words "by sending it into the desert" most naturally indicates the one to whom the live goat is sent: "to Azazel" (cf. 16:26). This rules out the common interpretation of ‘aza,zel as "(e)scapegoat," referring to the goat itself.

tall73 · Dec 10, 2021

@pasifika since he was responding to you:

BobRyan said:
Good point. In fact were it actually true that what he is quoting is some sort of "Adventists believe what I claim" then he could be posting it all day long on the SDA subform here and they would all be "thanking him for it".

Actually, I said they do NOT believe what Ellen White says. And it is not unique to this doctrine. Adventists try to spin several things she has said because they don't care for them.

And that has been plain from your attempts to soften it several times, by saying it is not the sins of God's people, but only satan's part, even though she distinguishes those categories, and makes it is clear it is all the sins of God's people

And LGW has tried to say that those are not our sins any more, but she repeatedly says they are our sins and satan pays the penalty.

And then you objected to us even looking at one of Ellen White's statements, provided by the White Estate.

Perhaps the poster was noting that.

or else he must claim he has a very accurate take on what Ellen White wrote

Yeah, we can read what she wrote. And we can see you running from what she wrote. And we can see you objecting to presenting some of what she wrote on the topic. Almost like you don't want to talk about it with those outside the church. But then you said you will to those inside who have studied it for years and already agree with your doctrine.

tall73 · Dec 10, 2021

BobRyan said:
Nothing happens with the scapegoat until the sin offering is completed and all the atonement in the sanctuary work is ended.

The scapegoat cannot affect any of what has gone before much less "diminish" it.

The goat removing atoned sins from the camp does not diminish Christ's atonement. This is true whether you see it as "for" removal or whether you see it as the goat "for" azazel, taking them to the wilderness where azazel is at. Both are possibilities in the text, depending on different etymologies. Jewish sources also note the possible reading referring to rocky ground that the goat is cast onto but that ssems unlikely.

Ellen White's comments that the sins of God's people which Jesus paid for are then paid for by the suffering of satan for them is what diminishes the work of Christ, already completed. Because He already paid for them.

And Leviticus says nothing of the sort that satan suffers for the sins of God's people until he dies. In fact the Bible throughout says nothing of the sort of satan paying for the sins of God's people by suffereing. But it says a lot about Jesus doing so.

tall73 · Dec 10, 2021

BobRyan said:
In Lev 16 - anyone that touches the goat that is finally identified as the scapegoat as it is contaminated by all the sins - is thereby ceremonially defiled. But it is never true that someone who comes into contact with Christ - is ever defiled.

The sins are carried off on the goat, making the person defiled.

But that is strange you say no one who comes into contact with Christ is defiled, when the doctrine of Adventists says that His precious blood caused sins to go into the sanctuary.

As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. 4SP pg. 266

tall73 · Dec 10, 2021

Freth said:
A third suggestion, made by Dr. Roy Gane, based on Deut. 19:16-21, is that when one maliciously and falsely accuses another for some crime, he himself is to receive "the punishment intended for the one falsely accused." Thus, Satan, "the accuser of the brethren" (Zech.3; Rev. 12:10) receives punishment as a malicious witness.

The main issue I see with this one is that satan's accusations against us are true. We have sinned.

However, I will think on this one a bit. I enjoyed Gane's book when I checked it out at the library, and may have to get a copy to go over again.

If you get a chance you should check it out.

LoveGodsWord · Dec 10, 2021

tall73 said:
Incorrect, it says one goat for the Lord and one for azazel. And "to be" is not in the text.

What is there is "for azazel" with the preposition prefixed to the noun.

View attachment 309292

Hence:

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. ESV
This is in line with the various translations that show it such, and with views of scholars who hold that azazel is a proper name.

The two he-goats he was to place before Jehovah (see Lev_1:5), and “give lots over them,” i.e., have lots cast upon them, one lot for Jehovah, the other for Azazel. The one upon which the lot for Jehovah fell (עָלָה, from the coming up of the lot out of the urn, Jos_18:11; Jos_19:10), he was to prepare as a sin-offering for Jehovah, and to present the one upon which the lot for Azazel fell alive before Jehovah, עָלָיו לְכַפֵּר, “to expiate it,” i.e., to make it the object of expiation (see at Lev_16:21), to send it into the desert to Azazel, Keil and Delitzsch commentary

From Azazel and the “Scapegoat” John Walton, for Zondervan Acedemic where he cites various scholarly works that address this:

Rather than the traditional "scapegoat" translating la ‘aza,zel here, we should read instead "to Azazel" (NRSV; NJB).1 We know that ‘aza,zel should be the proper name of a party capable of ownership because a lot ceremony designated one goat layhwh, "belonging to Yahweh," and the other goat as la ‘aza,zel , "belonging to Azazel" (16:8).

The fact that Yahweh, owner of the goat slain as a purification offering (16:9, 15), is supernatural suggests that Azazel, owner of the live goat, is also some kind of supernatural being. Because transporting a load of Israelite toxic waste, consisting of moral faults, to Azazel in the wilderness and abandoning it there by the command of Yahweh (16:10, 22; cf. Zech 5:5–11) is a singularly unfriendly gesture, it appears that Azazel is Yahweh’s enemy. Therefore, Azazel is most likely some kind of demon (so Jewish tradition recorded in 1 En. 10:4–5), who dwells in an uninhabited region (cf. Lev. 17:7; Isa. 13:21; 34:14; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2).

If Azazel is a proper name, la ‘aza,zel in 16:10 following the words "by sending it into the desert" most naturally indicates the one to whom the live goat is sent: "to Azazel" (cf. 16:26). This rules out the common interpretation of ‘aza,zel as "(e)scapegoat," referring to the goat itself.

Sorry but there is nothing in the preposition prefixed to the noun that is the problem or that changes the meaning of the text. So your again making strawman arguments no one is in disagreement with. The problem is in the context your disregarding and the application which is to the lots that are cast FOR "the scapegoat" and FOR "the Lords goat".

Leviticus 16:10, But the goat, ON WHICH THE LOT FELL TO BE AZAZEL ("the scapegoat" "remove" fallen angel") , shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") into the wilderness.

I believe your confusing who the lots fall on, to determine who IS Azazel (the scapegoat) and who the lots fell on to determine who "the Lords goat IS which has already been outlined, so I do not feel the need to repeat it again like your doing here.

Let me add however, so there is no confusion in our discussion. I believe the majority of the translations that translate the Hebrew Azazel as "the scapegoat" that is determined by lot casting, and that Azazel as "the scapegoat" is sent away into the wilderness because these translations agree with scripture context.

However, I still do not have much of a problem even if you want to translate the scapegoat being sent to Azazel in the wilderness. In the end the overall meaning is still the same outcome. All the sins of God's people are being sent back to Azazel who is the devil; Satan; leader of the rebellion in Heaven and "fallen angel". So the outcome is still the same. Either way I do not have a problem. Yet all your problems still remain by seeking to make Christ "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") as it makes the blood sacrifice and atonement of Christ insufficient. Even Sunday keeping scholars agree with this.

As posted earlier in another post from someone else, Satan accuses us before God day and night (Revelation 12:10). Jesus on the other hand is interceding on our behalf with his own blood before God and pays both the penalty for our sins (death) and regains God's forgiveness of our sins making Satan's accusations false. As posted earlier Deuteronomy 19:16-21 states that anyone falsely accusing God's people before God are to suffer the same fate that the accused were to suffer if the accusations were true. Satan (Azazel) is "the scapegoat here or if you want all the sins of God's people are being sent to Azazel which is your view (not mine). Meaning here is that all of the sins of Gods' people are being sent back to Satan because they have been atoned for through the blood sacrifice and atonement by Jesus.

Take Care

LoveGodsWord · Dec 10, 2021

tall73 said:
And LGW has tried to say that those are not our sins any more, but she repeatedly says they are our sins and satan pays the penalty.

That was not the meaning of what I was saying whatsoever. Please do not make comments about what I have said in our discussion to others please. I think it is best to read my posts in context to what I have said. Your claims here as to what I have said is a misrepresentation of what I have said. In good faith and I choose to believe that this was not intentional. Of course they are our sins, we no longer own them because they were transferred and purchased through blood sacrifice to the sin offerings and "the Lords goat". If we still owned our sins we would be paying the penalty for them (death). They were brought by Christ through blood sacrifice and transferred to "the scapegoat" Satan (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). This was the context of what I have said to you earlier.

Take Care.

tall73 · Dec 10, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
However, I still do not have much of a problem even if you want to translate the scapegoat being sent to Azazel in the wilderness.

Well it would just be the goat sent to azazel, but yes. Scapegoat takes part of the term and applies it to the word for goat.

In the end the overall meaning is still the same outcome. All the sins of God's people are being sent back to Azazel who is the devil; Satan; leader of the rebellion in Heaven and "fallen angel".

No, I don't see it as the same. Sins are sent back to satan, in the desert, out of the camp of God. Everything that defiles is removed from the dwelling place of God's people per 2 Peter 3. Eventually all is burned up before the new heavens and new earth become the dwelling place of the righteous. Along with the wicked, and satan, all of the things associated with the old earth are burned up. And it says the curse is removed, etc. in Revelation, and there is no more pain or mourning, etc.

But it is only the part that Ellen White adds to the text, placing the sins of God's people on satan, and having him pay the penalty, which is not pictured in the case of the goat taking them back to satan's realm in the wilderness, that I have an issue with. Jesus already suffered for them, and paid for them. The notion that satan pays the price for the sins of God's people is not stated in Scripture, and Jesus is clearly portrayed as doing so.

There can't be a penalty to pay for the sins of God's people if Jesus already paid it.

tall73 · Dec 10, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
Of course they are our sins, we no longer own them because they were transferred and purchased through blood sacrifice to the sin offerings and "the Lords goat". If we still owned our sins we would be paying the penalty for them (death). They were brought by Christ through blood sacrifice and transferred to "the scapegoat" Satan (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel").

@Leaf473
@pasifika
@ChetSinger

The same thing I noted initially, that Adventists see Jesus as moving sins around, until it lands on satan who must pay the penalty is still evident after all this time. LGW sees the death of Christ as buying the sins of God's people so that it can be placed on satan.

Jesus did not die just to move sins around. He paid the price. satan cannot pay for the sins of God's people because Jesus already did.

But LGW does now seem to fully agree with Ellen White, in admitting they are our sins, and does not seem to be arguing any longer that they are just the part satan played, so I will give him credit on that.

Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, “Amen!”

He sees that the day of atonement has a bearing on his life; that the scapegoat chosen to bear the sins of the people represents himself; that he must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus; and that those who continue in transgression must bear their own sins.

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.

LoveGodsWord · Dec 11, 2021

LoveGodsWord wrote: That was not the meaning of what I was saying whatsoever. Please do not make comments about what I have said in our discussion to others please. I think it is best to read my posts in context to what I have said. Your claims here as to what I have said is a misrepresentation of what I have said. In good faith and I choose to believe that this was not intentional. Of course they are our sins, we no longer own them because they were transferred and purchased through blood sacrifice to the sin offerings and "the Lords goat". If we still owned our sins we would be paying the penalty for them (death). They were brought by Christ through blood sacrifice and transferred to "the scapegoat" Satan (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). This was the context of what I have said to you earlier.

Your response here...

tall73 said:
@Leaf473
@pasifika
@ChetSinger

The same thing I noted initially, that Adventists see Jesus as moving sins around, until it lands on satan who must pay the penalty is still evident after all this time. LGW sees the death of Christ as buying the sins of God's people so that it can be placed on satan.

Jesus did not die just to move sins around. He paid the price. satan cannot pay for the sins of God's people because Jesus already did.

But LGW does now seem to fully agree with Ellen White, in admitting they are our sins, and does not seem to be arguing any longer that they are just the part satan played, so I will give him credit on that.

Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, “Amen!”

He sees that the day of atonement has a bearing on his life; that the scapegoat chosen to bear the sins of the people represents himself; that he must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus; and that those who continue in transgression must bear their own sins.

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.

No not at all. That is simply a misrepresentation of what I have said. I have been consistent in my discussions with you from the start providing scripture in support of those EGW statements that do not say what you are wanting them to say.... Act of the Apostles 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, WHICH HE HAS PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.

Take Care.

tall73 · Dec 11, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
Your response here...

Bearing false witness now? What a shame. I have been consistent in my discussions with you from the start providing scripture in support of those EGW statement you seek to smear with an interpretation that they have never stated.

Take Care.

I quoted you, so they could see your view.

You have Jesus transferring sins around, and them being placed on satan.

LoveGodsWord · Dec 11, 2021

tall73 said:
I quoted you, so they could see your view.
You have Jesus transferring sins around, and them being placed on satan.

No you didn't you posted part of me taken out of context. No I have provided Gods' Word that show where sin goes to once it is transferred to the sin offering for blood sacrifice as shown in the daily and the yearly ministrations of the Priesthood (see Leviticus 4:22-35; Leviticus 16).

Take Care.

tall73 · Dec 11, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
No you didn't you posted part of me taken out of context

The part where you see Jesus "buying" our sins and placing them on satan?

Jesus didn't buy our sins as a commodity. He paid the price for all of them. They don't go on satan, and never could. satan has his own sin.

LoveGodsWord · Dec 11, 2021

tall73 said:
The part where you see Jesus "buying" our sins and placing them on satan?

Indeed Jesus purchased our sins with His own blood. They are now longer ours as shown in the scriptures of Leviticus 4:22-25; Leviticus 16; Acts of the Apostles 20:28; Revelation 7:14 etc.

tall73 · Dec 11, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
Indeed Jesus purchased our sins with His own blood. They are now longer ours.

And He paid the price for our sins by His death. satan could not, despite Ellen White's contention.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say satan bears your sins. It says Jesus did.

LoveGodsWord · Dec 11, 2021

tall73 said:
And He paid the price for our sins by His death. satan could not, despite Ellen White's contention. Nowhere in Scripture does it say satan bears your sins. It says Jesus did.

As posted some time ago now, I believe this is you not understanding the ministrations of the Priesthood or the purpose of "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") and thinking that "the scapegoat" represents Jesus which makes blood sacrifice for sin insufficient and is not supported anywhere in the scriptures. Where as it is blood sacrifice and blood atonement that pays the penalty for sin and grants Gods' forgiveness of sins. Your mistake here is in thinking that "the scapegoat bears the sins of Gods' people. However, this was already done through the blood sacrifice of Jesus as the sin offerings in the daily ministration of the Priesthood and as "the Lords goat" in the final atonement of the great day of atonement. What your not seeing is that the final atonement for the sins of Gods' people and the cleansing of the sanctuary has already been completed before all the sins of God's people are transferred from the High Priest (Jesus) to the scapegoat (Satan) who as the accuser of Gods' people pays the penalty for their sins (death). This is all through scriptures (Leviticus 4:22-35; Leviticus 16:10; Leviticus 16:20-22 and elsewhere).

As posted earlier in another post from someone else, Satan accuses us before God day and night (Revelation 12:10). Jesus on the other hand is interceding on our behalf with his own blood before God and pays both the penalty for our sins (death) and regains God's forgiveness of our sins making Satan's accusations false. As posted earlier Deuteronomy 19:16-21 states that anyone falsely accusing God's people before God are to suffer the same fate that the accused were to suffer if the accusations were true. Satan (Azazel) is "the scapegoat here or if you want all the sins of God's people are being sent to Azazel which is your view (not mine). Meaning here is that all of the sins of Gods' people are being sent back to Satan because they have been atoned for through the blood sacrifice and atonement by Jesus. Your view of the scriptures here are not biblical.

Take Care

tall73 · Dec 11, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
and thinking that "the scapegoat" represents Jesus

@Leaf473 identified this trend earlier. You can only see a dichotomy. But I have said multiple times that in multiple possible views, some involving azazel being a personal name, and some referring to a goat of departure as the etymology, that sin is carried out by the goat to the wilderness. It does not necessitate Jesus being the goat. Jesus the High Priest, sends sin out of the camp. He removes all sin from the dwelling place of His people.

However, our friends at the EGW estate did give us this EGW quote that says Jesus is the scapegoat. So I suppose you could go with that and still agree with Ellen White!

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

Christ was the scapegoat, which the type represents. He alone can be represented by the goat borne into the wilderness. He alone, over whom death had no power, was able to bear our sins.

LoveGodsWord · Dec 11, 2021

tall73 said:
But it is only the part that Ellen White adds to the text, placing the sins of God's people on satan, and having him pay the penalty, which is not pictured in the case of the goat taking them back to satan's realm in the wilderness, that I have an issue with.

Which is supported by the scriptures here...

Leviticus 16:20-22 [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: [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: [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.

tall73 said:
The notion that satan pays the price for the sins of God's people is not stated in Scripture, and Jesus is clearly portrayed as doing so. There can't be a penalty to pay for the sins of God's people if Jesus already paid it.

This is where your misunderstanding is. Satan does not pay the price for the sins of Gods' people and no one is saying this. As posted to you numerous times now, blood sacrifice and blood atonement has already been made by Jesus who pays the penalty for sin (death) and grants Gods' forgiveness of sins through blood atonement. Your mistake here is in thinking that "the scapegoat bears the sins of Gods' people as a type of atonement when this was already done through the blood sacrifice of Jesus as the sin offerings in the daily ministration of the Priesthood and as "the Lords goat" in the final atonement of the great day of atonement.

What your not seeing is that the final atonement for the sins of Gods' people and the cleansing of the sanctuary has already been completed before all the sins of God's people are transferred from the High Priest (Jesus) to the scapegoat (Satan) who as the accuser of Gods' people pays the penalty for their sins (death). This is all through scriptures (Leviticus 4:22-35; Leviticus 16:10; Leviticus 16:20-22 and elsewhere). Satan does not pay for the sins of God's people. According to the scripture the sins of Gods' people are transferred to him by the Great High Priest (Jesus) once atonement has been completed. Satan pays the penalty of these sins (death).

Take Care.

LoveGodsWord · Dec 11, 2021

tall73 said:
@Leaf473 identified this trend earlier. You can only see a dichotomy.

I am sorry but I do not believe you. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe your application of the scriptures here are biblical and your interpretation of the EGW statements are not saying what you are trying to make them say.

tall73 said:
But I have said multiple times that in multiple possible views, some involving azazel being a personal name, and some referring to a goat of departure as the etymology, that sin is carried out by the goat to the wilderness. It does not necessitate Jesus being the goat. Jesus the High Priest, sends sin out of the camp. He removes all sin from the dwelling place of His people.

Not really. You have pitted obscure etymology of word use against the clear written word of God in my view while claiming from the beginning of our discussions that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") which is not biblical while the etymology was simply a distraction in my view. Are you backtracking on your view now that Jesus is "the scapegoat"? It sounds like it in this section of your post here. I can understand why you do not want Satan to be "the scapegoat" as it would involve a lot more backtracking in your current theology but that is where most of the scriptural evidence is found.

Take Care.

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

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency