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

[tall73]

@Leaf473Since it relates to some of your earlier points:

Not really. You have pitted obscure etymology of word use against the clear written word of God in my view

The "clear written word of God" does not say that "azazel" means "fallen angel" as you say over and over.

Nor does the "clear written word of God" say that "removal" is the name of a fallen angel, as you keep posting:

"the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel")

In fact, "removal" is itself depending on an "obscure etymology". They are reading the noun as meaning "removal". The word is not used in the Scriptures outside of this context. But it had some meaning at the time it was written. So to try to figure that out they look at evidence.

I am going to post some material from a review of some of the scholarly views regarding azazel From De-Demonising the Old Testament, JM Blair.

"Entire removal" is just what they think the noun means. And entire removal is what the goat does...it removes sins.

There is also the view that it is referring to the place the goat is sent. This is also a Jewish view as it is noted as based on midrashic interpretation.

It is also possible the word is a combination of goat and departure, considering two other roots. That would also describe what the goat does, the goat that departs.

In both this case, and the one of total removal, the goat would be removing sins. The sins are placed on the goat by the high priest, who then sends sin out of the camp.

These are all understandings of what the text actually says. But what you have given as evidence for your view is in fact NOT what the text says. You have appealed to writings that took place centuries later, Enoch, and Jewish writings, and even satanist notions, etc. But those were not around when the text was written. So at best they are attempts at understanding what was written before, they are not the source of the term.

And as @Leaf473 indicated, the sources build on each other, and the link is not as direct as you are claiming.

Moreover, while you have noted many scholars hold the view that azazel is an entity, they say this on a far different basis that what you are claiming. Because they are looking for the meaning at the time they evaluate things before the time of the Leviticus text. This usually means they see the rite itself or the name of an entity being borrowed from other near eastern rites or literature. And they often remove it from being mosaic altogether.

So when you say many scholars agree with you, that is only because you have not read what those scholars are actually saying. They are looking for previous entities that are pulled into the text:

So you are asking us to base our view on the "text", but then you pull in meanings that are not in the text. You want us to look at Jewish sources hundreds of years later. And you want us to ignore that most of the scholars are looking at the entity as being some demon or deity from a different near-eastern pantheon.

 

[tall73]

This is where your misunderstanding is. Satan does not pay the price for the sins of Gods' people and no one is saying this.

Will just let you answer yourself later in your post:

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).

Yes, someone, (you), and someone else (Ellen White) are indeed saying that satan pays the price of the sins of God's people. You say Jesus made atonement, paying the price. Then you say there is still a price to be paid and satan pays it. Those don't go together.

LGW said:
This is where your misunderstanding is. Satan does not pay the price for the sins of Gods' people and no one is saying this.

EGW said:

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.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

@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.

Are you backtracking on your view now that Jesus is "the scapegoat"? It sounds like it in this section of your post here.

I have said that the sending of sins away from the camp is the work of Christ. I have said the goat sent away does not represent satan.

But that does not mean the goat that is sent away IS Christ.

This is the false binary choice that @Leaf473 tried to get you to look at, but you would not.

Possibilities for the goat:
1. represents Jesus
2. represents satan
3. represents something else neither Jesus nor satan.

The third option is what Leaf473 mentioned that you did not want to consider.

The high priest sends away the goat with the sins on it, sending them out of the camp. The goat is representing the sins going out of the camp. They are sent away by the high priest, by Christ. Jesus removes sin from the camp.

We have a parallel in the text for this, noted by both Jewish and Christian commentators. In Leviticus 14 in the cleansing right for a leper we have two clean animals referenced:


Lev 14:3 and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person
Lev 14:4 the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop.
Lev 14:5 And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water.
Lev 14:6 He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.
Lev 14:7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field.

This uses two clean animals to show both blood cleansing for the uncleanness, and the removal of the contamination from the camp through the other bird.

In the same way the Lord's goat is presented before the Lord to make blood atonement:

Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering

And the goat for removal is used to remove the sin from the camp:

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

 

[ChetSinger]

@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.

Yeah, I think that matches the gist of what I read from EGW, as well.

Afaik, the eventual transfer of our sins from Jesus to Satan is historically unorthodox, unique to the SDA denomination, and found nowhere in the New Testament. I'll modify my opinion if I'm shown wrong.

I'm seeing a pattern in the SDA denomination's exegesis when arguing for the beliefs most idiosyncratic to them: argue from the Old Covenant instead of the New Covenant (sabbaths, pork & shellfish, the scapegoat, etc.). But I'm a Christian, not a Jew, and I think the new one is soooo much better than the old one that I can't understand why anyone would want to be in obligation to it.

What occasionally bemuses me is while I think the SDA church is part of the body of Christ, EGW taught them that I'm damned because I was born after 1844 and don't rest on Saturday. Go figure.

 

[BobRyan]

"some" here have have no quote at all from Ellen White saying " pray that your sins are confessed on the head of satan as your substitute" - and we both know it.

But we DO have THIS:

“As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God. With faith and humility they accepted the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Through the blood of Jesus they had “remission of sins that are past.” {GC 461.1}

Yeah, I think that matches the gist of what I read from EGW, as well.

"GC 382-383
Furthermore in the 18th chapter of Revelation, God's people are called upon to come out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God's people
must still be in Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the GREATER part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith.

"There are true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion. None are condemned until they have had the light and have seen the obligation of the fourth commandment...{Ev 234.2}

 

[ChetSinger]

you have no quote at all from Ellen White saying " pray that your sins are confessed on the head of satan as your substitute" - and we both know it.

I never said I did. Perhaps you're confusing some posts.

 

[BobRyan]

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

5. Lev 16:20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. "
So according to scripture -- Only when the atoning sacrifice of the sin offering is finished AND when the atoning work for all is completed in the sanctuary - is anything at all done with the scapegoat.

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.

Lev 16: (The SCAPEGOAT)
20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. 22 Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp. (Because unlike the sin offering - the scapegoat defiles those that touch it while it is alive)

You say Jesus made atonement, paying the price.

You say that is what Adventists teach - and we see that Ellen White also taught that. And we see in Lev 16 that only when all aspects of the atoning sacrifice of Lev 16:15 is full complete - is anything at all done with the Scapegoat. The "live goat" not sacrificed at all.

Then you say there is still a price to be paid and satan pays it.

It is scripture in Lev 16 that brings in the scapegoat AFTER all the blood work with the "sin offering" is completed both on the altar and in the sanctuary.

Because the suffering of the wicked has no redemptive salvific value to lesson guilt or punishment of anyone nor can it affect one single iota in the completed atoning sacrifice of Lev 16:15 or the salvific work done in the sanctuary full and complete before anything at all is one with the scapegoat. As C.H. Spurgeon notes - it deals with final disposition of sin - but does not have any input into substitutionary suffering for sin - no one is forgiven sin based on any suffering done by a wicked person even if that wicked person is Satan himself.


“As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God. With faith and humility they accepted the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Through the blood of Jesus they had “remission of sins that are past.” {GC 461.1}

 

[BobRyan]

I never said I did. Perhaps you're confusing some posts.

Good point - I have edited the post

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
1. Most Adventist read her published works - not so much your interest in her "unpublished" comments and letters.

I see you still did not allow me to respond regarding Ellen White, but still want to weigh in without me being able to respond. I guess you don't want folks to hear the response.

1. My statement is that "most Adventists" read her published works not unpublished statements as if this is what drives the beliefs of Adventists. I don't know what you could possibly quote from Ellen White that would show that most Adventists are reading her unpublished work instead of her published work.

2. You are free to object to what Adventists believe - or to affirm it - but even you seem to know that some of the claims you are making are not even what Adventists believe.

3. It appears to me that your complaint is limited to the suffering of the wicked - specifically in the case of Satan - "as if" the wicked suffer in place of Christ or in full equality with Christ such that they "pay the debt" for others. Even though you already admit that Christ has paid all that debt, and that the work of atonement in the sanctuary applies absolutely nothing at all from the suffering/work of the scapegoat that won't even happen at all until after coming of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

But anyone reading this thread will see scripture was discussed at length. And none of the Scriptures show satan taking on the sins of God's people.

Which is where we differ in regard to the wicked suffering even though Christ has made the full and complete atoning sacrifice on the cross prior to anything done with the sanctuary or the scapegoat.

AND the sanctuary work completes for ALL the sins of ALL the saints prior to anything done with the scapegoat.

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

5. Lev 16:20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. "
So according to scripture -- Only when the atoning sacrifice of the sin offering is finished AND when the atoning work for all is completed in the sanctuary - is anything at all done with the scapegoat.

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.

Lev 16: (The SCAPEGOAT)
20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. 22 Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp. (Because unlike the sin offering - the scapegoat defiles those that touch it while it is alive)

...we see in Lev 16 that only when all aspects of the atoning sacrifice of Lev 16:15 is full complete - is anything at all done with the Scapegoat. The "live goat" not sacrificed at all.

It is scripture in Lev 16 that brings in the scapegoat AFTER all the blood work with the "sin offering" is completed both on the altar and in the sanctuary.

... the suffering of the wicked has no redemptive salvific value to lesson guilt or punishment of anyone nor can it affect one single iota in the completed atoning sacrifice of Lev 16:15 or the salvific work done in the sanctuary full and complete before anything at all is one with the scapegoat. As C.H. Spurgeon notes - it deals with final disposition of sin - but does not have any input into substitutionary suffering for sin - no one is forgiven sin based on any suffering done by a wicked person even if that wicked person is Satan himself.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The "clear written word of God" does not say that "azazel" means "fallen angel" as you say over and over.

Well your making strawman arguments no one is arguing about again. If I have never said that Azazel is not the name of a "fallen angel" why are you pretending that this is what I am saying? Your making arguments that no one is arguing about again which is simply a distraction to the discussion proving that Satan in represented by "the scapegoat" and not Christ which is what your proposing that makes a mockery of the cross of Christ.

A name of a fallen Angel still belongs to a "fallen angel"which is why it has been provided in the BDB Dictionary and Lexicon as shown some time ago. The name "Azazel" has application to "the Book of Enoch as the name of the leader of the fallen angels who started the rebellion in Heaven who is also called Satan. Are you seriously going to try and argue that the name of a "fallen angel" is not a name of a "fallen angel"? Just because Azazel is the name of a fallen angel which I already agreed and have never said anything differently, does not mean that name does not belong to a "fallen angel" which is stated in the BDB. I think you are seeking to disregard and ignore the application to "fallen angel" as it shows that your application of "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") cannot represent Christ which goes against your teachings which are not biblical. As shown in the scriptures in Leviticus 16 "the scapegoat (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan according to the scriptures of Leviticus 16:10 and Leviticus 16:20-22.

Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be "the scapegoat" (עֲזָאזֵל H5799; (ʻăzâʼzêl | az-aw-zale'); Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"), shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

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.

...............

Leviticus 16:20-22 [20], And when he has 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 [the high Priest] shall lay both his hands on 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 on 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 on him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Slightly different Hebrew word is being used here for goat which is H8163 שָׂעִיר

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew & Thayer Greek Definitions - H8163
(sâʻîyr | saw-eer') שָׂעִיר noun masculine hairy goat; satyr, demon (with he-goat's form, or feet; Late Hebrew id.; compare BaudStud. i. 136 ff.; hairy demons WeSkizzen iii. 135; Heid. 152 RSSemitic 113, 423: 2nd ed. 120, 441); absolute ׳שׂ Isa 34:14 inhabiting desolate ruins, so plural שְׂעִירִים 13:21; name for idols 2Chr 11:15 and (שְׂעִירִם) Lev 17:7 (H); probably also הַשּׂ ׳בָּמוֺת 2Kin 23:8 (הַשְּׁעָרִים ᵑ0) HoffmZAW ii (1882), 175 SS Kmp Klo Kit Benz Bur.

.................

Combined Word Definitions, BDB & Thayer - H8163
Original: שׂער שׂעיר Transliteration: Sa`iyr Phonetic: saw-eer’
Definition: adj 1. hairy n m 2. he-goat, buck a. as sacrificial animal b. satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mat 8:30-32)

..................

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - H8163
שָׂעִיר (sâʻîyr | saw-eer')
Derivation: or שָׂעִר; from שָׂעַר;
Strong's: shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun
KJV: devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.

..................

Further evidence already provided...

These included a (1). Scripture; (2). Jewish commentary on the Torah and meaning of the name Azazel; (3). the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4). the BDB and English Lexicon and (5). The occult and Satanism depicting Satan as a goat. Honestly, it seem Satanists no more about the scriptures then many Christians sadly. All five independent sources are in agreement.

• Source (1) scripture from the old and new covenant showing types and anti-types
  
• Source (2) Jewish Torah commentary showing the meaning of the name of Azazel was;
  
• Source (3) refers to Azazel from the Apocrypha (Book of Enoch) as the leader of the fallen angels;
• Source (4) Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon showing the meaning of the word translated "scapegoat" being Azazel meaning "removal" "fallen angel" with context to the Day of atonement (Leviticus 16).
• Source (5) The symbol of Satan in Satanism and the occult is the goat!

Collectively I believe this is strong evidence that as a whole cannot be simply hand-waived away by your opinion so we will agree to disagree on this one.

......................

(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).

more to come...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Nor does the "clear written word of God" say that "removal" is the name of a fallen angel, as you keep posting: In fact, "removal" is itself depending on an "obscure etymology". They are reading the noun as meaning "removal". The word is not used in the Scriptures outside of this context. But it had some meaning at the time it was written. So to try to figure that out they look at evidence.

I am going to post some material from a review of some of the scholarly views regarding azazel From De-Demonising the Old Testament, JM Blair.

View attachment 309318

"Entire removal" is just what they think the noun means. And entire removal is what the goat does...it removes sins.

There is also the view that it is referring to the place the goat is sent. This is also a Jewish view as it is noted as based on midrashic interpretation.

View attachment 309317

It is also possible the word is a combination of goat and departure, considering two other roots. That would also describe what the goat does, the goat that departs.

View attachment 309320

In both this case, and the one of total removal, the goat would be removing sins. The sins are placed on the goat by the high priest, who then sends sin out of the camp.

These are all understandings of what the text actually says. But what you have given as evidence for your view is in fact NOT what the text says. You have appealed to writings that took place centuries later, Enoch, and Jewish writings, and even satanist notions, etc. But those were not around when the text was written. So at best they are attempts at understanding what was written before, they are not the source of the term.

And as @Leaf473 indicated, the sources build on each other, and the link is not as direct as you are claiming.

View attachment 309313


Moreover, while you have noted many scholars hold the view that azazel is an entity, they say this on a far different basis that what you are claiming. Because they are looking for the meaning at the time they evaluate things before the time of the Leviticus text. This usually means they see the rite itself or the name of an entity being borrowed from other near eastern rites or literature. And they often remove it from being mosaic altogether.

So when you say many scholars agree with you, that is only because you have not read what those scholars are actually saying. They are looking for previous entities that are pulled into the text:

View attachment 309314

View attachment 309315

So you are asking us to base our view on the "text", but then you pull in meanings that are not in the text. You want us to look at Jewish sources hundreds of years later. And you want us to ignore that most of the scholars are looking at the entity as being some demon or deity from a different near-eastern pantheon.

More strawman arguments no one is arguing about? "Removal" is a part of the obscure etymology and meaning of Azazel as already shown in the BDB and elsewhere and which uses the name azazel in context to removing all the sins of Gods' people from the presence of God into the wilderness by a strong man as shown in the clear word of God in Leviticus 16:20-22.

Various dictionaries and Jewish commentaries with etymology

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.

Strong's Concordance
azazel: entire removal
Original Word: עֲזָאזֵל
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: azazel
Phonetic Spelling: (az-aw-zale')
Definition: entire removal

Azazel Personification of Impurity.
Far from involving the recognition of Azazel as a deity, the sending of the goat was, as stated by Naḥmanides, a symbolic expression of the idea that the people's sins and their evil consequences were to be sent back to the spirit of desolation and ruin, the source of all impurity. The very fact that the two goats were presented before Yhwh before the one was sacrificed and the other sent into the wilderness, was proof that Azazel was not ranked with Yhwh, but regarded simply as the personification of wickedness in contrast with the righteous government of Yhwh. The rite, resembling, on the one hand, the sending off of the epha with the woman embodying wickedness in its midst to the land of Shinar in the vision of Zachariah (v. 6-11), and, on the other, the letting loose of the living bird into the open field in the case of the leper healed from the plague (Lev. xiv. 7), was, indeed, viewed by the people of Jerusalem as a means of ridding (removing) themselves of the sins of the year. (Jewish Encyclopedia)

................

AZAZAL
Azazel, in Jewish legends, a demon or evil spirit to whom, in the ancient rite of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a scapegoat was sent bearing the sins of the Jewish people. Two male goats were chosen for the ritual, one designated by lots “for the Lord,” the other “for Azazel” (Leviticus 16:8). The ritual was carried out by the high priest in the Second Temple and is described in the Mishna. After the high priest symbolically transferred all the sins of the Jewish people to the scapegoat, the goat destined “for Azazel” was driven into the wilderness and cast over a precipice to its death. Azazel was the personification of uncleanness and in later rabbinic writings was sometimes described as a fallen angel. (Britanica)

.................

HEBREW WORD DETECTIVE

Azazel (etymology)
On Yom Kippur we read about the service in the Temple that was performed on that holy day. Part of the service involved sending away a goat, marked "to Azazel" לעזאזל (Vayikra 16:8). The meaning and origin of the word Azazel עזאזל is subject to much debate. Levine, in the JPS commentary to Vayikra, writes the following (I've added Hebrew text to his transliteration):

The precise meaning of Hebrew 'aza'zel עזאזל, found nowhere else in the Bible, has been disputed since antiquity and remains uncertain even to the present time. Over the centuries, exegesis of this name has followed three lines of interpretation.

According to the first, Azazel is the name of the place in the wilderness to which the scapegoat was dispatched; the term is taken as synonymous with 'erets gezerah ארץ גזרה, "inaccessible region," in verse 22. Verse 10 may also suggest this interpretation. When translated literally it reads: "and send it [the he-goat] off to Azazel, to the wilderness." Yoma 67b understands 'aza'zel as "a fierce, difficult land," taking the first part of the word to mean 'azz עז, "strong, fierce".

According to the second line of interpretation, Azazel describes the goat. The word 'aza'zel is a contraction (notarikon) comprised of 'ez עז, "goat" and 'azal אזל, "to go away," hence "the goat that goes away." This interpretation occurs both in the Septuagint and the the Vulgate, and underlies the rabbinic characterization sa'ir ha-mishtalleah שעיר המשתלח, "the goat that is dispatched," in Mishna Yoma 6:2. This is, in fact, the interpretation that led to the English rendering "scapegoat" (from "escape-goat"), which first appeared in Tyndale's English translation of the Bible in 1530. [See this Philologos column for more about the considerations in the creation of the phrase "scapegoat."]

Both of the above interpretations are contrived. The third line of interpretation is preferable. Azazel in later myth was the name given to the demonic ruler of the wilderness. The derivation of the word is uncertain, but the thematic relationship of Azazel to the se'irim שעירים, "goat-demons," of 17:7 suggests that the word 'ez, "goat," is represented in it. The form 'aza'zel may have developed through reduplication of the letter zayin: 'ez'el, "mighty goat," was pronounced 'ezez'el and, finally, 'aza'zel.

Bula, in the Daat Mikra, quotes the "fierce, difficult land" interpretation mentioned in Yoma (and by Rashi on the verse). In a footnote, however, he offers some additional options. First of all, he points out that the letter lamed might be added to the root עזז, as we find in a number of other nouns like barzel ברזל and karmel כרמל, and the alef was also added in, like in the word tzavar צואר. This would make azazel related to the Arabic azaz, meaning "hard, unworkable land".

He then goes on to say that he doesn't think the theory that Azazel refers to a place of idol worship is likely, but even if it is true, it doesn't mean that the service was still associated with idol worship. He points out that there are many phrases in Hebrew that originally had idolatrous connotations, but received new meaning according to the monotheistic Hebrew approach. For example, he says that the phrase ריח ניחוח - "pleasing odor to God" (Vayikra 1:9) also was adopted by the Torah from the language of idolators, even though Judaism doesn't believe that God actually takes pleasure from smells.

His last theory, based on the BDB Lexicon, is that perhaps it is related to the Arabic root עזל 'azzala, meaning "he removed", so this would refer to the removal of the sins, by means of the goat.

In Modern Hebrew the phrase "lech l'azazel" לך לעזאזל means "go to hell". I don't think that this is due to an association with demons. The Even Shoshan dictionary quotes the responsa of the 17th century Chavat Yair as saying לך לעזאזל המדברה! - "go to Azazel in the desert!" So I think the idea here is just to send to an uninhabitable place, in a similar way that the Dead Sea is referred to in Talmudic Hebrew.

.................

So no, your view that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is not supported in the scriptures.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Will just let you answer yourself later in your post:



Yes, someone, (you), and someone else (Ellen White) are indeed saying that satan pays the price of the sins of God's people. You say Jesus made atonement, paying the price. Then you say there is still a price to be paid and satan pays it. Those don't go together.

LGW said:
This is where your misunderstanding is. Satan does not pay the price for the sins of Gods' people and no one is saying this.

EGW said:

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.

Well your misrepresentation of my words and the words of EGW when you have already been corrected on your interpretation your trying to apply here is a little disappointing. You have already been corrected on how your applying both my words and the words of EGW when context is applied to the daily and yearly ministrations of the Priesthood to atonement through blood sacrifice. So what your claiming here and the interpretation your trying to apply to my words and those EGW statements is not what I have said to you at all in our discussion which has focused on the difference between blood sacrifice and paying the penalty for sin without blood sacrifice (death). All I get from your post here after explaining to you exactly what I believe is a willful misrepresentation of what has been shared with you from the scriptures which is quite sad.

Take Care.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

I am curious now. You are saying that on this thread titled "SDAs affirm sola scriptura testing AND the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy" that you came out with "And they don't believe what Ellen White said in her published statements about the scapegoat"???? Where did I miss that in your posts?

People that misquote Paul claim everyone else is spinning what Paul says because they don't care for what he said. Your statement above makes it appear that either you are spinning Ellen White's statement taken out of context... or that all Adventist are following your idea above and spinning what she said.

Is it your claim they "spin this"??

“As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God. With faith and humility they accepted the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Through the blood of Jesus they had “remission of sins that are past.” {GC 461.1}

Monday at 11:18 PM #666

If you are waiting for non-SDAs to post these quotes --- you may have a while "to wait".
===========================================

"His offering of Himself was full and ample. Nothing was wanting. It was indeed a whole and ample atonement that was made. Then why ... indicate by words and example that Christ has died for you in vain? After the exhibitions of love that was without a parallel, you say by your words of doubt and mournful discouragement, “He does not love me. He will not forgive me. My sins are of too hard a character to be cured by the blood of Jesus. The offering is not of sufficient value to pay the debt I owe for the rescue of my soul.” {OHC 136.4}

"I want to lift up my voice for Jesus and say, Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Go forth from the cave by faith. Look to Jesus, your helper. Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Look to your atoning Sacrifice lifted up upon the cross, the Innocent dying for the guilty. . . . {OHC 136.3}


"The subject is inexhaustible. The study of the incarnation of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and mediatorial work, will employ the mind of the diligent student as long as time shall last; and looking to heaven with its unnumbered years he will exclaim, “Great is the mystery of godliness.” {COL 133.4}

"All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life … Revelation 3:5; Matthew 10:32, 33. {GC 483.2}

Do you realize your sinfulness? Do you despise sin? Then remember that the righteousness of Christ is yours if you will grasp it. Can you not see what a strong foundation is placed beneath your feet when you accept Christ? God has accepted the offering of his Son as a complete atonement for the sins of the world. {YI September 20, 1900, par. 8}

Through the untiring ministrations of the apostles to the Gentiles, the “strangers and foreigners,” who “sometimes were far off,” learned that they had been “made nigh by the blood of Christ,” and that through faith in His atoning sacrifice they might become “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Ephesians 2:12, 13, 19. {AA 175.1}

========================

Those who rely on spin-doctoring and the bend-and-wrench methods to convey false views - are often reluctant to share such statements - and in fact try and dismiss them rather than allowing them to "inform their claims" about what the real full-and-in-context view is for that author..

where we find "Look to Jesus, your helper. Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Look to your atoning Sacrifice lifted up upon the cross, the Innocent dying for the guilty. . . . {OHC 136.3}

Taking the full context of the author's statement on the subject shows that you are spinning the point -- which is a better explanation for why all Adventists "just so happen" to not find your version of this to not be compelling. Those who read the material have more data to work with.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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. I have said that the sending of sins away from the camp is the work of Christ. I have said the goat sent away does not represent satan. But that does not mean the goat that is sent away IS Christ.

I see, so your are trying to change your view now that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). Which has been the focus of most of our discussion. In our discussions you have claimed that Jesus represented the role and work of the scapegoat. I provided scripture showing this was an impossibility. It seems your starting to move away from this view which is good to see.

This is the false binary choice that @Leaf473 tried to get you to look at, but you would not. Possibilities for the goat: 1. represents Jesus 2. represents satan 3. represents something else neither Jesus nor satan. The third option is what Leaf473 mentioned that you did not want to consider.

Perhaps that is because there has been so much evidence that has already been provided proving that "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan or all the sins of Gods' people being returned to him. You hand-waiving of all the evidence provided from from the scriptures in post # 848 linked does not make it disappear which seems to be the view of most scholars. In response you were shown from the scriptures how it is impossible for Jesus to be "the scapegoat". Nothing has either been provided as an alternative option that is supported in the scriptures.

The high priest sends away the goat with the sins on it, sending them out of the camp. The goat is representing the sins going out of the camp. They are sent away by the high priest, by Christ. Jesus removes sin from the camp.

Indeed to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). At the end of the final atonement through the blood sacrifice by "the Lords goat" (Jesus) and ministration for the cleansing of sin through the great High Priest (Jesus), once completed all the sins of God's people are transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") to return all sins to Azazel. "The Lords goat" representing Christ and "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") representing Satan or the returning of all the sins of Gods' people to Satan (Azazel) * Scripture support here. Keep in mind here the transferring of all the sins of God's people are for the removal of all sin from the presence of God and after atonement has been completed for Gods' people through "the Lords goat". The transference of sin to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") us for atonement between God and Azazel *Leviticus 16:10.

We have a parallel in the text for this, noted by both Jewish and Christian commentators. In Leviticus 14 in the cleansing right for a leper we have two clean animals referenced:

Lev 14:3 and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person
Lev 14:4 the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop.
Lev 14:5 And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water.
Lev 14:6 He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.
Lev 14:7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field.

This uses two clean animals to show both blood cleansing for the uncleanness, and the removal of the contamination from the camp through the other bird....

Actually no. You do not have a parallel here. We are talking about sin atonement on the great day of atonement through not the healing of physical diseases in the daily ministration of the Priesthood. Though that said I do agree there are some similarities to the two goats on the day of atonement. Though many things that are not the same which would take a long time to list (see Leviticus 16). So to say you have a parallel is an overstatement that does not prove that "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") does not represent the sins of Gods' people being returned to Azazel (Satan). What you have not considered here as well is that all sin atonement had to be made inside the sanctuary in the presence of the Lord and the Priest (see Leviticus 4:22-35; Leviticus 6:24-30; Leviticus 17:1-16).

Take Care.

 

[BobRyan]

“As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God. With faith and humility they accepted the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Through the blood of Jesus they had “remission of sins that are past.” {GC 461.1}

Bob, the point you are struggling over is that you claim Jesus' atonement was insufficient, leaving a penalty to be paid, by a sinful person, for other people's sin.

followed by

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.

 

[Leaf473]

Your response here...

So you do not know what blood sacrifice means Leaf and what it is used for by the Great High Priest?

I think I do. But it may be something different from what you believe.

If we transfer all of our sins to the blood sacrifice who has them?

If it's the blood of a goat, then they may still exist in some fashion in that blood. If it's the blood of Jesus, I think the sin is destroyed.

Do we still have them or have they been transferred to the blood sacrifice?

They will have been transferred, but they may or may not still exist.

What then happens with our sins after they have been transferred and purchased through blood atonement?

Well, with the goat it sounds like there's a possibility that the sin is transferred from the people to the scapegoat.

This may be where the goat story breaks down. I assume that Jesus' blood is more potent and has more capabilities than goat's blood.

Hebrews 8:12 I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more.

If God doesn't remember something, it has effectively ceased to exist imo.

Also, God won't be confessing our sins over a scapegoat in the New covenant, again imo.

 

[Leaf473]

Your response here...

The Sanctuary system and sin atonement is only for Gods' people who confess their sins before God and transfer them to the sin offering for blood atonement in the daily ministration of the Priesthood. The yearly ministration of the Priesthood is the final atonement made for all of God's people and the cleansing of the Sanctuary for the removal of all the sins of God's people from the presence of God. In the anti-type this is the final work before the second coming of Jesus as Gods blood sacrifice offered for the sins of the world and all those who accept the free gift of God's dear son (blood sacrifice) and the ministration of Jesus interceding His own blood on our behalf so that we can all receive Gods' forgiveness of sins.

Which was stated in nearly every post to you already.

I appreciate your time and patience.

According to the scriptures sin is transferred from the sinner to the sin offering as the sinner lays his hands on the sin offerings head confessing their sins in the presence of the Priest and the Lord inside the Sanctuary. At this point the sinner kills the sin offering that their sins have been transferred to and the Priest then collects the blood of the sacrifice and makes atonement before the Lord so the sinner can receive Gods' forgiveness of sins by sprinkling the blood of the sin offering on the alter of burnt offering while the rest of the blood is poured out at the base of the alter (Leviticus 4:22-35).

Do you believe the sin at this point is unchanged in any way?

This is to symbolize all sin will finally be destroyed by fire and death of the wicked after the second coming of the Lord in the lake of fire (after the 1000 years of Satan being led away by the Angel) *see Revelation 20 which is a type of final burnt offering.

Are you saying that Satan takes our sin with him into the abyss but then brings it back with him when he returns, the sin being exactly the same as when it left?

The sin is not actually destroyed until Satan and the wicked people die?

The death of Satan and the wicked people will destroy sin, but the death of Jesus could not?

After atonement has been made in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood, "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") is brought before the Lord and the Great High Priest then transfers all the sins of God's people cleansed from the Sanctuary from the daily ministration of blood atonement and lays His hands on the head of the scapegoat transferring all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") *Leviticus 16:20-22 for the removal of all sin from the presence of God. At this point "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") is led away by a strong man into the wilderness.

This symbolizes what happens to Satan at the second coming in the anti-type in Revelation 20:1-3 before all the wicked are destroyed in the Lake of fire after the 1000 years and all sin and death are finally destroyed from this earth (Revelation 20:4-15).

See previous section. Sin is transferred from the sinner to the sin offering (Leviticus 4:22-35) symbolizing Christ purchasing our sins that are transferred to him through blood atonement. At this point the sin offering has the sinners sins and atonement is made through the Priesthood (also representing Jesus interceding blood atonement on our behalf that has been transferred to himself). Read Leviticus 16:20-22. After blood sacrifice has been completed through "the Lords goat" (Jesus) and the Great High Priest (Jesus). Jesus as our Great High Priest (Hebrews 7:1-25) lay his hands on the scapegoats head and confesses all the sin of Gods people which according to the scriptures are transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") to remove all the sins of God's people from the presence of God. "The scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") is then led away "alive" by a strong man into the wilderness.

Your remaining question are repetition that have already been answered through the scriptures above.

Breaking it here so it's easier for other readers to see what I'm responding to next.

So now what is it in the scriptures and the posts that have been shared with you that you do not believe?

I believe the scriptures, as do you. It's our interpretations that are different.

Take Care.

You too, my man!

 

[Leaf473]

The application to "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) being led away into the wilderness has it's anti-type fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3 [1], And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. [2], And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, [3], And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. After the 1000 years the devil and his angels and all the wicked are thrown into the lake of fire which is a final burnt offering before the Lord that destroys sin and death. (see Revelation 20:4-15). This was already shared with you from the scriptures some time ago now.

That's a possible application. I think there are some serious issues that arise with trying to make Satan the scapegoat, as I talked about earlier.

When you say the BDB, I'm assuming you are referring to the Brown-Driver-Briggs. Yes?
Their definition is given in that link. Strong's #5799 - עֲזָאזֵל - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org It says: 1b) meaning dubious Are you able to find that?

No, I posted the BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon unabridged that does not say that the meaning is dubious and other sources that are all in agreement from (1) scripture; (2) a Jewish commentary on the Torah; (3) the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4) the Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon meanings of "scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") which are all in agreement together that "scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan (Revelation 20:1-3).

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.

Sorry hand waiving and by simply providing an opinion does not really cut it here with me Leaf. Of course you are free to believe as you with. That is between you and God. You may want to consider here that you have provided no evidence or scripture that supports your view and you have not provided anything that is in disagreement with the scriptures and everything else that has been shared with you here. So I will leave that between you and God. As posted earlier it is the collective evidence that you should consider here. As shown above the collective evidence as shown from (1) scripture; (2) Jewish commentary on the Torah; (3) the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4) the Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon meanings of "scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") and (5) The occult and Satanism represent Satan as the goat. All these collectively are all in agreement together showing that the "scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan (Revelation 20:1-3). What have you provided? Nothing.

As I said before, the primary definition given in the BDB, included in that link, is "entire removal".

Those other sources are highly questionable imo.

Again, it's incumbent upon you to first establish a solid case that the word can only mean "fallen angel".

Take Care.

Peace be with you!

 

[Leaf473]

You don't seem to be following @Leaf473 statements very well. He hasn't made the claim that the scapegoat represents Jesus. So there is no reason he would have to present arguments in support of an argument he didn't put forward.

He also said he doesn't have to refute your position that the scapegoat is satan. You are the one explaining the position, and advocating for it, so the burden of proof is on you, whether he responds or not.

In light of that your statements don't follow. He is asking about the parts he wants more clarification on in order to evaluate your claim. He is entertaining your position, and asking you about the evidence. Seems fair.

Yes, that's accurate.