Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And thank you for that post!So then -- 3 minutes ago #841
Blotted out from who? Aaron? Then how is he able to confess the sins of the saints over the scapegoat?As Lev 16 points out the sins of the saints are blotted out in the sanctuary based on sin offering of Lev 16:15 "alone" -- and that work is completed BEFORE anything is done with the scapegoat later on in Lev 16.
Yes, it's a group discussion.He has been speaking for himself. I am also speaking for myself, and we are all in the same forum conversation. So if you raise a point when speaking to him that I want to address, then I do.
To me, it makes it sound like the role of Jesus is more that of a sin-courrier than a sin-resolver.@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.
Yes, I had that same thought about a possible parallel with the two birds in Leviticus 14.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.
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.
There are other issues in addition to the ones you're talking about there.Well we differ there since the scapegoat has no input or affect on the "Sin offering" of Lev 16:15 and has no input at all in the sanctuary work that it done for mankind - and also dies for no one, and what is worse - contaminates anyone that touches it.
Again, I haven't seen anyone show that it has to be one of the other. It looks to me like there are other possibilities as well.It is either Christ or Satan and so far it is impossible to have it be Christ.
But Satan is not the evil opposite of Christ. That's putting Satan and Jesus in the same category imo.Not very likely since - IF you agree it is not Christ then there is no other demon named in the Bible worthy of representing an evil-opposite of Christ more fitting than Satan.
Is your quote from Ellen White there in the same section that @tall73 quoted so as to provide context?Those editors and Ellen White's readers had the the benefit of "full context" -- one that some here don't have access to or don't want to present.
For example.
Those who try to snip-out and spin the position into something else - relying heavily on the readers not actually having a more full context - are the ones with the issue.
Because "in context" the scapegoat has no input at all in the Lev 16:15 "Sin offering" and no part at all in the sanctuary work done for mankind... so whatever suffering it does - changes nothing - which is why that other quote is not considered to be "a change" of something
No doubt --
“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}
This is the way I currently see it. I'm open to reevaluating the situation.Context.
So for example Jonah says "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed". He does not say "unless you repent of course" - but Jeremiah 18 informs us that those prophecies are conditional. I know of no Bible scholars claiming that Jonah was a false prophet - do you? Is it your claim that Jonah was a false prophet? If not -- then how do you answer our own question?
Moses does not go to Egypt with the message for Israel that is of the form "Let's leave Egypt and die in the wilderness after 40 years out there". Or is it your view that this is exactly what he was teaching them in Egypt (or do you claim he was a false prophet)?? If you like the rest of us - do not think he was a false prophet -- how do you answer your own question above?
Is your quote from Ellen White there in the same section that @tall73 quoted so as to provide context?
I would check it out myself but that's difficult to do here on a cell phone.
This is the way I currently see it. I'm open to reevaluating the situation.
The office of prophet has ceased. That is to say, prophets such as Jonah or Jeremiah will not be raised up again.
The New testament speaks of the offices of apostle and prophet. Just as the office of apostle has ceased, the office of prophet has ceased.
One of the reasons I believe this is because no good test can be proposed today.
The gift of prophecy spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 is something different from the office of prophet.
It is a gift which works in many ways similar to the word of wisdom and word of knowledge and the gift of discerning of spirits. I think these gifts are all available to all believers, though some believers will be more skillful and practiced at certain gifts than others.
##############
Kind of a follow-up question:
Is there a scripture passage that speaks of the gift of prophecy as being an identifying mark of the remnant Church?
It looks like you are caught up now! That is a lot of reading. I don't have a lot of time at the moment to add much, but I think you got a good general view of the issues.
I hope to be everyone's friend. The question should rather be are we the friends of Jesus according to John 15:14? Thanks for your posts Leaf. I decided not to respond to them. All you have done in your posts here is to repeat your self, provide an opinion unsupported by evidence or scripture while ignoring all the posts that have been shared with you and misrepresenting what I have said to you even after clarification was provided through the scriptures in the posts you were quoting from. As I said in the beginning, to me that is not the type of discussion that I have any time for to be honest. Perhaps you can pray about it.And aren't we all friends here, @LoveGodsWord?
This is the way I currently see it. I'm open to reevaluating the situation.
The office of prophet has ceased.
The New testament speaks of the offices of apostle and prophet. Just as the office of apostle has ceased, the office of prophet has ceased.
The gift of prophecy spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 is something different from the office of prophet.
Kind of a follow-up question:
Is there a scripture passage that speaks of the gift of prophecy as being an identifying mark of the remnant Church?
Blotted out from who? Aaron? Then how is he able to confess the sins of the saints over the scapegoat?
“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}
Is your quote from Ellen White there in the same section that @tall73 quoted so as to provide context?
I would check it out myself but that's difficult to do here on a cell phone.
There are other issues in addition to the ones you're talking about there.
The goat doesn't return, Satan does.
The scapegoat comes from the congregation of israel, Satan does not.
Again, I haven't seen anyone show that it has to be one of the other. It looks to me like there are other possibilities as well.
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.
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,
Because He already paid for them.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?