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

[LoveGodsWord]

You're welcome.
A logic question: If Jesus is not the scapegoat, does it necessarily follow that Satan is?

Already answered in post # 459 linked and furthermore in post # 462 linked showing the difference in the application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" and how "the scapegoat cannot represent Jesus as true atonement for sin can only be made in the death of the sin offering and blood atonement for sin for Gods' forgiveness of sins. Only the death of the sin offering from "the Lords goat" pays the penalty for sin (death) and blood atonement by the Priest receives Gods forgiveness and cleansing of sin. In the yearly the transference of all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" that is kept alive only represents all the sins of Gods' people being returned to the originator of sin who pays the final penalty of all the sins of Gods people (death). Atonement here is between the Lord and the scapegoat *Leviticus 16:10 in this sense is simply returning all sin to the originator of sin that "the Lords goat" Jesus purchased through blood atonement and Jesus as both our true sin sacrifice through blood atonement and our great high priest removing all sin from Gods people and the presence of God to the originator of all sin that is led away awaiting Gods' final punishment for all sin

For me the conclusion that Satan is the final bearer of the sins of the world conflicts with what John the Baptist says, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Do you think White was exercising the gift of prophecy when she wrote on this subject? Is that something you're interested in talking about?

See Leviticus 16:10. Satan does not atone for our sins, "the Lords goat" does. The removal of all sin from the presence of God is between God and the scapegoat which is transferred to the scapegoat by our great high Priest (Jesus) which is then removed from the presence of God by a strong man into the wilderness. I believe application here is at the second coming when atonement is completed (see Revelation 22:11-15 and Revelation 20:1-3).

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

In the yearly the transference of all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" that is kept alive only represents all the sins of Gods' people being returned to the originator of sin who pays the final penalty of all the sins of Gods people (death).

This is sick.

First of all, you now finally admitted what Ellen White said, that satan is not kept alive, but dies. So there goes the argument based on him being alive.

But you also admit what she stated that he pays the final penalty of the sins of God's people.

So what did Jesus pay? Jesus died for our sins, not satan.

satan cannot bear anything but his own sins.

And your sins are not satan's sins. He didn't CAUSE you to commit them. You chose to commit them. He may have tempted you, but you chose. You are sinful, and in need of a Savior, and satan cannot be that savior. satan cannot bear ANY of your sins.

satan is punished for his own sins. Your sins are not his.

 

[Leaf473]

Your response...


Already answered in the post you are responding to.

It sounds to me like it is what you're saying, so I'll go with that until I hear different.

 

[Leaf473]

Ok perhaps you can pray about it.

Sure, if you don't want to explain anymore.

 

[Leaf473]

Kind of. Better said two different kinds of atonement. The Lord's goat (Jesus) makes our atonement through blood sacrifice and His death (purchased). The scapegoat is for the removal of all sin by atonement with God (Leviticus 16:10) where all sin is transferred to the scapegoat being "kept alive" and let into the wilderness by a strong man.

I see. So two different kinds of atonement.

Is that standard SDA theology?

 

[Leaf473]

Already answered in post # 459 linked and furthermore in post # 462 linked showing the difference in the application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" and how "the scapegoat cannot represent Jesus as true atonement for sin can only be made in the death of the sin offering and blood atonement for sin for Gods' forgiveness of sins. Only the death of the sin offering from "the Lords goat" pays the penalty for sin (death) and blood atonement by the Priest receives Gods forgiveness and cleansing of sin. In the yearly the transference of all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" that is kept alive only represents all the sins of Gods' people being returned to the originator of sin who pays the final penalty of all the sins of Gods people (death). Atonement here is between the Lord and the scapegoat *Leviticus 16:10 in this sense is simply returning all sin to the originator of sin that "the Lords goat" Jesus purchased through blood atonement and Jesus as both our true sin sacrifice through blood atonement and our great high priest removing all sin from Gods people and the presence of God to the originator of all sin that is led away awaiting Gods' final punishment for all sin

See Leviticus 16:10. Satan does not atone for our sins, "the Lords goat" does. The removal of all sin from the presence of God is between God and the scapegoat which is transferred to the scapegoat by our great high Priest (Jesus) which is then removed from the presence of God by a strong man into the wilderness. I believe application here is at the second coming when atonement is completed (see Revelation 22:11-15 and Revelation 20:1-3).

Take Care.

The piece that I'm not seeing is that if Jesus is not the scapegoat, is it necessary then that the scapegoat must be Satan?

Consider the Passover scenario. It looks like Jesus is the Passover Lamb. Does it follow that Satan is necessarily... Pharaoh?

After Jesus takes away the sins of the world, there is still some sin left between God and Satan? Something in addition to Satan's own sin?

May you take care as well, my man!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Sure, if you don't want to explain anymore.

I did explain it in the post you were quoting from but with most of our conversations you always claim you do not seem to understand what is being shared with you. Your response here is not different to everything else we have discussed in the past and nothing new so I suggest you should pray about it. For me I do the same thing if I do not understand something in Gods Word.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I see. So two different kinds of atonement. Is that standard SDA theology?

It is from the bible as shown from the scriptures, in the post you are quoting from

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Already answered in post # 459 linked and furthermore in post # 462 linked showing the difference in the application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" and how "the scapegoat cannot represent Jesus as true atonement for sin can only be made in the death of the sin offering and blood atonement for sin for Gods' forgiveness of sins. Only the death of the sin offering from "the Lords goat" pays the penalty for sin (death) and blood atonement by the Priest receives Gods forgiveness and cleansing of sin. In the yearly the transference of all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" that is kept alive only represents all the sins of Gods' people being returned to the originator of sin who pays the final penalty of all the sins of Gods people (death). Atonement here is between the Lord and the scapegoat *Leviticus 16:10 in this sense is simply returning all sin to the originator of sin that "the Lords goat" Jesus purchased through blood atonement and Jesus as both our true sin sacrifice through blood atonement and our great high priest removing all sin from Gods people and the presence of God to the originator of all sin that is led away awaiting Gods' final punishment for all sin

See Leviticus 16:10. Satan does not atone for our sins, "the Lords goat" does. The removal of all sin from the presence of God is between God and the scapegoat which is transferred to the scapegoat by our great high Priest (Jesus) which is then removed from the presence of God by a strong man into the wilderness. I believe application here is at the second coming when atonement is completed (see Revelation 22:11-15 and Revelation 20:1-3).

Your response here...

The piece that I'm not seeing is that if Jesus is not the scapegoat, is it necessary then that the scapegoat must be Satan?

It is impossible for Jesus to be "the scapegoat" as it just does not fit the Sanctuary anti-types as outlined in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22

As posted earlier you may want to consider some of the problems you run into of you seek to make Jesus "the scapegoat in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood and try and apply it to the new covenant application of Hebrews...

1. In the great day of atonement as applied in the new covenant Jesus represents our great high Priest (Hebrews 7:1-25) and the Lords goat as our great sacrifice for sin in His death paying the penalty for our sins and giving us God's forgiveness through intercession for blood atonement (Hebrews 9:1-28). Now tell me, how can Jesus represent "the scapegoat" in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in the heavenly Sanctuary (Hebrews 8:1-6)? If you have Jesus as "the scapegoat you run into this scenario in the anti-type application of the scriptures in the book of Hebrews. You have Jesus as our Great high Priest, who is also God's true sin offering for blood atonement (the Lords goat) after the final atonement for all the sins of Gods' people and the cleansing of the Sanctuary, laying His hands on His head (applying Jesus to being the scapegoat) confessing all the sins of all God's people and re-transferring all the sins of God's people to himself (scapegoat). After he transfers all the sins of God's people to himself again (he already had all the sins of Gods people as the Lords goat) is led out by a strong man from the presence of God removing all sin from the presence of God? If you think this through to new covenant application just does not work.

2. You also run into further problems here by making Jesus "the scapegoat". By making Jesus the scapegoat your saying that blood atonement is inadequate for God's people to receive forgiveness of sins. The problem arises for your view here because by the time this final part of the Day of Atonement ritual had arrived, all blood sacrifices had been completed. The "Lord's goat" had been slain and its blood sprinkled before the mercy seat. This sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people. This expiation in your view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" makes Christ's blood atonement inadequate, partial, incomplete, needing further remediation from the scapegoat that is shown in point 1 above not to fit the ant-type application in Hebrews. Christs sacrifice however and blood atonement for all of God's people was complete, finished by the time all sin was transferred to transferred to "the scapegoat" by the Great High Priest (Jesus). No supplement, no other sacrifice, could be required. - "When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Leviticus 16:20).

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

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

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

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

The Passover is not the great day of atonement. The Passover and the great day of atonement represent different aspects of Gods plan of salvation. If you disagree with the above your welcome to show why.


Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Already answered in post # 459 linked and furthermore in post # 462 linked showing the difference in the application of atonement between "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" and how "the scapegoat cannot represent Jesus as true atonement for sin can only be made in the death of the sin offering and blood atonement for sin for Gods' forgiveness of sins. Only the death of the sin offering from "the Lords goat" pays the penalty for sin (death) and blood atonement by the Priest receives Gods forgiveness and cleansing of sin. In the yearly the transference of all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" that is kept alive only represents all the sins of Gods' people being returned to the originator of sin who pays the final penalty of all the sins of Gods people (death). Atonement here is between the Lord and the scapegoat *Leviticus 16:10 in this sense is simply returning all sin to the originator of sin that "the Lords goat" Jesus purchased through blood atonement and Jesus as both our true sin sacrifice through blood atonement and our great high priest removing all sin from Gods people and the presence of God to the originator of all sin that is led away awaiting Gods' final punishment for all sin

Your responses here...

This is sick.

No not at all but allow me to explain why again. For me, what is sick is an interpretation that Jesus is the scapegoat. Not only is it not biblical or fit any of the anti-type application of the new covenant it claims that the death of Jesus and blood atonement is not sufficient for the final atonement of God's people and that the death of Jesus and blood sacrifice on the cross is insufficient.

First of all, you now finally admitted what Ellen White said, that Satan is not kept alive, but dies. So there goes the argument based on him being alive.

No I said no such thing. The scapegoat is indeed kept alive as shown in Leviticus 16 removing all the sins of God's people from the presence of the Lord led captive by a strong man into the wilderness. As posted from the start of our discussion, the high Priest only transfers all the sins from the Sanctuary to "the scapegoat" once the final atonement for God's people has been made and the sanctuary has been cleansed through blood atonement.

Once this work is completed the high Priest transfers all the sins brought into the Sanctuary through the daily ministration of the Priesthood to "the scapegoat" that is kept alive and taken into the wilderness. The application here of the scapegoat being kept alive, I believe is to the second coming when Jesus returns it is written 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.

This was posted from the beginning of our discussion. It says nowhere in Leviticus 16 that the scapegoat is kept alive forever.

But you also admit what she stated that he pays the final penalty of the sins of God's people.

Satan does not bear our sin; he bears his own sin. He shares our guilt when he tempts us to sin. While Jesus died for our guilt, He did not die for Satan’s guilt, so it is still placed upon Satan. Again, Satan does not atone for our sins, he atones for his own sin by dying an eternal death after the 1000 years have been finished *Revelation 20:4-15.

So what did Jesus pay? Jesus died for our sins, not satan.

As posted many times now. Jesus is "the Lords goat" representing God's true sacrifice for sin paying the penalty of death and interceding through "blood atonement" to seek God's forgiveness of sins. The scapegoat is for the removal of sin from the presence of God not atonement for Gods' people but suffering the final death atonement for all sin purchased by blood through "the Lords goat" - Jesus

satan cannot bear anything but his own sins.

The atonement with the scapegoat is between God and the scapegoat *see Leviticus 16:10 not God's people and the scapegoat for the removal of all sin from the presence of God. This is only done according to the scripture after the final atonement for Gods' people through blood sacrifice and the cleansing of the Sanctuary through "the Lords goat" (Jesus).

This has already been completed with "the Lords goat" (Jesus) through blood sacrifice. It is the great high Priest (also Jesus) that transfers all the sins of God's people to "the scapegoat" for atonement with God for the removal of all sin from the presence of God for sins already atoned for. Jesus is not transferring all the sins of Gods' people back to himself.

This would make no sense as all the sins of God's people were already transferred to the sin offerings through blood atonement in the daily ministration of the Priesthood *Leviticus 4:22-35. This is why you do not see the High Priest confessing all the sins of Gods' people to "the Lords goat" on the great day of atonement and only to "the scapegoat" (see Leviticus 16:21).

And your sins are not satan's sins. He didn't CAUSE you to commit them. You chose to commit them. He may have tempted you, but you chose. You are sinful, and in need of a Savior, and satan cannot be that savior. satan cannot bear ANY of your sins. satan is punished for his own sins. Your sins are not his.

It is God that places all the sins on the scapegoat through the Great High Priest representing Jesus in the new covenant. The removal of sin from God's presence here to "the scapegoat" is the final atonement with God (*see Leviticus 16:10) for all sin that is transferred to "the scapegoat" that is led away from the presence of God to the wilderness by a strong man. There is no anti-typical application of Jesus being kept alive removing all sin from the presence of God being led away from the presence of God to the wilderness by a strong man here in anti typical application of the great day of atonement in the new covenant. The only application to this is found in Satan being bound captive for 1000 years in Revelation 20:1-3 where after this time he is finally destroyed in the lake of fire putting a final end to all sin *Revelation 20:4-15. All of this taking place at the second coming after the final atonement and the completion of the cleansing of the Sanctuary as shown in Leviticus 16 through blood atonement of "the Lords goat" and Revelation 22:11-15.

Take Care.

 

[Leaf473]

I did explain it in the post you were quoting from but with most of our conversations you always claim you do not seem to understand what is being shared with you. Your response here is not different to everything else we have discussed in the past and nothing new so I suggest you should pray about it. For me I do the same thing if I do not understand something in Gods Word.

Take Care.

It's always a good idea to pray!

But what I'm not understanding is your view, how this works in your mind.

I get that you believe Jesus cannot be the scapegoat. But I don't get why that necessarily means Satan is the scapegoat.

And I don't see the connection between the two goats and Satan bearing the sins of the whole world.

Was this idea being talked about prior to White?

############
Edit: And of course, if you're not being edified, we can end our interaction.

On my part, I find myself growing with each conversation here on CF.

Peace be with you, my brother!

 

[Leaf473]

It is from the bible as shown from the scriptures, in the post you are quoting from

It seems strange to me that the scriptures would talk about two different kinds of atonement.

I think one could keep the idea of a single atonement and change other conclusions about the passage(s).

Is the idea of two kinds of atonement found in SDA theology?

 

[Leaf473]

Your response here...

It is impossible for Jesus to be "the scapegoat" as it just does not fit the Sanctuary anti-types as outlined in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22

As posted earlier you may want to consider some of the problems you run into of you seek to make Jesus "the scapegoat in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood and try and apply it to the new covenant application of Hebrews...

1. In the great day of atonement as applied in the new covenant Jesus represents our great high Priest (Hebrews 7:1-25) and the Lords goat as our great sacrifice for sin in His death paying the penalty for our sins and giving us God's forgiveness through intercession for blood atonement (Hebrews 9:1-28). Now tell me, how can Jesus represent "the scapegoat" in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in the heavenly Sanctuary (Hebrews 8:1-6)? If you have Jesus as "the scapegoat you run into this scenario in the anti-type application of the scriptures in the book of Hebrews. You have Jesus as our Great high Priest, who is also God's true sin offering for blood atonement (the Lords goat) after the final atonement for all the sins of Gods' people and the cleansing of the Sanctuary, laying His hands on His head (applying Jesus to being the scapegoat) confessing all the sins of all God's people and re-transferring all the sins of God's people to himself (scapegoat). After he transfers all the sins of God's people to himself again (he already had all the sins of Gods people as the Lords goat) is led out by a strong man from the presence of God removing all sin from the presence of God? If you think this through to new covenant application just does not work.

2. You also run into further problems here by making Jesus "the scapegoat". By making Jesus the scapegoat your saying that blood atonement is inadequate for God's people to receive forgiveness of sins. The problem arises for your view here because by the time this final part of the Day of Atonement ritual had arrived, all blood sacrifices had been completed. The "Lord's goat" had been slain and its blood sprinkled before the mercy seat. This sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people. This expiation in your view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" makes Christ's blood atonement inadequate, partial, incomplete, needing further remediation from the scapegoat that is shown in point 1 above not to fit the ant-type application in Hebrews. Christs sacrifice however and blood atonement for all of God's people was complete, finished by the time all sin was transferred to transferred to "the scapegoat" by the Great High Priest (Jesus). No supplement, no other sacrifice, could be required. - "When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Leviticus 16:20).

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

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

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

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

The Passover is not the great day of atonement. The Passover and the great day of atonement represent different aspects of Gods plan of salvation. If you disagree with the above your welcome to show why.


Take Care.

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it's not what I was asking about.

If Jesus is not the scapegoat, does it necessarily follow that Satan is?

The reason I brought up the Passover scenario is that, as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Sometimes in the scriptures a snake represents Satan. Sometimes a snake is just a snake.

I see a lot in your posts about why Jesus isn't the scapegoat. I don't see why it then must be Satan.

How about isolating that part in your posts? Maybe then I could see it.

 

[tall73]

Satan does not bear our sin; he bears his own sin. He shares our guilt when he tempts us to sin. While Jesus died for our guilt, He did not die for Satan’s guilt, so it is still placed upon Satan.

Why do you keep changing what Ellen White said?

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, must bear the final penalty.

It says "upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed."

"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."

She says point blank that Satan bears the penalty for our sins. She says the sins of God's people are placed on him.

Now stop trying to change what she said, and explain how satan, a sinful being, can take on your sin. And explain why he would need to when Christ already did.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Why do you keep changing what Ellen White said?

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, must bear the final penalty.

It says "upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed."

"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."

She says point blank that Satan bears the penalty for our sins. She says the sins of God's people are placed on him.

Now stop trying to change what she said, and explain how satan, a sinful being, can take on your sin. And explain why he would need to when Christ already did.

I didn't perhaps you had a misunderstanding. Me saying Satan does not bare our sins is in context to he does not atone for them. Our sins have already been atoned for by "the Lords goat".

Take care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑

It is impossible for Jesus to be "the scapegoat" as it just does not fit the Sanctuary anti-types as outlined in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22

As posted earlier you may want to consider some of the problems you run into of you seek to make Jesus "the scapegoat in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood and try and apply it to the new covenant application of Hebrews...

1. In the great day of atonement as applied in the new covenant Jesus represents our great high Priest (Hebrews 7:1-25) and the Lords goat as our great sacrifice for sin in His death paying the penalty for our sins and giving us God's forgiveness through intercession for blood atonement (Hebrews 9:1-28). Now tell me, how can Jesus represent "the scapegoat" in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in the heavenly Sanctuary (Hebrews 8:1-6)? If you have Jesus as "the scapegoat you run into this scenario in the anti-type application of the scriptures in the book of Hebrews. You have Jesus as our Great high Priest, who is also God's true sin offering for blood atonement (the Lords goat) after the final atonement for all the sins of Gods' people and the cleansing of the Sanctuary, laying His hands on His head (applying Jesus to being the scapegoat) confessing all the sins of all God's people and re-transferring all the sins of God's people to himself (scapegoat). After he transfers all the sins of God's people to himself again (he already had all the sins of Gods people as the Lords goat) is led out by a strong man from the presence of God removing all sin from the presence of God? If you think this through to new covenant application just does not work.

2. You also run into further problems here by making Jesus "the scapegoat". By making Jesus the scapegoat your saying that blood atonement is inadequate for God's people to receive forgiveness of sins. The problem arises for your view here because by the time this final part of the Day of Atonement ritual had arrived, all blood sacrifices had been completed. The "Lord's goat" had been slain and its blood sprinkled before the mercy seat. This sacrifice atoned for all the sins of the people. This expiation in your view that Jesus is "the scapegoat" makes Christ's blood atonement inadequate, partial, incomplete, needing further remediation from the scapegoat that is shown in point 1 above not to fit the ant-type application in Hebrews. Christs sacrifice however and blood atonement for all of God's people was complete, finished by the time all sin was transferred to transferred to "the scapegoat" by the Great High Priest (Jesus). No supplement, no other sacrifice, could be required. - "When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Leviticus 16:20).

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

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

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

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

The Passover is not the great day of atonement. The Passover and the great day of atonement represent different aspects of Gods plan of salvation. If you disagree with the above your welcome to show why.

Your response here...

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it's not what I was asking about.

If Jesus is not the scapegoat, does it necessarily follow that Satan is?

The reason I brought up the Passover scenario is that, as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Sometimes in the scriptures a snake represents Satan. Sometimes a snake is just a snake.

I see a lot in your posts about why Jesus isn't the scapegoat. I don't see why it then must be Satan.

How about isolating that part in your posts? Maybe then I could see it.

It is exactly what you were asking. Please read the post you are responding to that show why Jesus is not "the scapegoat" and Satan is "the scapegoat" from the scriptures. If you disagree your welcome to show why you disagree from the scriptures. As I have shown why Jesus cannot be the scapegoat from scripture.

Thanks.

 

[tall73]

I didn't perhaps you had a misunderstanding. Me saying Satan does not bare our sins is in context to he does not atone for them.

So you think satan must bear the sins of God's people, and bear the final penalty?


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, must bear the final penalty.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It seems strange to me that the scriptures would talk about two different kinds of atonement.

I think one could keep the idea of a single atonement and change other conclusions about the passage(s).

Is the idea of two kinds of atonement found in SDA theology?

It is very clear as shown through the scriptures to you in the two goats. One being "the Lords goat" and the other being "the scapegoat". Only "the Lords goat" offers blood atonement paying the death penalty receiving God's forgiveness. The scapegoat is for the atonement with God (Leviticus 16:10) to remove all the sins of God's people from the presence of God. I suggest you read Leviticus 16. This has already been explained from you from the scriptures more that once now.

Take Care

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So you think satan must bear the sins of God's people, and bear the final penalty?

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, must bear the final penalty.

Yep that is what the scriptures teach because blood atonement has already been made by "the Lords goat". The scapegoat is for the removal if sin from the presence of God. Making "the scapegoat" Jesus does not fit the anti-type and makes a mockery of the cross and the sacrifice of Gods' dear son.

 

[tall73]

Yep that is what the scriptures teach.

And how does satan, a sinner, bear your sins, and pay the penalty for your sins?

He can only pay or his own sins.