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

[tall73]

"Satan is not paying the price for our sins accept when he is finally destroyed..." at which point he does then pay the price for our sins?

Kind of hard to take Ellen White any other way on the point.

Also if Satan is destroyed, how does that fit with the scapegoat which is kept alive?

Indeed.

LGW needs to explain how satan can pay the final penalty for something Jesus already paid for.

 

[Leaf473]

No. Sorry Leaf. If you cannot take the time to prayerfully read and understand my posts I have no time to isolate section by section all over again which is simply repetition.

I do take time to read your posts and prayerfully consider them.

If I don't understand what you're saying, should I say that? Or should I just take my best guess and deal with that?

Which would you prefer? Honest question.

Of the posts and scriptures already shared with you already in summary, you have already been provided scripture support showing the differences between the the two goats cast by lot. One being "the Lords goat" for the final atonement for all the sins of God's people and the final cleansing of the Sanctuary through blood sacrifice and the role of "the scapegoat" making atonement with God for the removal of all sin from the presence of God being transferred to "the scapegoat" by the Great High Priest as shown in Leviticus 16. This of course all referencing back to Hebrews that shows that application of "the scapegoat" to Jesus makes the blood atonement of Jesus through "the Lords goat" of non-effect and also does not fit any the ant-type applications. You were also shown that the Hebrew meaning of "scapegoat" from the BDB Hebrew dictionary means to "be gone" "fallen angel."

From what I could tell, the definition wasn't certain. And my experience, most Hebrew words have a wide range of definitions.

You were also shown that "the scapegoat" was only brought before the Lord once final atonement through blood sacrifice was made through "the Lords goat" through blood atonement. You were also shown through the scriptures that "the scapegoat" was "kept alive" and did not die through sin atonement. You were also shown that both the final blood atonement through death of "the Lords goat" and the Great high Priest represent interceding on our behalf represent Jesus. You were also shown that Jesus as our great high Priest transfers all the sins of God's people after final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed to "the scapegoat" which removes all sin from the presence of God that was led by a strong man into the wilderness has application at the second coming where the angel leads Satan to the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the final atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed before the coming of Christ (Revelation 22:11-15).

I don't see Satan mentioned in Revelation 22:11-15.
Did you mean Revelation 20:1-3?

Some issues I see with that is that Satan returns after the thousand years. But the goat probably didn't return. Satan isn't led, he is thrown. And the goat isn't tied up, but Satan is.

That having been said, I agree that things don't have to be an exact parallel. In fact, on this subject that's pretty much my point!

So me going back though all my posts and cutting and pasting everything for you to simply read all over again I believe will make no difference to our conversation as it has been already posted but you do not believe it,...

If something has been posted showing the necessity of Satan being the scapegoat, then I didn't see it. I see things showing that possibility but not the necessity.

...yet you cannot tell me why you do not believe or why you think Jesus represent "the scapegoat"

I don't think I have said that Jesus is the scapegoat.

after you have been shown why Jesus cannot represent "the scapegoat". So I think perhaps it might be a good idea to prayerfully take the time to study the topic for yourself. Having "the scapegoat" representing Jesus has no scriptural support for this view and neither does it have any anti type fulfillment in the new covenant and as shown earlier and makes the blood of the cross and Christs sacrifice of non-effect making a mockery of the death of Jesus. So with these thoughts in mind as posted earlier, perhaps you can pray about it. Everything above has already been proven to you from the scriptures before your eye but you refuse to see or believe it.

Take Care

I don't think everything in the two goat scenario has to have an exact parallel in real life. For example, the son of Aaron has to atone for his own sins first. But Jesus didn't have to do that. So right off, there's some breakdown in the parallel imo.

############
Big picture, this is a discussion, my man. For me that often means narrowing down where the other person and I disagree.

If you would like to narrow down those points, that would be great! It's up to you.

And peace be with you, my friend!

 

[Leaf473]

I agree. But I also noted at the beginning I don't think any text in the NT spells out the scapegoat fulfillment as some other aspects are spelled out. So we have to reason from the type. Yet, I still see no compelling case for what Ellen White describes.

As I mentioned, some take the view that azazel is a reference to a fallen angel, with the book of Enoch referencing a fallen angel of that name. But even then it is the goat for azazel. It would be taking sin out of the camp to where azazel is at.

But certainly I see nothing in the text that says the sins of God's people are placed on satan, or that he must bear the final penalty, which was already paid by Christ.

And the other possibility is that the scapegoat is just a personification of sin which is led out by the strong man, in which Christ the high priest is seen sending sin out of the camp, and taking it beyond the dwelling of His people.

None of the scenarios get to where Ellen White goes. And I too would have to see a plain text to say anything like satan receiving the sins of God's people on himself.

And it doesn't explain how satan could be represented by a clean animal without blemish.



Ellen White doesn't say all the sins of the world, which is strange as well. She just has the sins of God's people going on him. The wicked still die for their own sins.

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.


and

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They “shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.” Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished “according to their deeds.” The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit.

So for White it's just the sins of God's people that Satan removes from God's presence.

This brings up another aspect of the thread topic.

Suppose someone claims to be God's messenger and asserts something that is at best vaguely supported by scripture.

As I understand the idea of Sola scriptura, it's that one goes by just what the scripture says. One does not add to it.

 

[tall73]

As I understand the idea of Sola scriptura, it's that one goes by just what the scripture says. One does not add to it.

Scripture is the test, but there are obviously things not addressed by Scripture. And there is no limiting factor in God revealing things on those topics.

 

[tall73]

From what I could tell, the definition wasn't certain. And my experience, most Hebrew words have a wide range of definitions.

Yes, they give the various views.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Thank you for your previous explanations. I have read them as well as Leviticus 16. I'm just not sure your explanations are the correct explanations, or the only possible explanations.

Well that is something you would need to prayerfully study through the scriptures if you are in disagreement or confused. You have not provided any scripture to show that Jesus represents the scapegoat. Meanwhile you have been provided scripture that shows that it is only blood atonement that pays he penalty for sin (death) and the application of the blood through the high Priest that achieves Gods forgiveness of sins.

According to the scriptures "the scapegoat" is only presented before God for atonement once all the final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood (Great day of atonement) through blood sacrifice. At this point once all of God's peoples sins are atoned for through the blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat" then "the scapegoat" is presented before the Lord where all the sins of God's people are transferred to the scapegoat by that great High Priest (Jesus; Hebrews 7:1-25 ) for the removing of all sin from the presence of God. At which time the scapegoat which is "kept alive" (no sin atonement) is led away captive by a strong man into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22).

An application of making Jesus being "the scapegoat" here makes the blood atonement of Jesus through "the Lords goat" of non-effect and also does not fit any the ant-type applications. You were also shown that the Hebrew meaning of "scapegoat" from the BDB Hebrew dictionary means to "be gone" "fallen angel."

You also may want to consider some interesting comments from Jewish commentaries and the Apocrypha (Book of Enoch).

"Azazel was probably a demonic being. Apocryphal Jewish works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era, tell of angels who were lured into rebellion against God. In these writings, Azazel is one of the two leaders of the rebellion. And posttalmudic documents tell a similar story about two rebel angels, Uzza and Azzael—both variations of the name Azazel. These mythological stories, which must have been widely known, seem to confirm the essentially demonic character of the old biblical Azazel" (Union of American Hebrew Congregations, The Torah-a Modern Commentary, page 859).

The book of Enoch

In the Book of Enoch, Azazel is a fallen angel who teaches mankind unrighteous ways. As a result, he is bound and sentenced to the desert forever. It also contains another tradition typically taught on the Day of Atonement—that Satan is the author of human sin: “And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.' In other words, the ascribing of all human sin to a fallen angel is from the very same Jewish tradition that identifies the azazel as a demon.

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.

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

You were also shown that both the final blood atonement through death of "the Lords goat" and the Great high Priest interceding on our behalf represents Jesus. You were also shown that Jesus as our great high Priest transfers all the sins of God's people after final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed to "the scapegoat" which removes all sin from the presence of God that was led by a strong man into the wilderness which has application at the second coming where the angel of the Lord leads Satan captive leading him to the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the final atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed before the coming of Christ (Revelation 22:11-15).

So I think perhaps it might be a good idea to prayerfully take the time to study the topic for yourself. Having "the scapegoat" representing Jesus has no scriptural support for this view and neither does it have any anti type fulfillment in the new covenant and as shown earlier makes the blood of the cross and Christs sacrifice of non-effect making a mockery of the death of Jesus. So with these thoughts in mind as posted earlier, perhaps you can pray about it. Everything above has already been proven to you from the scriptures.

I agree that the scapegoat does not shed blood. I don't know that it necessarily follows that there are two kinds of atonement.

Just the fact that the scriptures in Leviticus 16 tell us that there are two types of goats one being "the Lords goat" and the other being "the scapegoat" and that "the Lords goat" is used for blood atonement while "the scapegoat" is not used for blood atonement should tell you that there are two very different offerings for sin being made here. I will leave that between you and God to think about as these are God's Words not mine (Leviticus 16:8-10; Leviticus 15:22).

Take Care

 

[LoveGodsWord]

"Satan is not paying the price for our sins accept when he is finally destroyed..." at which point he does then pay the price for our sins?

Leviticus 16:8-22 show that it is only "the Lord's goat" that makes blood sacrifice to pay the penalty of sin (death) and to cleanse the sanctuary from all the sins of God's people which is completed through our great High Priest (Both of these representing Jesus in the new covenant; see Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22). After all of the sins of Gods' people have been purchased and atoned for through blood sacrifice (the death of Jesus and Jesus as our Great high Priest interceding on our behalf before God making blood atonement so we can receive God's forgiveness of sins do we have forgiveness of sins. Only after the final atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed and all of God's peoples sins have been forgiven and atoned for through blood sacrifice, is the "scapegoat" brought in before the presence of God where Jesus as our great High Priest lays his hands on the head of the scapegoat and transfers all the sins from God's people to "the scapegoat". At this time the scapegoat is "kept alive" and removed from the presence of God by a strong man into the wilderness. Satan (the scapegoat) does not die for your sins here it is kept alive. Only Jesus dies for our sins as "the Lords goat" through blood sacrifice. The scapegoat only has all the sins of Gods' people transferred to it from the Great High Priest (Jesus) which is then led away from the presence of God. Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Also if Satan is destroyed, how does that fit with the scapegoat which is kept alive?

Already posted on this. See Revelation 20:1-3. The scapegoat is not kept alive forever. See Revelation 20:5-14.

Take care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord wrote: Then what is your problem? Both are indeed sin offerings. They are not really Jesus or not really Satan only representations of them. "The Lords goat" representing Christ through sin sacrifice through blood atonement is different to "the scapegoat" who has all sin transferred to and is kept alive to remove all sin from the presence of God and led captive by a strong man into the wilderness that eventually atones for all sin in the lake of fire. Your view here that Jesus is "the scapegoat" is not supported by scripture.

Your response here...

tall73 said: ↑
I have considered it. I note both were for a sin offering. And satan cannot be a sin offering. He could not be represented by a ceremonially clean animal.
What is my problem? I thought that was obvious. satan can't be a sin offering for others!
And he can't be represented by an unblemished clean animal! He cannot be represented by an animal identical to the one representing Christ because there is ZERO comparison.

If satan were pictured in the type by an animal it would have to be something on the order of a maimed, mangled, mangy possum with a thousand open infected wounds oozing puss, and his innards hanging out, about a second from death. He is full of sin, being one mass of blemishes. He cannot take on anyone's sin.

He would not be pictured by the pure symbol pointing to Jesus!

No not at all. What I believe your not considering here is that all offerings need to be ceremonially clean to partake of the Priestly ministration of the Priesthood. Now you also need to keep in mind here and has been shown earlier through the scriptures, the two sin offerings are not the same in Leviticus 16:8-22. "The Lords goat" is for blood sacrifice (pays the penalty of sin and receives Gods 'forgiveness of sin). "The scapegoat" on the other hand, is for transferring all of the sins atoned through blood sacrifice once atonement has been made for all of Gods' people for the removal of all sin from the presence of God and is kept alive. At which time "the scapegoat" Azazel is led away by a strong man into the wilderness.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

Your response here...

No not at all. What I believe your not considering here is that all offerings need to be ceremonially clean to partake of the Priestly ministration of the Priesthood. Now you also need to keep in mind here and has been shown earlier through the scriptures, the two sin offerings are not the same in Leviticus 16:8-22. "The Lords goat" is for blood sacrifice (pays the penalty of sin and receives Gods 'forgiveness of sin). "The scapegoat" on the other hand, is for transferring all of the sins atoned through blood sacrifice once atonement has been made for all of Gods' people for the removal of all sin from the presence of God and is kept alive.

So you see satan being portrayed with the same type of animal as Jesus because he is used as a "sin offering" in a priestly ministration, and then bearing the final penalty for the sins of God's people.

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.

Hard to tell if you are serious at this point. But I fear you are.

Why? Jesus didn't pay the penalty for the sins of the people of God?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So you see satan being used as a "sin offering" in a priestly ministration, and then bearing the final penalty for the sins of God's people. Hard to tell if you are serious at this point. But I fear you are. Why? Jesus didn't pay the penalty for the sins of the people of God?

Yes absolutely as shown through the scriptures and already discussed at great length in Leviticus 16 but absolutely not in the sense your trying to frame it which I believe does not show an understanding of the role of "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" as already shown in Leviticus 16 in the yearly ministration of the Great High Priest on the day of atonement (Yom Kippur). As it is written "almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." - Hebrews 9:22. As posted earlier only "the Lords goat" was provided for blood sacrifice. "The scapegoat" is "kept alive" and not used for the same purpose as "the Lords goat". Do you have anything new to add? What you have posted here is simply repetition already addressed in great detail through the scriptures already.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

Yes absolutely as shown through the scriptures and already discussed at great length in Leviticus 16 but absolutely not in the sense your trying to frame it which does not show an understanding of the role of "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat" as already shown in Leviticus 16 in the yearly ministration of the Great High Priest on the day of atonement (Yom Kippur). As it is written "almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." - Hebrews 9:22. As posted earlier only "the Lords goat" is provided for blood sacrifice. "The scapegoat" is "kept alive" and not used for this purpose. Do you have anything new to add? What you have posted here has nothing at all.

Take Care.

I still have not heard you answer why satan pays the final penalty for the sins of God's people if Jesus already paid the penalty for the sins of God's people.

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.

 

[tall73]

"The scapegoat" is "kept alive" and not used for the same purpose as "the Lords goat".

So satan pays the "final penalty" for the sins of God's people by being kept alive?

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.


Did you forget you already admitted this?

Satan is not paying the price for our sins accept when he is finally destroyed in the lake of fire

Why does he pay the final penalty, or as you state, paying the price for our sins, if Jesus already paid for the sins of God's people?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I still have not heard you answer why satan pays the final penalty for the sins of God's people if Jesus already paid the penalty for the sins of God's people. 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.

Please take the time to read my posts then. This has already been addressed some time ago. It was because he was the instigator of all sin. After Jesus purchased our sins through blood sacrifice they werre no longer our sins. In the great day of atonement, all of the sins of God's people were then transferred to "the scapegoat" that was "kept alive" and led into the wilderness by a strong man. This part of the work takes place after the Sanctuary has been atoned for and God's people have been forgiven through blood sacrifice made by "the Lords goat" and the Great high priest. After the final atonement has been completed through blood sacrifice to make atonement for all of God's people, "the scapegoat" was then brought before the Lord and all the sins of God's people were then transferred to "scapegoat" by the great high Priest at which time all sin was removed from the presence of the Lord as the scapegoat was "kept alive" and led away into the wilderness by a strong man *Leviticus 16:8-22. The part of the anti type has application to the second coming at the completion of the cleansing of the Sanctuary in Revelation 22:11-15 and when the Angel of the Lord takes hold of Satan and bounds him for 1000 years ("kept alive"). After this time all the wicked as well as the devil and his angels are then thrown into the lake of fire where they will all atone for their sins typified as the final burnt offering and the removal of all sin and death from the presence of the Lord.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So satan pays the "final penalty" for the sins of God's people by being kept alive?


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.


Did you forget you already admitted this?




Why does he pay the final penalty, or as you state, paying the price for our sins, if Jesus already paid for the sins of God's people?

Already addressed through the scriptures. See the post above this one which addresses your last two posts. Do you have anything new to add? Everything your posting here from the SOP is only supporting what I am sharing with you from the scriptures.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Sorry I did not respond to this one until now.

You have shown no scripture that upholds your position. And I see no conflict with mine.

I respectfully disagree. I believe it is you that have shown no scripture that conflicts with mine. I have shown you from the scriptures why the scapegoat cannot be Jesus and represents Satan. You have been shown from the scripture how applying an application to Jesus as "the scapegoat" has absolutely no support and reference in scripture as it is kept alive and led into the wilderness only once all sin has been atoned for and the sanctuary has been cleansed by "the Lords goat by the Great high priest" (both representing Jesus in the new covenant in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22).

While "the scapegoat is only presented before the Lord once the final atonement for all the sins of Gods' people and the cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed! Only after the final atonement is done through blood sacrifice by the Great High Priest is "the scapegoat" taken before God were "the Great high priest" (Jesus - Hebrews 7:1-25) transfers all sin made through blood atonement to "the scapegoat" to remove all sin from the presence of God which is then "kept alive" and led away by a strong man (Angel - Revelation 20:1-3) into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22).

So no, I don't have to close my eyes to Scripture. And there are many scriptures that speak of Jesus bearing our sins, dying for our sins, saving us from sins, etc. And there are many that indicate that Jesus will remove sin and things associated with sin from the universe.

Well we might have to agree to disagree on this one dear friend. There is no scripture that shows anywhere in the entire bible that Jesus atones for our sins without blood sacrifice that is needed to pay both the penalty of sin (death - Romans 6:23) and through the High Priest's ministration on our behalf applying the blood sacrifice of the sin offering to intercede before God (the sprinkling of the blood before God) so that we can receive God's forgiveness (See Hebrews 10:18; Leviticus 4:22-35; Leviticus 16:8-22).

As posted earlier a view has Jesus as "the scapegoat" which does not die makes a mockery of blood atonement that has already been done for Gods' people prior to "the scapegoat" is used to remove all the sins of God's people from the presence of God which is "kept alive" after all sin is transferred to it by the Great high Priest. You view here is in contradiction of the scriptures and the application of the daily and yearly ministration of the Priesthood and does not fit any anti type application in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22.

And there are zero that say that satan has our sins placed upon him, and pays the final penalty as Ellen White says.

Scripture have already been provided in Leviticus 16:20-22 as applied here to "the scapegoat". I am still waiting for you to show me and prove to me from the scriptures that "the scapegoat"represents Jesus. You haven't accept to try and brush away all scripture application showing why Jesus cannot be the scapegoat as already provided in earlier posts to you.

The final penalty is the second death and the lake of fire. It seems we have different interpretations of what the SOP is saying. I do not believe yours and have shown how I believe scripture supports all the SOP statements you have made. So we will have to agree to disagree here. I will leave that between you and God to work through.

Agreed. But I am not saying any other took on our sins.

Yes you were. Your claiming that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" which is not supported in the scriptures or can it be shown anywhere in the anti type application of the new covenant.

Ellen White did. And you just keep punting on that point. No one else needed to take our sins. Jesus atoned for them. And He removed all sin from the universe. But you affirm that Ellen White's statement that satan has the sins of God's people placed on him and pays the final penalty, with no explanation

No not at all. I think the problem here is your view and understanding of the the daily and the yearly (great day of atonement) ministrations of the Priesthood as applied to the Sanctuary system for blood sacrifice and sin atonement and also the roles of "the Lords goat" that was used for blood atonement under the yearly ministration of the Priesthood and the application of "the scapegoat" for the removal of all sin from the presence of God once final atonement had been made by "the Lords goat" and God's Great High Priest (Jesus).

The application of the sins of God's people being transferred to "the scapegoat" only takes place once the final atonement of Gods' people have been completed and purchased by "the Lords goat". At this time there is no more sin in God's people or in the Sanctuary as it is all then transferred in the presence of God through the great High Priest (Jesus both being Jesus btw) to "the scapegoat" (satan).

All sin is returned to the originator of sin who is then led away by a strong man (angel - Revelation 20:1-3) to the wilderness (bottomless pit for 1000 years) at the second coming. The transferring of all the sins of God's people after blood atonement has been completed represent all sin returning to Satan because Jesus paid for them through blood sacrifice and then transfers them back to Satan who after the 1000 years is loosed again with the unrepentant wicked at which time all the wicked including Satan and his angels are all cast into the lake of fire to pay the penalty of all their sins at which time there will be no more sin and no more death. A kind of final burnt offering before the Lord.

It is not a red herring at all. You say there is no specification. You don't think there is a specification that the animal representing Jesus had to be clean? It always had to be clean. And both are described alike. It was only after the lots were cast that there was a distinction. And then you prove the point when you admit that both had to be clean to be a sin offering. satan is not clean. The clean sin offering can't represent him. And satan can't take on anyone else's sin, he has his own to atone for. So you tried to say it didn't specify. Then just admitted it had to be and you dodged the question again. If both were a sin offering, and both had to be clean, how can that represent satan? it cannot. satan and Jesus are in no way interchangable. But the goats were both brought as sin offering animals.

It absolutely was a red herring. What I posted earlier is true. There is no specifications on clean or unclean animals in Leviticus 16 it was in reference to your earlier claims trying use it to claim "the scapegoat" does not apply to satan which you still have not been able to prove from scripture. The two goats had different roles and purposes so both goats here are needed to be ceremonially clean for the work of Gods' atonement as sin offerings.

According to the scriptures, all the sins of Gods' people are transferred to the scapegoat. That does not mean that Satan is atoning for anyone's sin. This work was already accomplished through blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat" After the final atonement, "the scapegoat" (Azazel) has all the sins of God's people transferred to him just like we transferred all of our sins to Jesus by the Great High Priest which represents Jesus. The scapegoat is then taken alive to remove all the sins of Gods people from the presence of God by a strong man into the wilderness as posted on earlier.

Having a view that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" does not make any sense from a scripture perspective and despite being asked you have not addressed any of my earlier question to you. How does it make any sense that Jesus who has all the sins of Gods' people transferred to him by Gods people in the daily ministration of the Priesthood after making the final atonement for all of God's people and the cleansing of the Sanctuary through blood sacrifice through "the Lords goat" and the Great High Priest who both represent Jesus in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood, after all sin has been atoned for and the Sanctuary cleansed from all sin, then bring in Himself (as the scapegoat), place his hands on his head (as the scapegoat) and transfer all the sins of Gods people as the Great high Priest to himself (as the scapegoat), to be led away alive by a strong man into the wilderness to remove all sin from the presence of God? Now you tell me how your view makes sense from the scriptures because that is the view that your putting forward by making Jesus "the scapegoat" which I believe, makes a mockery of blood atonement and none effect the blood sacrifice of Jesus made at Calvary and is not supported in any scripture whatsoever or is it supported anywhere in the anti type applications of the new covenant as already shown through the scriptures.

I noted this in my first explanation of the various views. Did you note that a. these were all long after the Leviticus text

Not relevant, I wrote what was written to you before I read your post. The Jewish sources of course were written after Leviticus. Does that matter if that was the view of the Jews at this point in time? - nope. It was a view held by the Jews in regards to who they believed "the scapegoat" represented as Azazel.

b. Jewish tradition is still not scripture

The Jewish tradition here is who they thought Azazel was which was based on the scriptures so directly relevant to our discussion as Azazel's application to the scapegoat.

c. In your sources noted azazel is in the wilderness, can't leave it, and the goat is sent to him? In other words, the goat is not the demon, but is sent to it. And in the text it is stated that it is FOR azazel. So as I mentioned previously, if you take the notion (based on tradition not Scripture), that the azazel is a proper name for a demon, then the goat goes TO azazel, rather than being azazel itself.

My source did not say any such thing or at least I have not interpreted it the way you have. We are talking about "the scapegoat" from Leviticus 16 which means is Azazel in the Hebrew translated in Leviticus 16 as "scapegoat" with the word meaning provided here...

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.

And I noted this would mean that sin is sent back to the same place that azazel is at. So you still have the notion of everything associated with sin sent out of the place of God's people. And at best you have it relegated to the place where azazel is at. Just as I noted the old heavens and earth are also burned up, and the new heavens and earth are the home of righteousness.

I do not see that as shown above with the application of in the Hebrew name given to "the scapegoat in Leviticus 16 which called Azazel in the Hebrew as applied to that goat that has all the sins of God's people transferred to it by the Great High priest after all of Gods' people sins have been atoned for and the sanctuary has been cleansed by blood offerings (the Lord's goat) through the Great High Priest. As the scriptures state "the scapegoat" (Azazel) has all the sins of God's people transferred to it and removed from the presence of God by a strong man into the wilderness. This has perfect application at the second coming after blood atonement is completed in Revelation 22 11:15 and Revelation 20:1-3 where Satan is then bound for 1000 years before being let loose for one last time before all the wicked including Satan and his angels are cast into the lake of fire as a final burnt offering before the Lord and there is no more sin and death.

Did you realize that they list several possible etymologies, as they always do, and as I already discussed earlier? Note the first one is one that would date back to the time of the text. It is total removal. The goat is sent out of the camp with sin. Sin is removed from the camp. And at around the same time as Enoch was written the LXX supports the reading of removal of sin, rather than a demonic power. So you have competing Jewish tradition. But of course this is not a Jewish tradition testing thread. Even here the sin is removed from the camp, but then sent to the wilderness where this angel is seen to be. So it would not be satan, it would be sent to satan.

Yes and I know that there a a lot of debate and confusion here as to the meanings and application of Azazel that not everyone agrees on. I only provided one of many views but I believe this view is supported in the scriptures. The BDB I believe in what I have highlighted there I believe is representative of scripture application as a whole and what was the in meaning and application of Leviticus 16 to the scapegoat (Azazel) representing Satan especially when applied with both Jewish tradition and understanding of Azazel and what was shared from the Apocrypha from the book of Enoch which are three separate witness here that are all in agreement that Azazel as the scapegoat represents Satan the fallen angel as the scapegoat.

Now, you did the same thing as Bob on a different point. You posted Jewish tradition in a Scripture testing thread. And you did so to try to prove Ellen White correct when she says satan pays the final penalty for our sins.

Sorry I do not know what your talking about. I have posted both scripture and the understanding of the Hebrew name Azazel as used for the Hebrew word translated a "scapegoat" in Leviticus 16 as understood as meaning Satan the fallen angel in Hebrew and understanding of the Jews.

So yes, if you say we can agree to disagree, we better get to doing that. I am not agreeing anytime soon that satan had anything to do with paying the penalty for our sins when Jesus already did that.

As posted earlier what you believe is between you and God. We all answer only to God for the words of God we accept or reject according to John 12:47-48. I have only been sharing here what I believe and why I believe what I believe through the scriptures. I am not agreeing anytime soon that "the scapegoat" is an application to Jesus as it makes no sense biblical and is not supported in the scriptures. Satan does not pay the penalty for our sins Jesus as "the Lords goat" goat does through blood sacrifice.

All the sins being removed from Gods' presence brought by "the Lords goat" pays the penalty for our sins (death). This represents Jesus not the scapegoat that has all the sins of God's people transferred to it after the final atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed by the Great High Priest (Jesus) and then led out alive by a strong man into the wilderness to remove all sin from the presence of God. I am not sure why you cannot see this as it is all written in Leviticus and Hebrews as already shared with you so we will of course agree to disagree.

I am enjoying our conversation and pray you are as well.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I do take time to read your posts and prayerfully consider them. If I don't understand what you're saying, should I say that? Or should I just take my best guess and deal with that? Which would you prefer? Honest question.

In all of our past discussions on a range of topics it is always the same Leaf, if I am being honest with you. If you are not sure on something I have always spent a lot of time in explaining exactly what I have said to you in a number of different ways if you did not know what I was saying or telling you exactly what I mean as you asked questions. This is only ever met normally with either the total post being either completely ignored or not responded to or a change of topic. In the past I have always responded to something you were not sure about what I have said even if what I have said, I believe was clearly stated in the post you were quoting from. Sometimes I ask you for further clarification asking you what is it in the post you are quoting from that you think I am saying so I can understand what it is you do not understand. This is also normally met with silence from you. Even if you disagree with something I have written, I ask you what exactly is it that you disagree with and why you might disagree from scripture in order to find out where our disagreements are in order to progress the discussion but I normally do not get a response. That said I do not mind if you are after a genuine honest discussion. Most people I have met here I feel refuse to be open in discussing the scriptures although I have met a few.

From what I could tell, the definition wasn't certain. And my experience, most Hebrew words have a wide range of definitions.

What do you mean that the definition wasn't certain? You were posted the Hebrew meaning of Azazel meaning "removed" and "fallen angel" you were also provided with other sources of Jewish literature outside of the scriptures as to their understanding of the Hebrew name Azazel and who they believed it belonged to and the Apocrypha writings from the the book of Enoch all calling and applying the Hebrew name to Satan as the leader of the rebellious fallen angels. These are three independent witnesses all in agreement that Azazel translated as scapegoat in Leviticus 16 is a reference to Satan.

I don't see Satan mentioned in Revelation 22:11-15. Did you mean Revelation 20:1-3?

Revelation 22:11-15 links to the completion of the final atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary of all sin and the transference and removal of all sin to "the scapegoat" through blood sacrifice. This is the final work done just before Jesus returns. Sin being transferred to "the scapegoat" (satan) and him being led away by the Angel captive into the bottomless pit for 1000 years was a direct contrast of Leviticus 16:20-22 to Revelation 20:1-3. All these scriptures link perfectly in action and timing to the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the transferring of all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" and the removing of all sin away from the presence of God.

Some issues I see with that is that Satan returns after the thousand years. But the goat probably didn't return. Satan isn't led, he is thrown. And the goat isn't tied up, but Satan is.

Of course the goat was tied up how else would he be led by a strong man into the wilderness? I am sure the goat was not going to follow him there. Goats to not live 1000 years the whole scapegoat scenario in Leviticus 16 is symbolic and nothing is said as to what happens after the goat is led into the wilderness by the strong man. Finally the scriptures of Revelation 20:1-3 says "And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 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.

That having been said, I agree that things don't have to be an exact parallel. In fact, on this subject that's pretty much my point!

Agreed.

I don't think I have said that Jesus is the scapegoat.

I see. Most people believe that "the scapegoat" represents either satan or Jesus. If you do not think that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" who do you think it represents and why?

I don't think everything in the two goat scenario has to have an exact parallel in real life. For example, the son of Aaron has to atone for his own sins first. But Jesus didn't have to do that. So right off, there's some breakdown in the parallel imo.

Agreed.

Take Care.

 

[Leaf473]

Scripture is the test, but there are obviously things not addressed by Scripture. And there is no limiting factor in God revealing things on those topics.

Yes, I agree that there are things not addressed in the scriptures.

I see that I may have confused Sola scriptura with the saying, "Where the Bible Speaks, We Speak; Where the Bible Is Silent, We Are Silent."

Thomas Campbell: “Where the Bible Speaks, We Speak; Where the Bible Is Silent, We Are Silent” - Plain Bible Teaching

 

[BobRyan]

I still have not heard you answer why satan pays the final penalty for the sins of God's people if Jesus already paid the penalty for the sins of God's people.

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.

A partial detail being quoted above - a detail you don't find in our 28 fundamental beliefs.

Satan pays for his own debt of sin in tempting the saints. Satan's "debt owed" can be evaluated since he is the deceiver, the devil, the origin of evil - but his debt is limited when it is tempting the servants of his own kingdom, those who already of their own free will choose rebellion and thus choose "Barabbas" Satan a their king -- instead of God. When he tempts them he is guilty to an extent - but since they have free will they take a large share of that guilt on themselves.

However when the judgment reveals that Satan is tempting those who do not choose him as their king, the saints, those who struggle against sin- then his debt of sin , debt of guilt is even greater in that case and he has an added level of debt for his "guilt" in tempting those who were NOT in his kingdom.

"so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin, in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin, and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil." {GC 485.3}​

The Bible does not teach that the scapegoat is "the sin offering" rather only the Lord's goat in Lev 16 is "the sin offering" -- only it dies a substitutionary atoning death on behalf of others. Nor does the Bible teach that sins are removed from the Lord’s goat before it is slain – and placed on the scapegoat. (Nor does the 28 FB beliefs say that - nor do official SDA statements say it - no not even ones from Ellen White (your favorite source apparently) -- The scapegoat is not a sin offering.

 

[Leaf473]

Well that is something you would need to prayerfully study through the scriptures if you are in disagreement or confused. You have not provided any scripture to show that Jesus represents the scapegoat. Meanwhile you have been provided scripture that shows that it is only blood atonement that pays he penalty for sin (death) and the application of the blood through the high Priest that achieves Gods forgiveness of sins.

According to the scriptures "the scapegoat" is only presented before God for atonement once all the final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood (Great day of atonement) through blood sacrifice. At this point once all of God's peoples sins are atoned for through the blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat" then "the scapegoat" is presented before the Lord where all the sins of God's people are transferred to the scapegoat by that great High Priest (Jesus; Hebrews 7:1-25 ) for the removing of all sin from the presence of God. At which time the scapegoat which is "kept alive" (no sin atonement) is led away captive by a strong man into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22).

An application of making Jesus being "the scapegoat" here makes the blood atonement of Jesus through "the Lords goat" of non-effect and also does not fit any the ant-type applications. You were also shown that the Hebrew meaning of "scapegoat" from the BDB Hebrew dictionary means to "be gone" "fallen angel."

You also may want to consider some interesting comments from Jewish commentaries and the Apocrypha (Book of Enoch).

"Azazel was probably a demonic being. Apocryphal Jewish works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era, tell of angels who were lured into rebellion against God. In these writings, Azazel is one of the two leaders of the rebellion. And posttalmudic documents tell a similar story about two rebel angels, Uzza and Azzael—both variations of the name Azazel. These mythological stories, which must have been widely known, seem to confirm the essentially demonic character of the old biblical Azazel" (Union of American Hebrew Congregations, The Torah-a Modern Commentary, page 859).

The book of Enoch

In the Book of Enoch, Azazel is a fallen angel who teaches mankind unrighteous ways. As a result, he is bound and sentenced to the desert forever. It also contains another tradition typically taught on the Day of Atonement—that Satan is the author of human sin: “And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.' In other words, the ascribing of all human sin to a fallen angel is from the very same Jewish tradition that identifies the azazel as a demon.

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.

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

You were also shown that both the final blood atonement through death of "the Lords goat" and the Great high Priest interceding on our behalf represents Jesus. You were also shown that Jesus as our great high Priest transfers all the sins of God's people after final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed to "the scapegoat" which removes all sin from the presence of God that was led by a strong man into the wilderness which has application at the second coming where the angel of the Lord leads Satan captive leading him to the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the final atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed before the coming of Christ (Revelation 22:11-15).

So I think perhaps it might be a good idea to prayerfully take the time to study the topic for yourself. Having "the scapegoat" representing Jesus has no scriptural support for this view and neither does it have any anti type fulfillment in the new covenant and as shown earlier makes the blood of the cross and Christs sacrifice of non-effect making a mockery of the death of Jesus. So with these thoughts in mind as posted earlier, perhaps you can pray about it. Everything above has already been proven to you from the scriptures.

Just the fact that the scriptures in Leviticus 16 tell us that there are two types of goats one being "the Lords goat" and the other being "the scapegoat" and that "the Lords goat" is used for blood atonement while "the scapegoat" is not used for blood atonement should tell you that there are two very different offerings for sin being made here. I will leave that between you and God to think about as these are God's Words not mine (Leviticus 16:8-10; Leviticus 15:22).

Take Care

And now narrowing it down...

Well that is something you would need to prayerfully study through the scriptures if you are in disagreement or confused.

I have prayerfully studied the scriptures. I'm not in disagreement with them. I'm confused about why you think what you do.

Since you and I don't agree, I think a good course of action would be for us to have a prayerful discussion. That's what I would like to do.

You have not provided any scripture to show that Jesus represents the scapegoat.

I don't believe that I need to. For me that's not the issue.

Meanwhile you have been provided scripture that shows that it is only blood atonement that pays he penalty for sin (death) and the application of the blood through the high Priest that achieves Gods forgiveness of sins.

It sounds like White thinks that Satan pays the final penalty. Is that different from what you believe?

According to the scriptures "the scapegoat" is only presented before God for atonement once all the final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood (Great day of atonement) through blood sacrifice. At this point once all of God's peoples sins are atoned for through the blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat" then "the scapegoat" is presented before the Lord where all the sins of God's people are transferred to the scapegoat by that great High Priest (Jesus; Hebrews 7:1-25 ) for the removing of all sin from the presence of God. At which time the scapegoat which is "kept alive" (no sin atonement) is led away captive by a strong man into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22).

This then differs from Satan who returns and then is destroyed as you say.

An application of making Jesus being "the scapegoat" here makes the blood atonement of Jesus through "the Lords goat" of non-effect and also does not fit any the ant-type applications. You were also shown that the Hebrew meaning of "scapegoat" from the BDB Hebrew dictionary means to "be gone" "fallen angel."

That same reference also says the meaning is uncertain.

You also may want to consider some interesting comments from Jewish commentaries and the Apocrypha (Book of Enoch).

"Azazel was probably a demonic being. Apocryphal Jewish works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era, tell of angels who were lured into rebellion against God. In these writings, Azazel is one of the two leaders of the rebellion. And posttalmudic documents tell a similar story about two rebel angels, Uzza and Azzael—both variations of the name Azazel. These mythological stories, which must have been widely known, seem to confirm the essentially demonic character of the old biblical Azazel" (Union of American Hebrew Congregations, The Torah-a Modern Commentary, page 859).

The book of Enoch

In the Book of Enoch, Azazel is a fallen angel who teaches mankind unrighteous ways. As a result, he is bound and sentenced to the desert forever. It also contains another tradition typically taught on the Day of Atonement—that Satan is the author of human sin: “And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.' In other words, the ascribing of all human sin to a fallen angel is from the very same Jewish tradition that identifies the azazel as a demon.

That's interesting, but hardly conclusive imo.

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.

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

That same resource says:

"1b) meaning dubious"

Strong's #5799 - עֲזָאזֵל - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

You were also shown that both the final blood atonement through death of "the Lords goat" and the Great high Priest interceding on our behalf represents Jesus.

That sounds reasonable so far.

You were also shown that Jesus as our great high Priest transfers all the sins of God's people after final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed to "the scapegoat"...

I think this is where things start to break down in your reasoning. I don't see any solid support for the final atonement of all time being done with a scapegoat.

Is it a possible conclusion? Sure. Is it the only possible conclusion? No.

...which removes all sin from the presence of God that was led by a strong man into the wilderness which has application at the second coming where the angel of the Lord leads Satan captive leading him to the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the final atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed before the coming of Christ (Revelation 22:11-15).

It has a possible application, sure.

But as I've talked about, there are some key differences between the scapegoat and Satan.

I have no idea why you keep referencing Revelation 22:11ff.


If you'd like to talk about that particular passage in detail, please do.

So I think perhaps it might be a good idea to prayerfully take the time to study the topic for yourself.

Yes, I have.

Since this is a discussion forum, I'm interested in discussing the subject.

Having "the scapegoat" representing Jesus has no scriptural support for this view and neither does it have any anti type fulfillment in the new covenant and as shown earlier makes the blood of the cross and Christs sacrifice of non-effect making a mockery of the death of Jesus.

For me that isn't the issue. Jesus not being the scapegoat doesn't necessarily mean that Satan is. We already have Jesus playing two roles in the story.

So with these thoughts in mind as posted earlier, perhaps you can pray about it.

Yes, I have. Prayer is always good! And more prayer is always better!

Everything above has already been proven to you from the scriptures.

You have cited scriptures. But the scriptures you cite don't prove your point imo.

Just the fact that the scriptures in Leviticus 16 tell us that there are two types of goats one being "the Lords goat" and the other being "the scapegoat" and that "the Lords goat" is used for blood atonement while "the scapegoat" is not used for blood atonement should tell you that there are two very different offerings for sin being made here.

Does it necessarily follow that Satan is then the other goat? Or that the goat scenario has a close parallel in the final atonement of all time? I don't think it does.

I will leave that between you and God to think about as these are God's Words not mine (Leviticus 16:8-10; Leviticus 15:22).

I agree with God's words. It's where you provide commentary or say what the scripture show that we don't agree.

Take Care

You too, my brother!

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I agree that there are things not addressed in the scriptures.

I see that I may have confused Sola scriptura with the saying, "Where the Bible Speaks, We Speak; Where the Bible Is Silent, We Are Silent."

Thomas Campbell: “Where the Bible Speaks, We Speak; Where the Bible Is Silent, We Are Silent” - Plain Bible Teaching

We believe all the Bible writers held strictly to the standard of "Sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice" -- apparently you don't think that is true.. so then ... "we differ".

In any case the SDA doctrines are all tested sola scriptura and are listed in our 28 Fundamental Beliefs.