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

[LoveGodsWord]

@Leaf473

Yes, they even hint that the editors might had been responsible for one of Ellen White's manuscripts on the scapegoat that totally contradicts all the rest of hers.

Of course, Bob will protest that it wasn't published. But the EGW estate was kind enough to provide it for us, and then attempt to explain it away:

You can read all about it here at the Ellen White Estate:

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

A couple quotes from it:

Some apply the solemn type, the scape goat, to Satan. This is not correct. He cannot bear his own sins.

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

Funny when we seek to discuss scripture with you, all you want to do is talk about EGW statements that once investigated I find you usually pull out of context or seek to apply interpretations to them that they are not saying. I think scripture is what we have in common. Lets' discuss it.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

Your response here...

Yes thank you. My posts are indeed Gods' Word which I love and it is only God's Word we should believe and follow.

I said I agree with God's word. Your post about God's word I don't agree with.

If I have only posted Gods' Word, they are not my words but God's Word.

Because your explanations are not from God.

Yet you do not agree therefore your statement that are your words and not Gods' Word is not true.

Indeed not. I disagree that your statements about Scripture are from God. And I agree Scripture is from God.

Your making strawman arguments no one is arguing about.

Actually Bob is arguing about it, and you were for a while. But later in this post you seem to admit it.

She says satan pays for all the sins of God's people. But that is not true. Jesus paid for our sins.

I think you missed the point as to why I posted those scriptures earlier. The point of the scriptures shared with you from Matthew 18:1-6; Isaiah 56:10-12; Jeremiah 25:34-38; Jeremiah 50:6-7; Ezekiel 34:2-10; and especially in view of Ezekiel 3:17-20 was simply to show that God holds everyone of us accountable for leading His children away from Him into sin and not warning others in regard to sin (breaking God's commandments).

Yes, He does, and no I did not miss that.

And satan will in fact pay for tempting, leading people astray, etc.

But we are discussing that Ellen White says that in addition to that he pays for the sins of God's people. And that is not true. Jesus paid for the sins of God's people.

How much more does he hold Satan accountable for all the sins of God's people

There, that is the part we don't agree those other Scriptures stated at all.

Ezekiel would be accountable for his own sin of not warning.

satan will be accountable gfor his sin of leading astray etc.

Your sin is your sin. You did it. The devil did not make you do all your sins as was already shown from James many times.

Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

And Jesus is the one who paid for your sins. There is nothing of your sins left for satan to pay for. And he never could, because he must pay for his own many sins.

that have been purchased cleansed and atoned for by Christ through blood sacrifice by Jesus

Here is exactly what I said from the first. You see Jesus' death was to "purchase" some sins so that He can move them around.

No, He paid the penalty. He died for your sins to atone for them.

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

No, the goat FOR azazel. You keep missing that in the text.

And removal is what the goat does. It represents the sins of the people being removed from the camp. Jesus does that, not satan.

confessing all the sins of Gods' people that are then transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") who is kept alive and led away by a strong man into the wilderness to remove all sin from the presence of God and his people *Leviticus 16:10-22. So your teachings are not biblical or supported in the scriptures.

You have not at all explained how satan being in the abyss for 1k years makes atonement.

In response you claim that "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") represents Jesus.

Actually I have said the work of removing sin is that of Jesus. And I spelled out to you three views based on three etymologies. The NT does not spell out the rite. But it does give us enough to know it is not satan paying the price of our sins. The whole Bible gives us to know that is not the case, because Jesus already paid them.

This teaching is not supported in the scriptures as shown earlier and makes a mockery of blood sacrifice and the cleansing of sin through blood atonement. There are indeed your words that are not Gods' Words that I do not believe.

Nope, my view actually has Jesus atoning. Your view has more atoning to do by satan.

Who says it is not the case that Satan pays the penalty for all the sins of Gods' people under the anti-type of the great day of atonement?

You just said Jesus atoned for it. So yes, Scripture says Jesus did it. And Jesus is the one throughout Scripture that paid for your sins.

The Scriptures never once say satan will pay the price for the sins of God's people. he pays for his own sins.

transferrs all the sins to the scapegoat who is then kept alive and led away into the wilderness by a strong man?

Yes, but you don't have satan going to the wilderness. You have him going to the abyss. And you can't explain how him going to the abyss for 1k years makes atonement.

But Ellen White says he still bears the sin of God's people after that and suffers and dies for them. And that of course is a disgusting untruth that denies the atonement of Christ.

The sins, already atoned for, and all their effects, are removed from the camp of God, the dwelling of His people. satan cannot do that. Nor can he pay for your sins.

Please do not say things I am not saying. Of course they are the sins of Gods' people I have been consistent in my posts

Actually you have not. You said once the atonement was made they are no longer the sins of God's people. But Ellen White says repeatedly they are.

What I have said so there is no misunderstandings as to what I have said in the past is that Gods' people no longer own these sins

And Ellen White says they are the sins of God's people. So now you are back to disagreeing with her.

Either way, Jesus already paid the price. And satan could never bear your sins.

And when you disagreed with the text that says the goat is FOR azazel, you just repeated yourself without explaining why the text says something else.

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

 

[tall73]

@Leaf473 addressing the definition....

Sorry Leaf but I respectfully disagree. All you have provided is an opinion on one source of five collective sources of evidence that are all in agreement showing that Satan represent "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") while neglecting the fact here that "fallen angel" is also the meaning of the Hebrew: 5799. עֲזָאזֵל (azazel)

Of course he didn't provide just an opinion. He quoted from the source you posted, but didn't understand.

Azazel doesn't mean "fallen angel." Some scholars think it is the PROPER NAME of a fallen angel, largely based on Enoch, but also because it is FOR azazel. You ignore this part of the text altogether, and don't get what the scholars actually argue.

But your source notes that the etymology can also mean total removal. You know, total removal, what actually happens to the sins, per the text, they are removed from the camp.

The goat is FOR azazel...total removal.

 

[ChetSinger]

@Leaf473 addressing the definition....



Of course he didn't provide just an opinion. He quoted from the source you posted, but didn't understand.

Azazel doesn't mean "fallen angel." Some scholars think it is the PROPER NAME of a fallen angel, largely based on Enoch, but also because it is FOR azazel. You ignore this part of the text altogether, and don't get what the scholars actually argue.

But your source notes that the etymology can also mean total removal. You know, total removal, what actually happens to the sins, per the text, they are removed from the camp.

The goat is FOR azazel...total removal.

Regarding the word "Azazel"...

I typically use the ESV and NET bibles for reading. They both include the results of modern scholarship, and both say "for Azazel" in Leviticus 16:8.

One thing I like about the NET is the richness of the footnotes provided by the translators. The footnotes for a chapter are typically longer than the chapter itself, and Leviticus 16 is no exception.

So I looked up the verse in the NET and here is the footnote for the word "Azazel":

The meaning of the Hebrew term עֲזָאזֵל (’aza’zel, four times in the OT, all of them in this chapter; vv. 8, 10 [2 times], and 26) is much debated. There are three or perhaps four major views (see the summaries and literature cited in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:1020-21; B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 102; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 237-38; D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity [SBLDS], 21-25; M. V. Van Pelt and W. C. Kaiser, NIDOTTE 3:362-63; and M. S. Moore, NIDOTTE 4:421-22).

(1) Some derive the term from a combination of the Hebrew word עֵז (’ez, “goat”; i.e., the word for “goats” in v. 5) and אָזַל (’azal, “to go away”), meaning “the goat that departs” or “scapegoat” (cf., e.g., the LXX and KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT). This meaning suits the ritual practice of sending the so-called “scapegoat” away into the wilderness (vv. 10, 21-22, 26). Similarly, some derive the term from Arabic ’azala (“to banish, remove”), meaning “entire removal” as an abstract concept (see BDB 736 s.v. עֲזָאזֵל).

(2) Some see the term as a description of the wilderness area to which the goat was dispatched, deriving it somehow from Arabic ’azazu (“rough ground”) or perhaps עָזָז, (’azaz, “to be strong, fierce”)

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

 

[Leaf473]

Your response here...

I see so all you have provided as shown earlier is an opinion your not able to prove from the scriptures. As posted in the post you are quoting from I do not think our discussion will go very far because for me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them (Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29).

When I wrote
"No, it's not that I don't need to prove my position from the scriptures" I meant that as a general truth.

Like this
"Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and respect."
1 Peter 3:15

But in any particular discussion, no one has to disprove something that hasn't yet been proven.

 

[Leaf473]

Hand waiving. You have been provided evidence which you have already agree provides a "strong link" (your words) from the scriptures in the types and anti-types, Jewish commentary on the Torah, the Book of Enoch and a Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon all showing that "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "removal" "fallen angel") represents Satan. Sorry Leaf all you have done here is to hand waive without showing why you disagree. So there is not much more to be said here.

I do NOT believe there is a strong link between the scapegoat and Satan.

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Maybe I made a typo somewhere earlier and left out the word "not"?

 

[tall73]

Regarding the word "Azazel"...

I typically use the ESV and NET bibles for reading. They both include the results of modern scholarship, and both say "for Azazel" in Leviticus 16:8.

One thing I like about the NET is the richness of the footnotes provided by the translators. The footnotes for a chapter are typically longer than the chapter itself, and Leviticus 16 is no exception.

So I looked up the verse in the NET and here is the footnote for the word "Azazel":

The meaning of the Hebrew term עֲזָאזֵל (’aza’zel, four times in the OT, all of them in this chapter; vv. 8, 10 [2 times], and 26) is much debated. There are three or perhaps four major views (see the summaries and literature cited in J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:1020-21; B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 102; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 237-38; D. P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity [SBLDS], 21-25; M. V. Van Pelt and W. C. Kaiser, NIDOTTE 3:362-63; and M. S. Moore, NIDOTTE 4:421-22).

(1) Some derive the term from a combination of the Hebrew word עֵז (’ez, “goat”; i.e., the word for “goats” in v. 5) and אָזַל (’azal, “to go away”), meaning “the goat that departs” or “scapegoat” (cf., e.g., the LXX and KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT). This meaning suits the ritual practice of sending the so-called “scapegoat” away into the wilderness (vv. 10, 21-22, 26). Similarly, some derive the term from Arabic ’azala (“to banish, remove”), meaning “entire removal” as an abstract concept (see BDB 736 s.v. עֲזָאזֵל).

(2) Some see the term as a description of the wilderness area to which the goat was dispatched, deriving it somehow from Arabic ’azazu (“rough ground”) or perhaps עָזָז, (’azaz, “to be strong, fierce”)

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

Correct, there are at least four, or really five (Strongs mentions the combination of goat and removal that is listed above and I did not include that originally) when you include the Adventist view. The Adventist view is seeing more representation in the scholarly community because Roy Gane, an Adventist, studied with Milgrom, an influential Jewish scholar who your source references. He then published a response to Milgrom's model. Gane also wrote a commentary with a view pretty close to the usual Adventist one for Zondervan.

However, as noted earlier, most who view it as a demonic entity see this entity residing in the desert, and the sin is sent to that entity.

In other words, it is sent out of the camp and to the place of that entity. The goat therefore is seen as a means of conveyance of the sin.

As I noted in one of my first replies to LGW on this topic when it first came up in the thread, even if you take it as a fallen angel or demonic entity, then the sins are pictured as sent to the entity in the wilderness on the goat.

The significance there is that the sins are not placed on satan directly in that view, but sent to the same place, outside the camp, away from the people.

 

[Leaf473]

You know exactly what I believe and it is not what your claiming and others have claimed that no one believes. Here you go again asking the same question already answered with detailed scripture responses to you over and over. I suggest you go re-read them.

I have a better idea of what you believe now than I did before. I wouldn't describe my knowledge of your beliefs as "exact".

Suppose neither Joe nor Jane become Christians during their entire life. Joe tempts Jane to steal several things over a period of time.

Do we say that Joe will die for Jane's sins? Generally, Christians will say that Joe will die for his sins, some of which were tempting Jane on different occasions.

So to say that Satan will die for our sins at some point is confusing to me. Saying that Satan will pay the price for our sins when he is destroyed is similar enough to also be confusing imo.

 

[tall73]

Funny when we seek to discuss scripture with you, all you want to do is talk about EGW statements that once investigated I find you usually pull out of context or seek to apply interpretations to them that they are not saying. I think scripture is what you have in common. Lets' discuss it.

We have been discussing both.

And I linked to the EGW estate article for folks to read, so whatever you claim I took out of context you can blame on them.

 

[tall73]

Are you supposing that the seriousness of a baseless accusation can fully substitute for total lack of logic/argument fact on how such thing could even affect a past event at all - given that we already know that the wicked suffer for the very same debt Christ already paid in full at the cross.

Bob, don't worry. Adventists may not get it. But those non-Adventists reading along get it. When Ellen White says that satan pays the penalty of the sins of God's people that IS cheapening the atonement of Christ.

And I suspect you know why. If Jesus paid for the sins of His people, and they accepted it, there is nothing left for anyone to pay for them. Jesus DID make a full atonement, not a move sins around and then place them on satan to pay the final penalty type of atonement.

And that is why you didn't like the statement that the EGW estate article mentioned:

pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

Now Bob, are you going to blame the EGW estate for digging up comments from Ellen White?

I keep bringing this detail up - as you may have noticed. It would be good for your argument to find an answer to that sooner or later.

Bob, I have noticed others get the problem just fine. They know that if Christ paid the price, it is paid. There is no more price to pay. They know that this is disgusting fiction:

When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.

 

[tall73]

I do NOT believe there is a strong link between the scapegoat and Satan.

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Maybe I made a typo somewhere earlier and left out the word "not"?

I don't think so. You were talking about the hypothetical if there were, then dismissed it as not yet demonstrated.

 

[Leaf473]

What is it in the posts and scriptures shared with you in the yearly day of atonement and the differences between "the Lords goat" that provides "blood sacrifice" and the Great High Priest that both represent Jesus and His final atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary for all the sins of Gods' people that you do not understand?

I don't understand why you want to make the connection between the scapegoat in the two goats story and Satan in Revelation 20 and 22. It looks to me like there are so many issues with that.

One thing I raised in a post you may not have gotten to when you wrote this is:
If Satan carries our sins into the abyss, what happens to our sins after that? Do they cease to exist while they are in the abyss? Or does Satan come back out of the abyss with our sins still on him?

Do you understand where the sins of Gods' people are once atonement has been made through blood sacrifice? They are with the blood sacrifice and the Great High Priest being removed from the sinner and the Sanctuary right?

Well, I thought I did. But just going back and reading Leviticus 16 to be sure, I don't know that it says where are the same is.

For one thing, Aaron ends up sprinkling the blood of the bull and the Lord's goat on the horns of the altar. Why would he put sin-bearing blood back on the altar?

I also noticed that it is the blood of both the bull and the Lord's goat. So this would possibly make the bull representing Jesus as well. So now Jesus is three characters in the story.

Also, an interesting verse, at least in the World English Bible:
Leviticus 16:10 The other goat, the scapegoat chosen by lot to be sent away, will be kept alive, standing before the Lord. When it is sent away to Azazel in the wilderness, the people will be purified and made right with the Lord.

If that translation is correct, it sounds like the purification and justification of the people was not complete until the scapegoat was sent away.

If we try to apply that to Satan in the end times, it means that our purification and justification is currently not complete.

Then looking on further
Leviticus 16:21 He will lay both of his hands on the goat’s head and confess over it all the wickedness, rebellion, and sins of the people of Israel. In this way, he will transfer the people’s sins to the head of the goat.

So at this point the priest transfers the people's sins to the goat by confessing. So are the sins of the people now in both the blood and on the goat? Or they've been taken out of the blood and put on the goat?

These kinds of issues lead me to believe that the story in Leviticus 16 is meant to be a kind of drama that the Israelites would see and understand what kinds of things needed to be done regarding sin. I think they only loosely translate over to Jesus and what he did.

A final note since I have Leviticus 16 open again:
Leviticus 16:21 Then a man specially chosen for the task will drive the goat into the wilderness.

The man drives the goat. The goat is not bound.

So is it blood sacrifice that makes the final atonement for us in receiving God's forgiveness does it not?

Well, based on what I just read, it sounds like the final atonement, if that means purification and justification, are not made until the goat is sent away.

Now once again, according to the scriptures once our final atonement through blood sacrifice has been completed by the Great High Priest (Jesus), the scapegoat (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") come before the Lord to remove all sin from the presence of God and the Sanctuary. Do you agree?

Well, I don't think so, unless the sin that is in God's presence and the sanctuary is different from our sin.

Our sin is in the blood, isn't it? Or, if it isn't in the blood at that point and has been transferred to the goat, then the role of the blood was just to transfer the sin, kind of like a carrier wave.

What then happens with "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel")?

It goes off into the wilderness.

 

[Leaf473]

Finally, do you know the difference between Jesus paying the penalty for our sins through blood sacrifice and interceding on our behalf before God as our great high Priest with His own blood and the wicked who reject Christs free gift of Gods' grace who are kept alive to pay the penalty for their own sins?

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure if I know what you're saying in that sentence or not.

Are you drawing the contrast between Jesus and the wicked?

Or between "Jesus paying" and the wicked?

If you're asking if I understand the difference between Jesus paying the penalty
of the sin of we who accept him
and
Jesus not paying the penalty
of the sin of those who do not accept him,
yes I believe I do understand the difference.

If you can honestly answer these scriptures that have already been answered for you from the scriptures in previous posts you would not be making claims and asking questions no one believes or has said here.

Take Care...

Peace be with you, my friend!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I said I agree with God's word. Your post about God's word I don't agree with.

Yes and in response I said if I have only posted Gods' Word, they are not my words but God's Word. Yet you do not agree therefore your statement that are your words and not Gods' Word is not true. In this we are in agreement.

Because your explanations are not from God.

I am sorry I do not believe you but I do believe this is what you keep telling yourself. For me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29.

Actually Bob is arguing about it, and you were for a while. But later in this post you seem to admit it.

Actually no, not at all. I posted that I believe you were making strawman arguments no one is arguing about. I also posted that I think you missed the point as to why I posted those scriptures earlier. The point of the scriptures shared with you from Matthew 18:1-6; Isaiah 56:10-12; Jeremiah 25:34-38; Jeremiah 50:6-7; Ezekiel 34:2-10; and especially in view of Ezekiel 3:17-20 was simply to show that God holds everyone of us accountable for leading His children away from Him into sin and not warning others in regard to sin (breaking God's commandments).

How much more does he hold Satan accountable for all the sins of God's people that have been purchased cleansed and atoned for by Christ through blood sacrifice by Jesus representing all the sin offerings in the daily and "the Lords goat in the yearly ministrations of the Priesthood. After final atonement has been made through blood sacrifice by "the Lords goat" as already shown in the scriptures, the removal of sin from the presence of God is done in the atoment between God and "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") *Leviticus 16:10; where the high Priest in the presence of God after making final atonement for all of God's people and cleansing the Sanctuary from all sin lays his hands on the head of "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") confessing all the sins of Gods' people that are then transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") who is kept alive and led away by a strong man into the wilderness to remove all sin from the presence of God and his people *Leviticus 16:10-22.

So your teachings are not biblical or supported in the scriptures. In response you claim that "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") represents Jesus. This teaching is not supported in the scriptures as shown earlier and makes a mockery of blood sacrifice and the cleansing of sin through blood atonement. There are indeed your words that are not Gods' Words that I do not believe.

She says satan pays for all the sins of God's people. But that is not true. Jesus paid for our sins.

Indeed Satan pays the penalty for all the sins of God's people which agrees with the scriptures already provided to you, just not your interpretation your trying to put on what she is saying. Paying in this context is the final penalty for all sin which is the removal from all sin from the presence of God in the lake of fire. Not atonement for the sins of Gods people which is how your trying to swing it.

Yes, He does, and no I did not miss that. And satan will in fact pay for tempting, leading people astray, etc. But we are discussing that Ellen White says that in addition to that he pays for the sins of God's people. And that is not true. Jesus paid for the sins of God's people. There, that is the part we don't agree those other Scriptures stated at all.
Ezekiel would be accountable for his own sin of not warning.
satan will be accountable for his sin of leading astray etc.
Your sin is your sin. You did it. The devil did not make you do all your sins as was already shown from James many times.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. And Jesus is the one who paid for your sins. There is nothing of your sins left for satan to pay for. And he never could, because he must pay for his own many sins.

I am sorry but I do not believe you. Your post is repetition here already addressed in the previous section and in other posts.

Here is exactly what I said from the first. You see Jesus' death was to "purchase" some sins so that He can move them around. No, He paid the penalty. He died for your sins to atone for them.

No, the penalty or wages of sin in death to all those who do not receive the blood sacrifice and the gift of God's dear son (Romans 6:23).

No, the goat FOR azazel. You keep missing that in the text.

Perhaps it is because it is not written in the text. It does not say that in the scriptures. It does not say anywhere that the goat is FOR Azazel! The scripture says this....

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

The scapegoat's name in the Hebrew here is Azazel meaning "remove" "fallen Angel". In scripture context to Leviticus 16:20-22 all the sins are transferred to the ""the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") where he Azazel (scapegoat) is "kept alive" and led by a strong man into the wilderness removing all sin from the presence of God.

Leviticus 16:20-22 [20], And when he has made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: [21], And Aaron [the high Priest] shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: [22], And the goat shall bear on him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

All scripture context here is that Azazel (עֲזָאזֵל; "remove" "fallen angel") is "the scapegoat" not going to Azazel (the scapegoat) as your claiming.

You have not at all explained how satan being in the abyss for 1k years makes atonement.

Sorry I respectfully disagree. As posted earlier and shown from the scriptures, atonement for all of God's people have already been made through the blood sacrifice of Jesus through the death of the sin offerings and "the Lords goat" as well as intercession of the great High Priest. Revelation 20:1-3 represents the removal of Satan in to the wilderness for 1000 years after all the sins of Gods' people have been transferred to him.

Actually I have said the work of removing sin is that of Jesus. And I spelled out to you three views based on three etymologies. The NT does not spell out the rite. But it does give us enough to know it is not satan paying the price of our sins. The whole Bible gives us to know that is not the case, because Jesus already paid them.

No, your mixing up the work of Jesus as "the Lords goat" with the work of removing all sin from the presence of God through "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). Your view as shown through the scriptures earlier makes blood atonement not effective, and does not fit any of the types and anti-types revealed in the new covenant scriptures in Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22 and makes a mockery of blood atonement and sin sacrifice and the death of Jesus on the cross.

Nope, my view actually has Jesus atoning. Your view has more atoning to do by satan.

As shown in the scriptures already your view is not supported in the scriptures as shown and makes a mockery of blood sacrifice and the cleansing of sin through blood atonement. Neither does your application of Jesus as "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") has any application in scripture to the types and anti-types.

According to your view, you have Jesus who makes atonement for us through blood sacrifice as "the Lords goat", and Jesus as our great High Priest making intercession with God through blood atonement once finished, bringing in Jesus as "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") before the Lord, with Jesus as our Great high Priest (Hebrews 7:1-25) laying his hands on his head as Jesus as "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"), with Jesus confessing all the sins of Gods' people onto His own head as Jesus as "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"), then a strong man removing Jesus as "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"), who is "kept alive" with Jesus as "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") being led away into the wilderness by a strong man (see Leviticus 16:10; Leviticus 16:20-22).

Does this sound confusing? Yet that is what your saying by making Jesus "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") which is not biblical or supported in the scriptures and makes a mockery of blood atonement and is not supported in the types and the anti-types of the new covenant. It looks like you may want to revisit your teachings here. I do not see them as biblical at all.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

@Leaf473 addressing the definition....

Of course he didn't provide just an opinion. He quoted from the source you posted, but didn't understand.

Azazel doesn't mean "fallen angel." Some scholars think it is the PROPER NAME of a fallen angel, largely based on Enoch, but also because it is FOR azazel. You ignore this part of the text altogether, and don't get what the scholars actually argue.

But your source notes that the etymology can also mean total removal. You know, total removal, what actually happens to the sins, per the text, they are removed from the camp.

The goat is FOR azazel...total removal.

I see you think your friend cannot speak for himself. I am sorry but I do not believe you.
If your the one claiming that the scapegoat is not Satan then the burden of proof is upon you to prove your claims or why you disagree that Satan is not "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") against the evidence that has been provided to the claim that Satan represents "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). Meanwhile you have already been provided proof that you are simply seeking to hand-waive away with your opinion.

Proof already provided...

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

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

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

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

As I noted in one of my first replies to LGW on this topic when it first came up in the thread, even if you take it as a fallen angel or demonic entity, then the sins are pictured as sent to the entity in the wilderness on the goat.
The significance there is that the sins are not placed on satan directly in that view, but sent to the same place, outside the camp, away from the people.

Which is a hand-waive and in disagreement of even the post from the person you are quoting from...

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

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So to say that Satan will die for our sins at some point is confusing to me. Saying that Satan will pay the price for our sins when he is destroyed is similar enough to also be confusing imo.

It is not very hard. Go learn the difference between blood sacrifice and atonement for your sins and paying the penalty for your sins (death) without atonement. Earlier posts and scriptures that have been shared with you all show the difference between blood sacrifice and atonement for the purchasing of sin and blood atonement for the forgiveness and cleansing of sin in contrast to paying the penalty or the wages of sin that all the wicked go through at the second death which apply to all those who reject the free gift of Gods' dear son and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing doing despite to the Spirit of God's grace that we all receive through faith *Romans 6:23; Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 6:4-8.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I don't understand why you want to make the connection between the scapegoat in the two goats story and Satan in Revelation 20 and 22. It looks to me like there are so many issues with that.

Yet this has been made very clear from the scriptures in the posts you have been quoting from already. It is very simple when viewed through the scriptures. At the end of atonement and cleansing of all sin through blood sacrifice from "the Lords goat" (Jesus) and the great High Priest (Jesus), "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is brought in "alive" before the presence of God and the Great high Priest confesses all the sins of God's people onto the head of "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") who is then led away by a strong man into the wilderness. This is the type or prophetic illustration at the completion of the final atonement in the heavenly Sanctuary after the Great High Priest Jesus transfers all the sins of Gods' people to the "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") to be removed from the presence of God to Satan who is then led away captive by the Angel into the bottomless pit "alive" for 1000 years prior to all the wicked and the devil and his angels being cast into the lake of Fire *Compare Leviticus 16:20-22; Revelation 20:1-3.

One thing I raised in a post you may not have gotten to when you wrote this is: If Satan carries our sins into the abyss, what happens to our sins after that? Do they cease to exist while they are in the abyss? Or does Satan come back out of the abyss with our sins still on him?

Already addressed through the scriptures in other posts you have ignored. The final atonement for God's people has already been completed through blood sacrifice through Jesus as "the Lords goat" and Jesus as the Great High Priest making intercession on our behalf before God with blood atonement. Blood sacrifice transferred to the sin offerings in the daily ministration of the Priesthood and through "the Lords goat" for the collective sins of God's people pays for the penalty of our sins (death) while blood atonement made by the High Priest before God grants us God's forgiveness and cleansing of sin. Only after this has been completed the "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is brought in "alive" before the Lord and all the sins of God's people are then transferred by the Great High Priest (Jesus) for the removal of all sin from the presence of God. This is to make final atonement between God and "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel")

Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Leviticus 16:20-22 [20], And when he has made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: [21], And Aaron [representing Jesus as our Great High Priest - Hebrews 7:1-25] shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: [22], And the goat shall bear on him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

The above scriptures show that all the sins of Gods' people that have already been atoned for through the daily ministration of the Priesthood and "the Lords goat" in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood have been transferred to "the Lords goat" God's people no longer own then they have bee brought by Jesus through blood sacrifice. Only after the final atonement is completed through blood sacrifice from the Lords goat the final atonement between God and "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") takes place where Jesus who purchased our sins transfers them to Satan who pays the penalty for all the sins of God's people (death). Our sins have been atoned for and brought through "the Lords goat" not "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). That atonement is between God and Satan (the scapegoat: Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") who is kept alive not us and God or us and "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") *Leviticus 16:10; Leviticus 16:20-22.

Take Care

 

[BobRyan]

The sin offering of Lev 16:15 is the only offering that provides substitutionary payment on behalf of the sinner who is relieved of that debt as a result of the suffering and death of the sin offering. Christ paid the full and complete atoning sacrifice for all sins of all mankind in all of time - at the cross.

In Lev 16 this happens BEFORE anything is done in the sanctuary for the Day of Atonement and BEFORE anything is done by way of assigning sin to the scapegoat. This means that nothing in the Sanctuary or regarding the Scapegoat can go back in time "and lessen" the payment made by the sin offering. Period.

The wicked have "Their part" in rejecting the gospel and choosing sin, Satan has his part as the great instigator of sin - and they suffer as a consequence. But that future suffering in Rev 20 after the millennium does not go back in time and "edit" the atoning sacrifice at the cross - no not even the much imagined "downsize of it" that some have proposed.

Your objection that the suffering added in the case of the scapegoat is, according to Lev 16, specific to the sins dealt with in the sanctuary - is interesting but changes nothing since no amount of suffering in the case of the wicked can go back in time and delete/downsize/ the accomplished event at the cross that occurs 3000 years before that lake of fire event.

You have never explained how the suffering of the wicked "is an insult to the atonement of Christ" given that it happens 1000's of years after the complete atonement on the cross. Your insert has been more of an emotional whistle - but has never offered any actual logic for how in the world any amount of suffering by the wicked in the future can go back in time 2000 years ago and "insult" or "diminish" the already completed atonement on the cross.

Are you supposing that the seriousness of a baseless accusation can fully substitute for total lack of logic/argument fact on how such thing could even affect a past event at all - given that we already know that the wicked suffer for the very same debt Christ already paid in full at the cross.

I keep bringing this detail up - as you may have noticed. It would be good for your argument to find an answer to that sooner or later.

So then - ignoring every "inconvenient detail" in that post we have ...

. But those non-Adventists reading along get it. When Ellen White says that satan pays the penalty of the sins

Satan suffers - but the suffering of the wicked is not salvific and even you can't deny that the "sin offering" - the atoning sacrifice in Lev 16:15 comes before anything happens with the scapegoat making your logic impossibly convoluted to try and claim the scapegoat suffering goes back in time and changes the atoning sacrifice of the one and only "sin offering" in vs 15.

As for non-SDAs getting it - well that's what makes the Adventist denomination one of the fastest growing Christian denominations on planet Earth as Christianity Today pointed out in Jan 2015

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I have noticed others get the problem just fine. They know that if Christ paid the price, it is paid.

And they know that the wicked suffer for their own sins in the lake of fire even though Christ paid and "it is paid". The suffering of the wicked does not alter the sacrifice of Christ, does not "diminish it" does not go back in time and "edit" the sin offering of Lev 16:15.

Ignoring the details does not help your argument.