Official SDA website: "Satan will bear the sins of the righteous"

BobRyan said:

of course my statement is true -- vs 10 is not a case where the scapegoat is doing anything at all.

We can see that since we can read of course.

8 Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the Lord fell, and make it a sin offering. 10 But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.

Vs 10 tells the priest about vs 21 where the scapegoat is actually going to be used for something - but nothing happens in vs 10 other than informing the priest about the vs 21 event.

Click to expand...

Verse 10 does explain something that SHALL happen (referring to the same time period as verse 21). It explains the purpose of the live goat presentation, "to make atonement upon it" and gives a summary of the process, where it is sent out of the camp, into the wilderness.

And you again refuse to explain how unrepentant drug dealers, pimps and extortioners are represented by a clean animal.

BobRyan said:

ahh yes - more focus on verses after vs 20 - which is the point where all the atonement for the sanctuary, the people, the altar etc has been completed with the "Atoning sacrifice" the "the goat of the sin offering" alone completes it.

We saw you do that previously as well.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, all that continuing to ignore all that the text says by Bob. The burnt offerings are said to make atonement. And the live goat is said to have atonement made upon it.

BobRyan said:

the scapegoat is not a sin offering as Leviticus points out - all sin offerings are slain.

So then "The goat of the sin offering" as noted prior to vs 21 - is a reference to the Lord's goat - not the scapegoat as we see in vs 15 - this is irrefutable. Apparently you keep ignoring this point - because you also know it is irrefutable.

Click to expand...

I did not state that the goat of the sin offering is referring to the scapegoat.

Both show aspects of atonement. Both are pictures of Christ, who is unblemished, but dies for sins, and also is the One who removes the sins of His people from the camp.

But of course your answer does not show an official Adventist statement holding your position.

And you certainly have not presented any text of Scripture that explains how unrepentant human traffickers, gossipers, or drunkards are represented by a clean animal, as the scapegoat. And you need to, in order to support your position.

BobRyan said:

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

I can't find a Bible scholar with their salt that refuses to admit that the atoning sacrifice work of the actual sin offering - is fully complete by vs 20. I am guessing you simply speculate against that Bible observation without actually showing us any reason for it.

Click to expand...

Your recall of the scholars you have read is not a "Bible observation."

As to showing you any reason for it, I showed from the Bible text that atonement is spoken of throughout, and you just choose to ignore that part.

BobRyan said:

Only to have you then quote this -- as a dead-end for your own suggestion.

Click to expand...

The text says:


That does not shoot the argument in the foot. He had already applied the blood atonement to the sanctuary, and the altar.

But the rest of the rites still continue atonement.


Leviticus 16:10 But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness. (NKJV)

Leviticus 16:23-24 23 “Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and shall take off the linen garments that he put on when he went into the Holy Place and shall leave them there. 24 And he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place and put on his garments and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people. (ESV)
It is throughout.

Also, we still need your text that explains how unrepentant exhibitionists, liars and scoffers are represented by a clean animal in Leviticus 16, which your view would require.

BobRyan said:

You do a pretty good job of shooting your own argument in the foot.

BTW (Heb 9) "without the shedding of blood - NO FORGIVENESS of sins"

only the "Goat of the sin offering" SLAIN as a sin offering - was used to make an END of Atonement. The priest never goes back in to the sanctuary after that point.

how obvious.

Click to expand...

There was blood shed. And there was also burnt offering, stated to be for atonement, and the live goat, stated to be for atonement.

All of them are pointing to Christ, Spotless, Undefiled. And you instead read only part of the chapter.

And then you allege that unrepentant brawlers, blasphemers, and blackmailers are represented by a ceremonially clean animal--with no text.

BobRyan said:

The ONLY thing "offered" in vs 23-24 is "burnt offerings" -- ie no "Scapegoat offered" at all in vs 23-24 and the offerings it references are the ones slain in vs 11-15. All of vs 23-24 is done outside of the sanctuary

You keep burying your own argument with that focus on the burnt offerings slain in vs 11-15 and referenced in 23-24. Why keep shooting down your own argument?

Click to expand...

Bob, you really should to read all the verses. The burnt offering is not those animals in 11-15. There it describes the bull and the goat, which are sin offerings.

The burnt offering is stated to be after he leaves the sanctuary. And it was said to make atonement.


The scapegoat also has atonement made upon it.

Instead of picking and choosing, you should read all of it.

And then you should find a text that explains how unrepentant slanderers, idolaters and haters of parents are represented by a clean animal, which would be necessary to support your view.

BobRyan said:

yep.

20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.

which is why it says "when he finishes"

16 He shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall do so for the tent of meeting which remains with them in the midst of their impurities. 17 When he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out.

So that he may make atonement for himself and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.

which does not include any "sin offering" work done by the scapegoat.

It only deals with the "sin offering" of vs 11-15 - reminding us that it is offered up in smoke OUTSIDE the sanctuary AFTER atonement is completed in vs 20, and after the high priest removes His high priestly vestments..

Heb 9 "without the shedding of blood - no forgiveness of sins"

The "non-sin-offfering" part of the service has no subtitutionary atonement value because that part is not "an atoning sacrifice" - but it does complete the larger view of atonement - which includes the wicked that die without providing any atoning sacrifice - burnt offering benefit. They merely show how all sin is accounted for and the books of Rev 20 (and Dan 7) are then fully resolved. (The very Bible doctrine you claim to reject). So "again" you seem to be shooting your own argument in the foot.

Click to expand...

It says he went in to make atonement for the people, and for the sanctuary.

Vs. 20 says he finished making atonement for:

The holy place
The tabernacle
The altar

He still continues atonement for the people.

The scapegoat has atonement made over it. The sins of the people are carried away by it.

Satan cannot make any atonement regarding the sins if God's people. And the wicked cannot either. Jesus does that.

And the burnt offering of a ram also points to Jesus,and is said to make atonement for the people.

They are all clean animals.

You want to claim the clean animal represents unrepentant adulterers, oath breakers, those coveting, etc. which does not fit.

You have no answer for why it doesn't fit.

BobRyan said:

And for the assembly


17 and for all the assembly of Israel.

Click to expand...

I stated he went in to make atonement for the people, and for the sanctuary.

But my statement was that Vs. 20 says he FINISHED making atonement for:

The holy place
The tabernacle
The altar

because your claim was that atonement was ending with verse 20. But that is not the case. It ends for the holy place, the tabernacle, and the altar, because, as even you noted, he left the sanctuary after that.

But it did not end for the people.

And in responding to my statement that Vs. 20 says he FINISHED making atonement for:
The holy place
The tabernacle
The altar

You quoted all of the section EXCEPT for verse 20. And of course, if you included verse 20, it says what I indicated. It does not include the people.


After this section, in which atonement was finished for

The holy place
The tabernacle
The altar

We still see atonement made over the scapegoat, and atonement made with the burnt offering.

Atonement for the people is throughout.

So let's review. You claimed that the burnt offering was referring to the sacrifices of 11-15. Those describe the sin offerings. The burnt offering mentioned in the text is a ram. And the action of presenting the burnt offering is clearly stated to be after he comes out of the sanctuary, and is said to make atonement.

You claimed there is no atonement after that in the sanctuary involving the goat sin offering. This is not true, the text goes on to describe additional atonement.

I stated that verse 20 says he finished atonement for

The holy place
The tabernacle
The altar

You add the assembly, but didn't quote the verse, because it does not say the assembly.


Your whole approach in these last exchanges seems to be hoping people don't read the whole text.

And you have refused, again and again, to explain how your view that the scapegoat symbol includes the unrepentant wicked matches up with the scapegoat being a clean animal.

Murderers, adulterers, covetous, liars, blasphemers, etc. cannot be represented by a clean animal, identical to that of the sin offering.

And rather than address that issue, you have refused. Apparently you cannot address it.

BobRyan said:

No wonder then that - The scapegoat is not a sacrifice - is not a sin offering, is not an atoning sacrifice, is not slain "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin"

Click to expand...

The scapegoat is pointing to another aspect of the work of Christ. He died for sins--shedding of blood--so the argument of no shedding of blood is untrue.

As High Priest He ministered the blood in the sanctuary.

But then when He comes out of the sanctuary, He is also the one who removes all sin from the camp. He is the Spotless One who removes sin, and all its effects, and everything that defiles from His kingdom.

And of course, the burnt offering also points to Him. It all points to Him, the only sinless One. satan was not at all sinless at the point of the sin offering, and most definitely not after.

And the notion that the clean animal could refer to the unrepentant wicked is ludicrous. And you have not even bothered to try to defend it.

By the way Bob, you really should post an official Adventist source that says the scapegoat includes the unrepentant wicked. Because I am not aware of any.

I suppose changes were possible since I left. But I doubt that the church actually teaches this. It sounds like your innovation.

I disagree with the actual Adventist teaching that the scapegoat represents satan, and that he bears the sins of the righteous (quoted on the official Adventist website, and supported by Ellen White).

But I don't blame Adventists for your position here. And I don't want people to get the impression that Adventists teach your position, as that would be unfair to Adventists. Adventists know that unrepentant murderers and adulterers are not represented by a ceremonially clean animal.

BobRyan said:

THE END.

20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.

Because as we saw -- the part about making atonement in the Holy place is inclusive of atonement for himsel AND for ALL the ASSEMBLY

Click to expand...

As was stated by me, the making atonement in the holy place DOES include the assembly. But the text does not say making atonement for the assembly ends then. It does say it ends for the holy place, the tent, and the altar.

But then later it specifically says after he left the sanctuary he offered the burnt offering, which was in fact making atonement for the people:


You add to the text in verse 20, saying the ministration for the people ended. But the text does not say that.

And you ignore where it says atonement for himself and the people in verse 24 AFTER he left the sanctuary.

You are just ignoring the text, Bob.

BobRyan said:

Nope. Lev 16:10 is where no atonement at all is made - no sin offering has yet been sacrificed. And we both know it.

It is where the text shows what will happen during the service but no atonement of any kind is made in vs 10 as no animal has yet be sacrificed in vs 10 -- and we both know it.

Click to expand...

It says what hte live goat service will do. The fact that it speaks of it in the future does not help your case at all. You may as well just say you don't want to accept what it says.



Shall be presented, to make atonement upon it. It is of course describing what will happen, as much as you wish it were not.

BobRyan said:

The washing of the High Priest signifies the end of the role of high priest in Atonement.

vs 23... , and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people

Click to expand...

You say washing represents the end of the high priest role in atonement--about a verse that directly states his role after that of offering the burnt offering, which makes atonement for himself and the people!


You add to verse 20 what it doesn't say.

You ignore verse 10 and try to say it doesn't say what it says.

You make up a meaning for verse 24, and ignore what it says.

None of that is convincing.

BobRyan said:

vs 23 only speaks of the slain offerings - burnt offerings - not the live goat -- nothing at all with scapegoat.

Which ends your entire scapegoat as sin offering argument . period.

Click to expand...

And now you intentionally misrepresent my position. The scapegoat has atonement made upon it. It is not a sin offering. But it is in unison with the sin offering, and so there is no issue with no blood, no forgiveness. All of the clean animals point to aspects of Jesus' atonement.

Meanwhile, you try to argue that the clean animal represents unrepentant sinners? Not convincing.

BobRyan said:

Every appeal you are making to vs 23 is an appeal to something that is NOT the scapegoat. Nor is it the administration of blood by the High Priest IN the sanctuary.

Click to expand...

It happens AFTER the sanctuary portion, and makes atonement for the people. And it points to Jesus, just like all the other clean animals.

Of course, you think that unrepentant sinners are represented by a clean animal--which you won't explain.

Verse 20 says that it is the end of the atonement in the holy place, tent and altar. So of course the rest is outside of the sanctuary, nor did I say otherwise. But it is still about atonement for the people, because the text says so:

Nothing in the sanctuary happens with the scapegoat since it is not slain and it does not enter the sanctuary -- and we both know it.

Click to expand...

Of course we both know it, nor did I claim otherwise. The scapegoat portion happens outside the sanctuary. But it still about atonement:

Every appeal you are making to vs 23 is an appeal to something that is NOT the scapegoat. Nor is it the administration of blood by the High Priest IN the sanctuary.

Click to expand...

Of course it is not in the sanctuary, which was the point. It is after that. And it is still very much about atonement for the people.

Atonement ended for the holy place, tent, and altar in verse 20, but continues for the people outside the sanctuary.


So your argument that there was no more atonement is not true. There was continued atonement for the people throughout.

=============== All that "burnt offering" discussion in vs 23 - is NOT the scapegoat
Since that part is "burnt offering" -- which is a sin offering -- it is not the scapegoat.

Click to expand...

Nor did I say it was the scapegoat. But both the scapegoat and the burnt offerings make atonement.

Since the burnt offering for the priest is identified as the bull that is sacrificed -- it too is not the scapegoat.

Click to expand...

Bob, there were multiple burnt offerings, and you are conflating them with the sin offerings:

And burnt offerings are offered after the sanctuary portion, and make atonement for the people:

There is "ANOTHER" aspect for Atonement. Where the sinner is executed - and the saints are spared.

Numbers 25:
6 Then behold, one of the sons of Israel came and brought to his relatives a Midianite woman, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand, 8 and he went after the man of Israel into the inner room of the tent and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through the abdomen. So the plague on the sons of Israel was brought to a halt. 9 But those who died from the plague were twenty-four thousand in number.

10 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 11 “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has averted My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I am giving him My covenant of peace; 13 and it shall be for him and for his descendants after him, a covenant of a permanent priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.’”

In that case the one executed is not an "atoning substitutionary sacrifice" in the place of someone else. Rather as in the case of the wicked people executed in Num 25 -- the priest makes atonement by pouring judgment on the wicked. Who do not die as "a sacrifice taking the place of someone else" but as a wicked person justly punished.

Click to expand...

Bob, the type already spells out how those who reject the atonement are destroyed, but it is not related to the scapegoat:


Those who neglected the atonement being carried out for the people were destroyed. This is not the scapegoat, but it is the explanation in the text of the fate of those who do not avail themselves of the atonement.

Meanwhile, you have the unrepentant wicked being represented by a ceremonially clean animal! That is clearly not true.

And you claim the scapegoat represents satan and the wicked, because the wicked are slain--but the scapegoat is not slain!

The scapegoat is a clean animal that lives. And sin is removed from the camp by it. Jesus, after His death on the cross, ministered His sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, and when He comes out, He will not die again. But He does remove all sin from His people.

Certainly at the time Jesus leaves the heavenly sanctuary neither the unrepentant wicked or satan can be represented by a clean animal. And the destruction of those who refuse the atonement is already shown in another part of they type.

And Bob continues to refuse the call to post an official Adventist source showing his novel position that unrepentant sinners are represnted by a clean animal in the type.

BobRyan said:

THE END.

20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.

Click to expand...

The end for the things stated--the holy place, tent, and altar.

I know you wish it said the atonement for the people ended as well, but it does not. You don't get to add what you wish it said to the text. And atonement for the people continued after the priest left the sanctuary.

BobRyan said:

Because as we saw -- the part about making atonement in the Holy place is inclusive of atonement for himsel AND for ALL the ASSEMBLY

Click to expand...

Of course it is. The work in the holy place is inclusive of him and the assembly. But the atonement for the people does not end there, as was demonstrated multiple times from the text. The scapegoat and the burnt offerings both happen after this, and make atonement.

BobRyan said:

The burnt offerings are also NOT the scapegoat.

Click to expand...

Nor did anyone claim they were. But both the scapegoat and the burnt offerings happen after the priest leaves the sanctuary, and involve atonement for the people. Atonement ended for the things stated in verse 20--the holy place, the tent, and the altar. But it is not stated to end for the people. And the later texts continue to describe atonement.

You can wish they said otherwise, but that doesn't change the text:

BobRyan said:

Adventists always argue that the burnt offerings, sin offerings are symbols of Christ - not Satan - and you and I both know it.

Click to expand...

Of course. And the burnt offerings in verse 24 represent Him, and make atonement for the people AFTER the priest leaves the sanctuary.

And the scapegoat also is a clean animal, and represents the work of Christ in removing sins from the people.

BobRyan said:

The text says that the high priest removes his garments and has made an end to atonement -- which of course means no more blood sacrifice administered in the sanctuary.

Click to expand...

End of atonement for the holy place, the tent, and the altar.

Repeating your statements ignoring the text doesn't change what the text says Bob.

BobRyan said:

Even you admit that the bull was sacrificed as a sin offering for the priest in vs 5-11 and that all the blood ceremony in the sanctuary ends just as vs 20 says -

Click to expand...

Bob, it is not my fault that you conflate the sin offerings and the burn offerings.


The burnt offerings presented AFTER the high priest leaves the sanctuary still point to Christ, and still provide atonement for the people:

BobRyan said:

You cant point to a verse where the scapegoat does nothing and expect to get some help there.

Click to expand...

Bob, if you wish to put on blinders to what the text says the priest shall use the scapegoat for, you can do so. But folks still see the text says that the scapegoat will have atonement made upon it:

BobRyan said:

Numbers 25 points to your idea of the punishment of the wicked - making atonement for saints.

6 Then behold, one of the sons of Israel came and brought to his relatives a Midianite woman, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand, 8 and he went after the man of Israel into the inner room of the tent and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through the abdomen. So the plague on the sons of Israel was brought to a halt. 9 But those who died from the plague were twenty-four thousand in number.

10 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 11 “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has averted My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I am giving him My covenant of peace; 13 and it shall be for him and for his descendants after him, a covenant of a permanent priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.’”

Click to expand...

Now of course, you edited this back into the post above this, so we are getting needless repetition. But I will answer it again.

The type already spells out how those who reject the atonement are destroyed, but it is not related to the scapegoat:



Those who neglected the atonement being carried out for the people were destroyed. This is not the scapegoat, but it is the explanation in the text of the fate of those who do not avail themselves of the atonement.

Meanwhile, you have the unrepentant wicked being represented by a ceremonially clean animal! That is clearly not true.

And you claim the scapegoat represents satan and the wicked, because the wicked are slain--but the scapegoat is not slain!

The scapegoat is a clean animal that lives. And sin is removed from the camp by it. Jesus, after His death on the cross, ministered His sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, and when He comes out, He will not die again. But He does remove all sin from His people.

Certainly at the time Jesus leaves the heavenly sanctuary neither the unrepentant wicked or satan can be represented by a clean animal. And the destruction of those who refuse the atonement is already shown in another part of they type.

BobRyan said:

THE END.

20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat.

Click to expand...

The end for the things stated--the holy place, tent, and altar.

I know you wish it said the atonement for the people ended as well, but it does not. You don't get to add what you wish it said to the text. And atonement for the people continued after the priest left the sanctuary.

BobRyan said:

Because as we saw -- the part about making atonement in the Holy place is inclusive of atonement for himsel AND for ALL the ASSEMBLY

Click to expand...

Of course it is. The work in the holy place is inclusive of him and the assembly. But the atonement for the people does not end there, as was demonstrated multiple times from the text. The scapegoat and the burnt offerings both happen after this, and make atonement.

BobRyan said:

The burnt offerings are also NOT the scapegoat.

Click to expand...

Nor did anyone claim they were. But both the scapegoat and the burnt offerings happen after the priest leaves the sanctuary, and involve atonement for the people. Atonement ended for the things stated in verse 20--the holy place, the tent, and the altar. But it is not stated to end for the people. And the later texts continue to describe atonement.

You can wish they said otherwise, but that doesn't change the text:

BobRyan said:

Adventists always argue that the burnt offerings, sin offerings are symbols of Christ - not Satan - and you and I both know it.

Click to expand...

Of course. And the sin offerings in verse 24 represent Him, and make atonement for the people AFTER the priest leaves the sanctuary.

And the scapegoat also is a clean animal, and represents the work of Christ in removing sins from the people.

BobRyan said:

The text says that the high priest removes his garments and has made an end to atonement -- which of course means no more blood sacrifice administered in the sanctuary.

Click to expand...

End of atonement for the holy place, the tent, and the altar.

Repeating your statements ignoring the text doesn't change what the text says Bob.

BobRyan said:

Even you admit that the bull was sacrificed as a sin offering for the priest in vs 5-11 and that all the blood ceremony in the sanctuary ends just as vs 20 says -

Click to expand...

Bob, it is not my fault that you conflate the sin offerings and the burn offerings.


The burnt offerings presented AFTER the high priest leaves the sanctuary still point to Christ, and still provide atonement for the people:

BobRyan said:

You cant point to a verse where the scapegoat does nothing and expect to get some help there.

Click to expand...

Bob, if you wish to put on blinders to what the text says the priest shall use the scapegoat for, you can do so. But folks still see the text says that the scapegoat will have atonement made upon it:

BobRyan said:

Numbers 25 points to your idea of the punishment of the wicked - making atonement for saints.

6 Then behold, one of the sons of Israel came and brought to his relatives a Midianite woman, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand, 8 and he went after the man of Israel into the inner room of the tent and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through the abdomen. So the plague on the sons of Israel was brought to a halt. 9 But those who died from the plague were twenty-four thousand in number.

10 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 11 “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has averted My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy. 12 Therefore say, ‘Behold, I am giving him My covenant of peace; 13 and it shall be for him and for his descendants after him, a covenant of a permanent priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.’”

Click to expand...

Bob, it makes no more sense this time than the time you edited it into your previous post, or posted it right above this.

But again:

Bob, the type already spells out how those who reject the atonement are destroyed, but it is not related to the scapegoat:


Those who neglected the atonement being carried out for the people were destroyed. This is not the scapegoat, but it is the explanation in the text of the fate of those who do not avail themselves of the atonement.

Meanwhile, you have the unrepentant wicked being represented by a ceremonially clean animal! That is clearly not true.

And you claim the scapegoat represents satan and the wicked, because the wicked are slain--but the scapegoat is not slain!

The scapegoat is a clean animal that lives. And sin is removed from the camp by it. Jesus, after His death on the cross, ministered His sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, and when He comes out, He will not die again. But He does remove all sin from His people.

Certainly at the time Jesus leaves the heavenly sanctuary neither the unrepentant wicked or satan can be represented by a clean animal. And the destruction of those who refuse the atonement is already shown in another part of they type.

BobRyan said:

The scapegoat is not slain -- it is not a sin offering... no amount of objecting to this detail in Lev 16 changes it.

Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.

a. I did not claim the scapegoat is slain, or that it is a sin offering. So there has been no objecting to that detail in Lev. 16. Rather, I have noted that atonement is made upon the scapegoat. It removes the sins from God's people.

Jesus does that.

b. What you have been ignoring is that the scapegoat is a clean , unblemished animal, which consistently point to Christ in the sanctuary service.

Trying to claim this clean, unblemished animal, represents unrepentant sinners is ludicrous.

c. I pointed out where the type actually describes the wicked being cut off for neglecting the atonement made. And you did not actually respond to that.

We agree the unrepentant wicked are destroyed.

But that has nothing to do with the scapegoat.

BobRyan said:

No amount of ignoring the "other form" of atonement seen Numbers 25:9-12 causes it to vanish.

Click to expand...

I did not ignore it. I posted it earlier in the case of murder. I agreed with Numbers. And I pointed out that the Day of Atonement type spells out how that happens--and it doesn't involve the scapegoat.


Your novel notion that the clean animal, the scapegoat represents those so destroyed does not follow at all. Those unrepentant sinners who neglect the atonement of Christ are not clean. And they DO die, whereas the scapegoat does not die.

It doesn't fit at all.

BobRyan said:

It fact its blood is not shed at all.

Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't die at all. Another great reason it cannot be applied to the wicked--apart from it being a clean animal, and the unrepentant wicked being sinful and unclean.

Because it is representing a work of Christ in removing sin from His people, which is also stated to be making atonement upon it.

BobRyan said:

This is irrefutable -- and we both know it.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is irrefutable that your view that the scapegoat, a clean animal--which does not die--represents the unrepentant, unclean, sinners who do die.

But it is not at all strange for it to represent one aspect of the work of Christ. All the clean animals in the type point to Jesus. And Jesus died, and was a sweet savor to God, as the sin offering and burnt offerings point to, and also removes sin from His people, because He lives again.

It all points to Jesus.

The clean animal that does not die CANNOT refer to the unclean, unrepentant sinners who do die. And the type already describes how the sinners are destroyed, apart from any reference to the scapegoat.