Bill - 15 May 2008 02:29 AM

I don’t understand why everyone is so bent on trying to tell me that Adventists believe the Devil makes atonement for sins, even though there is ample proof and emphatic denial to the contrary.  Here are some more authoritative quotes from “Adventist” sources.  If you can’t accept these, I don’t know what else will convince you… All I can think of is that you WANT to believe that Adventists believe Satan atones for sin.  That is NOT the case.

Bill,

I formulated the same denials when I was an adventist, but these denials couldn’t help you more than they helped me as long as I clinged to the idea that the goat for Azazel was Satan, because the Bible tells us explicitly that the goat for Azazel is making atonement, and it is a part of a sin offering (Leviticus 16:5). You had not yet gave any sign that you confronted yourself with this text and verse 10, so I’ll quote it again

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 to Azazel.  Leviticus 16:10

And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. Leviticus 16:10

Your conflict is with the Bible. The Bible clearly attributes to the scapegoat a role in atonement and in the sin offering. No matter who we think the scapegoat represents, he is making atonement. If we say that the scapegoat is Jesus, it results that Jesus is making atonement. If we say that the scapegoat is Satan, it results inevitably that Satan is making atonement and is a sin offering. if we say that it is Moroni, it results that Moroni is making atonement. We are bound by the Bible to affirm that anybody whom we think is the scapegoat makes atonement for believers.

Bill - 15 May 2008 01:10 AM

You may think it a small thing to make such comments, but I found it offensive ‘on the surface’ and would like to know if this is something you are accusing our church of or if it was intended as some kind of bad, politically incorrect joke.

It was a joke based in reality, the Holy Spirit as a guide in interpreting the Bible is replaced by the prophet who has final control over the doctrinal content of the Adventist faith. The scapegoat is a good example where Ellen White’s interpretation is preferred over any other interpretation, no matter how clearly biblical it is.

Gabriel

Hi Bill,
Could you do something for me brother?  Please read and understand precisely what I said. I was talking about SDA books, with SDA doctrines. This is certainly NOT the same as BIBLICAL truth.

I always read the bible, that is how my parents raised me, to love the Lord and read his word. What I did not realize at the time, is that your prophet, Ellen White, was a false prophet, and every single doctrine was tainted by her.

Now you will call me bitter as you dubbed Dennis. That is not a problem with me, I could be called worse.

What I would say is “tragic” is that we have given you the “thus saith the Lord, and you prefer to believe “thus saith Ellen White.” Be my guest, I am not the one to convince you of anything.
Many have come on this forum and have concluded that people here and other former SDA forums like you mentioned a few posts ago are bitter. Dennis was a Minister in the SDA church. Who else could have the inside scoop on the workings of the SDA church at a level that we “ordinary” people in the pews would not know?  You should bite your tongue before pronouncing that he is a bitter person, brother.

Gabriel,
I formulated the same denials when I was an adventist, but these denials couldn’t help you more than they helped me as long as I clinged to the idea that the goat for Azazel was Satan, because the Bible tells us explicitly that the goat for Azazel is making atonement, and it is a part of a sin offering (Leviticus 16:5). You had not yet gave any sign that you confronted yourself with this text and verse 10, so I’ll quote it again

You misrepresents what is clear.  The goat that represented Satan didn’t “make” an atonement for anything and was not part of the sin offering.  Where does it say the goat for Azazel was offered as a sin offering?  Leviticus 16:9, “And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering.” The goat for Azazel is not the sin offering or part of the sin offering.

Gabriel
the Bible tells us explicitly that the goat for Azazel is making atonement

What Liviticus 16:10 actually says is, “to make atonement upon it, and to let it go”.  Since no remission is made without the shedding of blood and the type fits with the ultimate punishment for sin that Satan will face, I am very comfortable with the historical interpretation that this goat does not “make” an atonement for sin.  Thus sin is fully represented in the two types.  My portion of sin is atoned for by the goat that represents the Lord and Satan is on his own and will ultimately be punished and removed from God’s people/presence.  Otherwise you have two goats representing the same thing and only dealing with half of the sin problem (my half).

Furthermore, I have given you many reason’s why I believe the goat does not represent Jesus and I’m still waiting for someone to respond.  After all, I believe the ball is in your court to prove the Anti-Type fits the Type because the SDA position is the historical, original one and you need to provide convincing biblical proof.

Gabriel

Bill - 11 May 2008 06:40 PM
I do not believe that the goat for Azazel represents Jesus and based on all the evidence, believe that it much more closely represents satan.  You don’t have to agree with me, but are free to make your own mistakes…

You’re insinuating that my view about the Scapegoat is a fake, something I made up and imposed on the text. We’ll see…

I never said it was fake, I believe it is weak.  You make unfounded, unsupported insinuations about our church and EGW and the only Biblical evidence you put forward is that this goat bears sins.  It’s already obvious to me that Satan bears a responsibility for sin and is waiting punishment and was not part of the atonement sacrifice.  This is why I call your position weak, because you have not been able to provide Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Gabriel,
It was a joke based in reality, the Holy Spirit as a guide in interpreting the Bible is replaced by the prophet who has final control over the doctrinal content of the Adventist faith. The scapegoat is a good example where Ellen White’s interpretation is preferred over any other interpretation, no matter how clearly biblical it is.

I thought maybe you might apologize, but I guess you must believe what you are saying.  SDA’s in no wise believe that EGW is the third person of the Godhead.  To suggest that is outrageous.  Furthermore, in all my posts on this topic, I have never quoted EGW but have always given Scripture for support.  Yet you claim our position is based on EGW and not the Scripture.  That is just not true! 

Regarding EGW, here is the truth…

Seventh-day Adventists uniformly believe that the canon of Scripture closed with the book of Revelation.  We hold that all other writings and teachings, from whatever source, are to be judged by, and are subject to, the Bible, which is the spring and norm of the Christian faith.  We test the writings of Ellen G. White by the Bible, but in no sense do we test the Bible by her writings.  Ellen G. White and others of our writers have gone on record again and again on this point.

Gabriel, I am shocked and I ask that you consider if God is being glorified in your comments, representations and jokes.

Phen B - 15 May 2008 09:58 AM

Hi Bill,
Could you do something for me brother?  Please read and understand precisely what I said. I was talking about SDA books, with SDA doctrines. This is certainly NOT the same as BIBLICAL truth.

I always read the bible, that is how my parents raised me, to love the Lord and read his word. What I did not realize at the time, is that your prophet, Ellen White, was a false prophet, and every single doctrine was tainted by her.

Now you will call me bitter as you dubbed Dennis. That is not a problem with me, I could be called worse.

What I would say is “tragic” is that we have given you the “thus saith the Lord, and you prefer to believe “thus saith Ellen White.” Be my guest, I am not the one to convince you of anything.
Many have come on this forum and have concluded that people here and other former SDA forums like you mentioned a few posts ago are bitter. Dennis was a Minister in the SDA church. Who else could have the inside scoop on the workings of the SDA church at a level that we “ordinary” people in the pews would not know?  You should bite your tongue before pronouncing that he is a bitter person, brother.

I read it again carefully and guess the reason I thought you didn’t start studying the Bible until you left was your statement:

When I started just reading the bible and enjoying what I read, and comparing it to what I thought I knew, especially the 2006 Adult Sabbath School Basic Study Guide,(thank you Jesus for having Clifford Goldstein and associates put out that book), the contrast was stark.

However, it appears not to be the case, so I stand corrected…

As to your thus saith the Lord, I notice you changed it:

Verse 10: BUT the goat on which (scapegoat) lot fell-- present alive before the Lord to make an ATONEMENT with him and let him go.

Unless you are quoting some unknown version, I prefer the NKJV.  It says “to make atonement upon it, and to let it go”.  It does not say to “make an atonement with him”.  A very important difference in our discussions.  I prefer to believe the NKJV.  Further, I have not in all our discussions even read what EGW says on this subject, so I find it hard to believe your statement that “I” prefer a “thus saith Ellen White”.

As to why Dennis is making statements that reveal an underlying bitterness, I think it has something to do with the Florida conference trust services.  However, I will readily admit I am likely more sensitive to it than you… I realize he is a former pastor and I respect that, although his statements were not very pastoral.  Thus my disappointment at him saying things that are not true.  For example:

For Adventists, without Satan meritoriously suffering annihilation in their behalf, their sins cannot be finally blotted out.  Sins, in SDA jargon, are only conditionally forgiven.  Thus, without Satan’s final atoning role, there is no heaven for anyone. (see GC, pp. 422 & 485) In other words, eternal bliss is ultimately conditional upon the salvific role of Satan.

Good grief!

Brother PhenB, does this have to be such an important subject that people would consider Adventists to be worshiping Satan and charging that SDA’s believe that Satan atones for their sins?  You know that is a plain lie.  Do they make the same charge to the early Jews because they believed this as I’m sure did the early church and apostles?  Does none of what I have said make any sense to you?  Are you wanting to jump on the bandwagon and make the same charge, that we are some “cult” and that nothing we could possibly be saying could be true?

Bill,

Seventh-day Adventists claim to have TWO sin-bearers; namely, Jesus and Satan.  Understandably, you would like to wiggle your way out of this fact.  The scapegoat was all about sin-bearing.  By the way, your labeling me as primarily being “bitter” is a serious charge.  Webster defines “bitter” as being “extremely harsh or cruel.” Thoughtful readers will read between your lines.  Also, I do not ask for any apology from you.  Adventists have repeatedly called me similar hateful and vengeful words.  One must have thick skin to minister to certain religious groups.

In His power and for His glory,

Dennis Fischer

I can see attitudes are getting pretty heated and I’m not interested in carrying on in this state.

You have the right to your opinion however, all the years of adventism between you and your wife will not make them any truer.

I have read your testimony and what you have said about your wife and I feel for you both.

Bill - 15 May 2008 04:28 PM

Gabriel,
I formulated the same denials when I was an adventist, but these denials couldn’t help you more than they helped me as long as I clinged to the idea that the goat for Azazel was Satan, because the Bible tells us explicitly that the goat for Azazel is making atonement, and it is a part of a sin offering (Leviticus 16:5). You had not yet gave any sign that you confronted yourself with this text and verse 10, so I’ll quote it again

You misrepresents what is clear.  The goat that represented Satan didn’t “make” an atonement for anything and ]was not part of the sin offering. Where does it say the goat for Azazel was offered as a sin offering?

It’s in the text quoted above, in Leviticus 16:5. I can’t understand how it was possible for you to miss the proof. I wonder if you deliberately ignored the proof.

And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. Leviticus 16:5

The text does not say “he shall take ONE male goat for a sin offering”, only the goat for the Lord, but TWO. This means that both goats were included in the sin offering, including the goat for Azazel.

Bill - 15 May 2008 04:28 PM

What Liviticus 16:10 actually says is, “to make atonement upon it, and to let it go”. Since no remission is made without the shedding of blood and the type fits with the ultimate punishment for sin that Satan will face, I am very comfortable with the historical interpretation that this goat does not “make” an atonement for sin. 

I’m not comfortable with what I see as a clear contradiction in your statement between “make atonement upon it (the goat)” and “this goat doesn not “make atonement for sin.”

The rendering of KJV is misleading, and it was partially corrected in the NKJV where the word “and” is put in italics, noticing the reader that it is not in the original.

New King James Version (NKJV)
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

The other translations which are more accurate than the old KJV omit “and”, the second sentence functioning apositionally as an explanation for the first sentence.

American Standard Version (ASV)
to make atonement for him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat.

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
to make atonement by it, to send it away for a goat of departure into the wilderness.

English Standard Version (ESV)
to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

Making atonement and sending the goat are not separated actions.  Even if we will accept for the sake of argument the idea that making atonement over the goat and sending him away are two different things, it is nevertheless true that the scapegoat participate in atonement, otherwise how could the priest made an atonement over it? It makes no sense to deny that the scapegoat has nothing to do with atonement.

Bill - 15 May 2008 04:28 PM

You make unfounded, unsupported insinuations about our church and EGW and the only Biblical evidence you put forward is that this goat bears sins. It’s already obvious to me that Satan bears a responsibility for sin and is waiting punishment and was not part of the atonement sacrifice.  This is why I call your position weak, because you have not been able to provide Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Again, it makes me wonder how can you affirm that I had not provided evidence to the contrary, and I rely only on the idea that the goat bears sins, when I quoted Leviticus 16:5 si 16:10 as additional proof that upon the goat for Azazel was made atonement and the sin offering included the goat for Azazel togehter with the goat for the Lord. I provided also other reasons for which the goat is not Satan (it is something for Azazel, not Azazel itself), the fact that it was a goat without blemish (Satan is full of sin), and the injustice of punishing Satan only for some of his sins related with tempting people to sin, and not for all his sins.

Even if I rely only on the idea that the goat bears our sins, I don’t see this as weak evidence since I have plenty of explicit biblical texts which affirm that Christ is our sin bearer, and you have no text which affirms, either explicitly or implicitly that Satan will bear our sins. That he will be punished for all sins including his temptations by which he deceived the sinners it is not in question. I’m not denying that he will be punished, I see no evidence that Leviticus 16 deals with this subject. Between plenty of texts which affirm that Jesus bears our sins and zero texts about Satan as a future sin bearer, the weight of evidence is clearly on the side of interpreting the scapegoat as Jesus, even if for the sake of argument, I would base my interpretation only on the fact that the goat bears sins.

Bill, I’m not accusing the SDA Church of worshipping Satan deliberately, still this doctrine unfortunately attributes to Satan the work of Jesus Christ, which is a serious mistake, with grave consequences. Together with the Investigative Judgment and Day of Atonement constitutes an anti-gospel package.

Gabriel

Gabriel,
It’s in the text quoted above, in Leviticus 16:5. I can’t understand how it was possible for you to miss the proof. I wonder if you deliberately ignored the proof.

And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. Leviticus 16:5

The text does not say “he shall take ONE male goat for a sin offering”, only the goat for the Lord, but TWO. This means that both goats were included in the sin offering, including the goat for Azazel.

You conveniently ignore that the text refers to “a” sin offering.  Further, Leviticus 16:9 describes exactly what this sin offering is referring to:

And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering.

If the goat for Azazel was “part” of this sin offering where is it mentioned in the text that actually describes the sin offering?

I’m not comfortable with what I see as a clear contradiction in your statement between “make atonement upon it (the goat)” and “this goat does not “make atonement for sin.”

Simple, one is something done to the goat the other is something the goat does.  SDA’s affirm the text refers to something done to the goat not that the goat does something for us.  This is clear because the goat doesn’t shed any blood and without the shedding of blood there is no atonement thus this goat does not make an atonement for us.  You want to impose your interpretation on these texts and say that this is what Adventist are saying and believe.  I am not saying that you have to believe our interpretation, “I” believe that our interpretation better fits the texts and Bible as a whole.  You want to impose an interpretation on us that in my opinion is narrow minded and does not fit with all the evidence including what these texts are saying “on the surface”. 

Furthermore, “your” interpretation, that Adventists believe Satan bears their sins, is false, because you impose your interpretation on what Satan’s role is in this process.  In other words, you take “our” interpretation for what the goat for Azazel represents and impose “your” interpretation of what this goat does.

Brother Gabriel, you are way off the mark in accusing SDAs of worshiping Satan deliberately or not.  You are giving in to sensationalism and not truth.  I cannot understand how someone, forgiven by Grace, so large a debt, can have so little grace.

Perhaps it is because this may be a pillar on why folks want to believe Adventists are heretics and they don’t want to believe that they could be wrong about this issue and Adventists…

Perhaps it is because all your evidence hangs on this one question…

Let me see if I can simplify for everyone here…

Lev 16:7 - Two goats are presented before the Lord, “at the door” (for a sin offering).

Lev 16:8 - The Lord choses one for a sin offering.

Lev 16:9&15;- The one the Lord chose is brought into the sanctuary and offered for a sin offering.

Lev 16:15-19 - The blood from the Lord’s goat is taken into the holies and used to make an atonement for the sanctuary and all the people.

Lev 16:20 - When the priest has made an END of the atonement, the other goat is presented.

Lev 16:10&21;-22 - The sins of the people are confessed on the goat for Azazel.  The goat bears them into the wilderness.

Two things are clear to me.  First, the goat for Azazel does not have a part in the atoning sacrifice for my sins.  Second, the atonement made on this goat is merely a confession of sin of which I believe, in the anti-type Satan, represents the instigative role he plays in the sins of the people.

This view fits with the whole view of the plan of salvation as portrayed in the sanctuary service.  Even Gabriel agreed that Satan would be punished for sin.  Well, I believe this is where that role is typified.

Saying that Adventists are worshiping Satan is REALLY uncalled for…

Bill - 16 May 2008 03:24 AM

Simple, one is something done to the goat the other is something the goat does.  SDA’s affirm the text refers to something done to the goat not that the goat does something for us. 

Ok, you’re arguing that the scapegoat is passive and not active, and this is a huge difference in your sight. At the same time you says

Bill - 16 May 2008 03:24 AM

This is clear because the goat doesn’t shed any blood and without the shedding of blood there is no atonement thus this goat does not make an atonement for us.

According to your premise, how atonement is done to Satan without shedding of blood?

Bill - 16 May 2008 03:24 AM

Furthermore, ”your” interpretation, that Adventists believe Satan bears their sins, is false, because you impose your interpretation on what Satan’s role is in this process.  In other words, you take “our” interpretation for what the goat for Azazel represents and impose “your” interpretation of what this goat does.

Bill, the Bible says that the scapegoat bears the sins of the believers, not I. Consequently, if you say that X or Y is the scapegoat, it results that X and Y bears the sins of the believers. If you say that Satan is the scapegoat, it results that Satan is bearing the sins of the believers. The Bible leaves no other option;

The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness Leviticus 16:22

GOAT SHALL BEAR ALL THEIR INIQUITIES, is anything more required to understand the role of the scapegoat?  He’s bearing the iniquities of the people who were put upon him by the High Priest through confession and the laying of hands.

The Bible does not say that the scapegoat bears his sins, his responsibility for tempting the saints, as current SDA Church affirms, but the sins of the believers. And Ellen White concurs at this point:

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, “Amen!” EW 294.2

“Satan bore . . . also the sins of the redeemed”, what do you want more?

Here is made a distinction between Satan bearing the punishment for his personal sins and also for the sins of the believers.

Also it would be for his own interest to keep from Jesus as many as possible. For the sins of those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ will at last be rolled back upon the originator of sin, and he must bear their punishment, while those who do not accept salvation through Jesus will suffer the penalty of their own sins. {EW 178.1}

It is clear that Satan is presented as bearing the sins of the believers, “their” corresponds to “sins of those who are redeemed”, if we pay enough attention to grammar.

I know that presently the SDA Church, aware of the problems this doctrine raise, changed the formulation in order to appear orthodox, but they fail to come to grips with the biblical text which explicitly presents the goat as bearing the sins of the believers.

Gabriel

Bill - 16 May 2008 04:33 AM

Two things are clear to me.  First, the goat for Azazel does not have a part in the atoning sacrifice for my sins.  Second, the atonement made on this goat is merely a confession of sin of which I believe, in the anti-type Satan, represents the instigative role he plays in the sins of the people

This view fits with the whole view of the plan of salvation as portrayed in the sanctuary service.  Even Gabriel agreed that Satan would be punished for sin.  Well, I believe this is where that role is typified.

Bill,

I’ll go a second mile with you. Let’s assume that I agree with your interpretation that Satan is punished for his sins of instigating people to sin, and see what it follows.

But is he punished for all his sins of such nature, or only for some sins? According to your interpretation, he’s punished only for tempting THE SAINTS to sin, not for tempting, for instigating the wicked to sin, since only the sins of the saints, or his part in them, is confessed upon him. This leaves him unpunished for the responsibility he’s carrying in instigating unbelievers to sin.

When I said that Satan would be punished for the instigation to sin, I meant all of his deeds, a huge difference. In your view, he suffers punishment just for some of his sins of instigation, not for all. This is a great injustice, if he is punished ONLY for some of his works of instigation, not for all. 

You get readily offended by what we say about your doctrine, when we should be horrified at the idea that Satan escapes the punishment he deserves for tempting billions of lost people. Without intention, the Adventist doctrine of the scapegoat makes Satan a great service, and portraits him as receiving less punishment he truly deserves, mocking God’s justice manifested in punishing ALL sins.

Gabriel

Gabriel,
When I said that Satan would be punished for the instigation to sin, I meant all of his deeds, a huge difference. In your view, he suffers punishment just for some of his sins of instigation, not for all. This is a great injustice, if he is punished ONLY for some of his works of instigation, not for all.

Your confused Gabriel.  In the sanctuary typical service it deals with the sins of God’s people.  I in no wise intend to suggest that these are the only sins that Satan is to be punished for.  That is why I say we agree on this one…

Bill,
The other goat, in antithesis, symbolized Satan, who must bear the responsibility not only for his own sins but for his part in all the sins he has caused others, both righteous and wicked, to commit.

Bill,
Satan makes no atonement for our sins.  But Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked.

I think we are both clear on Satan ultimate punishment.  But thanks for clarifying this.

Gabriel,
You get readily offended by what we say about your doctrine, when we should be horrified at the idea that Satan escapes the punishment he deserves for tempting billions of lost people. Without intention, the Adventist doctrine of the scapegoat makes Satan a great service, and portraits him as receiving less punishment he truly deserves, mocking God’s justice manifested in punishing ALL sins.

Lets calm down here Gabriel, before you go off on a tangent re “Adventist doctrine” make sure you have your facts straight…

Gabriel,
GOAT SHALL BEAR ALL THEIR INIQUITIES, is anything more required to understand the role of the scapegoat?  He’s bearing the iniquities of the people who were put upon him by the High Priest through confession and the laying of hands.

The Bible does not say that the scapegoat bears his sins, his responsibility for tempting the saints, as current SDA Church affirms, but the sins of the believers. And Ellen White concurs at this point:

There you go quoting Ellen White again… can’t you find something in the Bible?  (thats a humerous poke at Greg, not you… )

Perhaps this is a good example of another point that you are confused on.  Contrary to your belief the church does not use EGW as any final authority on scriptural matters.  Having said that I do not see a conflict with what she wrote in this case.  It is consistent with the historical interpretation.  It’s not some idea that Ellen White came up with.  It is clear to me that Satan is bearing the sins committed by the people in his role as instigator and will be held accountable for them in the end.  This is what the type is pointing to.  I don’t see why you have such a issue with that.  I think you want the type to fit the role perfectly in every regard before you will cut us any slack, but you forget the following statement from Questions on Doctrine which was quoted a few posts ago:

Further, we hold to the recognized principle that no cardinal doctrine or belief should be based primarily upon a parable or type, but upon the clear unfigurative statements of Scripture, and understood and defined in the light of explicit declarations of gospel realities.  In other words, the type should be understood in the light of the antitype, and not the reverse.  Moreover, no parable or type can be applied in all details.  It is the central truth that is to be sought out and applied.

Look at the only alternative of what this type could be pointing to, Jesus.  Jesus does not fit.  I am still waiting for your response to my reasoning why this cannot be true.  You have not dealt with any of them, but let me list two main ones I would like you to deal with if you want me to believe your position has validity.

1.  It doesn’t make any sense to refer to a goat for the ‘Lord’ and a goat for ‘Azazel’ if they were both intended to be for the ‘Lord’.  Also, why draw lots if both represented Jesus?

R.C. Sproul in one of your original posts,
On the cross Christ fulfills what is symbolized both by the slain lamb of Old Testament sacrifices and by the scapegoat on whom the sins of the people are transferred.

2.  If Jesus priestly ministry began after he ascended to heaven, where we have a Great High Priest.  How can Jesus, as High Priest, place the sins He is bearing on Himself and send Himself out into the wilderness (the cross) before He begins His priestly ministry?

I’m off to help someone move stuff before his daughters wedding this Sunday.  I’ll look forward to reading all your insults on Monday… Have a good Sabbath.