Christian Azazel Atonement Theory

[marhig]

That is also another reason... You would be surprised at the complexity of all that was fulfilled. Something else interesting about the time between talking to Mary and appearing to the disciples is that the 8 days also coincided with the 8 day ritual of circumcision of a newborn with Jesus being firstborn of many brothers (spiritually).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

If I'm reading you right, I remember seeing this but in this way. On the seventh day God rested, and on the eighth day is the circumcision. That's like him resting in our hearts and then our hearts being circumcised of the flesh and we then turn from the works of the flesh to do the will of God.

I also like what clefty said about the festival of fruits on the eighth day, because once we are circumcised of the heart, as our flesh is going and we are dying to self, then being born anew in Christ, we will bare our firstfruits.

Everything in the Bible has a deeper spiritual meaning, and all the studying in the world can't open our eyes, only the Holy Spirit can do that and only through Christ.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Goats can only do goat stuff, but what if we take a look at the two goats.

One of the goats was killed and its blood was used to reconcile the holy place, the tabernacle, and the altar. The other goat, though innocent of sin, bore the sins of the people to an uninhabited place.

Merriam-Webster defines scapegoat Like this:

Definition of scapegoat
1
a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur

2
(a) one that bears the blame for others
(b) one that is the object of irrational hostility​

The Lamb was symbolized by a goat.

Yup... and the author of this OP denies that Jesus accomplished anything on the cross! He is trying to assert that Jesus died to empower the law.

He is saying that the Son of God turned the "Stones" into "Bread"

 

[daqq]

Yup... and the author of this OP denies that Jesus accomplished anything on the cross! He is trying to assert that Jesus died to empower the law.

He is saying that the Son of God turned the "Stones" into "Bread"

Is that really all you have to say after all the scripture that has been posted?
Lies only prove you are willing to lie to save your theological skin.

 

[daqq]

Refutation number five: the understanding of 2 Cor 5:21

This came up elsewhere and deserves a thread of its own:

Two little horns like a lambkin but speaks like a dragon . . .
Consuming too much shaggy-satyr scapegoat wandering in the desert of Nod.

Two little horns like a lambkin but speaks like a dragon . . .
Consuming too much shaggy-satyr scapegoat wandering in the desert of Nod.

And one more thing... I know you are a Jehovah's Witness or SDA of prior. Your butchering of the scapegoat meaning is kin to their theology. Ellen G White is a super advocate of this idea.

Nice ERROR!!!!

Christ became our "Azazel".... 2 Cor. 5:21

So, good Job calling Jesus Satan!

I do not generally appreciate call-out threads of any kind but the poster who said theses things to me above herein has already made several call-out threads of his own, (one of which included me in the opening post, calling me out, and summoning me to his thread). Therefore, in the Spirit of Truth, and in the spirit of "iron sharpening iron", may we dig down to the truth of these matters? The poster above states that "Christ became our Azazel", (and quotes 2 Cor 5:21 as his proof text), and that I did a "good Job calling Jesus Satan", but is this poster correct with his accusation? I of course say no. So the very atonement of your own soul may depend on who is correct and who is not; and who has the scripture to defend what they say, and who does not. Who among us is willing to believe what the scripture actually says? I will post my response from that thread in my next reply so as to keep this top post from being too large. The response which follows below was originally posted here.

If one investigates the way in which the phrase in 2Cor 5:21 ASV, (W/H), may be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is used not just for saying "sin" but also for saying "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream now imagines it to be when reading that statement from Paul.

2 Corinthians 5:21 W/H
21 τον μη γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ ημων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γενωμεθα δικαιοσυνη θεου εν αυτω
21 He who knew no sin offered a sin-offering in our behalf; that we, in him, might become the righteousness of Elohim.

The sin-offering is holy and without blemish; it has no sin, and it never "becomes sin", for it is most holy and is eaten by the Kohanim-Priests in the holy place. There are three goats presented in Yom Kippurim, not just two, and the one whose blood is brought into the sanctuary to reconcile-atone is not eaten: that one is entirely burned without the camp, (Lev 6:30, 16:27). Of the two goats from Leviticus 16 neither one is eaten because the one is sent away to-for Azazel and the other is slain; but of the one slain, its blood is brought into the sanctuary to reconcile-atone and therefore it cannot be eaten. The third goat for a sin-offering during Yom Kippur, (which is apart from the daily evening and morning ascending offerings and apart from the goat whose blood is brought into the sanctuary to reconcile-atone), is the only goat for a sin-offering which is eaten by the Kohanim, (Num 29:7,11, Lev 10:17-18).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Spoiler

Refutation number five: the understanding of 2 Cor 5:21



If one investigates the way in which the phrase in 2Cor 5:21 ASV, (W/H), may be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is used not just for saying "sin" but also for saying "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream now imagines it to be when reading that statement from Paul.

2 Corinthians 5:21 W/H
21 τον μη γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ ημων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γενωμεθα δικαιοσυνη θεου εν αυτω
21 He who knew no sin offered a sin-offering in our behalf; that we, in him, might become the righteousness of Elohim.

The sin-offering is holy and without blemish; it has no sin, and it never "becomes sin", for it is most holy and is eaten by the Kohanim-Priests in the holy place. There are three goats presented in Yom Kippurim, not just two, and the one whose blood is brought into the sanctuary to reconcile-atone is not eaten: that one is entirely burned without the camp, (Lev 6:30, 16:27). Of the two goats from Leviticus 16 neither one is eaten because the one is sent away to-for Azazel and the other is slain; but of the one slain, its blood is brought into the sanctuary to reconcile-atone and therefore it cannot be eaten. The third goat for a sin-offering during Yom Kippur, (which is apart from the daily evening and morning ascending offerings and apart from the goat whose blood is brought into the sanctuary to reconcile-atone), is the only goat for a sin-offering which is eaten by the Kohanim, (Num 29:7,11, Lev 10:17-18).

Daqq Tarded again. You're at "Refutation 0". You genuinely are one with Tet. You are both two peas in a theological Pod.

Without blabbering on and lying and deceiving, can you clearly explain what the following verses mean to you?

1 John 2:2

Php. 1:19

Hebrews 9:22

1 John 3:5

Php. 3:8

Php. 3:9

Ps... I have so many links to your being rebutted and blubbering on while twisting scripture, that your "refutation claims" are like an episode of the 3 stooges to me.

???

 

[daqq]

Daqq Tarded again. You're at "Refutation 0". You genuinely are one with Tet. You are both two peas in a theological Pod.

Without blabbering on and lying and deceiving, can you clearly explain what the following verses mean to you?

1 John 2:2

Php. 1:19

Hebrews 9:22

1 John 3:5

Php. 3:8

Php. 3:9

Ps... I have so many links to your being rebutted and blubbering on while twisting scripture, that your "refutation claims" are like an episode of the 3 stooges to me.

???

Same old tactic: you obfuscate and deflect, so as to ignore the refutations from the scripture, while at the same time you attempt to pile on more scripture passages which you yourself do not even understand and rather only use as tools for your own means and ends to promote your own privately held dogmas which do not exist in the scripture.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Same old tactic: you obfuscate and deflect so as to ignore the refutations from the scripture and at the same time you attempt to pile on more scripture passages which you yourself do not even understand, and rather only use as tools for your own means and ends, to promote your own privately held dogmas which do not exist in the scripture.

You are dogma incarnate!

 

[daqq]

You are dogma incarnate!

The understanding I hold to is indeed found in the scripture: therefore I do hold certain things as dogma or dogmatic, like the Testimony of the Messiah found in the Gospel accounts, which things are therefore non-negotiable, (the Testimony of Messiah is king imo when it comes to doctrine, teachings, and understanding). You have a problem with that very thing because I therefore do not allow you to use your dialectic process to dissuade me from the plain clear emphatic statements of the Messiah, which Testimony you yourself have openly rejected on many occasions, in favor of your dialectic reasoning. You more likely only perceive dogma on the part of others in the cases where they will not accept your dialectic reasoning over what the Testimony of the Messiah plainly says in many cases, (and the rest of the scripture too).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The understanding I hold to is indeed found in the scripture: therefore I do hold certain things as dogma or dogmatic, like the Testimony of the Messiah found in the Gospel accounts, which things are therefore non-negotiable, (the Testimony of Messiah is king imo when it comes to doctrine, teachings, and understanding). You have a problem with that very thing because I therefore do not allow you to use your dialectic process to dissuade me from the plain clear emphatic statements of the Messiah, which Testimony you yourself have openly rejected on many occasions, in favor of your dialectic reasoning. You more likely only perceive dogma on the part of others in the cases where they will not accept your dialectic reasoning over what the Testimony of the Messiah plainly says in many cases, (and the rest of the scripture too).

Good ole, deceptive, deceitful Daqq... Dodging the scriptures that can't be bludgeoned or twisted into your B-o-l-o-g-n-a.

I still count you my friend and I hope you have a happy weekend.

Deuces Dilby!

 

[daqq]

Good ole, deceptive, deceitful Daqq... Dodging the scriptures that can't be bludgeoned or twisted into your B-o-l-o-g-n-a.

I still count you my friend and I hope you have a happy weekend.

Deuces Dilby!

Everyone who does not take sides with so-called forum "friends" can plainly see that you are naked, O emperor. Perhaps you might need to study up a little more on atonement, as it is portrayed and explained in the Torah and Prophets, because for now you apparently have no covering. Have a nice weekend, nature boy.

 

[daqq]

Refutation number six – Matthew has the Master quoting 1Enoch:

Matthew 22:13 ASV
13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Enoch 10:4 (R. H. Charles 1917)
4. And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe013.htm

Moreover Dudael is the very same place where the "goat sent away to-for Azazel" was pushed over a precipice down into a jagged rocky place. The name of the location gives it away because it is a wordplay with Dudael, for the place was called Beit-Ḥadudo, (Bet-Chadudo), and was in a desert place about twelve miles from Jerusalem. Beit-Ḥadudo is Dudael, (the "binding place of El", where Azazel was said to be bound in chains of darkness, and thus indeed the goat was chosen by lot either "to" or "for" Azazel, just as it is written in Leviticus 16).

Jewish Virtual Library : Azazel
"In the retelling of the story of the sons of God and daughters of men (Gen. 6:1–4) in the First Book of Enoch, Azazel (or Azael) is one of the leaders of the angels who desired the daughters of men (6:4), and it was he who taught human beings how to manufacture weapons and ornaments (8:1–2). The identification of this Azazel with the biblical Azazel is clear from the continuation of the story, as the angel Raphael is commanded to "bind the hands and feet of Azazel and cast him into the darkness. Make an opening to the wilderness which is in Dudael and cast him there. Put upon him hard sharp rocks" (10:4–5). Dudael is the Bet Hadudo (or Bet Harudo) which is mentioned in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:8) and the association is certainly with the cliff from which the goat was cast. The remnant of a pesher (commentary) on Azazel and the angels found in Cave 4 at Qumran resembles the account in the Book of Enoch. Although the remnant is deficient, it is possible to learn from it that the pesher is dealing with Azazel and the angels who lusted after the daughters of men so that they might bear them strong men, and that Azazel taught human beings how to deal wickedly. Azael is also identified with Azazel in several late Midrashim (cf. Yalkut Shimoni, Gen. 44; Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, vol. 4, p. 127). Azazel also appears in the Apocalypse of *Abraham where he takes the form of a fallen angel."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/azazel

Two little horns like a lambkin but speaks like a dragon . . .
Consuming too much shaggy-satyr scapegoat wandering in the desert of Nod.

And one more thing... I know you are a Jehovah's Witness or SDA of prior. Your butchering of the scapegoat meaning is kin to their theology. Ellen G White is a super advocate of this idea.

Nice ERROR!!!!

Christ became our "Azazel".... 2 Cor. 5:21

So, good Job calling Jesus Satan!

Therefore it is you, Evil.Eye.<(I)>, who is teaching demonology and blaspheming the Messiah in your hideous doctrine; and it is all because of your lack of study, lack of knowledge and understanding of the Testimony of Messiah within the culture in which it is written, and your rejection of Jewish sources and ancient writings even though you claim to be Jewish.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Refutation number six – Matthew has the Master quoting 1Enoch:

Matthew 22:13 ASV
13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Enoch 10:4 (R. H. Charles 1917)
4. And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe013.htm

Moreover Dudael is the very same place where the "goat sent away to-for Azazel" was pushed over a precipice down into a jagged rocky place. The name of the location gives it away because it is a wordplay with Dudael, for the place was called Beit-Ḥadudo, (Bet-Chadudo), and was in a desert place about twelve miles from Jerusalem. Beit-Ḥadudo is Dudael, (the "binding place of El", where Azazel was said to be bound in chains of darkness, and thus indeed the goat was chosen by lot either "to" or "for" Azazel, just as it is written in Leviticus 16).

Jewish Virtual Library : Azazel
"In the retelling of the story of the sons of God and daughters of men (Gen. 6:1–4) in the First Book of Enoch, Azazel (or Azael) is one of the leaders of the angels who desired the daughters of men (6:4), and it was he who taught human beings how to manufacture weapons and ornaments (8:1–2). The identification of this Azazel with the biblical Azazel is clear from the continuation of the story, as the angel Raphael is commanded to "bind the hands and feet of Azazel and cast him into the darkness. Make an opening to the wilderness which is in Dudael and cast him there. Put upon him hard sharp rocks" (10:4–5). Dudael is the Bet Hadudo (or Bet Harudo) which is mentioned in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:8) and the association is certainly with the cliff from which the goat was cast. The remnant of a pesher (commentary) on Azazel and the angels found in Cave 4 at Qumran resembles the account in the Book of Enoch. Although the remnant is deficient, it is possible to learn from it that the pesher is dealing with Azazel and the angels who lusted after the daughters of men so that they might bear them strong men, and that Azazel taught human beings how to deal wickedly. Azael is also identified with Azazel in several late Midrashim (cf. Yalkut Shimoni, Gen. 44; Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, vol. 4, p. 127). Azazel also appears in the Apocalypse of *Abraham where he takes the form of a fallen angel."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/azazel



Therefore it is you, Evil.Eye.<(I)>, who is teaching demonology and blaspheming the Messiah in your hideous doctrine; and it is all because of your lack of study, lack of knowledge and understanding of the Testimony of Messiah within the culture in which it is written, and your rejection of Jewish sources and ancient writings even though you claim to be Jewish.

Refutation number six – Matthew has the Master quoting 1Enoch:

Matthew 22:13 ASV
13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Enoch 10:4 (R. H. Charles 1917)
4. And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe013.htm

Moreover Dudael is the very same place where the "goat sent away to-for Azazel" was pushed over a precipice down into a jagged rocky place. The name of the location gives it away because it is a wordplay with Dudael, for the place was called Beit-Ḥadudo, (Bet-Chadudo), and was in a desert place about twelve miles from Jerusalem. Beit-Ḥadudo is Dudael, (the "binding place of El", where Azazel was said to be bound in chains of darkness, and thus indeed the goat was chosen by lot either "to" or "for" Azazel, just as it is written in Leviticus 16).

Jewish Virtual Library : Azazel
"In the retelling of the story of the sons of God and daughters of men (Gen. 6:1–4) in the First Book of Enoch, Azazel (or Azael) is one of the leaders of the angels who desired the daughters of men (6:4), and it was he who taught human beings how to manufacture weapons and ornaments (8:1–2). The identification of this Azazel with the biblical Azazel is clear from the continuation of the story, as the angel Raphael is commanded to "bind the hands and feet of Azazel and cast him into the darkness. Make an opening to the wilderness which is in Dudael and cast him there. Put upon him hard sharp rocks" (10:4–5). Dudael is the Bet Hadudo (or Bet Harudo) which is mentioned in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:8) and the association is certainly with the cliff from which the goat was cast. The remnant of a pesher (commentary) on Azazel and the angels found in Cave 4 at Qumran resembles the account in the Book of Enoch. Although the remnant is deficient, it is possible to learn from it that the pesher is dealing with Azazel and the angels who lusted after the daughters of men so that they might bear them strong men, and that Azazel taught human beings how to deal wickedly. Azael is also identified with Azazel in several late Midrashim (cf. Yalkut Shimoni, Gen. 44; Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, vol. 4, p. 127). Azazel also appears in the Apocalypse of *Abraham where he takes the form of a fallen angel."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/azazel

Therefore it is you, Evil.Eye.<(I)>, who is teaching demonology and blaspheming the Messiah in your hideous doctrine; and it is all because of your lack of study, lack of knowledge and understanding of the Testimony of Messiah within the culture in which it is written, and your rejection of Jewish sources and ancient writings even though you claim to be Jewish.

Demonology

1 Cor. 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory

Jesus fulfilled something Daqq. You speak 1000 different ways, but in the end, you have Him dying for nothing.

Ephesians 2:8f is all I need to smash your garbage. Hebrews 2:14 goes further. You seriously are astray Daqq.

Bottom line... you believe Satan is our sin Bearer. You'll lie about it as always, but you elevate the Devil to the throne of God with your teachings and hide behind your Law keeping. Guess what Daqq... so does Satan.

All ye beware of this lie.

 

[daqq]

Bottom line... you believe Satan is our sin Bearer. You'll lie about it as always, but you elevate the Devil to the throne of God with your teachings and hide behind your Law keeping. Guess what Daqq... so does Satan.

All ye beware of this lie.

More lies from the consummate liar because you have no clue what I actually believe, and I believe the scripture, while you believe your made up fantasies to justify yourself in your sins. It is the duty of the Kohen to bear the sins of the people but this form of "sin bearing", bearing of the sins of the people, is only of a temporary nature, that is, just long enough to place the sins of the people onto the head of the goat which is to be sent away into the desert to-for Azazel:

Exodus 28:36-38 KJV
36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD.
37 And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.
38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

Numbers 18:1-5 KJV
1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.
2 And thy brethren also of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of thy father, bring thou with thee, that they may be joined unto thee, and minister unto thee: but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the tabernacle of witness.
3 And they shall keep thy charge, and the charge of all the tabernacle: only they shall not come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, that neither they, nor ye also, die.
4 And they shall be joined unto thee, and keep the charge of the tabernacle of the congregation, for all the service of the tabernacle: and a stranger shall not come nigh unto you.
5 And ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary, and the charge of the altar: that there be no wrath any more upon the children of Israel.

Leviticus 10:16-17 KJV
16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,
17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

Leviticus 16:21-22 KJV
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon 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 upon 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 upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Ahron and his sons only bear the sins of the people temporarily, that is, only long enough so as to place the sins upon the head of the goat sent away to-for Azazel in the desert, and as the Master says, the dry-arid places:

Luke 11:24-26 KJV
24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

You apparently cannot even tell the difference in typology and symbolism between the Kohen and the goat! The Master is already officiating as a Kohen within the Gospel accounts but this fact is hidden by your favorite scholars and translators who prefer to render aphiemi as "forgive" rather than for what it truly means in the most basic sense of the word, that is, "to send away".

Matthew 9:2-6
2 And, behold, they brought to him a paralytic lying on a mattress: and Yeshua seeing their belief, said unto the paralytic, Teknon, be of good cheer, your sins are αφιενται sent away!
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This one blasphemes!
4 And Yeshua knowing their thoughts said, Why do you think it evil in your hearts?
5 For which is easier, to say, "Your sins are αφιενται sent away" or to say, "Arise, and walk"?
6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority over the land to αφιεναι send away sins, (then he said to the paralytic), Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house!

Just as the Kohen in the great day of the fast and Day of Atonements, (Yom Kippurim), the Master herein above takes the sins off from the paralytic, (bearing them), and places them on the head of the theoretical goat which is the same unclean spirit of Luke 11:24 quoted above, (and Matthew 12:43). The sins are therefore "sent away", which is the true meaning of aphiemi; and the reason why they said to themselves that he blasphemed herein is because the scribes knew full well that only the Kohen Gadol was vested with the authority from on High to send away sins, and that was according to their interpretation, only once in a year, at Yom Kippurim, the Day of Atonements.

Furthermore the Master makes the statement from Luke 11:24-26 even more clear by the following statement to a similar situation, (if not the same), where a paralytic was healed or made whole by having been told to take up his mattress and walk:

John 5:12-14
12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

And what might be that "worse thing" that would come to him?
See Matthew 12:43-45 and the companion passage Luke 11:24-26 quoted above.

In the same manner shall all Yisrael be delivered . . .
When the fullness of the heathen have entered in . . .
And who shall live when El does this ??? ? ??? :chuckle:

You have confounded the office of Kohen with a goat so as to justify yourself in your sins. The two goats of Leviticus 16 are supplied by the congregation, not the Kohen, (Leviticus 16:5).

 

[daqq]

Moreover your theory does not even take into account the fact that there are three goats apart from the daily ascending offerings during Yom Kippurim, not just the two goats which you read about in Leviticus 16, and therefore, (even if your theory was true), you do not even have the correct goat because the goat whose blood was brought into the sanctuary to make atonements was not to be eaten. Thus neither of the two goats of Leviticus 16 were to be eaten because the one was sent away, (alive), to-for Azazel, while the other was slain and its blood was brought into the sanctuary for atonements.

From a recent thread of one of your friends:

"They show that none of them know what they speak of because there were three goats during Yom Kippurim. The one that was supposed to be eaten by Ahron and his sons, but was not, is the third goat whose blood was not brought into the sanctuary for atonements. Neither the goat sent away into the desert was eaten, (obviously because it was not slain), nor was the goat which was slain eaten; for its blood was brought into the sanctuary to cleanse-atone the Holy Most Holy and the secondary Sanctuary:

Leviticus 9:16-19 KJV
16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,
17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?
18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.
19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?

And perhaps therefore this may be why the date of Yom Kippurim was allocated to the seventh month, (Lev 16:1-2, 29). The following passage contains the third goat for Yom Kippurim, which is also a sin offering, and it is specifically stated to be apart from the sin offering for atonements, (thus it is apart from the two goats of Leviticus 16 because the other is sent away into the desert), and it is likewise apart or separate from the twice-daily continual evening and morning offerings:

Numbers 29:7-11 KJV
7 And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month an holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall not do any work therein:
8 But ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD for a sweet savour; one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish:
9 And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals to a bullock, and two tenth deals to one ram,
10 A several tenth deal for one lamb, throughout the seven lambs:
11 One kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the sin offering of atonement, and [beside] the continual burnt offering, and the meat offering of it, and their drink offerings.

This we know is correct because this is the goat of the sin offering which Aaron and his sons were commanded to eat in the holy place, in Leviticus 9:16-19 quoted above, and yet they were not allowed to eat of any sin offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary for atonements:

Leviticus 6:30 KJV
30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

Thus neither of the two goats from Leviticus 16 were eaten; for the one was sent away alive into the desert, and the blood of the other was brought into the sanctuary for atonements, (and thus it was burned in the fire and not eaten). The goat of Numbers 29:11 is the third goat and the sin offering which was eaten by the priests during Yom Kippurim."
"Jews for Judaism: The Passover Lamb" Reply #16

Moreover even Moses teaches the same as expounded by the scripture passages quoting the Master in the Gospel accounts within my previous post; for Moses never openly states that the goat sent away into the desert to-for Azazel was to be slain, (this was a decision made by the elders because of the catastrophic theological consequences of the goat possibly wandering back into the camp with all the sins of the people upon its mortally wounded head, (which is an entirely understandable decision)).

Moses confirms the teaching with the following statement:

Numbers 32:23 KJV
23 But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.

It does not matter what the context may be here, for he says, "AND Be sure your sin will find you out", and that is a vague reference to the goat with all your sins upon its mortally wounded head wandering back into your camp, tent, or house, (Matthew 12:43-45 and Luke 11:24-26), for every man is likened to a house in the doctrine of the Master.