Jesus tells us that we must be born again. You might say that when Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was actually "born again." As I see it, although Jesus was born in a body marred by thousands of years of sin... He was born "born again."

You could get an AD blocker. My son did it for me. It only took a few minutes @ no cost.

Yet it is the same 'science' that our pioneers preached and believed.

Detailed Answer: The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is invisible to us mortals. The only way we can know God (His Godhead) is if He is manifested. Christ inherited the Godhead (divinity) of His Father and is therefore “all the fullness of the Godhead manifested” All the fullness that dwells in the Son of God is His birthright and inheritance (Hebrews 1:4). This divine fullness dwells in Christ because it pleased the Father (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Christ possessed, by divine birth, the glory of His Father (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 4:6). “In Christ is gathered all the glory of the Father. In Him is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person. The glory of the attributes of God are expressed in His character.” {E. G. White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, p. 907} “The love of God, manifested toward fallen man in the gift of his beloved Son, amazed the holy angels. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The Son was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person. He possessed divine excellence and greatness. He was equal with God. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell.” {E. G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 2, p. 38}

@@pastorajohnson6391 Amen.

Hello Sarah Wieland, I suppose it depends on what you mean by the word "trinity." There is a generic sense in which the word "trinity" can be used and, in this sense, it simply means a grouping of three. Although I try to avoid using the word myself, because inspiration never uses it and because of the theological luggage frequently attached to it, this channel will not man an offender for a word. Rather we first ask all men exactly what they mean by the term, if and when they use it. People often mean different things when they use the word. So, if someone wants to refer to God the Father, His only begotten Son, and His omnipresent Spirit as a "trinity," in the generic sense of the term, then so be it. I myself refer to God, His Son, and His Spirit by speaking of a heavenly Trio. However, when it comes to the identity of the one God of the Bible, the word "trinity" has a specific theological meaning. It is a very common term within Christendom and it most frequently means that the identity of the one God of the Bible is a unity of 3 personalities - each of the three persons is supposedly truly and fully Him, in every sense of the word, yet there there is supposedly only one Him. That's who the doctrine of the trinity claims that He is - 3 persons unified as a single, indivisible, immutable Divine Being. That is something this channel does oppose, finding it false according to the Bible and SoP. There's a whole pandora's box of heresies that are opened by that conception. This channel looks at the matter through a Seventh-day Adventist theological lens. You can learn more about the historical development of trinitarianism within Adventism at the following link, if you are interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3ump519l7aCeqM

@Biblejems777 oh my, just say yes

@@sarahwieland Lol! I'm not trying to be difficult. I have heard people use the word "trinity" in a way that I can stomach even though I avoid using it myself. Take for example the 1913 statement of F.M. Wilcox: “For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe,- “1. In the divine TRINITY. This TRINITY consists of THE ETERNAL FATHER, a personal, SPIRITUAL BEING, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of the Lord Jesus Christ, THE SON OF THE ETERNAL FATHER, through whom all things were created, and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the one regenerating agency in the work of redemption.” (Review and Herald, Oct 9, 1913) This "trinity" does not make the identity of the one God into a unity of three persons, nor does it do away with the Fatherhood of God and the only begotten Sonship of the pre-incarnate Christ. You could believe that under this label. Thus I can stomach it. I do not agree, however, with the modern day SDA trinity doctrine or the creedal trinity doctrine.

@Biblejems777 yeah, you're anti-trinitarian. The trinity doctrine is sound, as only God Saves, and the nature of its structure is what ultimately split the church in 1054AD.

@@sarahwieland If the nature of its structure is what split the church then how is this doctrine sound? Yet let's forgo that point for the moment for a different one. Can you explain to me that this doctrine is and why it is true? I have read the Bible through several times and I cannot find the doctrine of the trinity therein. And it's not for lack of trying either. I lost my career over this matter so it would be advantageous for me to be able to affirm the trinity doctrine from Scripture.

Ellen White worked with the language of the translations available to her in her day. Did you know that the word "Yahweh" was not in the dictionary in her time? Does that mean it is incorrect? No. She did prefer the translations that used "Jehovah" in place of the "the LORD" mistranslation so common in the KJV. Why did the KJV have "the LORD" in place of God's name? Because the translators followed the political correctness of their day. They followed the Jewish taboo against pronouncing God's name--which is entirely unbiblical. God says in His Word that we are to praise Him by His name. But since Jews substitute "adonai" for "YHWH", the KJV translators translated from "adonai," meaning "lord," as well. Guess what? The word "Jehovah" originated with people pronouncing "YHWH" with the vowels from "adonai" which the Jews were using to remind people not to say the name. In other words, "Jehovah" is an amalgamation and not a Biblical word. Yet Ellen White liked it better than "the LORD" which was even further from being correct. If the word "Yahweh" had been an option, I believe she would have used that instead. But she worked with what she had, and with what the people had. I agree with those who say "Ghost" is a poor translation. The Greek word is "pneuma," which should be translated as "spirit." "Ghost" has negative connotations which are uncalled for in the context of addressing the true God. But Ellen White used the language familiar to the people in her day, and I do not see reason to criticize her for it.

@@MongRay-n8i Let us know when you have updated corrected versions of the Bible and EGW, since both of these are, according to your own words, short of the Word "from being correct". Until we get your Bible, God has failed to provide us with "every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."

@@BrookDesHarnais I realize you are speaking demeaningly, but do you realize that Ellen White herself spoke of errors in the Bible? Perhaps you would like to throw your taunt her direction and ask her to provide her own Bible translation. You realize that in doing so, you would be criticizing God, too, right? Ellen White did not make it her business to correct every flaw in Bible translations. She corrected a few of them, and she leaves us to study for ourselves. God is honored by those with diligence to study. Keep in mind that the "every word of God" which God inspired was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There is nothing in the Bible that promises God would preserve every _translation_ made of the original text. In fact, Ellen White informs us that Satan would prepare his own revisions of the Bible for us.

@@MongRay-n8i Quote where EGW spoke of errors in the Bible, but before you do: When and where is the kingdom of God; of heaven; of paradise? When did the thief on the cross become born again and sealed into the kingdom? Is God on vacation? Were Greek and Hebrew the "languages of Heaven"? Is God capable of preserving His Word or not? If not, then I guess we can tell God He can't judge us until He ceases to fail to give us your updated 2025 Bible and Testimony.

@@BrookDesHarnais I believe God's kingdom exists in every place His law is followed. As for Ellen White and the errors in the Bible, consider these examples, one from "Great Controversy" addressing unspecified errors in the Bible, and one from the periodical "Present Truth" addressing the term "daily sacrifice" found multiple times in the book of Daniel: While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it; and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. {GC 245.1} Then I saw in relation to the “Daily,” that the word “sacrifice” was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the “Daily;” but since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion has followed. {PT November 1, 1850, par. 12}

It is not my website but some of the articles I have written are available there: asitreads.com/author/jason-smith/

Hi Jason, I sent you a message on your gmail account (about the creation week (literal or spiritual). Did you receive it? Thanks in advance.

You can also write your response here or address it in a KZbin video if one doesn't exist yet.

Amen. Good choice brother.

You can't get to 1844 with 2300. The to be sda in the first place. . The math will not let you do it! You don't know what Daniel 8 says!. That dirty Sanctuary in Daniel 8,, has got nothing to do with the one in heaven! because there is no dirty sanctuary in heaven. Daniel 8 is a prophecy! that has not even happened yet. And it's got nothing to do with salvation! It's a peace agreement ..Daniel 8 tells you that..( and by peace this guy.. is going to destroy many )!!!the guy in Daniel 8:23! Which is the king that wins the kingdom by flatteries! The guy you think is the Pope! in Daniel 11:21 who is the (prince of the covenant) Daniel 11:22 ..(the prince of the covenant of Daniel 9:27!)!. The guy that sits in the temple in 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2: 8 an Jesus Christ destroys him with the spirit of his mouth, on his return.. which is Daniel 8: 25!

@@JamieElison Why enter into doubtful disputation together? You trust yourself that you are right. You are not demonstrating a willingness to learn contrary to what you believe.

My last video, in case anyone wanders, was about the karaite calendar

Hello @jimbob1644 Let's do a Q & A on the matter. It will be based on the fact that the earthly sanctuary and its ministry was based upon a pattern. "And see thou and do [them] by their pattern which thou art shewn in the mount (Exodus 25:40 YLT) Q: On what basis does the author of Hebrews assert that it is necessary that Jesus, the great High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary have something to offer? "for every chief priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices is appointed, whence [it is] necessary for this one to have also something that he may offer (Heb 8:3 YLT) Q: On what basis does the same author assert that it is necessary for the earthly sanctuary to be cleansed? Q: On what basis does he assert that it is necessary for the heavenly sanctuary to be cleansed? Q: What types of sacrifices are the basis of cleansing the earthly sanctuary? Q: What type of sacrifice is the basis of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary? "and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come. It is necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:23 YLT) Q: Why did the earthly sanctuary - the pattern of the things in heaven - require a cleansing? "And he hath made atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so he doth for the tent of meeting which is tabernacling with them in the midst of their uncleannesses (Lev 16:16 YLT) Q: When was the earthly sanctuary cleansed - at the beginning or the end of the Jewish religious year? "And the Feast of Harvest, the first fruits of thy works which thou sowest in the field; and the Feast of the In-Gathering, in the outgoing of the year, in thy gathering thy works out of the field (Exodus 23:16 YLT) Q: Based on the typology, the earthly high priest would cleanse the sanctuary at the end of the Jewish religious year. This ministry is an example and shadow of heavenly things (see Heb 8:5). In light of this should we expect the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary at the beginning or end of the Christian dispensation? I will await your answers before moving forward.

@@Biblejems777 that's great just print the verse where the sins go into the sanctuary you still haven't done that. I'm waiting for the verse print it! You're saying only the first Goat is the one that's on the cross ,correct.? The first Goat does not bear any sins ,correct? and there's no sins placed on the first Goat correct?

. I'm waiting on you where does verse 16:16, say.. that the ( sins of the people go into the sanctuary). Nobody goes in there but Aaron! and if he goes in there with anything like that , because he's going to be dead. !That's why there was bells on the bottom of his garment. Exodus 28:33-35. it says( because the (sanctuary was amongst) them)... it needs to be cleansed !!!!!.which doesn't say anything about the sins, going in there.. but the sanctuary set there for a year)! it was cleaned because it sat there for a year . But not because of sin in it .😢. if there are sins in there somebody has to die!.. so why would a sanctuary in heaven that has nobody around it ...(need to cleansed ? the verse you put up you're not understanding.. Hebrews 9:23.. the( type the shadow )of the copy) that he is speaking of. ( is the one on the Earth.)!. Not the one in heaven!!!.. Jesus himself when( He entered in) was the the( sacrifice.) That's all that verse says! (That sanctuary it's (not) amongst the people )..it doesn't sit amongst sinful people !! Yes or no?

​​@@Biblejems777I sent you another text .but why will that not be able to be revealed.? without going to the top and hitting newest )can you explain that? This is why the second goat ends up being the devil instead of Jesus Christ for you do you realize what that means??? There's no way you can be saved Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person! All because you misinterpreted Daniel 8 you can't know the meaning of Daniel 8 that's your problem! I know it backwards forwards and upside down it took me 3 seconds to realize what you did with it! It's got nothing to do with the sanctuary in heaven! 1844 never happened!

​​@@Biblejems777you don't seem to realize that Daniel 8 is a prophecy.. that has not been fulfilled.. and it's got nothing to do with salvation! and you destroyed Daniel 9:27 with that false interpretation.. and Daniel 7 in the same manner. .an Revelation 12 in the same manner.. I can show you what you did with every one of them. But the real issue is to say the( devil does the atonement of Leviticus 1610 ).written in the investigative judgment!. Which no person on the face of the Earth that's Christian has an investigative judgment! that's Jesus Christ removing the sins on the cross (1st Peter 2:24)!!( the very first line). Jesus is Aaron and He takes Aaron's place !He places the sins on Himself on the same day!.. your confession of faith is that the (devil is doing your atonement). The sin is removed by the Devil Himself! attributing to the Devil Himself. what Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit does on the cross ..(on the same day!).. the first line of 1 Peter 2: 24.. You cannot have sins on the cross on the same day. And the devil removes the sins on the same day ...in Leviticus 16:10 so which is it?..( see this changes who Jesus is ) and that happened in 1844 with Daniel 8:14. You've got the same Jesus as a Jehovah's witness.. a Mormon ..and you're just like the Catholic Church! You have no atonement!! Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person. You can't even get to the fall of 1844 with 2,300 ..(the math won't let you do it. ) I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings, or anything. I'm telling you the truth. I've studied this all my life and I'm past 70. Not one thing you teach about prophecy . and not one thing you teach about Jesus Christ is true ..except part of Revelation 17!. Just enough truth to keep you thinking you have truth ,but you don't!

Hello @JamieElison, Thank you for your comment but I think you must be confused. There has only been one comment erased here and that was a couple of days ago. It was a comment from a man named Chris Chung. Nothing else has been erased by me.

@@Biblejems777 can you print the verse that sins go into the sanctuary from Daniel 8.... (or anywhere in Leviticus) could you print that.

​@@JamieElison Let's begin with a Bible verse: "And he hath made atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so he doth for the tent of meeting which is tabernacling with them in the midst of their uncleannesses (Lev 16:16 YLT) The verse above is about what the high priest would do on the day of Atonement in the earthly sanctuary. Now the Bible does not specify the exact method of transference of sins into the sanctuary. It appears to take for granted that the reader already knows how they get there (here I believe we see how those unto whom the oraces of God were committed had the advantage in every way). Yet there is one verse that gives us a clue: “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…” (Lev 16:21) By Aaron's laying on of hands upon Azazel's goat and confessing the iniquities there was a transference. This verse is actually the process of removing the sins from out of the sanctuary and Aaron himself appears to be a conduit for moving them by the laying on of hands and the confession. This is in harmony with Ex 28:38 "And it [the mitre] 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” (Exodus 28:38) From this verse we learn that Aaron, the High Priest, was actually a conduit [means of transfer] for iniquity. This explains how Aaron, after he had made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar (see Lev 16:20) could carry the iniquities out from the sanctuary and place them upon the head of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:21). So then how did they get there in the first place? If you read the Torah you will see that there was a laying on of hands when a sin offering was made. This was a rule for the priest, for elders on behalf of the whole congregation, for a ruler, or for a common person (see Lev 4:4; 15, 24, 29, 33 for the specific verses that mention the laying on of hands). There is no other explanation as to what this would mean except for what we find in Leviticus 16 so this is most likely the mechanism of transference of responsibility for sin from the person(s) to the animal. So the responsibility of sin was transferred to the sacrifice. Then, after that, we read a very interesting verse that gives us another clue about the next step in transference which brings the sin into the sanctuary. We read the following statement from Moses to Aaron: “Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?” (Lev 10:17) In this verse we learn that God gave the sin offering to the priests so that they might “bear the iniquity of the congregation” thereby making “atonement for them before the LORD.” Now all of these points, so far, have not touched upon the sanctuary itself, only the priest, but when we look at Leviticus 10:18 we begin to see how sin is born by the blood of the sin offering into God’s dwelling place. “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” (Lev 10:18) Here Moses berated his brother that since the blood of the sin offering had not been taken into the holy place then the sin offering should have been eaten. Aaron argues that he didn’t do so because of exceptional circumstances (2 of his sons had been destroyed by the Lord that day) and that if he had eaten it “should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord” (vs 19) Here we learn that it was necessary for the priest to eat the sin offering, IF the blood was not taken inside the Sanctuary, and then God was to accept it. In other words, the normal process was that the priests, by eating the sin offering, bore away the sin from the people and the Lord would accept this. So now where does the blood come into play here? The law of the sin offering is as follows: If a priest or the entire congregation sinned the blood of the sin offering was taken inside the holy place and sprinkled 7 times before the veil in front of the Most Holy Place and some of the blood was put on the horns of the altar of incense (Lev 4:3-7, 13-18) If a ruler or individual Israelite sinned then the blood was not taken inside the Sanctuary but it was put on the horns of the altar of sacrifice (Lev 4:22-25, 27-30) Another rule in connection with the sin offering was that “the priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation” (Lev 6:26). But this rule had an exception for “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.” (Lev 6:30) When we start connecting all of these verses together we see the case begin to emerge. 1) Aaron the high priest bore the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel hallowed in all their holy gifts (aka: sacrifices) 2) God gave the sin offering to the priest so that they would bear the iniquity of the congregation. It was to be eaten in the holy place 3) The sin offering was to be eaten unless its blood was taken inside of the holy place. If the blood was sprinkled within and put on the horns of the altar of incense then the priest was not to eat it. So we see that the sin offering was to be eaten so that the priest would bear the iniquity away from the people. We also see that the priest was exempted from this IF the blood was taken inside the holy place and left there (via sprinkling and some put on the altar of incense). The logical conclusion, based on the weight of Biblical evidence, is that when this happened the holy place and its altar bore the iniquity away from the people. This is why (and the only time when) the priest was exempted from eating the sin offering. With all of these things said we see the case for how the blood transfers sins. By being sprinkled before the veil and being placed on the horns of the altar it was a record of the sins. Now we see why Aaron had to reconcile the holy place, the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar (see Lev 16:20). The sins that had been transferred there remained until the climax of the sacrificial ritual- the Day of Atonement. On that day, all of the sins of Israel where removed from the sanctuary. And we have already seen above how Aaron serves as the conduit for removing them out from the sanctuary. Now it is important to understand that this is all symbolic. By the priest eating the sin offering or by the blood of the sin offering being sprinkled before the veil or being placed on the altar, this really signifies that the responsibility for sin has been shifted away from the sinner to the priest and the sanctuary. That means God is going to take care of it on our behalf. Now, all of these things are important for us to understand because they point to a necessity connected to the heavenly sanctuary. Yet with the heavenly sanctuary it requires a better sacrifice to be cleansed. "and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come. It is necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:23 YLT) Let's stop here for now. Are these things clear to you? Do you dispute them or accept them?

​@Biblejems777 the scripture verses are true .but you're misinterpreting them. Hebrews 9: 23.. doesn't say anything about a sanctuary being cleansed. in heaven. and not for sin! The copies of things he's referring to the one on the earth ..not the one in heaven. And the one of the earth is being cleansed because it's amongst the people. but not for sin. just because it's amongst the people. So what sins ever went in there from the front door? Just show me the verse that says that. because there's no sin in the blood. of the first Goat. That blood is paying for my sins ..not my dirty sins going in there.. for paying for my sins.. that's Jesus Christ perfect blood to go in there and pay for my sins... so what you'd have to be saying, is if sins go in there Jesus blood has sins in it!.. you keep saying Aaron transfers the sins from the sanctuary where does it say that? You'd have to be removing sins from Jesus Christ blood! which would mean you have tainted blood in Jesus Christ! so how do you place Sins inside that Sanctuary ?just show me where it says that in the Bible!... If then the sins are completely removed by the first Goat.. which it tells you they're not )!because Aaron still places them on the second Goat . And the word remission means just to pay for,, but not to remove..and you teach that's the devil removing them the second Goat of Leviticus 16:10.. But you say Jesus is only the first Goat on the cross.. and Jesus says the sins are placed upon Himself 1 Peter 2:24 the very first line. So the sins still exists after the sanctuary. And they're in Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:24 what sins are you going to place on the devil,, if they are in Jesus Christ on the same day? Jesus said they're on the cross! with Him !and you're saying they're on the devil! on the same day. Which is it? you have just destroyed Jesus Christ in his entirety with Daniel 8:14! Notice the whole entire levitical thing pertains to who Jesus is. He said destroy this Temple and I will just raise it up in 3 days. that's the sanctuary. The first Goat He pays the price. with his blood. Aaron is now Jesus Christ. All those verses where it says he ate the sin offering. that's representing.Jesus Christ .the sins are in Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:24 but in the body.. not the blood.. Jesus Christ is one that has the sins( in) Him and He does what Aaron did. with the sins and places them on himself .upon himself ..He Aaron places the sins on the second Goat ..on the same day... as Jesus places the sins upon Himself on the same day. The second Goat is also Jesus Christ .removing the sins that's what those other verses that you put up their represent. But no where do the sins go into the sanctuary in the blood... no where does it say sins are placed on that.. they're paid for on the inside with Jesus sin free blood ! He comes out and removes them... on the outside ,to the outside second Goat. which represents .. both Aaron and Jesus Christ! Notice we're talking about Leviticus 16. you added a bunch of others that represent the same thing that I'm saying .but on that day there are no sins.. in the blood.. the blood does not go into the sanctuary carrying any sin.. Aaron eats it representing that he is Jesus Christ (Aaron becomes the second Goat. He is bearing the sins). The high priest representing Jesus Christ bears the sin the high priest forever Psalms 110: 4. Placing the Sins on himself!.. But on the day of atonement they did (not) eat the Goat they burned it. The goat did not get eaten..(Aaron,!) The sins are in Aaron who is now Jesus Christ!. The whole thing is representative of Jesus Christ from beginning to end in the levitical Sanctuary. you had to have two goats to represent the two parts ,of the atonement. Because after the first Goat dies ,you've got a dead Goat. In the real world, for what it represents.. how are you going to remove the sins? To represent what Jesus does the second part of the atonement. Leviticus 16 10. you now I have a dead Goat!. That's why the second Goat is there representing the( same Jesus! )Which completes the atonement that does not happen for you! Which is Isaiah 43 verse 25 at the cross. God himself. That's who you're calling the devil. Which is Jesus Christ present ,past and future that's what Abraham put his faith in .you don't have that. SDA is not Abrahams seed, Job says I know my redeemer lives .his faith was in what Jesus was going to do. Present, past, and future that doesn't happen for you! That's salvation right there. As soon as you believe that. you're saved .otherwise you're not!.

I know it is little difference, but for that reason I say non-trinitarian. “Anti” seems to say I’m on a crusade against trinitarians, when it is the opposite, we’re on a crusade to reveal God and His Son. Thanks friends

Or "anti-Christ".