Two thoughts on the Day of Atonement.

[jasd]

>>The scapegoat "once identified" is never given the title "sin offering". All sin offerings had to be slain and burned. The scapegoat was neither killed nor burned. It could not be a substitutionary atoning sacrifice by definition.<<

I confess that I fail to apprehend the argument you are advancing in the above. How does the “sin offering” correlate with/to the goat sent into the wilderness of Azazel?

>>It reprensents sin that is not paid for by the blood of the Lord's Goat in the sanctuary. It is sin that comes out of the sanctuary and is "returned to the sinner".<<

Lev 16:34 This shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. ...

Some make the argument that the Atoning Sacrifice merely covers, and per the above – seems to suggest that ‘covered’ iniquities are revisited upon the heads of a number of those already Atoned-for by the Saviour. I read Atonement as, yes,

to cover – but more-so as purging, cleansing, disannulling, and making reconciliation.

>>The sinner's death is not "substitutionary" it is not "atoning" for others<<

I don’t think anyone [at this time] suggests that.

>> -- it does nothing but get rid of the sinner in a way that accounts for all of his sins.<<

??

>>Thus all the wicked who laid claims to the blood of Christ -- but were not saved - have their sins returned to them.

And all the sins that Satan caused the saved saints to commit are then added to his already "large account" for "his part" in the "added sin" of tempting someone "not of his kingdom". A crime whose penalty could only be calculated once those "not of his kingdom" were officially identified.<<

Is the above drawn from Writ – or is it attributable?