Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[tall73]

You appear to constantly complain - that this Bible text "exists"

Lev 16: (The SCAPEGOAT)
20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. 22 Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

Of course not Bob. I complain that you see satan as taking on the sins of God's people and paying the price of those sins when Jesus already did.

I complain that you think Jesus and satan are interchangeably represented by unblemished sacrificial animals, and that God decides which will die for sins and which will be sent to the wilderness.

I complain that the text says the scape goat makes atonement, but then Ellen White says that is satan and that he has to pay the penalty for the sins of God's people.

I complain that Adventist doctrine is disgusting on this point, and wrong.

26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp. (Because unlike the sin offering - the scapegoat defiles those that touch it while it is alive)

Yes, because it represents the removal of sin from the camp.

Apparently you believe Ellen White wrote that and also imagine that it says the scapegoat is "THE sin offering" instead of the Lord's goat as "THE Sin offering" In Lev 16.

No, I believe Jesus actually made atonement for the sins of His people, and He is the one who sends sin out of the camp.

I don't believe that satan bears the final penalty for the sins of God's people because Jesus already did. And I don't believe a sinful being can take on other's sins.

 

[tall73]

Someone here loves "All Ellen White all the time" posting... that is for sure.

Bob, you know it is your church that sends her writings everywhere. Adventists only run from them when people start asking questions.

 

[BobRyan]

The other huge gap in your model is that all your associates here suppose to themselves that Satan gets infinite torture - eternal torment for his part - and Adventist put it at infinitely less then that - sinc it is finite. Your "satan might suffer too much in the Adventist model I suggest" idea - is hiding that key detail from your own side.

Bob, I have not hidden anything from the that Ellen White said. I posted the texts about him being destroyed. They all saw it, and some commented on it.

And no one in this thread is concerned about satan suffering too much. .

Then you are stuck - because adding more suffering to satan where he is not in the role of sin offering - does nothing for anyone in terms of paying their debt of sin...

The point remains

 

[tall73]

"take your sins and what"? after full atonement had been made for them in the sanctuary as God teaches in Lev 16 (a chapter you seem to want to blame on "Ellen White")

If you aren't going to read the posts - it opens the door for me to show how they have already debunked the speculation you are handing out.

Of course they have been read Bob.

You say that the imagined action of Ellen White is not an atonement. Except the text says the scapegoat makes atonement.

Lev 16:10 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.


We say the whole thing is fictional anyway and cheapens the atonement of Christ. satan cannot take on other's sins, he has his own.

And a price to be paid for the sins of God's people after Jesus already did, and they accepted it, is just Ellen White's sick dream.

 

[BobRyan]

I complain that you see satan as taking on the sins of God's people and paying the price of those sins when Jesus already did.

you already admit that this is exactly what happens in the case of the wicked -- they pay for sin even though Christ already paid that debt in full.

Turns out - Satan is wicked. deal.

 

[BobRyan]

the scapegoat makes atonement.

Lev 16:10 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.

But not as a sin offering - it is alive and pollutes anyone who touches it. It represents the wicked.

 

[tall73]

you already admit that this is exactly what happens in the case of the wicked -- they pay for sin even though Christ already paid that debt in full.

Turns out - Satan is wicked. deal.

Hey Bob. You seem confused. They pay for their own sin since they refused a substitute.

Satan pays for his own sin since he has no substitute.

Jesus paid for the sins of His people because He IS the substitute, and they accepted it.

Ellen White's notion of satan paying for the sins of God's people is an insult to Christ.

He sees that the day of atonement has a bearing on his life; that the scapegoat chosen to bear the sins of the people represents himself; that he must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus; and that those who continue in transgression must bear their own sins.

 

[BobRyan]

We are concerned that Ellen White's disgusting theology has a penalty left to bear for the sins of God's people after the Son of God paid that penalty.

already debunked here -

we see your two options so far - have lots of problems...

"You have engaged in extreme bend-and-wrench efforts to spin a supposedly "adventist" view that first the scapegoat pays for the sins of the saints - then Christ pays something-or-other left over, then the work in the sanctuary is done. Thus "diminishing the work of Christ's atonement"

"Or is your spin more like this very confusing format
1. Christ calculates some lesser payment diminished by whatever amount of suffering he plans to pile on satan in the future.
2. Christ’s work in the sanctuary then applies his own suffering plus the suffering of satan to pay debt of sin for others.
3. Christ then gets satan to suffer on behalf of other so as to pay their debt
4. Yet “inexplicably” you freely admit that the Adventists teaching is that Christ in fact paid the atoning sacrifice for all sins of all time 1 John 2:2 not just some diminished set and just for the saints​

 

[tall73]

But not as a sin offering - it is alive and pollutes anyone who touches it. It represents the wicked.

It represents sin being sent out Bob. All sin is removed from the camp by the ministration of the high priest. It is Jesus, not satan, who removes all sin from the dwelling place of God's people.

And satan cannot atone for any of the sins of the saints. Jesus already did.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey Bob. You seem confused. They pay for their own sin since they refused a substitute.

You have the wicked paying the debt of sin even though Christ already paid it in full... then when you see this same thing happen with Satan you objection is "but Christ already paid it in full" EVEN though you can't deny that this is exactly what happens in the case of the wicked and you can't deny that "Satan is wicked"


Jesus paid for the sins of His people -- in fact for all the sins of all the world. His payment is not "cheapened" by someone who rejects or by Satan "suffering".

 

[BobRyan]

It represents sin being sent out Bob. .

substitutionary atonement is about sin paid for - by a substitute where then the sinner is relieved of having to pay that debt.

That happens in the case of the sin offering and in the case of the High Priest's work in the sanctuary.

Nothing at all contributed in that process by the scapegoat as we see in Lev 16 - until it is all completed. As we saw here --
20 minutes ago #719

 

[tall73]

You have the wicked paying the debt of sin even though Christ already paid it in full.

Bob, I already pointed out that the wicked pay for THEIR sin.

Satan does the same.

Ellen White asserts satan pays for the sins of God's people. And that was already paid for by Christ.

.. then when you see this same thing happen with Satan you objection is "but Christ already paid it in full" EVEN though you can't deny that this is exactly what happens in the case of the wicked and you can't deny that "Satan is wicked"

Bob, the same thing that happens to the wicked DOES happen to satan. They pay for their sins, having no substitute.

It is Ellen White who instead says that satan pays the penalty of the sins of God's people which Jesus already paid for.

Jesus paid for the sins of His people -- in fact for all the sins of all the world. His payment is not "cheapened" by someone who rejects or by Satan "suffering".

Jesus' paid for all the sins of the world.

Ellen White's words are blasphemous for making the penalty He paid for God's people not enough, and satan still having to pay it.

satan of course pays for his own sins, just like the wicked.

 

[BobRyan]

So you are telling your audience that they are too ignorant to understand. But they are not. They can read her statements and the Bible.

You are exposed on that point since we both know that SDAs here have had years to read the material she wrote - and your readers only git "snips" and spin-doctoring.

This may be why you object to my choice of sticking with the Bible.

So to clarify, when you pray about your sins, do you pray to Jesus that He would atone for them by His blood? Or do you do as Ellen White indicated here and pray that your sins are confessed on the head of satan? Or do you do both?

Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

Lt 8, 1850

A perfect example of your exposing the flaw in your own argument. The above is not quote from anything Ellen White ever published. It is a private letter that most generations of SDAs would not have seen - yet you throw it up to non-SDAs "as if" -- you think "everything Ellen White said at the dinner table was inspired". Not even your "stack of books" picture for Ellen White's writtings - includes the things you toss out for non-SDAs.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, the same thing that happens to the wicked DOES happen to satan. They pay for their sins, having no substitute.

Satan has no substitute. the wicked have no substitute at that point - they suffer but they relieve no one's debt.

Ellen White who instead says that satan pays the penalty of the sins of God's people which Jesus already paid for.

Which you already admits happens in the case of all the wicked paying for sin even though Christ already paid for it... shooting your own argument in the foot.

Jesus' paid for all the sins of the world.

You keep admitting that this is what Adventists teach and what Ellen White wrote as well. Shooting your own argument in the foot.

making the penalty He paid for God's people not enough, and satan still having to pay it.

Already debunked that made up scenario in my prior post... will add it here "again" if you wish.

#692

Where we see your two options so far - have lots of problems...

"You have engaged in extreme bend-and-wrench efforts to spin a supposedly "adventist" view that first the scapegoat pays for the sins of the saints - then Christ pays something-or-other left over, then the work in the sanctuary is done. Thus "diminishing the work of Christ's atonement"

"Or is your spin more like this very confusing format
1. Christ calculates some lesser payment diminished by whatever amount of suffering he plans to pile on satan in the future.
2. Christ’s work in the sanctuary then applies his own suffering plus the suffering of satan to pay debt of sin for others.
3. Christ then gets satan to suffer on behalf of other so as to pay their debt
4. Yet “inexplicably” you freely admit that the Adventists teaching is that Christ in fact paid the atoning sacrifice for all sins of all time 1 John 2:2 not just some diminished set and just for the saints​

It looks like you picked option #2

making the penalty He paid for God's people not enough, and satan still having to pay it.

Option #2 for you

"Or is your spin more like this very confusing format
1. Christ calculates some lesser payment diminished by whatever amount of suffering he plans to pile on satan in the future.
2. Christ’s work in the sanctuary then applies his own suffering plus the suffering of satan to pay debt of sin for others.
3. Christ then gets satan to suffer on behalf of other so as to pay their debt
4. Yet “inexplicably” you freely admit that the Adventists teaching is that Christ in fact paid the atoning sacrifice for all sins of all time 1 John 2:2 not just some diminished set and just for the saints


In real life - Lev 16 has this sequence

1. The sin offering selected -
2. The sin offering slain (Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross - pays the debt of all sin in all of time) as also Ellen White reminds the reader - #666
3. The work in the sanctuary (those who accept that Gospel are identified and affirmed)

In all of that - the scapegoat plays no part at all.
Only when it is entirely completed do we have this -

4. sins confessed on the head of the scapegoat and it is sent away - defiling whoever it touches.

Even your own view adding even more suffering for satan- does not change anything about the atonement since the suffering of the wicked:

• is not a sin offering,
• does not relieve anyone's suffering,
• is not substitutionary

...all the details you are careful to skim past so far.

 

[tall73]

You are exposed on that point since we both know that SDAs here have had years to read the material she wrote - and your readers only git "snips" and spin-doctoring.

This may be why you object to my choice of sticking with the Bible.

Bob, you would love to think that they are too dense to see what Ellen White is saying. But they see it.

And I have discussed the Bible with you at length. But because you often want to run from some points that Ellen White touches on, I quote her too.

And folks can see both, despite your low estimation of the readers here.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you would love to think that they are too dense to see what Ellen White is saying. .

I think you can't make your case from the Bible and also can't make it with those who have actually read the sources ... so you choose to present your "All Ellen White" posts to non-SDAs

 

[tall73]

Satan has no substitute. the wicked have no substitute at that point - they suffer but they relieve no one's debt.

Bob, you know the issue. And it is not debunked.

satan can't take on the sins of God's people, because he has his own.

he has no substitute, and he suffers for his OWN sins.

Jesus already was the substitute for His own people. So the teaching that satan has those placed on him and pays the penalty for them is blasphemous and sick.

Now you go on repeating anything you want. You will just bump this thread for more people to read the Bible discussion, Ellen White's comments, and your low opinion of those reading along.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Well that is something you would need to prayerfully study through the scriptures if you are in disagreement or confused. You have not provided any scripture to show that Jesus represents the scapegoat. Meanwhile you have been provided scripture that shows that it is only blood atonement that pays he penalty for sin (death) and the application of the blood through the high Priest that achieves Gods forgiveness of sins.

According to the scriptures "the scapegoat" is only presented before God for atonement once all the final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood (Great day of atonement) through blood sacrifice. At this point once all of God's peoples sins are atoned for through the blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat" then "the scapegoat" is presented before the Lord where all the sins of God's people are transferred to the scapegoat by that great High Priest (Jesus; Hebrews 7:1-25 ) for the removing of all sin from the presence of God. At which time the scapegoat which is "kept alive" (no sin atonement) is led away captive by a strong man into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22).

An application of making Jesus being "the scapegoat" here makes the blood atonement of Jesus through "the Lords goat" of non-effect and also does not fit any the ant-type applications. You were also shown that the Hebrew meaning of "scapegoat" from the BDB Hebrew dictionary means to "be gone" "fallen angel."

You also may want to consider some interesting comments from Jewish commentaries and the Apocrypha (Book of Enoch).

"Azazel was probably a demonic being. Apocryphal Jewish works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era, tell of angels who were lured into rebellion against God. In these writings, Azazel is one of the two leaders of the rebellion. And posttalmudic documents tell a similar story about two rebel angels, Uzza and Azzael—both variations of the name Azazel. These mythological stories, which must have been widely known, seem to confirm the essentially demonic character of the old biblical Azazel" (Union of American Hebrew Congregations, The Torah-a Modern Commentary, page 859).

The book of Enoch

In the Book of Enoch, Azazel is a fallen angel who teaches mankind unrighteous ways. As a result, he is bound and sentenced to the desert forever. It also contains another tradition typically taught on the Day of Atonement—that Satan is the author of human sin: “And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.' In other words, the ascribing of all human sin to a fallen angel is from the very same Jewish tradition that identifies the azazel as a demon.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged - H5799

H5799. azazel; עֲזָאזֵל noun [masculine] entire removal (reduplicated intensive (Ges§ 30 n. Sta§ 124 a), abstract, √ [עזל] = Arabic remove, see BährSymb. ii. 668 Winii. 659 ff. Me SchenkelBL. i. 256; > most, proper name of spirit haunting desert, Thes Di DrHastings, DB a fallen angel, Lev 16:8ff. being late, according to CheZAW xv (1895), 153 ff., Ency. Bib., who derives from עזזאֿל; compare BenzEncy. Bib.], as in Jewish angelology, where probably based on interpret. of 16:8ff.; name not elsewhere); — ׳ע 16:8, 10 (twice in verse); 16:26 in ritual of Day of Atonement, = entire removal of sin and guilt from sacred places into desert on back of goat, symbol of entire forgiveness.

.............

You were also shown that both the final blood atonement through death of "the Lords goat" and the Great high Priest interceding on our behalf represents Jesus. You were also shown that Jesus as our great high Priest transfers all the sins of God's people after final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary has been completed to "the scapegoat" which removes all sin from the presence of God that was led by a strong man into the wilderness which has application at the second coming where the angel of the Lord leads Satan captive leading him to the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the final atonement and cleansing of the Sanctuary has been completed before the coming of Christ (Revelation 22:11-15).

So I think perhaps it might be a good idea to prayerfully take the time to study the topic for yourself. Having "the scapegoat" representing Jesus has no scriptural support for this view and neither does it have any anti type fulfillment in the new covenant and as shown earlier makes the blood of the cross and Christs sacrifice of non-effect making a mockery of the death of Jesus. So with these thoughts in mind as posted earlier, perhaps you can pray about it. Everything above has already been proven to you from the scriptures.

Just the fact that the scriptures in Leviticus 16 tell us that there are two types of goats one being "the Lords goat" and the other being "the scapegoat" and that "the Lords goat" is used for blood atonement while "the scapegoat" is not used for blood atonement should tell you that there are two very different offerings for sin being made here. I will leave that between you and God to think about as these are God's Words not mine (Leviticus 16:8-10; Leviticus 15:22).

Your response here...

CF says this post is too long to do all at once. I'm breaking it into pieces. I believe it does narrow things down. I talk about the parts of your post that I disagree with.

The problem is Leaf every part of that post is in disagreement with you and you have not addressed it so no you have not narrowed it does you have ignored it is probably the better word while making the occasional comment that does not address the posts detail in various sections of the post. So we might have to agree to disagree on this one dear friend. As posted earlier perhaps you can prayerfully study the topic for your self and we can talk about it latter.

I thought it was clear from my post what I was disagreeing with.

No, not at all. You simply either hand waived much of my post and simply disagreed without showing why you were in disagreement from the scriptures.

But no matter. Some of the highlights of where we don't agree are: If the scapegoat isn't Jesus it must be Satan

As already stated above, you simply either hand waived much of my post and simply disagreed without showing why you were in disagreement from the scriptures. If you agree that there is a strong link that "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan then how can it represent Jesus? You were also shown from the scriptures in the types and the anti-types of the new covenant why it is impossible for "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") to represent Jesus and you have provided no scripture to show that "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") does not represent Satan and provided no scripture to show that the "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") represents Jesus.

There is a strong link between the scapegoat story and Satan (I agree there is a link, I don't think it is compelling.)

Once again an opinion your not able to support by scripture. Meanwhile you were provided
four different sources that were all in agreement. These included a (1). Scripture; (2). Jewish commentary on the Torah and meaning of the name Azazel; (3). the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4). the BDB and English Lexicon and (5). The occult and Satanism depicting Satan as a goat. Honestly, it seem Satanists no more about the scriptures then many Christians sadly. All five independent sources are in agreement.

• Source (1) scripture from the old and new covenant showing types and anti-types
  
• Source (2) Jewish Torah commentary showing the meaning of the name of Azazel was;
  
• Source (3) refers to Azazel from the Apocrypha as the leader of the fallen angels;
• Source (4) Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon showing the meaning of the word translated "scapegoat" being Azazel meaning "removal" "fallen angel" with context to the Day of atonement (Leviticus 16).
• Source (5) The symbol of Satan in Satanism and the occult is the goat!

If you agree that there is a strong link here then if your in disagreement you would need to prove otherwise and you haven't done this.

Satan is in some way paying the price for our sin when he is finally destroyed.

As shown through the scriptures already, this is a misrepresentation of what has been shared here. All your doing is following a misrepresentation that someone else is saying which no one believes.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord wrote: I see. So you do not believe you need to prove your position from the scriptures? For me I do not think our discussion will go very far because for me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them (Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29).

Your response here...

No, it's not that I don't need to prove my position from the scriptures.

I see so all you have provided as shown earlier is an opinion your not able to prove from the scriptures. As posted in the post you are quoting from I do not think our discussion will go very far because for me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them (Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29).

But I don't need to disprove your position until you have proven it. Otherwise, I believe that's called shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is generally considered to be on the person making the assertion. So I don't have to prove that the scapegoat isn't Satan, until you have shown clearly that it is. (Again, you make a case for it, but it's not very strong imo.) I don't have to prove that the scapegoat is Jesus until you prove that the only two possibilities for the scapegoat are Satan and Jesus.

Hand waiving. You have been provided evidence which you have already agree provides a "strong link" (your words) from the scriptures in the types and anti-types, Jewish commentary on the Torah, the Book of Enoch and a Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon all showing that "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "removal" "fallen angel") represents Satan. Sorry Leaf all you have done here is to hand waive without showing why you disagree. So there is not much more to be said here.

So you do believe that Satan pays the final penalty for our sin? Or you do not believe that? Or you believe that he pays some part of the final penalty of our sin?

You know exactly what I believe and it is not what your claiming and others have claimed that no one believes. Here you go again asking the same question already answered with detailed scripture responses to you over and over. I suggest you go re-read them.

What is it in the posts and scriptures shared with you in the yearly day of atonement and the differences between "the Lords goat" that provides "blood sacrifice" and the Great High Priest that both represent Jesus and His final atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary for all the sins of Gods' people that you do not understand?

Do you understand where the sins of Gods' people are once atonement has been made through blood sacrifice? They are with the blood sacrifice and the Great High Priest being removed from the sinner and the Sanctuary right?

So is it blood sacrifice that makes the final atonement for us in receiving God's forgiveness does it not? Now once again, according to the scriptures once our final atonement through blood sacrifice has been completed by the Great High Priest (Jesus), the scapegoat (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") come before the Lord to remove all sin from the presence of God and the Sanctuary. Do you agree?

What then happens with "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel")? Finally, do you know the difference between Jesus paying the penalty for our sins through blood sacrifice and interceding on our behalf before God as our great high Priest with His own blood and the wicked who reject Christs free gift of Gods' grace who are kept alive to pay the penalty for their own sins?

If you can honestly answer these scriptures that have already been answered for you from the scriptures in previous posts you would not be making claims and asking questions no one believes or has said here.

Take Care...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ As posted earlier, there are two goats that are made for sin offerings (Leviticus 16:5). After casting lots the two goats are determined as "the Lords goat" and "the scapegoat". It is only "the Lords goat" that is sacrificed for sin atonement through blood sacrifice (Leviticus 16:8-10). Once the final atonement is made for God's people through blood sacrifice and the cleansing of the sanctuary by "the Lords goat" and the yearly ministration of the priesthood is completed for the final atonement and the forgiveness of the sins of all of God's people then the Great High Priest lays His hands on "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) all sin is confessed by the Great High Priest (Jesus) which is transferred to "the scapegoat" (Leviticus 16:20-22). The scapegoat is then led away "alive" by a strong man removing the all the sins from Gods people and the presence of God into the wilderness which is fulfilled at the second coming (see Leviticus 16:21-22; fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3). Atonement for the sins of Gods' people has already been made by "the Lords goat" through blood sacrifice. This means that "the Lord's goat" as a sin offering dies and pays the penalty for our sins through death (the wages of sin is death - Romans 6:23).

Your response here...

At that point is the full penalty of our sin paid for? There is no penalty of our sin left for the scapegoat / Satan to pay later

So you do not know what blood sacrifice means Leaf and what it is used for by the Great High Priest? If we transfer all of our sins to the blood sacrifice who has them? Do we still have them or have they been transferred to the blood sacrifice? What then happens with our sins after they have been transferred and purchased through blood atonement?

While blood atonement is made by the Great High Priest ministering the blood of "the Lords goat" before God so we can receive Gods' forgiveness of sins. At this stage Gods' people do not have any more sin as this has been purchase through blood atonement through "the Lords goat" (Jesus). All this is the work of Christ on our behalf. The transferring and removal of all the sins...

Your response here...

The sins of God's people? Or the sins of other people? Or both?

The Sanctuary system and sin atonement is only for Gods' people who confess their sins before God and transfer them to the sin offering for blood atonement in the daily ministration of the Priesthood. The yearly ministration of the Priesthood is the final atonement made for all of God's people and the cleansing of the Sanctuary for the removal of all the sins of God's people from the presence of God. In the anti-type this is the final work before the second coming of Jesus as Gods blood sacrifice offered for the sins of the world and all those who accept the free gift of God's dear son (blood sacrifice) and the ministration of Jesus interceding His own blood on our behalf so that we can all receive Gods' forgiveness of sins.

So it sounds like it is the sin of God's people that is placed on the scapegoat.

Which was stated in nearly every post to you already.

At this point blood atonement has already been made for the sins of God's people. But that blood atonement doesn't destroy the sin? The sin is left fully intact such that it can be then transferred to the scapegoat?

According to the scriptures sin is transferred from the sinner to the sin offering as the sinner lays his hands on the sin offerings head confessing their sins in the presence of the Priest and the Lord inside the Sanctuary. At this point the sinner kills the sin offering that their sins have been transferred to and the Priest then collects the blood of the sacrifice and makes atonement before the Lord so the sinner can receive Gods' forgiveness of sins by sprinkling the blood of the sin offering on the alter of burnt offering while the rest of the blood is poured out at the base of the alter (Leviticus 4:22-35).

This is to symbolize all sin will finally be destroyed by fire and death of the wicked after the second coming of the Lord in the lake of fire (after the 1000 years of Satan being led away by the Angel) *see Revelation 20 which is a type of final burnt offering. After atonement has been made in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood, "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") is brought before the Lord and the Great High Priest then transfers all the sins of God's people cleansed from the Sanctuary from the daily ministration of blood atonement and lays His hands on the head of the scapegoat transferring all the sins of Gods' people to "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") *Leviticus 16:20-22 for the removal of all sin from the presence of God. At this point "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") is led away by a strong man into the wilderness.

This symbolizes what happens to Satan at the second coming in the anti-type in Revelation 20:1-3 before all the wicked are destroyed in the Lake of fire after the 1000 years and all sin and death are finally destroyed from this earth (Revelation 20:4-15).

Is the role of the blood atonement basically to detach the sin from the people such that it can then be attached to the scapegoat?

See previous section. Sin is transferred from the sinner to the sin offering (Leviticus 4:22-35) symbolizing Christ purchasing our sins that are transferred to him through blood atonement. At this point the sin offering has the sinners sins and atonement is made through the Priesthood (also representing Jesus interceding blood atonement on our behalf that has been transferred to himself). Read Leviticus 16:20-22. After blood sacrifice has been completed through "the Lords goat" (Jesus) and the Great High Priest (Jesus). Jesus as our Great High Priest (Hebrews 7:1-25) lay his hands on the scapegoats head and confesses all the sin of Gods people which according to the scriptures are transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") to remove all the sins of God's people from the presence of God. "The scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" fallen angel") is then led away "alive" by a strong man into the wilderness.

Your remaining question are repetition that have already been answered through the scriptures above. So now what is it in the scriptures and the posts that have been shared with you that you do not believe?

Take Care.