Is the Christian cross a symbol representing Scapegoating?

[Kenny]

Couldnt the same message of sacrifice and forgiveness be complete
through self-renounciation by living from an example of a person's life rather than one's death?

Do you need someone to actually die for you to live?

That is a good question... and probably what everyone is trying to answer. Isn't Buddism a process of self-denial? Or re-incarnation, isn't that the effort of trying to be better and better and better? Many different forms of the same effort IMO. Then comes the question of whether what I have done well is enough to make up from what I haven't done well.

I think the difference between all of them and Christianity is that they all amount to our ability to become better and better vs God saying, "Only I can make you perfect".

So, as I pondered on these thoughts within the context of the spiritual and the position that "physical death" is not ceasing to exist, I find that, yes, someone had to pay for sins and Jesus, as The Word made flesh, fits all the requirements.

Obviously, a very short of the long of it.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

In the Roman Catholic theology of my youth, the purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus was to provide a way to counter the Sin of Adam. Baptism cleansed the soul of Original Sin that resulted from Adam's disobedience. Baptism also removed any existing sin from the soul assuming one truly repented of having been sinful. The sacrifice of Jesus did not automatically pay for all personal sins. Except for those forgiven by baptism, personal sins were still the responsibility of the individual.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is a good question... and probably what everyone is trying to answer. Isn't Buddism a process of self-denial? Or re-incarnation, isn't that the effort of trying to be better and better and better? Many different forms of the same effort IMO. Then comes the question of whether what I have done well is enough to make up from what I haven't done well.

I think the difference between all of them and Christianity is that they all amount to our ability to become better and better vs God saying, "Only I can make you perfect".

So, as I pondered on these thoughts within the context of the spiritual and the position that "physical death" is not ceasing to exist, I find that, yes, someone had to pay for sins and Jesus, as The Word made flesh, fits all the requirements.

Obviously, a very short of the long of it.

Hmm. Thought provoking reply. I honestly and no offense wonder why people feel they need someone else (2000 ago at that) to save them. Its like watching you say you are tied in chains and Buddhist say thats a delusion. Now wonder you cant be saved. If you always think your trapped you have no reason to take off the chains yourself or even to notice they arent chains.

Buddhism (The Dharma) teaches we train our mind to see how these chains are products of our mind. We dont deny they exist just its not ad life threating as you guys think.

So the idea is that we are born pure-say with the instinct of love to his parent. We are taught attachments-food, water, shelter will save you only if you have money. The idea is to renounce this attachment (hence for monks) to money. Its litterally shaving things that prevent a healthy mind so that we express love that we lost at as we age. We do this in giving, purification (some lineages), meditation, and chanting to name a few.

We follow the oral and written teachings of a person who had lived and died. Recarnatmion is hindism. Reborn to be one with god. Rebirth is a cycle of reliving untill one has no attachments. Then we die.

Its interesting that this idea of humility in sacrifice and poverty is in christianity but only achieved by ones death. Its not wrong to want another to save you.

We all sin. Why do you feel you cant help yourself?

 

[Kenny]

Hmm. Thought provoking reply. I honestly and no offense wonder why people feel they need someone else (2000 ago at that) to save them. Its like watching you say you are tied in chains and Buddhist say thats a delusion. Now wonder you cant be saved. If you always think your trapped you have no reason to take off the chains yourself or even to notice they arent chains.

Buddhism (The Dharma) teaches we train our mind to see how these chains are products of our mind. We dont deny they exist just its not ad life threating as you guys think.

Absolutely no offence taken, Clarita.

I guess it depends on which foundation one constructs his/her's beliefs on.

In our perspective, there is some truth to the temporality of what we see. Our position, however, is that what we see is a product of that which we cannnot see. In other words, the physical is a product of the spiritual so even if you do ignore what your mind correctly perceives as temporal, the eternal discord that produced it is still existing.

Jesus Christ erradicated that eternal discord because He destroyed the chains that produced it and now we are free to exist in the realities of the eternal.

So the idea is that we are born pure-say with the instinct of love to his parent. We are taught attachments-food, water, shelter will save you only if you have money. The idea is to renounce this attachment (hence for monks) to money. Its litterally shaving things that prevent a healthy mind so that we express love that we lost at as we age. We do this in giving, purification (some lineages), meditation, and chanting to name a few.

Again... the difference here, for us, is what we can do versus what God can do. We also believe that money doesn't save, thus, when I had no food for my children all we had to do is pray and believe... food came. Or when they were going to shut our electric, we lived on with joy and the monies came through means beyond our means.

Or when there was no more food to feed the hundred in Honduras after hurricane Mitch, the food just kept multiplying untill all were fed.

Giving is also our means for multiplication. Meditation is part of our lives. Chanting becomes unnecessary for us because we are already one with God although speaking is an intregal part of our lives.

We follow the oral and written teachings of a person who had lived and died. Recarnatmion is hindism. Reborn to be one with god. Rebirth is a cycle of reliving untill one has no attachments. Then we die.

Yes... again, the difference between these position and our positij is that one relies with mankind's capacity vs faith through the cross and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which relies on God's ability.

Its interesting that this idea of humility in sacrifice and poverty is in christianity but only achieved by ones death. Its not wrong to want another to save you.

I'm not following this concept. Poverty is not a Christian system etc.

We all sin. Why do you feel you cant help yourself?

Have you eliminated all of your sin?

We have through the sacrifice.

 

[Thief]

anyone here using the crucifix as would an exorcist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm.

Absolutely no offence taken, Clarita.

Thank you.

I guess it depends on which foundation one constructs his/her's beliefs on.

True.

In our perspective, there is some truth to the temporality of what we see. Our position, however, is that what we see is a product of that which we cannnot see. In other words, the physical is a product of the spiritual so even if you do ignore what your mind correctly perceives as temporal, the eternal discord that produced it is still existing.

In other words, the physical is dependent on the physical and what the physical perceives is limited without the foundation of the unseen/spiritual (god?)?

Jesus Christ erradicated that eternal discord because He destroyed the chains that produced it and now we are free to exist in the realities of the eternal.

I wondered why you'd feel you're in chains all because you sinned. Maybe the reality is that you're not in chains, but for you to know you're not in chains is to follow Christ confirming your illusion of being trapped. It seems you perceived you are in changes is because of the discord you have with the eternal making you side with the physical as truth (original sin) rather than the spiritual.

Again... the difference here, for us, is what we can do versus what God can do. We also believe that money doesn't save, thus, when I had no food for my children all we had to do is pray and believe... food came. Or when they were going to shut our electric, we lived on with joy and the monies came through means beyond our means.

Or when there was no more food to feed the hundred in Honduras after hurricane Mitch, the food just kept multiplying untill all were fed.

That's good. Prayer is always a good thing even when there is nothing more one can do.

Giving is also our means for multiplication. Meditation is part of our lives. Chanting becomes unnecessary for us because we are already one with God although speaking is an intregal part of our lives.

Hmm. Chanting is being one with god (in some religions). The difference between many christian denominations and liturgical ones as well as cultural religions is that the actions such as chanting, prayers, rituals, etc brings the person one with god (in a christian sense). So it's inseparable. Like hugging someone physically in addition to verbal confirmation and spiritual motivation and intent. It all goes together.

In Dharmic view, chanting can be for purification of one's karmic imprints (one's nonconstructive actions imprinted in the depths of our mind). In rough translation, purification, certain rituals, prayer, and chanting clears up one's sin.

Yes... again, the difference between these position and our positij is that one relies with mankind's capacity vs faith through the cross and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which relies on God's ability.

I'm not following this concept. Poverty is not a Christian system etc.

It's what I known through Catholicism when you give yourself up to follow Christ only without the passion of needing material things to be one with christ. Basically, you're clearing obstructions between you are Christ. Not all denominations have that mindset; but, in a general sense, if one does not have that "crucified in christ" ideal, how does one come to christ? It sounds more like ego getting in the way: I want to have this even though I want to be with christ. Denominational differences but the meaning is biblical.

Have you eliminated all of your sin?

No. Sin isn't a Dharmic word. For example, monks live in poverty and isolate themselves from their families and friends. While the ego part of ourselves say why divorce ourselves from our loved ones, the Dharmic view is it is a sin-an attachment-to the material word that keeps us from full enlightenment (a clear mind from attachment). Sin isn't just nonconstructive actions but anything that keeps us away from developing a healthy mind. Laity practitioners have less obligations. We have our families and friends but also know gradually that we don't depend on them more so than we do The Dharma because they live and they die so we do; but, compassion, for example, does not.

Sin, in short terms, is diverging from living and training one's mind ridding itself of attachments.

We have through the sacrifice.

True. If you have no sacrifice, why do you feel you can't do it on your own?

Contrasting this with Dharmic view that we can do it on our own.

 

[icehorse]

But I'm not sure about the rest. It almost sounds like you are saying... "If I do wrong, the judge should judge to my standards. After all... I tried to make amends and I will strie to do better". Should a judge always follow that line of thinking?

We humans have legal systems, imperfect, but with the intention that the punishment fits the crime. If I get caught speeding, I pay my fine. If I kill someone, I spend my life in jail.

Many Christians would have us believe that if we don't buy their rap, then no matter how morally we lived our lives, we're doomed to an eternity in hellfire. So, in order to avoid that harshest of punishments, we must abandon our critical thinking facilities, no thanks.

 

[Kenny]

In other words, the physical is dependent on the physical and what the physical perceives is limited without the foundation of the unseen/spiritual (god?)?

We may be saying the same thing in different terms... but let me rephrase just to be sure...

Jesus cursed a fig tree... the natura "seemed" like it hadn't changed but the spiritual eventually changes the natural. It is from the spirit the life and death spring forth from. Changing what we do on the outside (the natural, the physical, that which we can see) doesn't change the root of the problem... the spiritual. We can overcome one area in our lives but because the spiritual root hasn't been changed, it just morphes into something else that we have to deal with.

I wondered why you'd feel you're in chains all because you sinned.

Just a change in semantics here... I WAS in chains (a metaphor for a spiritual issue that prevented me from experiencing life to the fullest).. but I am in chains no more. I am born again (Christaineese ) a new creature that is now free from all chains.

Maybe the reality is that you're not in chains, but for you to know you're not in chains is to follow Christ confirming your illusion of being trapped. It seems you perceived you are in changes is because of the discord you have with the eternal making you side with the physical as truth (original sin) rather than the spiritual.

Thus... I'm not sure this applies to me. I am no longer trapped, no longer separated, no longer in discord.

Now, if the statment is "why did you think you use to be in chains... maybe it was an illussion"... then we are back to the foundations of our beliefs.

The fact that my life was in discord is a reflection that I had a spiritual problem. Spiritual problems, for me, is not an illusion. It is real

That's good. Prayer is always a good thing even when there is nothing more one can do.

Your prayers are just as good.

Hmm. Chanting is being one with god (in some religions). The difference between many christian denominations and liturgical ones as well as cultural religions is that the actions such as chanting, prayers, rituals, etc brings the person one with god (in a christian sense). So it's inseparable. Like hugging someone physically in addition to verbal confirmation and spiritual motivation and intent. It all goes together.

Yes... I am aware of the differences. Nothing against someone who chants, just for us it isn't necessary to being one with God.

In Dharmic view, chanting can be for purification of one's karmic imprints (one's nonconstructive actions imprinted in the depths of our mind). In rough translation, purification, certain rituals, prayer, and chanting clears up one's sin.

Gotcha! Understand!

For us, the blood has already cleared up one's sin. It's a finished work. Now... our minds need to be renewed. I guess that would equate to your statement of "purification". We renew our minds by mediating on the Word that we believe comes from God. It washes away our stinking thinking and opens it up to God's ability that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit and His Word.

It's what I known through Catholicism when you give yourself up to follow Christ only without the passion of needing material things to be one with christ. Basically, you're clearing obstructions between you are Christ. Not all denominations have that mindset; but, in a general sense, if one does not have that "crucified in christ" ideal, how does one come to christ? It sounds more like ego getting in the way: I want to have this even though I want to be with christ. Denominational differences but the meaning is biblical.

I thought that might be the case. Being crucified in Christ doesn't translate into giving up the material. What it means is that the material doesn't control your life... you control it. So, when God says "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor of the world", we sell it because materiality doesn't control us. However, God's promise still holds true (for us) that "he who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and He shall repary it". He will continue to bless us knowing that at any time He can call on us to use the material for His glory.

No. Sin isn't a Dharmic word.

OK... it through me off a little when you said "and chanting clears up one's sin" and then say it isn't a Dharmic word.

Do we need a better definition for my understanding? Wait a minute... you have more below and you defined it.

For example, monks live in poverty and isolate themselves from their families and friends. While the ego part of ourselves say why divorce ourselves from our loved ones, the Dharmic view is it is a sin-an attachment-to the material word that keeps us from full enlightenment (a clear mind from attachment). Sin isn't just nonconstructive actions but anything that keeps us away from developing a healthy mind. Laity practitioners have less obligations. We have our families and friends but also know gradually that we don't depend on them more so than we do The Dharma because they live and they die so we do; but, compassion, for example, does not.

On a personal understanding, the life of a monk is not biblical nor did Jesus demonstrate "isolation". On the contrary, he went around making sure that you were not in isolation but rather doing--healing, ministering, preaching, giving etc.

Sin, in short terms, is diverging from living and training one's mind ridding itself of attachments.

OK.. our definition is somewhat the same yet different. Sin is "missing the mark"... but missing the mark doesn't translate into ridding of attachments (necessarily) although in some cases it does require it.

True. If you have no sacrifice, why do you feel you can't do it on your own?

Contrasting this with Dharmic view that we can do it on our own.

Ahhh... that is our foundational difference. Our view is that physically you might change one thing on your own (that which you can see) but it did not deal with the spiritual (that which you cannot see). Jesus took care of what we could not see.

You can pick off bad fruit (that which you can see) but it didn't change the root (that which you cannot see). Jesus took care of what we could not see so that we can permanently change what we can see.

May your 2018 be filled with life.

 

[Kenny]

We humans have legal systems, imperfect, but with the intention that the punishment fits the crime. If I get caught speeding, I pay my fine. If I kill someone, I spend my life in jail.

Many Christians would have us believe that if we don't buy their rap, then no matter how morally we lived our lives, we're doomed to an eternity in hellfire. So, in order to avoid that harshest of punishments, we must abandon our critical thinking facilities, no thanks.

No... your statement of "abodoning critical thinking" is a biased statement. I haven't done that.

You can say you live a moral life when you are the person who is estabilishing what morality is. Who says your morality is right?

How can one be "doomed" if there is a gift of life?

Incidentally, I am not preaching to you or trying to convince you that I am right and you have to change what you think. I'm simply answering your questions within the context of a Biblical foundation. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

 

[Enoch07]

My friend cried because she felt guilty blaming christ for her sin. The idea is we killed jesus. Why blame him. Blame ourselves. Hard to do hence why jesus became sin.

You and your friend fail to grasp the concept of salvation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You and your friend fail to grasp the concept of salvation.

No. If you are one in christ you become humble and empathetic to the suffering of others. It makes you think of others and not just your own salvation. Its not a one person thing. Its not isolated. You litterally live, die, and are saved in christ. Without that, to me its all salvational ego and pride. Im not familar with that when I practiced. No one judges the salvation of others. Thats between that person and christ.

Never judge another person's salvation.

 

[Enoch07]

No. If you are one in christ you become humble and empathetic to the suffering of others. It makes you think of others and not just your own salvation. Its not a one person thing. Its not isolated. You litterally live, die, and are saved in christ. Without that, to me its all salvational ego and pride. Im not familar with that when I practiced. No one judges the salvation of others. Thats between that person and christ.

Never judge another person's salvation.

But then you turn that around and use it to say it's scapegoating.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But then you turn that around and use it to say it's scapegoating.

By strict definition. I cant think of another word.

You are litterally using someone else to take your sins away. Its the same in the OT. They take the animals "goats" so to offer their sins in place of their own so god will see them cleansed.

Its not a negative word. If you didnt put your sins on him/he didnt take your sins, who took your sins if not for christ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We may be saying the same thing in different terms... but let me rephrase just to be sure...

Jesus cursed a fig tree... the natural "seemed" like it hadn't changed but the spiritual eventually changes the natural. It is from the spirit the life and death spring forth from. Changing what we do on the outside (the natural, the physical, that which we can see) doesn't change the root of the problem... the spiritual. We can overcome one area in our lives but because the spiritual root hasn't been changed, it just morphes into something else that we have to deal with.

Hmm. How I see it is they are both interchangeable and embedded rather than one coming from another.

Just a change in semantics here... I WAS in chains (a metaphor for a spiritual issue that prevented me from experiencing life to the fullest).. but I am in chains no more. I am born again (Christaineese ) a new creature that is now free from all chains.

Christianeese, I like that.

I wonder why you felt you were in chains, all because you have sinned. Better?

Thus... I'm not sure this applies to me. I am no longer trapped, no longer separated, no longer in discord.

Switch it to past tense.

Now, if the statment is "why did you think you use to be in chains... maybe it was an illussion"... then we are back to the foundations of our beliefs.

Bingo!

The fact that my life was in discord is a reflection that I had a spiritual problem. Spiritual problems, for me, is not an illusion. It is real

The illusion is real rather than fake. I feel that everyone is in an illusion in their mind (and that illusion is real) and therefore to get out of discord in that illusion, one needs to train their mind to do so. I always felt its something you can do for yourself personally (human beings in general).

Yes... I am aware of the differences. Nothing against someone who chants, just for us it isn't necessary to being one with God.

Why not? What's the difference between chanting, praying, studying god's word, and meditating?

For us, the blood has already cleared up one's sin. It's a finished work. Now... our minds need to be renewed. I guess that would equate to your statement of "purification". We renew our minds by mediating on the Word that we believe comes from God. It washes away our stinking thinking and opens it up to God's ability that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit and His Word.

Yes. I think the only big difference in this case is you look to someone else who had helped you. We look (always present tense) to ourselves.

I thought that might be the case. Being crucified in Christ doesn't translate into giving up the material. What it means is that the material doesn't control your life... you control it. So, when God says "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor of the world", we sell it because materiality doesn't control us. However, God's promise still holds true (for us) that "he who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and He shall repary it". He will continue to bless us knowing that at any time He can call on us to use the material for His glory.

I guess that's another way to put it. Sounds nicer. Nuns and monks give up material to devote themselves to their practice. It's not giving up but more saying "god you are more important." I value monastics of any religion. I honestly think it's an ego thing to put other things and people over our spiritual well-being. But I like my family, internet, and good book to read. Who can part??

OK... it through me off a little when you said "and chanting clears up one's sin" and then say it isn't a Dharmic word.

Yeah. I used sin so you can kinda understand what I mean. Practicing The Dharma such as purification rituals clears up one's illusions. When one is illusioned in thought or have distorted thoughts, we "sin." We commit acts contrary to our true nature of compassion and generosity. When we display the opposite of sin such as good deeds, we purify that sin. If we can do that on a routine basis, that even better.

Think of it like this:

You have someone who came from a war. He developed PTSD from shooting a young child. That event affected his consciousness. The stimuli from the physical and mental emotions involved in that action affected him. When he developed PTSD, it means those actions went to his subconscious. Thereby, in present day, if he feels like he is threatened he acts the same way as he did at war. It's an automatic behavioral trait.

In Buddhism, it says that these events, the strong ones, not only affect our Con and Sub, it also affects our Unconscious. The actions make imprints on our Un. to where it cannot be taken away by an outside party because it's so strong that it needs self purification. So we do meditation that calms our Con. We do insight meditation to address our Sub. I'm still learning, but then there are other meditations that go to the root of the problem, the imprints. Thereby purifying the imprints, cleans both the Sub and Con so we won't be affected.

We do this on a daily routine basis. It's a rough translation of what I learned about the nature of our actions and how they influence us. In my opinion, that's probably why you were in spiritual discord. You had a lot of karma you needed to work out. As for how you worked it out, it's not Buddhist concept, of course; but, it helped so it's all good.

Do we need a better definition for my understanding? Wait a minute... you have more below and you defined it.

Ooh. OOps. you're right, I did define it. Have another explanation above.

On a personal understanding, the life of a monk is not biblical nor did Jesus demonstrate "isolation". On the contrary, he went around making sure that you were not in isolation but rather doing--healing, ministering, preaching, giving etc.

OK.. our definition is somewhat the same yet different. Sin is "missing the mark"... but missing the mark doesn't translate into ridding of attachments (necessarily) although in some cases it does require it.

It's not negative. It's more devoting oneself to god rather than enjoying the obstructions of attachments and obstructions that lead one away from god. Some people feel these material obstructions harm their spiritual well being and want to devote themselves to god in a community atmosphere. Others do not. I think it's personal choice more so than who is right or wrong.

Ahhh... that is our foundational difference. Our view is that physically you might change one thing on your own (that which you can see) but it did not deal with the spiritual (that which you cannot see). Jesus took care of what we could not see.

Nods.

You can pick off bad fruit (that which you can see) but it didn't change the root (that which you cannot see). Jesus took care of what we could not see so that we can permanently change what we can see.

That's another place we differ too. The karmic imprints/roots we can cleanse. That's the only way we can have good fruit. I understand the need for a gardener. A lot of us take up classes ourselves.

May your 2018 be filled with life.

And yours too! Thank you.

 

[Enoch07]

By strict definition. I cant think of another word.

You are litterally using someone else to take your sins away. Its the same in the OT. They take the animals "goats" so to offer their sins in place of their own so god will see them cleansed.

Its not a negative word. If you didnt put your sins on him/he didnt take your sins, who took your sins if not for christ?

Your failing to grasp that when you scapegoat someone you chose them, not vice versa.

I did not chose to put my sins on Jesus.

So strictly by definition Jesus does not fall under this category at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your failing to grasp that when you scapegoat someone you chose them, not vice versa.

If you mean ignorant (without knowledge), no. That is not true. Rephrase your opinion.

I did not chose to put my sins on Jesus.

Did he force you?

Did he do it without your permission?

So strictly by definition Jesus does not fall under this category at all.

It is not a bad word.

Here are ideas of what I mean by scapegoat: In the OT, NT, and English dictionary

Here is the history of it

Leviticus 16:8-26 ; RSV, "the goat for Azazel" (q.v.), the name given to the goat which was taken away into the wilderness on the day of Atonement ( 16:20-22 ). The priest made atonement over the scapegoat, laying Israel's guilt upon it, and then sent it away, the goat bearing "upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited."​

At a later period an evasion or modification of the law of Moses was introduced by the Jews. "The goat was conducted to a mountain named Tzuk, situated at a distance of ten Sabbath days' journey, or about six and a half English miles, from Jerusalem. At this place the Judean desert was supposed to commence; and the man in whose charge the goat was sent out, while setting him free, was instructed to push the unhappy beast down the slope of the mountain side, which was so steep as to insure the death of the goat, whose bones were broken by the fall. The reason of this barbarous custom was that on one occasion the scapegoat returned to Jerusalem after being set free, which was considered such an evil omen that its recurrence was prevented for the future by the death of the goat" (Twenty-one Years' Work in the Holy Land). This mountain is now called el-Muntar.​

The English word came from Christian roots.

Replace the goat with Jesus. He still took the sins that you accepted to give him and/or he forced you to give him (if you like so it's not part your choice in the matter) so you can be cleansed and are "right" in god's eyes. Without the scapegoat (without the thing or person of atonement) your sins will still be on you.

King James Bible
But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. Leviticus 16:10​

It's a Jewish thing. I don't know why Christians get bent out of shape about the word (nor the OP using the word as a negative insult to Christians). It's just a literal definition of what jesus did in response to your acceptance of christ (or forced?)

Commentary

Two goats were required to cleanse the temple on the Day of Atonement. God’s goat was executed and with its sinless blood, the sins of Israel were transferred to the head of the scapegoat. Once the sins of Israel were placed on the scapegoat, they were never removed. The scapegoat was condemned to protracted suffering and death. This is why a capable man led the scapegoat into the desert where it would starve to death. God’s goat represents Jesus (the Savior from sin) and the scapegoat represents Lucifer (the predator, the creator of sin).​

2 Corinthians 5:21

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.​

The sins are not cleansed by you but by another person. That other person takes your blame so you can be right in god's eyes. That is what a scapegoat does. It relieves you of the blame/sin and puts it on another so you can be relieved from it.

You don't have to call it scapegoating.

If I'm wrong, address the commentary and scripture rather than me.

 

[Enoch07]

If you mean ignorant (without knowledge), no. That is not true. Rephrase your opinion.

It's not that hard to understand. When you scapegoat someone you are making a victim out of someone (or in the original sense an animal). I do not blame Jesus for my sin, not is it his fault I sinned, nor have I chosen Jesus to take my sin.

Did he force you?

Did he do it without your permission?

See above. To answer your question, No.

He ask us to let Him take our sin. That's the glaring difference.

You don't have to call it scapegoating.

If I'm wrong, address the commentary and scripture rather than me.

I am not calling it scapegoating.

Because it is not scapegoating.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Refer to the scripture and commentary not pick apart how I phrase a very simple concept.

That is Not negative at all.

It's not that hard to understand. When you scapegoat someone you are making a victim out of someone​

Yes. The person (OT animal) that was made a victim is christ.

(or in the original sense an animal).​

In NT christ

I do not blame Jesus for my sin, not is it his fault I sinned, nor have I chosen Jesus to take my sin.​

Its a biblical definition. When you blame someone, you say they are responsible for your fault. In this case christ "did it for you." He knows you sin. He knows your disobedience. You arent innocent.

In the OT the Isealite put the "blame" on goats (animals) rather than god for their disobedience. In by doing so, god look past their blame (their accusation of fault via their "action" of disobedience) and by the animals blood made their sin washed to innocence and acceptence from god.

If you have not chosen for jesus to take your sin, either he did it and you had no choice: A slave to christ (a christian lookec at that as Good)? Or he forced you.

Relationship works both ways. Unless you are a slave/unwilling servant, how are you christian by free will when you didnt take part of the choice in the matter?

These are just words.

The person scapegoating/blasing the blame by sinning: Christian
The willing and innocent victim: Christ
Who took the blame/sin/your accusation via disobedience: Christ
God no longer holds you accountable

No more blame

Refer to the scriptures and commentary NOT to me

 

[Ysa7al1Masih]

It strikes me that the idea that "Jesus died for our sins" is morally bankrupt. It seems to be a pretty clear example of scapegoating, which in other cultures is viewed in a very negative light.

Why do Christians think that making Jesus a scapegoat is a good message? And given that, why would the cross be seen as a good symbol of the faith?

Leviticus 16

and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place

and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.

Jesus Barabas represents the goat who is set free in the wilderness, Jesus the Messiah represents the goat sacrificed to God.

As a matter of fact it is simply the Azazel scapegoat ritual rewritten to replace the goat with Jesus.

In a very observant way you are correct. Anyone who compares the Azazel Day of Atonement ritual to the crucifixion ritual of Jesus will notice too many similarities to conclude it's coincidence.

The Jews never had a tradition of letting a prisoner go once a year at any time.

The tradition involved two goats and one being set free.

The fact that the name Jesus is also the name of Jesus Barabas, instead of goats we have Jesus's, the one set free would be the evil one and for Azazel, while the sacrificed Jesus is for God.

Don't ask me what this has to do with anyone going to Heaven, it's rather obvious typology with nothing historical about it, it is a myth, and a disgusting one.

People need to be responsible for their sins, sacrificial Atonement theology is all Paul, mr faith... not good works.

As theology goes, Christianity has never really had a coherent one or even tried.

Trinities, bad math and worse exegesis, the Epistles of Paul, make Christians intolerable.

 

[Enoch07]

Refer to the scripture and commentary not pick apart how I phrase a very simple concept.

That is Not negative at all.



The person scapegoating/blasing the blame by sinning: Christian
The willing and innocent victim: Christ
Who took the blame/sin/your accusation via disobedience: Christ
God no longer holds you accountable

No more blame

Refer to the scriptures and commentary NOT to me

This is not possible. I have to refer to your interpretation of scripture. Because if we agreed on the what the same scripture meant there would be no debate.

1. Christ is not a victim. He (God Himself) came up with this idea. Then gave it as an option for us.

2. I do not blame Christ for my mistakes. I thank Him for covering up for my mistakes. But He is not to blame.

3. I do not believe in the once saved always saved theory that some Christians do. So yes I am still accountable for any sin I commit after salvation. Which is why I pray to God/Jesus for forgiveness time to time for any recent sin. Should I die with any unrepentant sin then I shall be held accountable for it.