if jesus is perceived as nothing more than a sacrificial lamb in jewish folklore, then he surely represents a goat in judeo-christian folklore. he is a psychological SCAPEGOAT, AND ONLY IF YOU FIRMLY BELIEVE IN THE JEWISH CONCEPT OF A SCAPEGOAT CAN YOU ESCAPE FROM OR BE SAVED FROM FEELINGS OF GUILT AND SELF INCRIMINATION - THEREBY ESCAPING FROM THE EFFECTS OF YOUR OWN MORAL CONSCIENCE!
scape·goat
ˈskāpˌɡōt/
noun
noun: scapegoat; plural noun: scapegoats
a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.
synonyms:
whipping boy; informal fall guy, patsy
"find yourself another scapegoat"
(in the Bible) a goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Lev. 16).
Leviticus 16 scapegoat
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+16
banishment is a euphemism, because one way or another, the scapegoat would not only have to suffer great pain in order to pay for the immoral actions of others, but also die so that their sense of guilt derived from moral conscience would also die. if all of the guilt attributed to the immorality of the people, including their future ancestors in PERPetuity were somehow transferred on to one mythical entity in the form of a human, then that entity would have to be the most evil thing that has ever been imagined.
i want to point out the words CRUCIfix and CRUCIble. crucible from Latin crucibulum - a metallurgic melting-pot, , perhaps by analogy to thūribulum (“censer”) incense, with suffix bulum (bra, bula) an instrument or vessel.
in the ancient languages based on phoenician, FIX would mean tent peg, hand, and mark. it indicates a hand being burnt by a hot metal tent peg, or something being secured and restrained by a tent peg and then burned as if in a crucible.
from http://Quora.com
How does torturing God to death, in the form of Jesus, absolve us of our sins?
Jesus was the ultimate animal sacrifice. Jehovah is a bloodthirsty god.
based on leviticus, jesus was the ultimate scapegoat
The ritual began with the High Priest (Aaron in the Leviticus passage) preparing himself by bathing and changing into a special set of holiday vestments that included a turban and sash! He then selected three animals as sacrifices—two young goats and one bull. The goats each had a purpose—one as a sacrificial offering and the other as a scapegoat. Aaron cast lots (not unlike a roll of a die) to select one goat as the offering and the other as scapegoat .The goat selected as an offering was killed along with the young bull. Their blood together was brought into the center, most holy place of the Temple. That sacrifice atoned for (cleansed, purified) the High Priest, the people and the sanctuary. The stage was set for the next goat, the scapegoat.
What followed next was very dramatic . The High Priest placed both hands upon the head of the goat and confessed aloud the sins of the nation, transferring them to the goat. This casting of the sins was more than symbolic; it was ritual. As the previous goat was killed as a representative of the nation before God, this goat would carry away the sins as a representative of the nation. In our world today, this kind of confession is rare. Today, we would think of the scapegoat as needing some kind of written contract releasing the nation from its guilt and contractually placing that guilt onto the goat. In the biblical world, a person’s word, their confession, was as valid as any written contract.
The goat was then brought deep into the wilderness by a trusted man and released in a barren place. Ancient Jewish tradition records that the goat would be led to a rocky place, or a place of jagged rocks to ensure the death of the goat in the wilderness.
Evidently the rabbis wanted to make sure the sins wouldn’t make their way back into the camp looking for something to eat! This is the tradition of the Azazel, the scapegoat.
Of the myriad of theories about Azazel, two are the most common. The first says that Azazel is a combination of the Hebrew word for goat (az) and the Hebrew word for to carry or to take away (azel). This is the basis for the translation of the word Azazel as scapegoat—literally, the goat who would carry away the sin of Israel, the “tote-goat.” When the text says that the goat would be “for Azazel,” the meaning is better rendered “as Azazel” or “as the scapegoat.”
why is this statue of “Azazel” made of pink stone? because it matches the famous pink granite stone found in aswan, egypt.
of course, this johanan and jesus mentioned in connection to the temple of yahu on elephantine island are only a coincidence as are all of the other names and with corresponding familial relationships from elephantine island that are mentioned in the books of nehemiah and ezra? yes, they now claim that the name jesus was the very common name joshua, so even though they allegedly knew that jesus was a miracle immaculate birth whereby a new star appeared in the sky at the time of his birth and he was predestined to change history - they gave him a very common name?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanan_(High_Priest)
the name azariah on elephantine island is also only a coincidence?
“Nehemiah 8:17 refers to Joshua, Son of Nun. Joshua and Jesus are spelled the same in both Hebrew and Greek. The name Yeshua - in Hebrew יֵשׁוּאַ - means "the Lord saves." In Greek Jesus and Joshua are both spelled as Iesous - Ἰησοῦς.”
King Artaxerxes: with dates determined by which persian king was in power, BY FAILING TO ATTACH THE NUMER 2 to this name, it solves the problem and provides a weak argument against anybody that might make the connection between the names and events described in the elephantine papyri that correspond to the names in the books of ezra and nehemiah. no,no, no - they were in different time periods. it’s all a coincidence!
the only reason that this tribe of levites in egypt would ever have been in the region of what is now israel is because of their relentless pursuit of the hyksos people whom were described as shepherds of domesticated animals and rulers of foreign lands. might that explain the origin of describing all non-jew people as being various livestock animal species such as lambs, goats, and cows? some of the hyksos whom were in the egyptian delta region fled to the region of gaza, and the rest were taken as slaves in upper egypt to the south. how does the story of jews being enslaved in egypt fit into this when there is proof of a tribe of levites being in egypt and having slaves that they called egyptians?
if they were slaughtering domesticated livestock “animals”, why were they in such fear about rebuilding their sacrificial altar that they needed to build it within high walls where their ritual sacrifices would not be observed, and why were all other people in the region described as their enemies? WERE ALL OTHER PEOPLE VEGETARIANS?
i’ll say it again, the claim that 7,337 slaves were brought into a high walled fortress with newly refurbished ore smelting ovens and guarded gates - a fortress in which it was stated that no one would escape lord nehemiah’s new law - and then simply banished from the jewish tribes - while the jewish tribes were ordered not to grieve but to live in sukot and rejoice by feasting on sweet wine, sweet meats, and sweet fats for 7 days is bullshit!
and what was the source of all that sweetness? sugar of lead? and were the romans addicted to sugar of lead? yes, that is well known. were they aware of the affects of lead on the human brain? yes. they called it saturnianism and plumbism (from plumbum) they called it saturnianism because lead was represented by saturn on a jewish kabbalah, and the name saturn morphed into the name satan. what about the name natan, and what is the origin of the word satrap?
it is claimed that only two people spoke out against the declaration of nehemiah’s “new law”. why did the participants in the feast need to sign a covenant of secrecy concerning the feast and the plan for it to become an ongoing tradition? did they place those names, genealogical pedigrees, and even the names of their future ancestors into a gold plated box called the ark of the covenant that they carried with them from place to place as means for blackmail should it be needed?
DOES PRAYING TO A MYTHICAL SCAPEGOAT CONJURED BY THE JEWS PERMIT CHRISTIANS TO ESCAPE THEIR OWN MORAL CONSCIENCE? DOES IT PERMIT THEM TO ENCOURAGE AND CONDONE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR WITH THEIR SILENCE AND INERTIA SO THAT THEIR SILENCE MIGHT PURCHASE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONAL GAIN FROM IT WITHOUT BEING BURDENED BY FEELINGS OF GUILT? HOW VERY CONVENIENT, BUT WHO DO THEY THINK THEY’RE FOOLING OTHER THAN THEMSELVES?
