The Prophecy of the Scapegoat

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Dream

I have two things about Ezekiel 18:20. First, I do not think the texts indicate Jesus could take the punishment for purposeful wrong doing. That seems like a modern distortion. That lump has been worked out for me, however. The sins that Jesus died for were not for things like murder, adultery and various items of the 10 commandments, because forgiveness for those things requires prayers, repentance and restitution -- not sacrifices. Jesus death is supposed to follow the idea of the ancient red heifer, perhaps an atonement sacrifice between God and humankind rather than only between God and Israel.

About Ezekiel 18:20: To imply that Jesus died only for those who have committed unwilling sins and not for those who sinned purposefully, is to get in contradiction with your own NT, as it strongly diminishes the extention of Jesus' mission on earth.

So, in your opinion, Jesus did not die for those who have committed murder, adultery and various other items of the Decalogue. Think! You are progressively coming down to the truth of Ezekiel 18:20 that Jesus did not
die for any one. That he died for his own political default for having not stopped those followers of his who were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. They were the ones who led Jesus to the cross. What did they expect, that Pilate would not crucify Jesus for being proclaimed INRI in a Roman province? That was stupid of them.

Last but not least, if Jesus had his mission in mind to die for all Mankind, why would he forbid his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles? That's in Mat. 10:1,5,6.

Again, Dream, I urge with you to wake up and smell the coffee. Enough of dreaming.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by showme

Ben, Ben, how we do stray from the beaten path. Now you say you have been inspired by God, and yet the other day you said prophecy has been ended since the supposed completion of Daniel 2 prophecy.

As for Israel being the scapegoat and "lost forever", that simply doesn't fit Jeremiah 16:15 or Ez 11:15-25. or anything else for that matter. Jeremiah 31:31 addresses both the House of Judah (the jews) and the House of Israel. If there is still a sun in the sky (Jer 31:35), then I think Israel's being lost is temperal.

As for Ezek 18:20, why should Israel suffer for Judah's sins, and be her scape goat. Wasn't Judah used as the scapegoat for the Nazis? Maybe people get the scapegoat concept wrong, including Ben.

Sorry if I must pour cold water into your boiling pan. If you think you have refuted my interpretation of the prophecy of the scapegoat, you might want to think again.

Regarding what I said about Daniel 9:24, - not Daniel 2 - is that vision and prophecy ended with the establishment of the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. But for one to be Divinely inspired, all that he or she needs is to understand the Word of God according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isa. 8:20) Then, to be inspired does not imply in being a prophet. That system is over indeed.

Those passages of Jer. 16:15, Eze. 11:15-25 and Jer. 31:35-37, they are all a reference to Israel and Judah as one unique People, one nation under one king. That's in Eze. 37:22. You could ask with reason: Why then Israel if it got transported to Assyria for good? It happened that, when Israel fell before Assyria, there was a moratorium of about 100 years, -131, according to Josephus, - until Judah was conquered by the Babylonians and taken for a 70 years exile. During those 100 years moratorium, about two thirds of the Levites and a few thousands from the other tribes escaped to join Judah in the South without any need of a formal conversion. Now, the new Israel, according to Isaiah 48:1, was composed of the main stem of Judah plus those from Israel who joined Judah, plus the Gentiles who joined God's People by accepting God's Covenant by conversion to Judaism. That's in Isaiah 56:1-8.

And for your question why should Israel serve as a scapegoat for Judah, the prohibition in the Scriptures is for an individual to die for another. But here is different. It is a people for another. And in the case of the Nazis, the Jews did not serve as a scapegoat for them. If the concept of the scapegoat was still to be in effect, the Jews would rather have been a scapegoat for all the Gentiles in general. The Nazis were only the officiating party in the sacrifice of the scapegoat as the priests, so to speak. But that was not the case. The prophecy of the scapegoat had been fulfilled in Israel, and the end to it had arrived then.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

[QUOTE=BrotherMichaelSky;268218]Got a few questions Ben...

Wasn't part of the process of prophecy whether or not the goat wandered back into town OR wandered out to be eaten by the Fallen Angel? done yearly?

No, Brother, it was not. Merely because we do not believe in fallen angels. Isaiah, however, does mention of the fallen "morning star." But since the text is an oracle about Nabuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, it is a reference to the king who fell. "Morning star" because of the geographic position of Babylon in the East, where the sun is born.

and honestly, I never understood why the sins were whispered to the goat...what was the rationale behind this? and is it important to the next part of your story?

The sins were not whispered to the goat. They were transferred to the scapegoat when Aaron or the High Priest would lay his hands on its head. That's in Lev. 16:21. The rationale is that the scapegoat would take them away with it into the desert and never return with them to Israel.

What were these fallen angels doing in the wilderness? And can you tell me where I might reference more info on these fallen angels within Judaic literature?

I don't know, as we do not believe in fallen angels. If any reference is made of them in the Talmud or elsewhere, it is in terms of midrashim, which are no different from parables. They are never to be interpreted literally but metaphorically.

this kinda an early version of "giving the devil his due?"

We don't believe in devil. To us, the devil is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. This kind of things are real only in Hellenistic Literature. Or, for that matter, in the NT.

Ben

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

About Ezekiel 18:20: To imply that Jesus died only for those who have committed unwilling sins and not for those who sinned purposefully, is to get in contradiction with your own NT, as it strongly diminishes the extention of Jesus' mission on earth.

Not at all, Ben. It merely observes what the NT says without overlaying protestant notions about sin. Not all sins are the same, and there is no sacrifice to cover purposeful sins like adultery and murder -- at least none is mentioned in your law, the law which Jesus followed and which set up the pattern for his own sacrificial death. Am I to believe that the law allowed murder if a person were only willing to also kill a goat in addition to the man? That would be ridiculous. No, and of course what I've said does not seem to contradict the rest of the NT either or you could have pointed out specifically how it did.

[showme]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Sorry if I must pour cold water into your boiling pan. If you think you have refuted my interpretation of the prophecy of the scapegoat, you might want to think again.

Regarding what I said about Daniel 9:24, - not Daniel 2 - is that vision and prophecy ended with the establishment of the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. But for one to be Divinely inspired, all that he or she needs is to understand the Word of God according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isa. 8:20) Then, to be inspired does not imply in being a prophet. That system is over indeed.

Show me response in red: And by what Spirit is a prophet inspired, and by what Spirit are you inspired? And if a prophet is inspired by the Spirit of God, and you are inspired by the Spirit of God, what exactly is the difference?

Those passages of Jer. 16:15, Eze. 11:15-25 and Jer. 31:35-37, they are all a reference to Israel and Judah as one unique People, one nation under one king.

After King David sinned, and Nathan the prophet turned David's judgement of the rich man upon David, and subsequently David lost part of his kingdom, the house of Judah and the house of Israel have been separated. Per Zech 11:12, there is not only a physical separation, but a Spiritual ones as well. "Then I cut my second staff, Union, in pieces, to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel."


That's in Eze. 37:22. You could ask with reason: Why then Israel if it got transported to Assyria for good? It happened that, when Israel fell before Assyria, there was a moratorium of about 100 years, -131, according to Josephus, - until Judah was conquered by the Babylonians and taken for a 70 years exile.

Now you are a disciple of Josephus?

During those 100 years moratorium, about two thirds of the Levites and a few thousands from the other tribes escaped to join Judah in the South without any need of a formal conversion. Now, the new Israel, according to Isaiah 48:1, was composed of the main stem of Judah plus those from Israel who joined Judah, plus the Gentiles who joined God's People by accepting God's Covenant by conversion to Judaism. That's in Isaiah 56:1-8.

Your Isaiah 48:1 says," Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are named Israel and who came forth from the loins of Judah, who swear by the name of the Lord,....but not in truth nor in righteousness.....because I know that your are obstinate,...for the sake of my name I delay my wrath. in order not to cut you off...." All the tribes are of Israel, and all the tribes are of Jacob, but only Judah is from the loins of Judah. The Lord is talking to Judah and not Israel, who is still lost among the nations (Jer 16:15) If your new prophet Josephus is correct, and 1000 of the other tribes joined Judah, that would not be inclusive of all of Israel. They remain lost among the nations, and according to Ze 11:14, have a broken bond.

And for your question why should Israel serve as a scapegoat for Judah, the prohibition in the Scriptures is for an individual to die for another. But here is different. It is a people for another. And in the case of the Nazis, the Jews did not serve as a scapegoat for them.

I was referring to the historical use of the jews by Hitler as a scapegoat for all the bad tidings that happened to Germany. Why did Hitler choose the Jewish race as scapegoats for Germany's problems

If the concept of the scapegoat was still to be in effect, the Jews would rather have been a scapegoat for all the Gentiles in general. The Nazis were only the officiating party in the sacrifice of the scapegoat as the priests, so to speak. But that was not the case. The prophecy of the scapegoat had been fulfilled in Israel, and the end to it had arrived then.
Ben

I think Israel as a symbol of a nation, or the "jews" in particular, remain a scapegoat to this day. I am sure that many of the Arabs feel that if Israel was sacrificed on the altar, then their tribulations would be over. As for Israel being offered up as a sacrifice for Judah, is a position I don't think anyone would find reasonable or even possible. Such a revelation would seem to come from a source other than the Spirit of God. Although you seem to think God has more than one Spirit, one for you and a different Spirit for the prophet.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Dream

Not at all, Ben. It merely observes what the NT says without overlaying protestant notions about sin. Not all sins are the same, and there is no sacrifice to cover purposeful sins like adultery and murder -- at least none is mentioned in your law, the law which Jesus followed and which set up the pattern for his own sacrificial death. Am I to believe that the law allowed murder if a person were only willing to also kill a goat in addition to the man? That would be ridiculous. No, and of course what I've said does not seem to contradict the rest of the NT either or you could have pointed out specifically how it did.

Well, there is something new here that you are conveying to me. I thought that only sins against the Holy Spirit are not forgiven. Now, you say that murderers and adulterers, Jesus did not die for. In that case, multitudes of Christians have died in their sins.
Ben

[BrotherMichaelSky]

[QUOTE=Ben Masada;268425]

Originally Posted by BrotherMichaelSky

Got a few questions Ben...



No, Brother, it was not. Merely because we do not believe in fallen angels. Isaiah, however, does mention of the fallen "morning star." But since the text is an oracle about Nabuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, it is a reference to the king who fell. "Morning star" because of the geographic position of Babylon in the East, where the sun is born.

Thought maybe it was having to do with the Book of Enoch

The sins were not whispered to the goat. They were transferred to the scapegoat when Aaron or the High Priest would lay his hands on its head. That's in Lev. 16:21. The rationale is that the scapegoat would take them away with it into the desert and never return with them to Israel.

You're sure of this?

I don't know, as we do not believe in fallen angels. If any reference is made of them in the Talmud or elsewhere, it is in terms of midrashim, which are no different from parables. They are never to be interpreted literally but metaphorically.

I'm beginning to wonder who this "we" might be, Ben...
Book of Enoch...... again...

We don't believe in devil. To us, the devil is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. This kind of things are real only in Hellenistic Literature. Or, for that matter, in the NT.

Ben

I know the difference between the Devil and The Satan, Ben.....

So, The Satan had NOTHING to do with the sins of the People being sent into the wilderness? Played no part, is what you are saying?
It doesn't seem odd that the Adversary, whose job it is to test mankind, would be included into this little tradition.... Are You Sure, Ben?`

edit: i am looking for the average understanding... I HAVE researched this online, but i have gotten differing answers from Jews - so I ask you.......

[Leela Samaste]

[QUOTE=BrotherMichaelSky;268447]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Thought maybe it was having to do with the Book of Enoch

You're sure of this?

I'm beginning to wonder who this "we" might be, Ben...
Book of Enoch...... again...

I know the difference between the Devil and The Satan, Ben.....

So, The Satan had NOTHING to do with the sins of the People being sent into the wilderness? Played no part, is what you are saying?
It doesn't seem odd that the Adversary, whose job it is to test mankind, would be included into this little tradition.... Are You Sure, Ben?`

edit: i am looking for the average understanding... I HAVE researched this online, but i have gotten differing answers from Jews - so I ask you.......

I agree with BrotherMichaelSky...The bible is to be interpretted metaphorically and according to the current time period with history as a guide for patterns and complex issues. Never as a literal form of the actual words.

I've never read it cover to cover, like maybe many in this forum, however, being of Catholic faith and having gone to school for 12 years of my young life to a Catholic private school, would definitely have me question the validity of each and every claim made by "man and their church".

I feel that this scapegoat and fallen angel and cities and places, are all implying an ideal of life, that can never truly happen, because of the facts that reality is just too dark and complex and REAL. So what happens next? We as people now create a middle world of idealism and complexity and bend and turn to suit the norms...of what society wants at this moment or desires.

I am a yoga instructor, who seeks the truth from within, as painful or daunting a task...as well as in my beginning studies in counseling and psychology. I believe in science and spiritualism as a guide to the truth...however, what happens in the Universe is affected by one thing alone, and that thing is us, humans.

As much as we may try to seek the blame for others to entertain, and comply or fear...why can we look at ourselves in the mirror...<"Man in the Mirror", RIP Michael Jackson>...and truly see with the spirits eye of who and what we really are doing here, and to each other.

I say this over and over again, life is too short to make it be this sad...when all you have to do is drop the bag, brush off the monkey, breath in and exhale out...take the time to smile, laugh, cry and smile again.

If this is not what you wanted for this post, I'm sorry, but I feel compelled to write this, because the specifics {or what "you perceive" as specific} makes no reference to clearing, cleansing, exhaling for the path"light" to God's way.

Be someone's chum, someone's buddy, someone's pal...truly.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

... I thought that only sins against the Holy Spirit are not forgiven ...

The only sin against the Holy Spirit ... is the rejection of the Holy Spirit.

God bless,

Thomas

[BrotherMichaelSky]

the Book of Enoch was Jewish literature... from 300BC ( oldest fragments)

it contains much info on the name Azazel.....

and interestingly similar verses to key verses in main texts...

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910) contains the following entry:

The Rabbis, interpreting "Azazel" as Azaz ("rugged"), and el ("strong"), refer it to the rugged and rough mountain cliff from which the scapegoat was cast down on Yom Kippur when the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem stood. (Yoma 67b; Sifra, Aḥare, ii. 2; Targum Jerusalem Lev. xiv. 10, and most medieval commentators). Most modern scholars, after having for some time endorsed the old view, have accepted the opinion mysteriously hinted at by Ibn Ezra and expressly stated by Nachmanides to Lev. xvi. 8, that Azazel belongs to the class of "se'irim," goat-like spirits, jinn haunting the desert, to which the Israelites were accustomed to offering sacrifice. (Compare "the roes and the hinds," Cant. ii. 7, iii. 5, by which Sulamith administers an oath to the daughters of Jerusalem. The critics were probably thinking of a Roman faun.)[3]

The scarlet thread is symbolically referenced in Isaiah 1.18; and the Talmud states (ib. 39a) that during the forty years that Simon the Just was high priest, the thread actually turned white as soon as the goat was thrown over the precipice: a sign that the sins of the people were forgiven. In later times the change to white was not invariable: a proof of the people's moral and spiritual deterioration, that was gradually on the increase, until forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, when the change of color was no longer observed (l.c. 39b)

one can wish that things are clean and obvious - but 'tis not so...

The medieval mystic Nachmanides (1194–1270) identified the Hebrew text as referring to a demon, and identified this "Azazel" with Samael.[14] However, he did not see the sending of the goat as honouring Azazel as a deity, but as a symbolic expression of the idea that the people's sins and their evil consequences were to be sent back to the spirit of desolation and ruin, the source of all impurity. The very fact that the two goats were presented before God, before the one was sacrificed and the other sent into the wilderness, was proof that Azazel was not ranked alongside God, but regarded simply as the personification of wickedness in contrast with the righteous government of God.[3]

Maimonides (1134–1204) says that as sins cannot be taken off one’s head and transferred elsewhere, the ritual is symbolic, enabling the penitent to discard his sins: “These ceremonies are of a symbolic character and serve to impress man with a certain idea and to lead him to repent, as if to say, ‘We have freed ourselves of our previous deeds, cast them behind our backs and removed them from us as far as possible’.”[15]

and even with all the relevant detail collected - the idea is a simple one.

atonement..... in it's PROPER context.... being aware when we sin and being genuinely repentant - to the point of not making the same mistake again....
The goat and the ritual are SYMBOLIC - of a concept which is acknowledged...

but the concept did not just appear out of nowhere - it is plain there were differing understandings before the texts were "homogenized" - and this story most assuredly has a base which relates to the Book of Enoch...
even if modern day Jews do not care to admit to a Jewish book which speaks of evil being caused by the Fall of the Angels...
and an End of Days which takes the place of promised earthly rewards......
and the second temple sacrifices being impure....
a Messiah called "Son of Man", with divine attributes, generated before the creation, who will act directly in the final judgment and sit on a throne of glory...
with the sinners usually seen as the wealthy ones and the just as the oppressed...

yeah, right here we can see why the Jews did not care for the Book of Enoch...
but that does no do away with it....

Why did Christians become "Christians" and not Enochian Jews? Rabbinic Judaism.... the establishment laid down the law.... not the Law....

we can want things to be clean and free of confusion - but the time periods we are dealing with when we look at these ancient sources makes that impossible...
But folks will see what they want to see....

[showme]

Ben wrote:
We don't believe in devil. To us, the devil is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. This kind of things are real only in Hellenistic Literature. Or, for that matter, in the NT.

Ben

Showme reply:
Then who is Satan?
1 Chronicles 21:1," Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel".

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Well, there is something new here that you are conveying to me...Now, you say that murderers and adulterers, Jesus did not die for. In that case, multitudes of Christians have died in their sins.
Ben

What I'm trying to convey is that a prophecy is much more than a prediction of events, and a law was given to be obeyed. Saying the prophecies are just things to fulfill confuses people as to what they are and who prophets are. You can overlay Ephraim and Mannassehs' woes onto part of the law, but it doesn't change that its a law. It doesn't make that particular law no longer a law. I'm also pointing out that Jesus saw the sacrifices as meaningful. It didn't matter that Ephraim and Manasseh had been estranged, so perhaps that was not the meaning of that law to him.

I don't know whether that case is as you say, but Jesus participated in sacrifices, yet he never did anything worthy of death. That is a historical evidence that sacrifices weren't for the purpose of justifying lawless people. For stronger evidence simply read through the laws for sacrifices, and you'll see that there isn't any sacrifice that can pardon breaking any of the 10 commandments, except when they are broken unintentionally, unknowingly or accidentally. It remains that any sacrifice is for some other purpose than pardoning evil actions.

So, in your opinion, Jesus did not die for those who have committed murder, adultery and various other items of the Decalogue.

This was my opinion long before I met anyone on interfaith, and I have explained my reasoning briefly in the previous paragraph. He died for a much better reason than to pardon lawless people.

Think! You are progressively coming down to the truth of Ezekiel 18:20 that Jesus did not
die for any one. That he died for his own political default for having not stopped those followers of his who were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem.

Any sacrifice dies because it fails to escape the knife, but it also dies for other reasons. His death is considered an atonement, a meaningful death similar to the way that a martyr's death is meaningful.

Last but not least, if Jesus had his mission in mind to die for all Mankind, why would he forbid his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles? That's in Mat. 10:1,5,6.

The good news of salvation would have gone to Jews for various reasons. First, Jews are required by law to judge the prophecies of prophets. (Deut 13, Deut 18) This places upon them the requirement to get involved in the prophet's work. They would have to have been involved in the process or it would not have been valid, no matter who Jesus was. Jesus said 'Salvation is of the Jews'. John 4:22 As you can see, in keeping with Moses instructions any 'good news of salvation' that was a prophecy and claimed authority had to go to the Jews first to be judged.

[radarmark]

Ben and bananabrain, check my accuracy. “Satan” is the object made from the verb meaning (roughly) oppose or obstruct, taken to mean opposing the L!rd or obstructing H!s will. The added “ha” makes it a definite noun (ha = the), creating the term the opposer or the obstructor, usually translated “the accuser” or “the adversary”.

The vast majority of OT translations into “Satan” are just wrong if you take “Satan” if one takes Satan as a Devil (which most Christians do). Read it more like “The opposition faced Israel and moved….”

The only two book (I think) that actually use the term as “Ha-Satan” are Zechariah and Job. These are explanatory tales of how G!d uses the adversary, explicitly identified as something subservient to H!m, to lead us into temptation.

Both senses of satan (as “the principle opposing G!d within us”, the first sense explained above, and “the adversary” as a manifestation of that opposition which temps us) are continued in Jewish apocrypha and talmidic sources).

Ben is right. Nowhere in Jewish teaching is opposition to G!d’s will manifested in “The Devil” (writ large by other Mediterranean cultures from Zoroaster to Calvin). Rather “satan” is a principle opposing dong the right and “ha-satan” is our own evil obstructing us from doing the right.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by showme

I think Israel as a symbol of a nation, or the "jews" in particular, remain a scapegoat to this day. I am sure that many of the Arabs feel that if Israel was sacrificed on the altar, then their tribulations would be over. As for Israel being offered up as a sacrifice for Judah, is a position I don't think anyone would find reasonable or even possible. Such a revelation would seem to come from a source other than the Spirit of God. Although you seem to think God has more than one Spirit, one for you and a different Spirit for the prophet.

The prophecy of the scapegoat had its fulfillment when Israel, the Ten Tribes were transferred to Assyria in a permanent exile. Once fulfilled, it was over. Don't forget that within that prophecy there were two goats. One to stay in Jerusalem and the scapegoat to be loosed eastward into the desert. The one that stayed in Jerusalem was symbolized by Judah.

After the temporary exile of 70 years in Babylon, the new Israel from the stock of Judah was to remain in Jerusalem forever for the sake of David. (Jer. 31:35-37; I Kings 11:36) This goat was also
offered in sacrifice for the sins of the people, but in the Temple in Jerusalem.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

[QUOTE=BrotherMichaelSky;268447]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Thought maybe it was having to do with the Book of Enoch

You're sure of this?

I'm beginning to wonder who this "we" might be, Ben...
Book of Enoch...... again...

I know the difference between the Devil and The Satan, Ben.....

So, The Satan had NOTHING to do with the sins of the People being sent into the wilderness? Played no part, is what you are saying?
It doesn't seem odd that the Adversary, whose job it is to test mankind, would be included into this little tradition.... Are You Sure, Ben?`

edit: i am looking for the average understanding... I HAVE researched this online, but i have gotten differing answers from Jews - so I ask you.......

Satan has nothing to do with anything because it does not exist as a real being, but as a concept. The adversary here is the etimology for the evil inclination in man. Just an emanation. That's the adversary included in our tradition. Therefore, the real being here is man and not satan or devil, for that matter.

This book of Enoch you have insisted twice above, I have never read it. So, I can't volunteer an opinion about it. And if you wonder about my use of "we," it is based on the opinions of some of the learned among us that coincide with mine.
Ben