The Living Christ

[a-train]

D&C 19 IS explicit. How can we attribute anything to 'these things' other than what the it says right there in the text? It says: 'smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore'. Why did He suffer those things? It says right there: 'that they might not suffer if they would repent'. And, what did those sufferings do to Him? It 'caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink.'

D&C 19 says explicitly that Christ suffered the wrath of God which caused Him to bleed from every pore so that men could repent.

From His experience in the Garden to His death on the cross, Jesus suffered for our sins.

He endured all the spiritual and physical ramifications of sin. He was cast off, alone in the telestial world, without the attendance of the Spirit of God, nor His presence. He endured the unjust and cruel treatments of a telestial sphere. As one who is unjust and unclean, He was smitten and scorned and hated by his fellow sinners.

The accomplishment of the sacrifice on the cross fulfilled the law of Moses, but the Atonement necessitated even more. It was necessary for the Saviour not only to fulfill the law of Moses which required the sacrifice be killed by men, but also to suffer the full ramifications of our sins against the higher law also.

Did he suffer infinite pain and suffering? I don't know. Did he suffer for an infinite duration of time? No. Would either of these be necessary to call this sacrifice infinite? No. Christ is infinite and therefore His sacrifice was also.

I have to run... I am being summoned by the wife and kid.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Well I think we understand each other's positions well enough. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Thanks for taking time to explain your views. B)

[a-train]

Wait, you never explained about why Christ had to suffer in order to get the Father to invoke law (2).

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm still transitioning between theories of the atonement.

Right now, I'd tend towards something akin to Cleon Skousen's view (if you're familiar with that). You know...God has power because He is honored by all the intelligences/spirits/us, and He is honored because He is good and righteous and just, and if He ever deviated from justice or the eternal laws of heaven, then He'd lose the confidence and hence honor and hence obedience of all the intelligences, etc... so He needed something so overpoweringly unjust to happen to Christ that when Christ advocated for anyone to be forgiven and cleansed, no one would object when we don't have to take what justice says we have coming to us, etc...

I'm not 100% behind this model, though, and so I'm going to continue searching the scriptures and working out in my mind how it does work. I cannot, however, subscribe to penal-substitutionary atonement. But we both know why. When I stumbled across Alma 42 and Helaman 11 in connection with the concept of "appeasing" the justice or wrath of the Lord, I gained insight and encouragement to continue searching.

I'm now following a line of thought sparked by Rev. 5:12. If nothing else, I can always fall back on penal-substitution (even though it would still feel wrong to me). Until I feel I have considered all the "what if's" of other theories, I'm not going to be satisfied with Mosiah 3:9 and D&C 19 as the basis for my atonement understanding as I previously was. That's not meant to be a slam against you, by the way, but rather a reflection on me.

p.s. something that seems odd to me at the moment...Christ says repeatedly that the Father commanded him to come, let men crucify him, and lay down his life. But then God makes Christ turn around and plead for mercy that the Father arranged for in the first place? I'm giving all these tangents some thought.

[a-train]

Hey,

Have you studied much about the various theories of the Atonement among the sectarians? I know you study a lot of stuff like that. Did you run into things that gave you reason to be sceptic of penal-substitution?

I realize that it is believed that the concept is very modern. It sounds almost like you are leaning toward a more old-school model like the satisfaction theory. If you haven't seen that, google Anselm's Satisfaction Theory.

On certain points in our discussion, I wondered if you were thinking of some of the sectarian arguments and discussions. An example is the designation of 'who' the payment of the Atonement was made to. When I mentioned the creditor was Satan in the Mediator Parable, you were as bummed on the idea as the modern sectarians who scoff at the old Ransom Theory which many of it's adherents believed was paid to Satan.

My personal opinion is that penal-substitution was not the overall model of the Atonement, but only a portion of a work of much greater scope.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm not sure if you remember, but in one of my original atonement threads, I did a run-down of Origen, Anselm, Aquinas and Calvin's atonement theories before launching into my own.

From my studies, the majority of Protestant and Catholic denominations believe penal-substitution and in fact have never heard any alternatives (much like LDS members ).

The reason I was "bummed" about Satan being the "creditor" in Packer's parable is that such an interpretation would make Christ paying a price to Satan, which makes no sense to me since he's a sinner, law-breaker and banished from God's presence and so can not have any claim on God or Christ.

Anyway, we've been all over that before. Have you ever read Skousen's, "A Personal Search For The Meaning of the Atonement?" I don't buy all of it, but he does come at it from a fairly unique angle that I think has some merit.

[a-train]

While I am not of the opinion that Jesus paid anything to Satan, tell me what you think about the 'bruise his heel', 'crush his head' relationship between the Saviour and Satan (or their posterity, whatever).

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

That scripture is one reason I don't view God as having anything to do with Christ's crucifixion (which He'd have to if penal-substitution is the way it works, and if the atonement began in Gethsemane and ended on Calvary).

To me, that scripture shows that it is Satan (through the wicked Jewish leaders) who will cause harm to Eve's seed (Jesus), and that in the act of "bruising" or biting Christ's "heel," Satan will have placed himself in a position to have his head "crushed" by the effect of the crucifixion.

It's funny, but Satan caused the Fall--really--through deception, and he caused the sacrifice that reverses the Fall. He ain't too bright, is he?

[a-train]

I recall that he once whined to the LORD something like: 'I am only doing that which was done in other worlds!' It would seem that while Satan is very crafty and extreemly expert in his technique, he still is ultimately far short of the knowledge of God and for this reason his efforts to destroy the work of God are constantly turned to furthering it. It would seem in his whining that he is aware of this and feels unappreciated in his role in furthering the work of God.

My personal opinion is that the Saviour subjected His will to the Father and partook of the wrath of God which often comes by the hand of man. Such as:

'And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.' (1 Nephi 13:14)

'Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you. For if ye turn again unto the LORD, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again into this land: for the LORD your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him.' (2 Chronicles 30:8-9)

Just search for 'wrath of God' in the scriptures and you will find numerous reference to His wrath coming at the hand of enemy nations of men.

Imagine for a moment the torment of the wicked in the telestial sphere. We need not think too hard as we endure it daily. Our torment and anguish need not come from the Father, but comes from our fellow man. The wars, disease, confusion, the work of death, and all the various injustices and afflictions that accompany the telestial law are the work of man. The LORD need not appear nor invoke any special power for the wicked to suffer the torment of a telestial sphere. It is being abandoned here that is the wrath of God, which in this probationary state prompts one to turn back to God and call upon His presence for relief. It is the declaration of the restored Gospel that no relief will come by any means but by the Holy Ghost.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I see your point, and yes God has used and does use man's hand to remind the wicked to repent.

However when I'm talking about the demands of justice that are involved with the sacrifice for sin, I'm talking about the eternal demands of justice once divine law is broken.

For example, God's law to Adam was: "Eat this forbidden fruit, and you will die physically and spiritually as a result of being driven from My presence."

God didn't say, "In the day you eat of this forbidden fruit, ye shall surely be subject to wars, famine, child abusers and rapists."

Those are all things that came about as a side-effect of the Fall from God's presence. So in that sense, no man can execute the demands of justice involving our being kept out of God's presence.

First, there was no man to drive Adam from God's presence. God did that with His own Hand.

Second, no man is called by God to slay every mortal in order for God's word to be valid wherein He warned Adam he would die if he disobeyed.

So those two eternal punishments that result from sin (physical and spiritual death) were not and are not executed by man's hand in God's stead.

You are using the scriptures to show that God uses the wicked to stir up the covenant people to repent and remember Him (Lamanites vs. Nephites, Babylonians vs. Israel, etc...). God's wrath in this respect is kindled when men reject the covenants and commandments that allow us to be saved from the original demands of justice (physical and spiritual death). So God uses men and wars to chasten His covenant people when they stray from His ways. But this wrath is fundamentally different from justice's demand that unclean beings be shut out from God's presence forever.

There are no scriptures that demonstrate God using the hand of man--wicked or righteous--to ensure all mankind die and all mankind remain banished from His presence. If you view the wars and conflicts of men as fulfilling the demands of justice, then I assume you believe that in Gethsemane and on Calvary part of Christ's anguish was experiencing the pain and torture that every victim of war experiences. I don't believe this is true, however.

All men die because our bodies became corruptible when we were cast out of God's presence.

All men are shut out of God's presence because He does not allow unclean beings into His presence.

So what I'm saying is that mankind has nothing to do with enforcing or administering those eternal laws of heaven. Those demands of justice can only be enforced by God.

D&C 19:20 indicates that the torture that made Christ bleed from every pore was related to a sustaining spiritual influence being withdrawn:

Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

So if penal-substitution is the way the atonement works, there are just so many problems with the theory. You would have me believe that:

1.) Christ suffered the exact punishment for every individual sin.

But nowhere did God declare to Adam or fallen man, "In the day that ye sin, ye shall be crucified." So if crucifixion wasn't about suffering our specific punishments in our place, what why was it necessary? We know it was necessary because God went so far as to commanded Christ to let himself be crucified to gain power (3 Ne. 27:13-14; Rev. 5:12).

2.) Christ suffered the wrath of God due to our sins, and it was this agony in Gethsemane and that made him bleed from every pore.

But all the scriptures except for D&C 19 point to the cross as the site of the sacrifice for sin. So even if Gethsemane were included in that, that same agony would have had to carry over to the cross and where does the wrath of God demand Christ be crucified in our place? Why would we even need to be crucified?

Ultimately I guess we're viewing the "wrath of God" that must be appeased as different in nature. This is what I think.

The original demands of justice are that we unclean sinners be shut out from God's presence and lose our corruptible physical bodies through the process of mortal death.

||

\/

Before God enforced those original demands permanently, He activated the Plan of Salvation.

||

\/

This Plan creates a probationary period. God commands Christ to serve as our "probation officer" and deal with us directly since He cannot. During this temporary proving period, Christ gives us new laws that temporarily take the place of the original law. These are the requirements of our "probation," and these temporary laws include new punishments for breaking them (which is sin).

||

\/

If we disobey these gospel laws, we incur the wrath of God for our disobedience to these specific probationary laws. This wrath and the demands of justice as related to these temporary laws during mortality, are fundamentally different from the original demands of justice that we be cast off forever. For example, in this life we might lose the ability to lead prayer in church, lose the right to attend the temple, lose the Spirit to a degree, etc...

||

\/

God--through Christ--often uses wars and man's hand to punish His covenant people when they stray from these probationary laws. However, ultimately, if we never forsake sin--cease to break these probationary laws--then the original law takes effect, Christ will not be our advocate, and God alone enforces the original law's demand and we are eternally cast off.

So there are two "wraths of God" we're talking about, and God never uses mankind to enforce the original demands of justice. That is His right and responsibility alone.

This also introduces a new problem because you have to ask yourself, "Which demands of justice is the atonement meant to satisfy or appease? The original demands, or the probationary demands?"

I believe the atonement appeases the probationary demands of justice for those who repent, and if the probationary laws are appeased, the original law withdraws its demands.

Hence they can be reborn through the baptism of fire or the Spirit, and this quickening of the inner man allows them to obey completely without sin (consider the three Nephites...Satan has no power over them to tempt them so we know they don't sin); this newly acquired ability to obey God in all things allows them to be justified (declared guiltless) because of their baptism in the Spirit (Moses 6:58-60). Once they are just men, they become sanctified by Christ's blood (Moroni 10:32-33; Moses 6:58-60) in that their past sins are remitted or blotted out of the books of our works (Isa. 43:25; Isa 44:22; Rev. 19) and their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Then at Judgment Day, I believe the process becomes one of Christ asking us, "Is your name written in the Lamb's Book of Life? If so, it means you complied with the probationary laws and I applied his grace to justify and sanctify you. If your name is in the Book of Life, I will overpower the original law's just demands, namely that you be cast out of the Father's presence forever.

"If your name is not written in the Book of Life, you failed to accept me and hence rejected the Father, and you disobeyed the probationary laws. If your name is not in the Book of Life, the original law's just demands take effect and you suffer the second spiritual death and are forever shut out of the Father's presence."

Sorry for this being so jumbled but I'm in a rush to get some work done and I just wanted to jot this down before I forgot what I was thinking at the moment.

[a-train]

What is at work here are two laws, the law of Moses and the Higher law. The crucifixion fulfilled the law of Moses and had to be performed by the Saviour in His role as High Priest of the Priesthood of Aaron. Had the children of Israel been righteous and lived the law, the governement would have been a theocracy. Certainly, the penalties for sins under Mosaic Law were executed by man. The Saviour suffered the most severe penalty under the law of Moses, capital punishment.

[side note: It sends chills up my spine when I consider the saying of the Jews: 'His blood be on us, and on our children.' (Matt 27:25) It is often considered a reason to blame, but imagine the significance of the Blood of the Lamb covering the covenant people and their children.]

Therein lies the significance of the crucifixion. It fulfills the symbolic Mosiac Law. It is designed to free mankind from the obligations and penalties of the law of carnal commandments.

This alone is not sufficient for our salvation. The Saviour also suffered the spiritual seperation from God which cannot and was not executed by man. He suffered both the penalties of the lesser law executed by man and the penalties of the higher law executed by God simultaneously. As you have already said, the Spirit was withdrawn and the Saviour passed through this while cast out of the presence of God.

At the judgement, we will all stand resurrected and be responsible only for our own unrepented sins against the higher law. You and I will not be accountable for keeping the law of Moses and will not suffer the penalties thereof because of the fulfillment of that law by the Great High Priest. For this reason, even the most wicked will not suffer capital punishment (or any other punishment for that matter) at the judgement for violating the Law of Moses. Of course, had the Saviour not fulfilled it, we would still be required to follow it and would not be freed from it nor raised from the dead and freed from the fall of Adam until the Saviour performed the Great Last Sacrifice and rose from the grave.

Thus the demands of justice involved with the sacrifice for sin were the eternal demands of divine law AND the demands of the Law of Moses. Both laws were fulfilled.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

What is at work here are two laws, the law of Moses and the Higher law.

Actually, I view the Law of Moses as the watered down version of the full probationary law I was discussing earlier. When Jehovah saw that Israel wasn't ready for the full law (as evidenced by the golden calf incident), in his mercy he gave them the lesser law of performances and sacrifices to keep school them in and prepare them for the probationary gospel which Christ would reveal and institute during his life.

Thus, I view Christ's fulfilling the Law of Moses as finally putting into effect the full probationary law which had originally been meant to temporarily replace the "Edenic law" that demanded we be cast out forever with no chance to change or repent.

The crucifixion fulfilled the law of Moses and had to be performed by the Saviour in His role as High Priest of the Priesthood of Aaron.

Christ was of the tribe of Judah. According to the standard Jehovah revealed, Jesus had no right to the priesthood.

Certainly, the penalties for sins under Mosaic Law were executed by man. The Saviour suffered the most severe penalty under the law of Moses, capital punishment.

Yes, but the Law of Moses was, as I said, the watered down version of the full probationary gospel law to be revealed in the future. Even that probationary law was a temporary substitute for the "Edenic law" that originally had claim upon mankind. It is that law, the "Edenic law," which mankind had no right to execute in God's stead.

You and I aren't required to abide by the harsh constraints of the Law of Moses. So you and I would never merit the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath as the Law of Moses dictated. Hence, if Christ truly suffered the specific penalty of our sins in our place, there was no need to limit himself to suffering the most severe punishment of the Law of Moses. In fact, people can argue that since Christ was infinite and eternal, his death had the effect of having put to death an infinite amount of transgressors. I think that is silly and not supported by scripture.

Penal-substitution means I leave the jail cell, and someone else gets in. Unless Christ created an infinite number of clones of himself to take the specific place of all individuals who were to be forgiven due to his sacrifice, he literally could only ever substitute himself for one person.

[side note: It sends chills up my spine when I consider the saying of the Jews: 'His blood be on us, and on our children.' (Matt 27:25) It is often considered a reason to blame, but imagine the significance of the Blood of the Lamb covering the covenant people and their children.]

I was just thinking of that the other day. That truly is an amazing scripture!

Therein lies the significance of the crucifixion. It fulfills the symbolic Mosiac Law. It is designed to free mankind from the obligations and penalties of the law of carnal commandments.

But in fulfilling the lesser law, Christ instituted the full probationary gospel law. So how does his death fulfill that law? The gospel law you and I live at this moment in time does not inflict physical pain on sinners as their punishment. There is no stoning. There is no flogging. There is no scourging. So how does Christ's death fulfill this full gospel law and its punishments?

He suffered both the penalties of the lesser law executed by man and the penalties of the higher law executed by God simultaneously.

It's a sound theory, a-train, but I just don't buy it. In the Law of Moses, the High Priest killed the goat and sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat by himself. Israel wasn't involved. Mankind wasn't involved. It was an offering by the High Priest alone. Only the High Priest had the right to make the sacrifice.

Also, if the atonement really was penal-substitution, I'd expect the High Priest to confess Israel's sins on the head of the scapegoat, and then kill it and sprinkle its blood on the mercy seat as a symbolic way of saying, "We have given the collective penalty for Israel's sins to this goat, and killed it in their place. Accept of this offering and let justice be fulfilled."

But that's not what happened. The lifeblood of the goat was shed, sprinkled on the mercy seat, and then the sins of Israel were confessed on the scapegoat's head and it was sent into the wilderness alive and well. To me, this shows that the sins were forgotten along with their punishments, and simply dismissed or remitted because of the lifeblood that had already been shed.

Thus the demands of justice involved with the sacrifice for sin were the eternal demands of divine law AND the demands of the Law of Moses. Both laws were fulfilled.

Yet the scriptures describe mercy as "overpowering" the demands of justice, "appeasing" the demands of justice, etc... The Old Testament is a repetition of the same cycle: the people sinned; Jehovah began to punish them; they repented and changed their ways; Jehovah withdrew the rest of their punishment in his mercy. It's never been about paying the full penalty that justice demands for broken law. It's been about convincing or persuading God that we have changed, and having a righteous mediator plead for mercy on our behalf.

Check out Helaman 11 if you haven't already. It's a striking parallel to what I'm talking about.

[a-train]

Interesting. Paul handled well the whole issue of the Saviour's priesthood. He even tackled His lineage directly saying:'For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.' He also said: 'But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come... ...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.' (Hebrews 9:11-12)

Hebrews 7, 8, and 9 paint a clear picture of the Saviour as the High Priest entering in to the holy of holies to perform the atoning sacrifice. It says plainly that His preisthood being after the order of Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic and He was therefore able to assume the right of Priesthood not by lineage from Levi, but by virtue of the oath and covenant of the Higher Priesthood.

I especially like 'And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.' (Heb 7:23-24)

Here we see that as the high priests were suceeded by reason of their passing, their priesthood has now been superceded by one who cannot die. Christ being risen will never step down and leave His position as The High Priest over the Priesthood of Aaron to which He has been consecrated forever.

'For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.' (Heb 7:26-28)

As far as the meaning of the scapegoat verses the goat of the sin offering, what is your understanding of the scapegoat? Certainly you agree that the sacrifice of the goat of the sin offering was in similitude of the sacrifice of the Saviour yes? What about the scapegoat? What does it symbolize?

Will you allow my interpretation and give me your insight? The high priest had lots, one for the Lord which would indicate the sin offering, and the other would indicate the scapegoat. The lots were cast on two live kids and the lots determined which was which. The sin offering (the Lord's) was the one killed. After the completion of the sacrifice, Israel would confess sins over and send the scapegoat away.

Does not the meaning of the casting of the 'Lord's lot' claim that particular kid as the LORD's? In other words, after the lot designates the kid as the LORD's, it was no longer Israel's. The subsequent sacrifice of that goat was not Israel's but God's. The sacrifice of the scapegoat was Israel's.

I understand this to mean that the Lord sacrifices the sin offering, Israel sacrifices it's sins and is allowed to remain alive. In other words, Israel's sacrifice was NOT an animal at all, but their sins. This is why they put their sins on the scapegoat but did not offer it to God in the tabernacle. The shedding of blood was reserved for the innocent goat, the Lord's goat. Israel in confessing their sins there saw the striking image of the sacrifice of God's pure animal to save the unclean. The scapegoat (or escape goat) was not punished or harmed.

This is precisely what God did when He sacrificed His Only Begotten to save us. He placed the burden of the transgression of mankind on the Saviour, and is asking us to repent, to sacrifice our sins, to confess them and forsake them, as Israel confessed and then forsook the scapegoat. It was only because of the sacrifice of the LORD that we are able to do so.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Interesting. Paul handled well the whole issue of the Saviour's priesthood.

I know, I was just pointing out that Christ's being a High Priest was not according to the Levitical pattern, but the Melchizedek. You forgot one of the coolest verse from Hebrews! Check it out:

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (Heb. 10:19-20)

I love how Paul says Christ's flesh was the veil. Just as Christ's body was torn by nails on the cross, so also the veil was torn in two at the moment of his death (Matt. 27:50-51). I love that imagery and concept of coming boldly into the holiest by Christ's blood. Good stuff.

Certainly you agree that the sacrifice of the goat of the sin offering was in similitude of the sacrifice of the Saviour yes?

Absolutely.

What about the scapegoat? What does it symbolize?

I think the scapegoat is symbolic of the fact that because Christ's lifeblood was shed while atoning for our sins (like the "Lord's goat" on the Day of Atonement), our sins can be blotted out through repentance and confession. Just as the goat was sent away into an uninhabited land where no one would see it ever again, God remits our sins for the sake of Christ. Just as the High Priest was the one who confessed Israel's sins on the head of the scapegoat and then sent it away, Christ is the one who sends our sins away as long as we repent and change.

Does not the meaning of the casting of the 'Lord's lot' claim that particular kid as the LORD's? In other words, after the lot designates the kid as the LORD's, it was no longer Israel's. The subsequent sacrifice of that goat was not Israel's but God's. The sacrifice of the scapegoat was Israel's.

I guess I don't see the scapegoat as a sacrifice at all. To me, the Law of Moses sacrifices always involved killing an animal or bird. So to send a goat away live and well seems not a sacrifice but a symbol of remittance. But that's just my take.

In other words, Israel's sacrifice was NOT an animal at all, but their sins.

However, it wasn't Israel who came up one at a time and confessed their sins on the scapegoat. They had nothing to do with this part of the Day of Atonement sacrifices either. The High Priest was the one who confessed the sins on the head of the scapegoat (Lev. 16).

I just don't accept that wicked men shedding Christ's blood was in any way part of administering the penalty for our sins in our place. It was an unjust act advanced by the Jewish leaders, and carried out by the cruel Romans. God had withdrawn from Christ at this point, so He had no hand in it either. It was a sacrifice of the only truly innocent being to ever live on this earth, and that is why it was so terribly unjust.

This is precisely what God did when He sacrificed His Only Begotten to save us. He placed the burden of the transgression of mankind on the Saviour, and is asking us to repent, to sacrifice our sins, to confess them and forsake them, as Israel confessed and then forsook the scapegoat.

Again, it wasn't technically Israel who forsook the scapegoat. The High Priest did that. That's why I don't see a parallel between the scapegoat and the crucifixion by wicked men. I see the slaughter of the "Lord's goat" as the crucifixion. Thank you for your thorough replies, though. I enjoy this dialogue much more than our previous exchanges.