Is accepting Jesus as messiah a sin?

[Greatest I am]

Is accepting Jesus as messiah a sin?

It seems to me, that to accept Jesus as our messiah or scapegoat, means abdication our responsibility for our sins and placing it on the messiah or scapegoat.

I think that to use a scapegoat is a sin.

If you are religious, is this the sin that you think you did to deserve hell? If not, what is it that causes you to sin to be saved?

Regards
DL

[Brother Les]

What does 'Sin' mean?

[Greatest I am]

I gave a specific for the sin in question in O.P.

All else is a deflection, which is what you have tried and failed to do here, dishonest Christian.

You know you do not have justification for the evil policy you follow.

Christianity was a good religion before the literal reading of myths brought us the Dark Ages.

You need to try the modern age, then you would not have to be such a deflecting and lying Christian.

Regards
DL

[Silence]

When I came across the work of Rene Girard and some of the arguments he made about how the scriptures actually preclude a "sacrificial" reading of the gospels, I had to re-think my view of the atonement. After ten years or more, I still haven't settled on a definite position. Girard claimed that the reason Jesus came and went to the cross was to expose the sinful practice of scapegoating for what it is - an unjust and sinful way that people use to deal with the anxiety and tension fueled by frustrated mimetic desires. It just occurred to me as I was typing that last sentence, that the "nakedness" that Adam and Eve "knew" after eating of the forbidden fruit may have been the result of each of them having a consuming desire for something and finding that they could not satisfy it, i.e. they were "bare" of any power or resource to satisfy their desire, and their attempts to do so found satisfaction "slipping through their hands". The idea of "slipperiness" seems to be inherent in the Hebrew word aw-room that is translated as "naked" in English. When questioned about why they were hiding, they each start out by throwing a scapegoat under the bus. "The woman you gave to be with me.....", "the serpent deceived me and I ate...", etc.

Girard claimed that the singular (not plural) "sin of the cosmos" that John the Baptist spoke of in John 1:29 was the sin of laying guilt and punishment on an innocent scapegoat. That was "the" sin (singular) that Jesus came to take away, but the way He took it away necessitated that He submit to the iniquitous practice in such a way that the sinfulness of it was openly displayed.

In thinking about all of this even as I am typing, I wonder if there are not several layers of different types of "sin" that are being addressed in the scriptures. Could it be that when peeling back the different layers to the very bottom one, that the sin which would cause Adam and Eve problems (thorns and thistles, pain in childbirth, eating bread in sorrow,etc) was not believing that He could and did freely forgive them their trespass of eating the fruit, instead of executing the sentence that He pronounced at the end of Genesis 2:17? And could it be that Adam and Eve's way of dealing with this failure to rest in His unconditional forgiveness was to start making scapegoats in an attempt to deflect the punishment they thought was coming, thus adding another layer of sin on top of the first?

We are told that God made mankind in His image and likeness. Is forgiveness part of God's image and likeness? And how would Adam and Eve learn and experience this aspect of God if everything was always perfect and there was never anything to be forgiven? I'm getting into deep water here that is starting to make my head swim, so I'll leave it at this for now.

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for this.

I agree with your conclusion that god screwed up and scapegoating Jesus or anyone else is evil.

Regards
DL

[Silence]

That "God screwed up" is your take on my post, but that is not what I was saying at all. Andrew Jukes wrote a book titled "The Second Death and The Restitution Of All Things" and in it he describes how, given man's decrepit state after the fall, God was forced to "come down to our level" in order to start any dialogue at all, something which had to happen before He could lead us to restoration. There aren't two different "gods" in the bible. The atrocities that took place in the old testament were unfortunately bound to take place due to where mankind was on the road to being able to hear and understand God. God has a way of taking things that people have accepted and become familiar with, re-iterating them up to a point, and once they think they are right, He subverts things from the inside, showing people how wrong they were instead. If the Isrselites would have continued to listen to God's voice at Mt. Sinai instead of begging for Moses to become a go-between, they would have been able to subdue and convert the Canaanites with the sword of the Spirit (God's Word of redemption) instead of slaughtering them with physical swords. Like Andrew Jukes, Rene Girard noted the subversive nature of the God's word also.

[Brother Les]

You were using the term 'sin'. I asked what the term meant. You gave no good answer to that term. The vague usage that you use does nothing for your OP. Is everything a 'sin' or is nothing a 'sin'..... what the hell does 'sin' mean???? and what the hell does 'hell' mean? To each his own meaning, in his own mind?

Is it not the one who was called Adam, that 'screwed up'?


And it was not Mt Sinai of where 'the people' wanted Moses as a go between, it was when 'the people' demanded a king and Saul became king over them because they turned their back on God.

[Silence]

So you don't think Exodus 20:19 was one of the failures on the part of the Israelites? First they tell God in 19:8 that they will do everything He might command them, even though they had already failed to do this more than once since leaving Egypt. Then they don't even want to listen to Him while He is speaking to Moses some of the commands that they had just promised they would obey. The first point of obedience is to confess that you don't have the strength to do everything He commands. That is what the baptism of John ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE JORDAN was all about.

[Greatest I am]

Silence

A god would not reduce himself for man.

He would elevate man to him, which is why the Jews read Eden as the place of Original Virtue and not the lie that Christianity put on it of Original Sin.

Did I also read you wrong on Jesus and that you would use him as your scapegoat?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Brother Lee

I gave a specific for the sin in question in the O.P.

All else is a deflection.

Regards
DL