How Christ Overcomes the Scapegoat Mechanism (René Girard) | Luke Burgis & Jonathan Pageau

Watch the full version:
Revenge of the Scapegoat | with Luke Burgis: • Revenge of the Scapego...
The clips on this channel are selected and compiled by certain members of the Facebook Group (linked below) and not by Jonathan Pageau himself.
The unofficial Symbolic World Facebook discussion group: / 1989208418065298
=======================
Main channel: / pageaujonathan
Support:
Website: thesymbolicworld.com/support/
Patreon: / pageauvideos
Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/jonatha...
Paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
Links:
Website: www.thesymbolicworld.com
Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
Twitter: / pageaujonathan
Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/page...
Dtube: steemit.com/@symbolism

[@keithjohnsonYT]

“A feast of friends” - Jim Morrison Remember: The jolt you get when you unexpectedly see an old friend as you go about your daily activities..that’s inside you. The jolt you feel when the neighbor slams the door..that’s outside you. I think if you find Christ outside yourself, you might be doing it wrong. God is omnipresent. I am small.

[@pilesthedonkey]

Wrong door

[@triquetragardens1990]

The sacrifice for us is mostly of your own ego. Often what we are most prideful in, hence the importance of the virtue of humility. In willingly offering yourself to sacrifice, you turn the scapegoat mechanism on its head and thus your disarm evil and make good come of it (...spiritually. this is only achievable through the guidance of the Holy Spirit because of our own blindness ). Love / charity being the giving of the good of yourself for others. If you follow the way, in a personsl relationship with Jesus, you will undoubtedly be called to this as we are part of Christ Body we go through what he goes through (in some form).

[@tzaphkielmelekiyah1518]

Exactly , the serpent represented their sin as they were bitten by them for sinning and when they looked up they acknowledged the need for healing and received it. In Christ the ego seeds of the enemy are uprooted as we nail the old man to the cross with Christ we receive his life triumphing over the governance of strongholds and principalities , showing us how to live from Gods Holy Spirit , rather than the influence of the prince of the air over separated egos which don’t acknowledge the Holy One.

[@josephdravis7043]

True believers are scapegoated; like all the time; today.

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

Lately I've been seeing the mechanism as a kind of Trojan Horse. Also, "anamnesis" is literally "unforget" as opposed to "remember" which is to put the parts back together after them being apart. Unforget implies that no parts were ever separated, we just just didn't keep it current in our memories. So with anamnesis we really are participating in Calvary, not reconstituting Calvary as a remembrance. I'm a Latin rite Catholic, but it's obvious the Greek word is much better here than the Latin root of remember. Christ's peace!

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Thank you !

[@ready1fire1aim1]

He Who Rides On The Clouds: Baal is a western Semitic title that means Master or Lord. While it can actually refer to a large number of different deities, Baal in this case refers to Hadad, the Canaanite and Syrian god of rain, fertility, life, agriculture and thunder, particularly popular in Ugarit and Aleppo. He was worshipped in many ancient Middle Eastern communities, who considered him one of the most important gods in their respective local pantheons. He was at least in part derived from the Sumerian god Ishkur, but their character differed substantially; while Ishkur represented the destructive power of storms, the western Semitic Baal was the master of life-giving rains vital for farmers. Thanks to his huge influence, Baal was designated as the universal god of fertility, and in that capacity his title was Prince, Lord of the Earth. He was also called the Lord of Rain and Dew, the two forms of moisture that were indispensable for fertile soil in Canaan In Ugaritic and Hebrew, Baal's epithet as the storm god was He Who Rides on the Clouds. In the Baal (Lord) Cycle he's frequently called "Aliyan Baal" or "Baal, the victorious." In Phoenicia, he was called Baal Shamen, Lord of the Heavens. In Syria, hail was seen as a phenomenon closely related to him. He was also the king of the gods, and, to achieve that position, he was portrayed as seizing the divine kingship from Yam, the sea god, described as a tyrannical ruler. Baal was probably also regarded as the source of royal authority for human kings, and myths and prayers depict him as an ally and protector of humans. In his main myth, the so-called Baal Cycle, Baal was locked in mortal combat with Mot, the personification of death and sterility. If Baal triumphed, humanity would thrive; but, if he were to be vanquished by Mot, humans would suffer and their crops would wither away. While the myths present a decisive conclusion to the conflict, some scholars assume it was believed to repeat in cycles. Like many deities of the ancient Near East, Hadad was always represented in a horned headdress. In art, he's often shown holding a club and thunderbolt or two clubs. While Mesopotamian depictions of the storm god and the famous Baal stele depict him as a typical bearded Near Eastern god, many Canaanite depictions are instead more similar to Egyptian warriror gods and beardless. Baal was also frequently associated with bulls. The bull was a widespread symbol of divinity in ancient Mespopotamia and areas infuenced by it. Other storm gods from cultures closely related to that of ancient Canaan, like Hurrian Teshub and Hittite Tarhunna, were depicted very similarly to Baal in art, and their myths shared many similarities as well. The Egyptian god Set in his generally positive aspect as a god of foreigners was also associated with Baal, taking his role in the Egyptian adaptation of the Yam narrative. Baal is usually associated with the goddesses Ashtart (commonly called "the Face of Baal," indicating particularly close bond between these two deities), a western Semitic equivalent of Ishtar, and Anat, both of who are often interpreted as his consorts. Anat is also called Baal's sister, though it's unclear if they share the exact same parents, as in Ugaritic texts Baal calls two separate gods, El (the husband of Asherah) and Dagan, his fathers. Whether the two fathers were one and the same or if one of these was simply a courtesy title indicating superior status is a matter of scholarly debate, though cultic rather than mythical texts regard Dagan as separate from El. The name Baal, or Ba'al, is used as a substitute of Hadad in some ancient texts and in common modern usage. This is possibly derived from the fact that in ancient Canaan only priests were allowed to utter the divine name, in much the same way as in Judaism where only priests were allowed to utter the name of God, so common people simply referred to him as Baal. It's also possible the title was eventually deemed to be integral to Hadad's cult it functionally became his main name. The word ba'al and its plural form were also used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to cult images, and in this context they were regarded as false gods. Because of this, several demons were derived from Baal, including Bael and Beelzebub. Many of the most famous biblical references to Baal, for example the tale of Jezebel, are related to the traditions of the cities of Sidon and Tyre, where the title of Baal was applied to deities other than Hadad. 🕊

[@PhilipShawn]

God is no other way than love for this instance

[@johnsalamito6212]

Genesis 15, especially verse 17, provides critical foresight into Christian sacrifice. A covenant is made with Abram, the animals are slain, but ONLY the flaming torch (=God) signs the agreement by walking between the pieces. In other words, if God fails he will pay the price but, incredibly, if God upholds his side but it is Abram (humans) who fail then God will also pay the price. Heads or tails, it will be God (Jesus) that pays the price. That is what happens over the next 1800 years culminating in Calvary. Hence Jesus atones for man as predicted in Genesis 15 which is before Abraham was (Jn 8:58) when he was simply Abram.

[@NicholleChristineEdwards]

When runway Models in a Cult insult Jesus H Christ while stating he is a woman for them- holy parada give that Jezebel a throne crown.

[@tzaphkielmelekiyah1518]

@@NicholleChristineEdwardshuh? You need deliverance ? Your understanding is commandeered by chaos spirits and your ability to comprehend meaning scrambled by your false god of self, you cannot save or heal while separated from life yourself, wake up to the true Light, blasphemy is not purity, it is profane and storing up wrath via hardening your heart and blinding your eyes

[@liamwalker5797]

Can anyone link me the thumbnail pic? Looking for the whole version of the mandala

[@svendsek]

You should definitely have a chat with Michael Hardin 😊

[@lifearttimes]

🙌🏽🌟🙌🏽

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Yahweh = Yam: Yam, also known as Ym and Yaw (YHW), is the Ugaritic god of rivers and the sea. Also known as Judge Nahar ("Judge River"), he is also one of the Elohim or sons of El, the name given to the Levantine pantheon. Others dispute the existence of the alternative names, claiming it is a mistranslation of a damaged tablet. Despite linguistic overlap, theologically this god is not a part of the later sub regional monotheistic theology, but rather is part of a broader Levantine polytheism. He is also known from Egyptian sources, which present him as an enemy of Set (at the time viewed as a heroic slayer of monsters and similar to Levantine and Anatolian weather gods). Yam is the deity of primordial chaos and represents the power of the sea, untamed and raging; he is seen as ruling storms and the disasters they wreak. The seven-headed dragon Lotan is associated closely with him and the serpent is frequently used to describe him. Despite his antagonistic role in myths, Ym was sometimes invoked in theophoric names, indicating some degree of cult, which sets him apart from another similar figure, Tiamat. As Ym's myth is generally believed to be older than the Enuma Elish, it's possible Tiamat was partially patterned after him. Of all the gods, despite being the champion of El, Ym holds special hostility against Baal Hadad, son of Dagon (or El). Ym is a deity of the sea and his palace is in the abyss associated with the depths, or Biblical tehwom, of the oceans. (This is not to be confused with the abode of Mot, the ruler of the netherworld.) In Ugaritic texts, Ym's special enemy Hadad is also known as the "king of heaven" and the "first born son" of El, whom ancient Greeks identified with their god Cronus, just as Baal was identified with Zeus, Yam with Poseidon and Mot with Hades. While Baal Hadad was the lead god in Ugarit, in the Baal cycle it is Ym who is favored by El, and he even briefly rules over the other gods. Baal only rises to power after vanquishing him with the help of his allies Kothar-wa-Khasis, Astarte and Anat. Yam's ultimate fate is unclear, as the text makes references to both death and captivity, and in later sections of the myth Baal talks about Yam as if he was still alive and a possible threat. While in the past researchers, especially those belonging to the myth-ritual tradition, interpreted the myths of Baal, Ym and Mot as a representation of the cycle of seasons and thus related to fertility rites, this view is challenged in more recent scholarship as incorrect or simplistic. His name comes from the Canaanite word Yam, meaning "Sea." 🕊

[@Magnulus76]

Nothing has really changed since the Hebrew Prophets, except we have lost our illusions. "Rend your hearts, not your clothes". Religion can be part of the problem, if it just becomes an extension of ego.

[@PhilipShawn]

Focussed

[@MrHawkMan777]

As a non-christan Girardian, it's interesting to note that early Girard claimed that Christ's death was not a sacrifice but an anti-sacrifice. As it undermines what the primordial origin of sacrifice in collective violence. I know that he later changed his opinion on this to align with the Christian idea of sacrifice but I'm not so sure this was the right thing to do. You could say that Christ redefines sacrifice but I think Christians believe Christ's death was a taking on humanity's sins because of the concept of sacrifice. And in this sense we don't look at the actual words and actions of Christ in a manor as something that needs radical action but instead sacarlize this image as something that has already done it's work of salvation. I know different forms of Christianity have different ideas on works or faith in salvation but all to some extent believe that baptism or initiation has some salvation qualities as one is basking in Christ's glory through his death and resurrection. However this may miss the point entirely, that Christ is giving us a template to restructure culture and our sense of ourselves away from scapegoating towards love for the other in the holy spirit, which is displayed as the love of the community of believers in the account of Pentecost. I'm just not convinced that Christians have really understood the radical nature of Christ enough, and I think early Girard understood this better than he did later on when he obviously wanted to align with the Catholic church.

[@bradleyheissmann4538]

It was both a sacrifice and an anti-sacrifice.

[@MrHawkMan777]

@@bradleyheissmann4538 you may be right, I don't exclude the possibility of Christs sacrifice. I'm just not convinced that it really helps much. Girard never thought of sacrifice in the platonic sense, that it means an elimination of something for the greater good. In fact he argues against this point in his critique of the structuralist anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. Girard argues that sacrifice is an elimination of something for the greater good but that the 'greater good' (society, Tribe, religion, etc) is made up of that thing which it has eliminated (violence). It's a paradox as the distinction between the thing eliminated in the sacrifice and the greater good it serves is entirely arbitrary, it's violence no matter what way you look at it. Jonathan's conception of sacrifice is platonic in that he is pre-supposing the concept of sacrifice before it's event and so sacrifice can then manifest in many ways from that concept/idea. But Girard is completely against this, at least in his early work. He thinks the event of the founding murder informs not just the subsequent idea of sacrifice but culture as a whole. In this sense Pageau has got the order mixed up. What Christ is doing is not attacking an idea of sacrifice but attacking an event, that of scapegoating. When one argues that Christ's death was a sacrifice they don't realise that sacrifice is a normative concept. One that arises through arbitrary distinction and is not based in any truth. Christ is the truth in that he is exposing this arbitrary distinction. I think it goes against Christ to say that that his death was a sacrifice for the greater good. His death served no higher purpose other than its ability to expose the true horror of such a death. It must also be taken into account that nowhere in the gospel does it indicate that his death was a sacrifice.

[@mariussielcken]

A sacrefice is to assuage divine wrath, but divine is simply means collective consciousness.

[@robgrano6814]

Girard's earlier understanding of sacrifice excluded the idea of self-sacrifice in the sense that he didn't differentiate it from other negative forms. I think that this is one of the things that Fr. Schwager helped him to see -- that self-sacrifice could be a good manifestation of it, and that Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross was exactly that. "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lays down his life for his friends."

[@MrHawkMan777]

@@robgrano6814 I have also somewhat changed my position on this as I think that if we hold strictly to the council of chacledon then the idea of self sacrifice makes sense. The reason I didn't like the sacrificial understanding was that I felt that either Christ dies on the cross to satisfy the father, which is ridiculous or that we say that Christ, who is god, essentially is so almighty that his death becomes like some superhero who defeats an enemy and triumphs. I don't like this second version because Christ clearly suffers on the cross and this element of human suffering needs to be maintained. But chalcedon maintains that Christ was 1 person with a divine and human nature. This human nature is vital and I think it changes it entirely. Unfortunately many Christians who claim to hold to chalcedon really don't as they always emphasize his divinity and rarely his humanity. So if we emphasize this humanity then I think we can see this as a self sacrifice. But if we only emphasize his divinity then it makes no sense and just becomes a egotistical god who takes on the appearance of man to get people to worship him.

[@PhilipShawn]

We do

[@BestIsntEasy]

💃🎙💃 NEVERENDING SACRIFICE FROM EVERY GDAMNED MFING LEADER OUT THERE!

[@PhilipShawn]

IN GENERAL, its correct

[@PhilipShawn]

It would be the impressive of death/resurrection

[@PhilipShawn]

Who knows, indeed

[@PhilipShawn]

"sacrifice"

[@PhilipShawn]

Christ's sacrifice is targetted

[@larrybedouin2921]

The scapegoat is sent to the wilderness by a strong man never to return. Is it your belief that Christ never returns?

[@rustyshackelford3590]

According to Seventh day Adventist theology Satan is the scapegoat

[@devin_3875]

Seriously??

[@tracyb1222]

There were two goats - one is the LORD's goat & the other is the scapegoat. If you compare the scapegoat to Jesus, it doesn't make sense. Here's a brief comparison. SCAPEGOAT: - was never called an offering - Lev 16:10 - was never brought into the temple - Lev 16:7,20,21, Luke 10:18 - never sheds blood. Lev 16:10,20,21 - was kept alive and sent into the wilderness. JESUS: - was an offering - Isa 53:10 - was brought into the tabernacle - Heb 9:11,12 - Shed His blood - Luke 22:20 LORD's GOAT: - offered as a sin offering - Lev 16:9 - blood shed - Lev 16 Jesus bore the full brunt of sin for us and because of His grace and we are no longer under the condemnation of sin. That said, Satan will not be saved from his sins and will continue to carry the guilt of his sins until his final defeat - into the wilderness - into the bottomless pit spoken of in Revelation 9.

[@dylanwarner919]

Maybe John the Baptist was the scapegoat and Christ the firstborn

[@christorres348]

John did come from the wilderness. Maybe he represents all the scapegoats sent out returning to prepare for the clean sacrifice.

[@041able]

I disagree. There is only one kind of sacrifice. The rest are metaphors and analogies.

[@PhilipShawn]

Its OBEDIENCE

[@tracyb1222]

There were two goats - one is the LORD's goat & the other is the scapegoat. If you compare the scapegoat to Jesus, it doesn't make sense. Here's a brief comparison. SCAPEGOAT: - was never called an offering - Lev 16:10 - was never brought into the temple - Lev 16:7,20,21, Luke 10:18 - never sheds blood. Lev 16:10,20,21 - was kept alive and sent into the wilderness. JESUS: - was an offering - Isa 53:10 - was brought into the tabernacle - Heb 9:11,12 - Shed His blood - Luke 22:20 LORD's GOAT: - offered as a sin offering - Lev 16:9 - blood shed - Lev 16 Jesus bore the full brunt of sin for us and because of His grace and we are no longer under the condemnation of sin. That said, Satan will not be saved from his sins and will continue to carry the guilt of his sins until his final defeat - into the wilderness - into the bottomless pit spoken of in Revelation 9.