The rise of new Christianity (The Passion annunciates orthodox Christianity's central doctrine)

THE AGE (AUSTRALIAN) ^ | April 12, 2004 | Angela Shanahan

[RobbyS]

However you must concede that many people are spirituallly dead and sometimes shock treatment is needed to get their spiriitual hearts beating again. That is the point of the violence, to rub our noses in the literal meaning of the words.

[ahadams2]

please define your sources for your interpretation of John 14:6. Warning in advance: if your only source is yourself (i.e. that's what it means to you) that will not be considered sufficient, since it obviously does NOT mean the same to many of the rest of us.

[reflecting]

But Jenkins compares the new Christianity with that of the early church - mystical, puritanical and prophetic and with its own martyrs, most recently in Africa

As the western church declines the eastern church rises. The church planting movement in Africa and East Asia is nothing short of amazing, some estimates are that with a few decades China will be 30% Christian. China! While there will be some RCC, Anglican, Presbyterian, predominately it is going to be fundamental, signs and wonders, Baptist and Pentecostal. How amazing.

There are people now in china who are helping Chinese Baptist establish a board for missions outside of China. The goal? Evangelize the middle east. B2J - Back to Jeruasalem! Lift up your heads!

[Liz]

The depths of your beliefs are quite inspiring.

However, by not viewing The Passion film, you are cheating yourself out of an unforgettable intellectual and artistic experience. One does not have to be a believer to enjoy the film's acting, authentic production values, including costumes, music and and the film's settings (Italy).

The film is a celluloid masterpiece. Every frame could be mounted and hung in a museum. Mel said he was inspired by Renaissance painter, Carvaggio. Hearing the excellent actors speak the language of Christ is awesome.

Remember, the violence in The Passion film is not the typical gratuitous Hollywarped device to sell tickets.

This is redemptive violence. Much is done with makeup. Mel has said he inserted "escape hatches" so that audiences would not be exposed to the unrelenting brutality to Christ.

I do hope you get to see it. You will exit the theatre thanking yourself that you did.

[Liz]

Thanks for the great post

So glad you all liked the post.

[Liz]

....you must concede that many people are spirituallly dead and sometimes shock treatment is needed to get their spiriitual hearts beating again. That is the point of the violence, to rub our noses in the literal meaning of the words.....

When speaking to the hard of hearing, you have to use a loud megaphone.

[ELS]

Anyone who survived junior high can understand Christ's Passion.

LOL! How true (and I might add high school as well).

[FBDinNJ]

Hosepipe, you're missing the point concerning the meaning of the Gospel of John. Even if you were to look at the Gospel of John from the historical-critical method (which is not something I particularly like to do, but nevertheless) you would realize that the main objective of the Gospel of John is to prop up the Johannine Church community. So rather than trying to destroy the Church, this book was written to bolster a specific Christian community, the Johannine Church, in the late 1st century.

[Aquinasfan]

The film is a celluloid masterpiece. Every frame could be mounted and hung in a museum.

I was at the bookstore today flipping through the coffee table book. So many stills can stand on their own as works of art.

[RobbyS]

Depends on what one means by religion. Religion,in the pejorative sense, we don't need. But you want a faith without cult, which is humanly impossible, and neither you nor I is an unembodied spirit.

[hosepipe]

[ please define your sources for your interpretation of John 14:6. Warning in advance: if your only source is yourself (i.e. that's what it means to you) that will not be considered sufficient, since it obviously does NOT mean the same to many of the rest of us. ]

Really.. arrogant little sucker ain't ya. Sorry I pushed your button.. Nah! I tried to .. easy to do too.. Which school of indoctrination you hail from ?.

[hosepipe]

[ you would realize that the main objective of the Gospel of John is to prop up the Johannine Church community. So rather than trying to destroy the Church, this book was written to bolster a specific Christian community, the Johannine Church, in the late 1st century. ]

WHat do you mean by "church".?.. Jesus said, "I've come to let you out of the sheep pen"..Jn:10

[hosepipe]

[ Depends on what one means by religion. Religion,in the pejorative sense, we don't need. But you want a faith without cult, which is humanly impossible, and neither you nor I is an unembodied spirit. ]

Every "christian" is in a cult of one member. Unless they are indoctrinated to some other human(s) cultic views. Just as Adam was to approach God directly, so is everybody else. All that follow God are one whether they like it or not.

Every human has a human spirit and a body. The body dies the spirit does not. Everybody lives forever somewhere. Either the human spirit is in charge OR the body is. That is the test. You are a spirit riding a donkey(body) on this earth . IS the dirty filthy beast in charge or is the your spirit in charge. Donkey holiness is not good enough.

Assholiness will doom you pulling heavy burdens. The way of the spirit is peace, joy, and freedom in spirit.

[RobbyS]

Our Lord said where two are gathered in my name, I am there also. He founded a commmunity based on the good news. Paul thought that the good news meant that the Lord was coming soon and so he was inmpatient with anything that resembled the"Law". On the other hand, he is the first to tell us about the "breaking of the bread,' and the Lord's Supper.

[Liz]

I bought the book couple weeks ago. It'a like seeing the movie over and over again.

[Liz]

I saw "orthodox" in the title, and scanned the article to find out how "Orthodox Christian" doctrine is any different from "mere Christian" doctrine. Hm. Then I saw that "orthodox" was lowercase, not meant to refer to the branch of Christianity, but to "orthodox" Christianity (as opposed to "heretical" Christianity). Nice article. It is good seeing the key doctrine of our faith vividly portrayed.

Good points. Thanks for posting.

[hosepipe]

[ Our Lord said where two are gathered in my name, I am there also. He founded a commmunity based on the good news. Paul thought that the good news meant that the Lord was coming soon and so he was inmpatient with anything that resembled the"Law". On the other hand, he is the first to tell us about the "breaking of the bread,' and the Lord's Supper.]

I'm haveing a dialog, I thought. You are committing a monologue. That means I'm wasteing my time. You're used to it, evidently. Pity,,, I feel SO USED!..

[ahadams2]

Okay, let's try this again: 1. Please give cites [i.e. author(s), Title, pages, and publication data (when, where, what publisher)] for the source or sources of your interpretation of John 14:6. Now I admit that this presumes you actually have some sort of theological reference works, teaching resources, or at least maybe a website(?) from which you've derived your current understanding of that passage. On the other hand, common courtesy, especially in an ecumenical environment such as this, is generally understood to require that a person provide the theological basis for his statements if asked. That's just common courtesy. Arrogance on the other hand is making an arbitrary statement which is at variance from common understandings of Scripture, and then refusing to provide such reference cites. In other words it would be to your benefit to provide reference cites, since without them, statements such as you've made in this thread seriously damage your credibility. 2. Please provide an explanation of the term 'religion' as you understand it. It appears that part of the problem here is that you are using 'religion' is somewhat confusing. To borrow from the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary -------------------------- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ---------------------------- Now generally, at least from what I've seen around, most folks who are regular posters would define the term 'religion' according to 1(b)1 and 1(b)2 above. On the other hand (and I admit I'm guessing here) you seem to assume that the only meaning of the term 'religion' is reflected in definition 2. If that is in fact the case then a major portion of the disagreement in this thread would appear to be a communications problem. By comparing your definition of 'religion' to the above list, we may be able to clear up at least that much of the conflict in this thread. your move.

[ahadams2]

for reasons unknown the formatting dropped on my response - here it is with the formatting back in

Okay, let's try this again: 1. Please give cites [i.e. author(s), Title, pages, and publication data (when, where, what publisher)] for the source or sources of your interpretation of John 14:6. Now I admit that this presumes you actually have some sort of theological reference works, teaching resources, or at least maybe a website(?) from which you've derived your current understanding of that passage. On the other hand, common courtesy, especially in an ecumenical environment such as this, is generally understood to require that a person provide the theological basis for his statements if asked. That's just common courtesy. Arrogance on the other hand is making an arbitrary statement which is at variance from common understandings of Scripture, and then refusing to provide such reference cites. In other words it would be to your benefit to provide reference cites, since without them, statements such as you've made in this thread seriously damage your credibility.


2. Please provide an explanation of the term 'religion' as you understand it. It appears that part of the problem here is that you are using 'religion' is somewhat confusing. To borrow from the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary

---

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

---

Now generally, at least from what I've seen around, most folks who are regular posters would define the term 'religion' according to 1(b)1 and 1(b)2 above. On the other hand (and I admit I'm guessing here) you seem to assume that the only meaning of the term 'religion' is reflected in definition 2. If that is in fact the case then a major portion of the disagreement in this thread would appear to be a communications problem. By comparing your definition of 'religion' to the above list, we may be able to clear up at least that much of the conflict in this thread.

your move.

[hosepipe]

[ Okay, let's try this again: 1. Please give cites [i.e. author(s), Title, pages, and publication data (when, where, what publisher)] for the source or sources of your interpretation of John 14:6. ]

NO... Where do you think you are Berkley.?.. What I've said is my opinion. And you will be held accountable for KNOWING IT.. be advised.. Am I an Angel.. I'm not tellin..