Posted on 02/27/2004 8:51:21 PM PST by GeronL
For some, the controversy is over who killed Jesus.
But for others, it's why he died – whether his death was necessary to atone for the sins of humanity.
Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which opens in theaters Wednesday, raises questions other than anti-Semitism for some Christians. At issue is whether the death of Jesus was necessary to reconcile the world to God – a view no longer sacrosanct in some circles.
The movie, reflecting the deeply held views of its director, answers affirmatively on the side of traditional Christianity. But in churches and religious schools, some believers are raising doubts
"It doesn't make sense to me that God would need to be satisfied by sending his son to be killed," said Kip Taylor, a religion major at Texas Christian University. "That's a vengeful God and not a God I want to worship."
For most Christians, Jesus' death has long been considered the fulfillment of Scripture – entirely sacrificial, virtuous and redemptive.
"It's the central point of what Christians believe," Mr. Gibson told ABC's Primetime.
But it's a belief being questioned like never before by some mainline Protestants, particularly the historical peace churches and liberal theologians.
"My death is no more important than my birth or every day in between. Why should it be any different with Jesus?" said Kelly Webb, after a class on the Gospels at TCU. "If all that mattered was his death, why did he spend three years teaching and preaching?"
The Gospel of Mark (10:45) states unequivocally that Jesus died "as a ransom for many." I Peter 2:24 says, "In his own body, he brought your sins to the cross."
And the Letter to the Hebrews is filled with sacrificial language about Jesus.
Paul's letters have been the primary biblical basis for asserting that Jesus died as a ransom for human sin. But modern scholarship tools now allow Christians to see other views in the sacred texts.
"Historically, the church has homogenized all the voices in Scripture and made them fit this understanding of God," said Dr. Elizabeth Johnson of Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Ga.
A specialist on Paul, she believes his sacrificial references are misinterpreted.
"It's not that God is mad and Jesus takes the licks for us," she said. "Paul's much more interested in what it means to say that Jesus' death changes the structures of the universe, brings in a new creation and makes life out of death."
Some biblical passages portray Jesus as an innocent man who didn't deserve his fate, scholars say. But others verses suggest that his death was foretold from the beginning – that he had a God-given mission to die.
"Mel Gibson comes down on the side that says crucifixion was a necessary part of God's plan for salvation," said Dr. Adele Reinhartz, a New Testament scholar from Canada whose forthcoming book, Jesus of Hollywood, is due out this the summer.
If Jesus didn't die for sin, the ramifications are enormous for Christians. The church's doctrine of original sin is called into question. So, too, the meaning of redemption, salvation and Jesus' mission on earth.
"It's just bad theology to say God had to kill his son as a payback for sin," said Dr. Sandra Schneiders, a New Testament scholar at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif. "It makes God sound bloodthirsty."
Perhaps, she said, redemption is found in Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God. Maybe he came to earth to show humanity how to live – to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, to stand in solidarity with the marginalized.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Almost always agree with you, but the "flavors" are all one denomination or another of "mainline" churches.
ALL the Saints hear our prayers ......... don't be so up tight! ;o)
The Holy Ghost will never let that happen!.
I reason it out something like this. God could have made us without our own free will. But he didn't, he made humans "in his image," with the ability to choose. God also loves us, and wants to be loved in return. "Forecd love" is not love at all, so, humans must have free will in order to give true love.
Or, God could have just skipped the whole creation thing (or at least the part about creating living thinking beings that have free will), and we wouldn't have to be bothered with trying to understand His word and commands.
God's "perfect creation" does not now provide peaceful and painless human existence.
Well, as the Hertz ad says, 'not exactly.' First, do not make the mistake that apologists for the RCC would like you to make of confusing the early church with the centralized, hierarchal (and highly corrupt) RCC. It is true that there was a fraction of the prior church which rebuffed reform and continued its downward spiral, but it most certainly does not have 'historical title' to the early church.
Now, that said, the assumptions of your statement are historically inaccurate as well.
If you are truly interested in the formation of the canon, I highly recommend The Canon of the New Testament; Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford University Press, 1987 (1997 in paperback)). Metzger is rather clearly the leading authority on the NT text and canon in our era.
But, in summary, the NT developed much like the Internet has in our time, in a decentralized, somewhat ad hoc manner, reflecting a marketplace of ideas. There were leaders in various cities and regions who held strong views for and against various books and (in a much slower mode than the Internet) they carried on a debate.
The early church didn't really see the need for a settled collection of written Scriptures until the second half of 2nd century when the influence of Marcion arose. He wrote a book called Antitheses (or "Contradictions") in which, among other things, he rejected the OT, accepted only the nine epistles of Paul to the churches plus Philemon and, of the Gospels, only the Gospel of Luke as reliable. He wrote "prologues" (much like the commentary in today's "study bibles")to these books and, as a wealthy ship owner, paid to have them copied. Marcion's text of Luke and Pauline writings was the most widespread, popular text in the 2nd century. The result was a fruitful debate on what books were truly authoritative and which were not.
This debate continued for two hundred years during which there was increasing consensus on the canon. But again, it was God's hand guiding the formation of the canon, not a political convention of the RCC.
The church was so widespread that there were separate developments in the East and West. But, interestingly, they came to the same basic consensus.
There were three provincial synods (no "ecumenical councils") in Hippo in 393, in Carthage in 397 and then another in Carthage in 419. All three produced lists of the current 27 books, but with slightly different wording and order.
What may be of interest to someone like yourself who would consider aligning with the RCC, is that all three began with the phrase, "Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: [then follow the lists]." The last of the three (Carthage, 419) includes this concluding sentence, "Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church."
Several things are noteworthy here. No 'pope', no primacy, no deference, just "brother and fellow-bishop" as one among "other bishops in those parts". Second, the authority comes from what they "received from [their ]fathers to be read in church, i.e. the God-driven consensus again.
Most interesting is this didn't end the issue. The debate continued.
The bishop at Rome didn't state a preference until the Council of Florence (1439-43) -- the 15th century!! -- when the then-'pope' tried to bring about unity with the Eastern Church by restating unifying doctrines and, coincidentally, affirming the same list of canonical books that the EO church was using. [Always the political motivation.] Of course, the RCC ignored this later at Trent when it became convenient to try to bring the Apocrypha into the Bible to support some of their man-made doctrines (i.e. purgatory) not found in the canonical Scriptures.
The laxity of the medieval RCC led to the consistent inclusion of a forged book (falsely) attributed to Paul, call the "Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans" in most of the RCC 'bibles'. It was included in more than one hundred manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (including the oldest, codex Fuldensis, 546). It appears in all 18 German bibles printed prior to Luther's translation.
In short, it was the Reformers who rescued the canon.
This post is already too long, but I encourage you to study this important issue from a factual standpoint before casting your lot with the RCC. There is, by the way, a very good reason that the canon was never important to the RCC (until pressed on their doctrines by the Reformation): they are first and foremost an accretionist organization. That is, they have (as do the Mormons) a formal mechanism to keep adding to the Canon by means of "authoritative interpretations" or insights which are, of course, then deemed 'infallible'. In such a circumstance, what the canon is or says is much, much less important. If it isn't there and you want it, just pronounce it. As one of the Clintonites said of Executive Orders, "A piece of paper, a signature and new law. Neat."
It may be 'neat' and it may even keep your religious organization in business, but it isn't from God.
From one with apostolic anointing to another: it's an argument for the primacy of the Logos of God, if you ask me. ;-)
Blessings....
I think more and more these days of Jesus's sacrifice in the crucifixion not as a juridical event but existential: not a revelation of what he did, but what he is.
Sure it is. God told this story while He was a living man. Hell exists and is for an eternity.
"End flesh before the Soul is held accountable for leading "astray"."
That's, because hell exists and is for an eternity. From the same chapter in Luke, "In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side."
"Those who refused and refuse Christ are across the gulf, in spirit body waiting until judgment day. In our Heavenly Father's time."
Abraham answered from Heaven. Abraham also never heard of Jesus while He was alive.
"his is history, happened before; the "nations" = system of government "
God did not create nations, men did. Those are individuals looking accross the gulf in Ezekiel 28.
Cut Kippy a little slack, he's his own Pope.
Your warm hearted, open response reminds of one of the several questions that my Dear (a sincere, not sarcastic, dear) sister flung at me when word reached her that I had converted to Catholicism.
"You mean you believe in Purgatory and all those bizarre things"?".
I simply replied, "Where do you have Uncle Blake (I knew damn well where she had him) .. well I have him in Purgatory and I pray for him regularly. God willing, we will hug each other in heaven.
Uncle Blake was something of a rake but he had a huge heart and was/is very dear to me.
The tendency for fundamentalists to jump the gun on God's separating the sheep from the goats is only one of the many things that separate me from them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.