[GeronL]

Jesus was a liberal social worker in other words, and we are all nuts.

It was a major article in last Saturdays paper, and it will be interesting to see what response they decide to print. If any.

[GeronL]

Or maybe he died simply for his unpopular, even subversive beliefs rather than for the sin of the world. That kind of thinking goes against classical atonement theology. "It's our belief," Mr. Gibson told Primetime, "that by the sin of the first people, original sin, that the gates were closed to us, to eternal life, and that his sacrifice as a redeemer of all mankind was to open the gates to all of us again." That viewpoint dominated the early centuries of the church, when the primary statements of faith were written. The Nicene and Apostles' creeds punctuate beliefs in the virgin birth, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection – but say nothing about Jesus' teachings. The most popular atonement theologies combined aspects of the ransom theory (Jesus' death freed humanity from Satan's hold), the satisfaction theory (Jesus' death makes amends for humanity's sin) and sacrificial theory (Jesus' death is the ultimate sin offering to God). "Atonement theologies say our connection to God is through Jesus' suffering," said the Rev. Flora Keshgegian, a theologian at the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest in Austin. "Others have wanted to stress that connection is through Jesus' humanity." Suffering is so integral to atonement theory that in interviews, Mr. Gibson interchanges the phrases "the Crucifixion" and "the sacrifice." From his vantage – and that of the shapers of Christian doctrine – there is no other way to understand the cross. "Mel is not trying to get the record straight about who killed Jesus," said Dr. Daryl Schmidt, head of the religion department at TCU. "He's providing a visual way of understanding his version of atonement theory." It's shock-and-awe theology that says the level of agony endured was a measure of the depth of God's love for humanity. Only a few seconds of the movie are given to resurrection, and virtually none to Jesus' life. The R-rated movie is so blood-splatteringly brutal that theologians have accused Mr. Gibson, a Catholic, of embellishing the Gospels. A Catholic archdiocese has cautioned that Jesus' suffering has been torn from the context of the Resurrection. Churches usually stress that the life, death and Resurrection must be understood together. That's because without the Resurrection, the cross is meaningless, said Dick Davis, pastor of Peace Mennonite Church in Dallas. "What brings salvation is that God says the cross is not the end of the story," he said. The film's focus is on Jesus' final hours, when the Gospels say he was arrested, whipped and hung on a cross to die. Evangelical leaders invited to advance screenings say the movie accurately reflects the Gospels – a claim some biblical scholars dispute. "There's no Gospel ever written that tells it quite this way," said Dr. Schmidt, a New Testament specialist. "He's pulling one line from Matthew and another from John and creating propaganda in the service of the church's atonement theology." Some churches are promoting the movie as the "greatest evangelical tool in 2,000 years" (overlooking, perhaps unintentionally, the New Testament). Across the country, congregations have bought out tickets for the opening days of the movie. Christians accustomed to the tepid crosses of Easter pageants will be jolted by the film's depiction of "just how much Jesus suffered" for them, said the Rev. Troy White, a Baptist minister from Mt. Pleasant in East Texas. "When they were driving the nail in his hand, it was like I was doing that," he said. "I saw myself there. I saw how he died for my sin. I was shaking." Suffering, he said, is not something that spa-pampered Americans are used to seeing. He called the movie a "scriptural reality check." Evangelical singer Christy Nockels said the movie made her rethink Jesus. "I guess I'd always thought since he was God's son he probably didn't feel pain or that God didn't make him suffer," said Ms. Nockels, of the husband-wife duo Watermark, based near Nashville, Tenn. Mr. Gibson, who said he put more than $25 million of his own money into the project, told Primetime that the movie represents his artistic vision of the Crucifixion, based on his reading of the Gospels. In Mr. Gibson's world, the best of Catholicism is pre-1960s and in Latin. It's a world where the crucified body of Jesus still hangs on crosses to remind believers not only of God's sacrifice, but that there's no easy path to salvation. Protestant churches favor crosses without Jesus' body to emphasize his Resurrection, rather than his bloody death, as the cornerstone of their theology. Other Crucifixion movies, such as The Last Temptation of Christ, imply more violence than they show. But The Passion of the Christ is relentless. Mr. Gibson insists that's because Jesus' death was horrific. From that suffering comes redemption, he insists. "It's excruciating to watch, particularly when Jesus was being beaten," said Don Donahue, an executive for the Rocketown Christian record label near Nashville. "I was feeling sick. I was weeping. But I came out with a deeper desire to serve the Master." E-mail shogan@dallasnews.com

---

Thats the rest, I changed my mind about excerpting it.

[hellinahandcart]

Wanna read the rest???

There's more? I'm still hurling from exposure to Kip and Kelly.

[narses]

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.

Here is the problem with ignoring the Apostolic Succession. If every man is his own Pope, then we can decide that Jesus did NOT die for us.

[AFreeBird]

Geez-O-Pete, you can't have a resurection without a death.

[squarebarb]

Of course he died for our sins. Original sin is that part of our nature that is animal,i.e., sexually chaotic, uncivilized and a predator.

But maybe the liberal theologians think that's just fine.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, the idea that Jesus Christ had to die for the sins of mankind was debunked by no less a theological scholar than St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas reasoned -- and his logic is so simple that this point is often overlooked -- that an all-powerful God could have Redeemed mankind simply through an act of His will.

Hence, St. Thomas concluded that the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ was not just a salvific act on the part of God, but had to serve another purpose as well. If I remember correctly, he postulated that the Incarnation -- aside from the redeeming aspects of it -- also served as a perfect (in that it was Divine) example of humility, compassion, and mercy for mankind to follow. In assuming a human nature, Christ served as a perfect Teacher for the human race because God was no longer a "distant" entity (in the limited capacity of human understanding) occupying a place beyond the comprehension of human beings.

Along these lines, the most remarkable passages in the New Testament are those that describe the Temptation of Christ by Satan after He had been in the desert for forty days. If you read that dialogue carefully, you'll see that Christ "resists" the three temptations (the word "resist" is utterly meaningless in this context, since Christ was incapable of sin) not in a dismissive manner by asserting His own power over Satan, but by responding to Satan's temptations in ways that a human being was fully capable of responding.

[rwfromkansas]

"Dr. Sandra Schneiders, a New Testament scholar at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif."

That is your first problem right there....women religion professors have wacky heresies.

The biggest reason why people say this stupid bile (excuse my language) that somehow Jesus did not have to die for our sins, that there was another way (as if God would have actually killed his son if there did not need to be a sacrifice for our sins).

He was the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." God killed him because unless there was a sacrifice of the Son, of somebody who could be a SECOND ADAM and SON OF MAN to be OUR SUBSTITUTE, there was no way for true redemption and reconciliation.

Jesus had to die.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - THEOLOGY - ATONEMENT VALUE OF CHRIST's DEATH and RESURRECTION

[BenLurkin]

Look, it is quite simple. The basic tenets of Chirstianity are found in the Apostle's Creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

If these folks don't believe in that, then it is impossible to understand why they would continue to call themselves Christians.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's pretty amazing to see a major newspaper discuss the neccesity of a vicarious atonement. Wow!

What? Did He come to us to suffer as a Giraffe?

[section9]

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?"

Pardon me, but this is where I get off.

This assweasel is why I not only left, but also fled the Episcopal Church. I know, it's a different denomination, but it's the same latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, some-of-our-best-friends-are-black-people attitude. This kind of sentiment concerning the very reason of the Lord's stay on this planet is characteristic of a set of first principles that has turned mainline Protestantism from a fighting faith that stood for all that was snobby and bigoted into a gaggle of coneheaded asshats who stand for all that is trendy and bigoted.

These are the people who, after the planes felled the Twin Towers, were the first to ask, "Why are they angry with us?"

An entire generation of f*#ktards raised at the feet of William Sloane Coffin to value little more than their own navels, now fail to understand the central meaning of Christ's mission: to suffer and die so that we might live. Gibson and the Opus Dei crowd are dead on about Christ's reason for being. Consider the following:

Suppose Jesus had come down, ministered the gospel, and then died a natural death. Say at, oh, the ripe old age of 55? Okay, like a ton of other prophets and wise men in his day, JC was filled with great ideas about being your brother's keeper and living the reflective life. But what if there had been no trial, no flogging with the flagum, no march up the Via Dolorosa, nor any crucifixion followed by the Ressurection and the triumph over Satan?

Without the Final Act, Christianity is just another feelgood outfit, like Toastmasters or Amway. Without the final act, Jesus remains a "marginal Jew" in a century filled with crazy ascetics like John the Baptist and a thousand other prophets before their time.

These people are fundamentally clueless about their own faith. These people are why I fled. For me, Jesus is all about this.

For the Hip and Aware crowd, this Jesus is the one they are most comfortable with...

Okay, I'm done now....

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Heatseeker]

"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."

Well, considering our friend Kip here is a religion major at Texas Christian University, isn't this a bit like the guy who went AWOL from the Marines because he said he didn't know he might get asked to kill somebody? :)

[Agnes Heep]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets ....

Salvation is of the Jews.

Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.

[Arkinsaw]

"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."

Kippy thinks that the full range of God's emotions can be described like those of a human being. Kippy thinks that he can describe God's motivations and thus judge God. Just because it doesn't make sense to Kippy, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. Kippy needs to go back to skateboarding, because religion is not his bag apparently.

[MegaSilver]

"He's pulling one line from Matthew and another from John and creating propaganda in the service of the church's atonement theology."

Yeah, because only liberals say things without agendas. </ sarcasm>

[NYCVirago]

Geez, Louise. It's like what Stephen King once said about the Unitarians -- the religion where belief in God is optional!

[cartoonistx]

Denying the death and resurection is to deny Christ. God's very reason for creation hinges upon the cross. These "religeous" students risk Hell! What has become of divinity schools in America?!

[spunkets]

"Jesus was a liberal social worker in other words"

That's what they've been working on for a long time now. They intend to use their evil construction to promote their own agenda and leave Him out altogether. They are attempting to erase His identity and replace it with their own.

[Tinhatter]

Catholics don’t know whether they are going to heaven or not. This is because from the day that a Catholic is baptized until the day he dies, he is on probation with God. Life is a trial during which he must prove by his faith and obedience that he is worthy of heaven. His eternal salvation hangs in the balance. In Catholicism, the individual himself must stand before God in judgment and be found worthy of eternal life. Entrance into heaven is a merited reward.

Biblically, true salvation—in the sense of our right standing before God and forgiveness of all sins—occurs at a point in time (the point of receiving Christ as personal Savior) even though the practical implications of salvation (e.g., progressive sanctification or growth in holiness) are worked out over a lifetime. Thus, 1) complete reconciliation with God (full forgiveness of sins and cancellation of the penalty of sin); 2) regeneration (being made spiritually alive to God and the imparting of eternal life) and 3) justification (the crediting of Christ’s full and complete righteous to the believer) all occur in an instant, at a moment in time. Further, they are irrevocable since they are all gifts from God and God says that He never takes back what He gives: "for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).

[Taiwan Bocks]

Mel Gibson achieved a revolution in man's thinking of Jesus.

Glory to God it was Him working through Gibson.

I believe this is partially to prepare true believers for the tribulation shortly ahead.