Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

      Hi,
    
        I am in the decided minority on this one because two or three
        years ago, I began to come upon what for me is a tremendous
        crossroads.
    
        The best way to describe the crossroads is to rephrase your
        question to the following:
    
        "What must I be delivered from?"
    
        There are three options here.  One, I must be delivered from God
        because He must kill as a PUNISHMENT for sin.  Two, I must be
        delivered from sin because the condemnation is inherent to sin.
        It is in the very fabric of sin.  Three, some combination of one
        and two.
    
        I believe we are delivered from sin.  The purpose of the death of
        the cross is a revelation of love such that to behold it in its
        depths by faith allows God to rid sin from my life.  God takes the
        merits of the sacrifice (His blood, symbolic of His character) and
        with those merits cleanses the sanctuary (my heart).
    
        The reason I am justified right now before God is that some
        cleansing of my heart has taken place and He honors my first steps,
        but the truth is, if I were to behold God unveiled, that love
        (that LIGHT) would make manifest all the destructive potential in
        sin - and that would consume me.
    
        The last generation will validate  the plan of redemption.  (See
        Heb. 11:39,40.)  They will go all the way with Christ.  They will
        see the cross to a depth yet unseen by any sinner and in that, they
        will have allowed their High Priest to apply a certain fulness of
        the merits of His sacrifice (His blood - but its symbolic, not 
        literal hemoglobin) to the heart.
    
        Those who believe God needs to kill because of sin are in a
        quandary.  What law demands death?  It must be His law.  And His
        law must be a transcript of His character which is LOVE (agape).
        And 1 Corin 13 says that love [agape] seeks not its own.
    
        So (with this view) God's law is His love and it requires an
        infinite sacrifice before it can have a forgiving posture toward
        the sinner AND it seeks not its own all at the same time!
    
        Hmmmmm.  It requires an infinite sacrifice AND seeks not its own!
    
        No, God does not need to be appeased.  It is not Him who is
        reconciled.
    
        It is lost man 100%.  All of the merits of the cross reconciles 
        man to God.  The cross was never needed to reconcile God to man.
        God was always reconciled to man.
    
                                                    Tony
    

    .1  Thanks for your response, Tony.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

	If we only look at Jesus' death from after the fact as we confess
that he died for our sins, we turn sin into something abstract, something
which Jesus' death removes from us as if by magic.  But if we look at
Jesus' death from the perspective of his life, we are forced to constantly
ask ourselves how we are involved in perpetuating the sin of the world
which condemns thousands to needlessly early deaths.  Our response...should
be outrage at the way God's plans for creation are frustrated by our sin.

		- Karla Koll, ordained Presbyterian minister and former
		  missionary to Nicaragua

 Its a matter of prioritization :

 Most religions have as the primary basis of its system the teachings
 of its founder, his/her death is viewed as a tragedy (they can no longer 
 teach) or something less than a tragedy, a release perhaps, but not a primary
 element compared to the teachings.

 Christianity holds the Vicarious Atonement of Jesus Christ through His
 Death and Shed Blood as the primary element in the "religion".

 His teachings though very important are secondary in priority to His Death.
 
 
 Hank 

      Hi,
    
        By the way, I reread the title of this topic and wondered if
        my reply (.1) was not germaine to it.
    
        I was replying to the first statement in .0 which is "Why did
        Jesus die?"
    
                                                     Tony

Note 959.4

> His teachings though very important are secondary in priority to His Death.
 
I would challenge this notion, Hank.

As stated in .0, this doctrine has been dominant only since the Middle Ages,
though many accept it carte blanc, as if it has always been.

Shalom,
Richard

    .5  I certainly think it's relevant, Tony.
    
    Richard
    

	Jesus followers asked themselves why he had died.  Why had the one
in whom they had experienced God and from whose lips they had received words
of life been killed?  Why had God allowed it to happen?  The encounter of
the two disciples on the Emmaus road with the risen Jesus reflects the process
of heart-rending questioning the early Christian communities went through
in their struggle to make sense out of Jesus' death.  They diligently searched
the Hebrew Scriptures, looking for clues.  They found some in the image of
the Suffering Servant in Isaiah (42.1-4, 49.1-6, 50.4-11, 52.13-53.12) who
bears the sins of the people.  They came to affirm Jesus' death as necessary
for the forgiveness of sins.  But as theologian Jon Sobrino says, this
affirmation of faith was never meant to be understood as a logical statement.
It is instead an invitation to follow Jesus, to the death if necessary, in
the struggle to overcome the power of sin in the world.

		- Rev. Karla Koll, ordained Presbyterian minister and
		  a faithful witness of Jesus Christ's.

  Re 959.6 Richard

  >> His teachings though very important are secondary in priority to His Death.
  
  >  I would challange this notion Hank

  OK 

  The question would then become, what is the objective truth? which is
  the expression of reality?  That Jesus death was His primary mission in life 
  or His teaching. From my point of view I would have to hold that the 
  scripture needs to be consulted for the objective Truth.

  "Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say, Father save me from this
   hour? But for this purpose I came to this hour" John 12:27 NKJV.

  My assumption is that your view is a subjective one (you "feel" that it is
  correct). If not what reality (scripture or whatever) apart from your 
  feelings do you claim?

  Re 959.0 quotes from pastor Karla'a sermon, I would like to make a few 
  observations :

  1) > ... God sent God's Son to die on the cross in order to restore God's
     honor.

  Every primary sunday school student knows the following verse
 
  for God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son that whosoever
  believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

  It was Our Father's love and not His honor that motivated Him to send
  His Son to be the Savior of the world.

  > Such a theology not only renders Jesus life and ministry completely 
  > irrelevant...

  As one who believes that His Death is the primary purpose behind His 
  incarnation,  I reject this notion completely along with the word 
  "irrelevant". His life and teachings are (to me) the most profound of 
  any human being who walked the face of the earth.

  > In the middle ages a theology emerged which viewed God as an injured party
  > who had to be repaid for the damage done by human sin.

  There are two aspects of the Vicarious Atonement of Jesus Christ.

  1) Cleansing : ... and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from 
                     all sin.   I John 1:8.

  2) Propitiation or Legal satisfaction : 

    ...if anyone sins, we have an advocate (legal representative) with the
    Father, Jesus Christ the righteous and He Himself is the propitiation
    (legal satisfaction) for our sins and not for ours only but also for
    the whole world.  I John 2:1-2.

    In this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent
    His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  I John 4:10.

    Both cleansing and propitiation are expressions of Our Heavenly Father's
    love and we need not fear to approach Him, unless we are unbelieving
    towards His Son then "the wrath of God abideth on him" John 3:36.

  Propitiation (hilasmos) does not exactly mean "repayment" it is a koine
  word which means "an expiation of guilt" for sin.

  We are cleansed from the sin and the guilty sentence is removed by the
  Blood of Christ.

  These are scriptures which existed long before the middle ages.

  Aleicham shalom
  Hank  

	The Incarnation,...,tells us that Jesus was born to live, not to
die.  He lived his life proclaiming in word and deed the coming of God's
reign for the poor and marginalized of his time.  Those in power, both
political and religious leaders, felt sufficiently threatened by Jesus
that they conspired to have him killed.  In Jesus death on the cross God
identifies with all victims of sin...Jesus death on the cross was
necessary, not because God demanded sacrifice, but because God chose to
identify with the victims rather than the powerful.

			- Rev. Karla Koll, ordained Presbyterian minister

	The cross of Christ invites us to identify with the victims of sin
and to work for a life with dignity for all people.  We know that God is
with us, for the cross is not the final word in human existance.  In
raising Jesus from the dead, God has promised life beyond the power of
sin. (...) [L]et us commit ourselves to living towards this new life.

			- Rev. Karla Koll, ordained Presbyterian minister,
			  wife, and mother

    Richard,
    
    I like Karla Koll's theology of the Cross.  It's a theology I can
    affirm and accept into my heart.
    
                                   Patricia

    .13 & .14
    
    Greg,
    
    	These two, while interesting and certainly relevant, don't address
    the (intended) question posed in the basenote; that is, Jesus' death as
    viewed from the perspective of his life.  One has said Jesus' teachings
    were secondary to his death.  I don't agree.  What say ye?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Let's include the "fully human" part of the equation in the discussion.
    
    Jesus lived his life as a radical, revolutionary calling to question
    the traditional values of the day in a time when revolutionary unrest
    was a major concern to those in authority.
    
    He was a revolutionary fully knowing the danger of the position he was
    taking.  Taking the dangerous road was God's will for him, so he
    accepted the cup.
    
    When he began to get too powerful, the religious and political
    authorities plotted for his arrest and execution.  The ordinary people,
    too afraid of the authorities and too afraid to support his call to a
    radical new way of living, acquieced to those who wanted him killed.
    
    The "ordinary" people were more comfortable with life as it was, in
    spite of the evils that persisted, than they were accepting Jesus' call
    to a radical new way of living. 
    
     We all allowed him to be executed.
    
    Patricia

    I think I know what Patricia (which she prefers) means.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I'll wait for Patricia.  I've been chastized for speaking on someone
    else's behalf (especially Patricia's) in the past.
    
    My wrist is rather red.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Theologically I start by asking the question, how did Jesus die for my
    sins?  Jesus did die because ordinary people were afraid to stand up
    for what was right.  Somewhere In the bible I read, whatever you do to
    the least of mine, you do to me.  Collectively we as a race of people
    fall short of creating the reign of God here on earth.  
    
    Our failure to feed the poor, help the sick, protect the innocent are
    all ways in which we right now and here are afraid to stand up for what
    is right and create the Way of God here.  Our collective response to
    the problems of our time are the same as the collective response of the
    people of Israel to Jesus' execution.
    
    Patricia

Re: .23 Greg

> Caiaphas the High Priest prophesied it as 'expedient that one man die for
> the nation', ( and it was a valid prophesy, too ).

Was Caiaphas a true prophet or a false prophet?

				-- Bob

    Greg,
    
    There is more than one way of interpreting Jesus' life and death.
    
    One interpretation places meaning only in his death.
    
    Another places meaning in his life and what he was willing to sacrifice
    his life for.
    
    Patricia

    ...and another places meaning on both.
    ...and another places meaning on neither.

    I find meaning in both, neither being the lesser.
    
    I think it unfortunate that some do emphasize Christ's death to the
    exclusion of his life.  It is part of the theology that arose out
    of the Middle Ages as .0 indicates.
    
    Don't call me Richie.
    
    Richard
    

Karla is right to point out that the crucifixion gives us life, and to
remind us that sins are not abstract and removed by magic; they are real,
and they caused Jesus to be crucified just as our sin crucifies Jesus in
all the poor and downtrodden of the world.  However:

.0> In the Middle Ages a theology emerged ...

The Middle Ages?  Not so.  This theology has existed since Apostolic times,
and we can be fairly certain that Jesus himself revealed it to the Apostles.

"If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous; and he is the perfect offering for our sins, and not for ours
only, but for the sins of the whole world."  1 John 2:1-2

Certainly the Old Testament requirement that the animals used in the temple
sacrifice must be free of blemish was ordained by God to prefigure Our Lord's
perfect sacrifice on Calvary.  And God's provision of the ram in the thicket
to take the place of Abraham's son is also a prefigurement of Christ being
provided to take the place of our own sins.  The Letter to the Hebrews
explicitly teaches the sacrificial nature of the atonement through Jesus
Christ.  The Church has always taught the centrality of the sacrifice on
Calvary; it is not a medieval invention.

From the "Letter to Diognetus" [c. 124]:

[God] took on himself the burden of our iniquities, and he gave his own
Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for transgressors, the blameless one
for the wicked, the just one for the unjust...  Where except in his justice
could we find that with which to cover our sins!  By whom could we be
justified -- we who are wicked and ungodly -- except by the only Son of God!

From a homily of Origen, Priest and Theologian [c. 254]:

As John said: "Behold the lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of
the world."  ...  Christ himself is both victim and priest according to the
spirit.  For he offers the victim to the Father according to the flesh, and
he is himself offered on the altar of the cross.

From the "Detailed Rules for Monks" by Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea [379]

"He bore our infirmities and endured our sorrows.  He was wounded for our sake
so that by his wounds we might be healed.  He redeemed us from the curse by
becoming a curse for our sake," and he submitted to the most ignomineous death
in order to exalt us to the life of glory.  Nor was he content merely to summon
us back from death to life; he also bestowed on us the dignity of his own divine
nature and prepared for us a place of eternal rest where there will be joy so
intense as to surpass all human imagination.

From a commentary on the Psalms by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan [397]

[Christ's] blood could pay the ransom for all the sins of the whole world.
The one who has no debt to pay is the right person to set others free.

Perhaps the term "dominant" should be added:

(Note 959.6)

>As stated in .0, this doctrine has been dominant only since the Middle Ages,
>though many accept it carte blanc, as if it has always been.

Granted, the seeds of the doctrine existed long before the Middle Ages:

(Note 959.8)

>	Jesus followers asked themselves why he had died.  Why had the one
>in whom they had experienced God and from whose lips they had received words
>of life been killed?  Why had God allowed it to happen?
> ...
>They came to affirm Jesus' death as necessary
>for the forgiveness of sins.  But as theologian Jon Sobrino says, this
>affirmation of faith was never meant to be understood as a logical statement.
>It is instead an invitation to follow Jesus, to the death if necessary, in
>the struggle to overcome the power of sin in the world.

Shalom,
Richard

    Hi Patricia:
    
    >>Theologically I start by asking the question, how did Jesus die for
    >>my sins?  Jesus did die because ordinary people were afraid to stand
    >>up for what was right.  Somewhere In the bible I read, whatever you do
    >>to the least of mine, you do to me.  Collectively we as a race of
    >>people fall short of creating the reign of God here on earth.
    
    In a way, you are correct.  I recall the apostles flling asleep on the 
    Mount of Olives when they were supposed to be keeping watch.  I even 
    think of the time when Peter denied Jesus three times.  Even his
    closest followers couldn't do right.  I believe however that this
    prophesy had to be fulfilled, "The Shepherd was smitten and the sheep
    were scattered.  This is quite indicative of the incidents on Thurday
    evening/Friday.
    
    By the same token, I believe Jesus' primary objective in life was to
    give his life as a ransom for the many.  You may recall in Matthew 16
    where Jesus spoke to the apostles and asked who they thought he was. 
    Peter spoke right up and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the
    living God"  Jesus indeed praised Peter for this, then he went on to
    say how He (Jesus) will one day be delivered up and put to death.  
    Peter in his bold way stated "Oh Lord, This Will Never Happen"  Jesus
    reply was, "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN, FOR THOUGH ART AN OFFENSE TO ME!
    FOR YOU SEEK NOT THE WILL OF GOD BUT THE WILL OF MAN!"  
    
    Here is poor, well intentioned Peter, not a few minutes ago hearing
    the praises of God now getting the biggest rebuke of his life.  This 
    incident alone convinces me that the paramount purpose of Jesus' coming
    was to die for the sins of the many, then be raised on the third day.  
    As it says in Luke, "I come to seek and to save that which was lost."
    That's ME!
    
    God Bless,
    
    -Jack
    
        Our failure to feed the poor, help the sick, protect the innocent
    are
        all ways in which we right now and here are afraid to stand up for
    what
        is right and create the Way of God here.  Our collective response
    to
        the problems of our time are the same as the collective response of
    the
        people of Israel to Jesus' execution.
    
        Patricia

    Opps, I forgot to respond to the last paragraph Patricia wrote...coming
    soon!

 >>   Our failure to feed the poor, help the sick, protect the innocent
 >>   are all ways in which we right now and here are afraid to stand up
 >>   for what is right and create the Way of God here.  Our collective
 >>   response to the problems of our time are the same as the collective
 >>   response of the people of Israel to Jesus' execution.
    
    I believe this.  I believe the church this century has been in a
    cowaring stage.  Relinquishing it's power to government and worldly
    institutions.  
    
    I beleive even churches of like faith and with the same article of
    faith have become factionalized.  What a hinderance to doing God's
    work.
    
    -Jack