"Passion of the Christ" (and rest of Christianity) called "pagan" by Yale PhD

[The Laughing Man]

Source

Ann Arbor, Michigan—April 6, 2004—No, he's not talking about the hefty box-office receipts, pewter nails, or excessive gore, though these are all symptoms. He's talking about the idea, blazoned on www.ThePassionoftheChrist.com, that "Dying was Jesus' reason for living." The God of Gibson's film is a bloodthirsty God," says Dr. James Cook, 15-year religion professor at Oakland Community College in Farmington Hills, Michigan."This supposedly loving heavenly father wants a human sacrifice to appease his wrath. That's not ethical monotheism. That's not the Jewish idea of sacrifice as token of repentance for sin. That's paganism."

When asked if Jesus being a blood sacrifice for sin wasn't what most Christians believe, Cook replied that that's exactly his point. "Gibson isn't making theology. He's reducing to absurdity a life-denying theology that stifled Jesus' real message almost immediately after he died."

And what was Jesus' real message?

"Love," answers Cook. "Not 'God loved us so much that he accepted his own son as a blood sacrifice in our place.' What kind of love is that?" Cook believes Jesus taught that we must love one another the way God loves us.

According to Cook, Jesus' followers corrupted his message, transforming the ultimate demand into the ultimate escape trip. "You see it right there in the New Testament," he charges. "It goes from 'He who would be my disciple must take up his own cross and follow me' to 'Christ paid the penalty for sin' so we can go to heaven." The result, he avers, is an "anti-Christ Christianity obsessed with escaping this world instead of transforming it through love."

Like many Jewish leaders, Cook, who calls himself a Christian existentialist, sees Gibson's film as anti-Semitic, and says its anti-Semitism is part and parcel of its paganism. "Paganism is about power and security. Ethical monotheism is about serving God in spirit and in truth. Judaism is the original ethical monotheism. It witnesses against the preoccupation with a never-never land in the sky. It's about God's kingdom coming to earth. Jesus didn't run away from life. He embraced it. He didn't live to die. He died to live. God didn't plan his death. We continue to crucify him as long as we don't live in love."

I love my children so much that I would die for them. What kind of love is that?

[Amazing Rando]

And there's one reason he's only a professor at a community college.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Source

Ann Arbor, Michigan—April 6, 2004—No, he's not talking about the hefty box-office receipts, pewter nails, or excessive gore, though these are all symptoms. He's talking about the idea, blazoned on www.ThePassionoftheChrist.com, that "Dying was Jesus' reason for living." The God of Gibson's film is a bloodthirsty God," says Dr. James Cook, 15-year religion professor at Oakland Community College in Farmington Hills, Michigan."This supposedly loving heavenly father wants a human sacrifice to appease his wrath. That's not ethical monotheism. That's not the Jewish idea of sacrifice as token of repentance for sin. That's paganism."

When asked if Jesus being a blood sacrifice for sin wasn't what most Christians believe, Cook replied that that's exactly his point. "Gibson isn't making theology. He's reducing to absurdity a life-denying theology that stifled Jesus' real message almost immediately after he died."

And what was Jesus' real message?

"Love," answers Cook. "Not 'God loved us so much that he accepted his own son as a blood sacrifice in our place.' What kind of love is that?" Cook believes Jesus taught that we must love one another the way God loves us.

According to Cook, Jesus' followers corrupted his message, transforming the ultimate demand into the ultimate escape trip. "You see it right there in the New Testament," he charges. "It goes from 'He who would be my disciple must take up his own cross and follow me' to 'Christ paid the penalty for sin' so we can go to heaven." The result, he avers, is an "anti-Christ Christianity obsessed with escaping this world instead of transforming it through love."

Like many Jewish leaders, Cook, who calls himself a Christian existentialist, sees Gibson's film as anti-Semitic, and says its anti-Semitism is part and parcel of its paganism. "Paganism is about power and security. Ethical monotheism is about serving God in spirit and in truth. Judaism is the original ethical monotheism. It witnesses against the preoccupation with a never-never land in the sky. It's about God's kingdom coming to earth. Jesus didn't run away from life. He embraced it. He didn't live to die. He died to live. God didn't plan his death. We continue to crucify him as long as we don't live in love."

I love my children so much that I would die for them. What kind of love is that?

Depends on how you look at it.

I love my children so much I will kill one of them,just to show them would be another way to look at it, if you were being contrary. That line of reasoning is one that I have seen many ex-christians claim drove them
away from Christianity.

It is all a matter of perspective.

[Piebald]

Judaism is the original ethical monotheism

Right, this is just worthless spinjobbery. Someone can just as easily turn up their nose at the God of Judaism who demands the constant sacrifice of animals for blood atonement as "pagan" as well. "A Sacred slaughterhouse? How Pagan!" In my experience most complaints about God's ethics from skeptics of religion come from the Old Testament not the New.

[Calvinist4Him]

As far as i'm concerned, Cook is another quack and his educational degrees are worthless. Based on his fallacious charge, i estimate that he's another religous nut who thinks he knows the love of God, but in reality is far from the heart of God, and nearer to the lusts of his own heart. I'm not saying that to defend Mel Gibson's movie, i'm saying that in defense of the Lamb of God.


"What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

O precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my cleansing this I see—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my pardon this my plea—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This is all my hope and peace—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Now by this I'll overcome—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Now by this I'll reach my home—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus."

[Gershom Thomas]

Judaism is the original ethical monotheism

Right, this is just worthless spinjobbery. Someone can just as easily turn up their nose at the God of Judaism who demands the constant sacrifice of animals for blood atonement as "pagan" as well. "A Sacred slaughterhouse? How Pagan!" In my experience most complaints about God's ethics from skeptics of religion come from the Old Testament not the New.

That's a spooky picture you've got going there, Hamster...

[Mr. Tinkles]

And what exactly is a 'Christian existentialist'?

I also note that he is plugging his book to try and exploit the popularity of PoC - in which we are told 'Jesus embraced human sexuality' and has a 'passionate love triangle with an Auschwitz survivor'

[freelight]

Greetings all,

Most Jews would agree with Dr. Cook. Sure the Jews had 'animal' sacrifices but never human ones. If one sheds the garment and conditioning of Jesus being a sacrifice for our sins long enough...to really look at the vicarious blood atonement doctrine....one might question its barbaric primitivity - especially a Loving God who requires the blood of his own Son. See it from Jewish perspective as well as the modernists who have discarded archaic religious beliefs and superstitious myths.
At any rate, many share Dr. Cooks view.

My viewing of the Passion was an interesting experience - its primary impression being the pain, suffering and agony of the Man Jesus. Unnecessary suffering and torture perhaps. An example of crude and sorrowful injustice.

There is one thing the Lord requires - to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God. While the sprinkling of blood(animals only) was a part of some of the mosaic temple ceremonies and means of atonement...it was not the sole way or means of atonement for forgiveness of sins in the Old Covenant.
Prayer, repentance, a broken heart, contrite spirit, offering restitution, doing right(justice), etc. is what is required for the soul coming into harmony with Gods laws. Blood is not always required...but a surrended soul.

The suffering of Jesus portrayed in the Passion film draws persons to empathize with the sufferings of Christ and puzzles them over the senseless torment/infliction imposed by a misguided and insane people. It surely paints the passion in traditional catholic imagery and intensity - the Via Delorosa...the blood, agony, suffering. We can value the giving of his soul in love for all...but such can also be without certain beliefs about the power of his blood to cleanse and atone. (and other notions of vicarious atonement that violate the spiritual ethic and laws of God).
I realize the NT focuses in many places on the blood of Christ...but Jews and many modernists see such a doctrine as absurd, illogical and barbaric. The blood must therefore have greater esoteric meaning and application beyond its popular notions.


Truth may call us to embrace the blood of Christ in an entirely new way....and to look at the many ways of efficacious atonement. The church adopted many pagan concepts and motifs/myths held long ago in the minds of the ancients...and christianized them, developing their own mythos with Christ as center. Perhaps it is time to look afresh at the impetus behind the routine singing of 'What can wash away my sins?' and realize the way of atonement begins and ends in Love. How we view, understand, interpret and communicate that Love is the core consideration.



paul

[Glenn P]

Greetings all,

Most Jews would agree with Dr. Cook. Sure the Jews had 'animal' sacrifices but never human ones. If one sheds the garment and conditioning of Jesus being a sacrifice for our sins long enough...to really look at the vicarious blood atonement doctrine....one might question its barbaric primitivity - especially a Loving God who requires the blood of his own Son. See it from Jewish perspective as well as the modernists who have discarded archaic religious beliefs and superstitious myths.

Most Evangelicals, i would suggest, have actually been misrepresented right there. Penal substitution is not the same as the satisfaction view, whatever similarities there might be.

Would you look at someone who took a bullet in your place as an example of love? Surely! He took the consequences in your place. I can't see anything contrdictory with love and grace in this. Cook is more of a kook.

[freelight]

Most Evangelicals, i would suggest, have actually been misrepresented right there. Penal substitution is not the same as the satisfaction view, whatever similarities there might be.

Would you look at someone who took a bullet in your place as an example of love? Surely! He took the consequences in your place. I can't see anything contrdictory with love and grace in this. Cook is more of a kook.

Greetings Theonomy,

I would venture to say not all evangelicals are familiar with penal and satisfaction views unless studied. Nevertheless Christs death/blood letting as imposed/ordained/required by God is still not acceptable to some people no matter its purported reasons.

As far as the 'someone taking a bullet for you' allegory.....this would depend on ones belief or non-belief that Jesus actually did this for anyone relative to his supposed 'dying for sins'. Surely any demonstration of sacrificial love is commendable. The controversy is over why God would require the death/agony/suffering/blood of another human being for the sins of the human race. Thats the pivotal issue in question.

Generally the proposition that 'Jesus died for your sins' is not fully understood by most persons unless/until the 'belief' behind it is explained in its theological settings along with its supportive logics. Even then...it may still be questionable why another human being would have to die for anothers sins. Before jumping onto the typical christian reasoning/answer(I know its tempting - ).....just think about it. See how others look at this concept of Jesus dying for sins. Essentially its a belief that may or may not have any bearing on day to day life (for many that is).
Also...the universal law of 'what a man sows, that also shall he reap'(law of compensation/karma) is ever at work - no one gets away with anything and everyone bears the consequences of their own sins, more or less. None can escape this law - the law of love can absolve, cover, atone for and over-ride such karmic infractions....but still....each bear the results and penalties of their own sins. Food for thought.



paul

[soulflame]

Blood is necessary for life. No matter what. It oxygenates the organs and so forth. Without it..you die...simple as that. It's basically the life that's within us. When Christ died, the blood He shed was like him offering it for our lives because we sinned. The penalty for sin is death. But with Christ's life in us, we live. I hope that came out right so everyone can understand it...

[freelight]

Blood is necessary for life. No matter what. It oxygenates the organs and so forth. Without it..you die...simple as that. It's basically the life that's within us. When Christ died, the blood He shed was like him offering it for our lives because we sinned. The penalty for sin is death. But with Christ's life in us, we live. I hope that came out right so everyone can understand it...

Hi soulflame,

Biologically speaking, yes. However....the implication of Christs blood being shed for sins includes the idea of vicarious atonement, and many other theological aspects/meanings that extend beyond biological analysis. You will have to convince the unbeliever and modernist of how Christs blood somehow offers divine life or pays the price for their sins. The atonement teaching relative to blood letting has many implications...some esoteric/metaphoric/allegorical. The issue of blood sacrifice/vicarious atonement and the dynamics therein relative to soul salvation...deserves its own thread.


paul

[Glenn P]

I would venture to say not all evangelicals are familiar with penal and satisfaction views unless studied. Nevertheless Christs death/blood letting as imposed/ordained/required by God is still not acceptable to some people no matter its purported reasons.

Then let them reject it, I say.

Further, I maintain that any evangelical ignorance of the distinction between views of the atonement only makes it easier for people to misrepresent the Christian doctrine. Someone will present th emost visious version of the satisaction theory as evidence that the concept is dubious, and a lot of people simply don't have the theological nous to realise this is a misrepresentation.

As far as the 'someone taking a bullet for you' allegory.....this would depend on ones belief or non-belief that Jesus actually did this for anyone relative to his supposed 'dying for sins'. Surely any demonstration of sacrificial love is commendable. The controversy is over why God would require the death/agony/suffering/blood of another human being for the sins of the human race. Thats the pivotal issue in question.

The "taking a bullet" analogy leads away from the whole "God requiring the agoiny of His Son" bit. The question is who fired the bullet. I'd maintain that the "bullet" is the natural consequences of walking away from God.

Generally the proposition that 'Jesus died for your sins' is not fully understood by most persons unless/until the 'belief' behind it is explained in its theological settings along with its supportive logics. Even then...it may still be questionable why another human being would have to die for anothers sins.

If after understanding the doctrine of the atonement, one rejects it, I say let them. Show them the door.

Before jumping onto the typical christian reasoning/answer(I know its tempting - ).....just think about it.

Do you often assume that people you are talking to haven't really though about things as well as you have, or is this an exception to the rule?

[freelight]

Do you often assume that people you are talking to haven't really though about things as well as you have, or is this an exception to the rule?

Perhaps many have, and some havent. You do realize that many of various traditions(christian or otherwise) simply follow what is taught them(tradition, doctrine, custom, beliefs) for such has been handed to them as 'what is'. Some allow and/or are content with such conditionings/hand-me-downs. Others of a more venturous and pioneering spirit are more apt to blaze their own trails and follow where the Spirit leads - some may stay within the more traditional/orthodox organizations....others venture out and find their own spiritual/like-minded faith community - its a wonderful world out there and the fields of mind and spirit are virtually infinite.

I do not entirely discount the sanctity, holiness and divine mystery of the blood of Jesus (within its own context) - however, I am not so prone to blindly just accept a doctrine or various aspects of it just because its popularly accepted.
I have studied at least a few schools/epochal texts which uphold the truth and excellence of Christs teaching - primarily the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man...his ethics and his law of love, etc....but totally discount the necessity of his 'blood atonement'. This does not meant I totally concur(as various interpretations of it can be had)...however it has made me rethink the whole doctrine.

The Jews know from their laws/customs that blood-letting/animal sacrifice is not the 'only' way or means of atoning for the soul. When the temple was not available to the people...they resorted to prayers and repentance(in various forms) and such were efficacious to bring atonement, absolution, forgiveness, restoration. Human sacrifice was never instituted or allowed in the ceremonial laws of YHWH. Therefore the sacrifice of Jesus however viewed.....must have esoteric, allegorical, metaphoric, symbolic value as illustrative of something spiritual or significant about the act of giving ones soul/life on behalf of others - such being a divine offering and service to others.

Jesus gave his life to the service and enlightenment of others...his whole life. His life and teachings were a testament of truth....a light to all peoples. His death was unfortunate in the manner it came about and even in death....he yielded his soul-life to the Father and bestowed his love to even his tormenters. He forgave them....even when justice would have his blood cry out for recompensation....as Abels did before the face of YHWH.

Still, apart from any imposed or invented blood atonement doctrine(assuming as such developed within the NT canon, church, etc.).....we have the teaching of the Master - his words which are spirit and life - his doctrine, law of love...which when put into action....transforms the soul and brings one into harmony with God - opens the gates of the kingdom of heaven...so that all may see and enter in.

Is the blood of Jesus necessary? Can one take Jesus and his words to heart....practice his doctrine and be saved -walk in newness of life, be made whole? He did say to one in a question about the good laws of God.....'do these and you will live'. He said in another place.....'he who observes(keeps) My Word shall never see death'. So...we have to see/examine what Jesus himself taught...in contra-distinction to what others taught about him...and like fishing....keep the good...and throw out the bad. This is part of the process of finding the kingdom - the pearl of great price. Let us re-evaluate all things and hold to that which is good and profitable for our souls.



paul

[Glenn P]

Perhaps many have, and some havent. You do realize that many of various traditions(christian or otherwise) simply follow what is taught them(tradition, doctrine, custom, beliefs) for such has been handed to them as 'what is'. Some allow and/or are content with such conditionings/hand-me-downs. Others of a more venturous and pioneering spirit are more apt to blaze their own trails and follow where the Spirit leads - some may stay within the more traditional/orthodox organizations....others venture out and find their own spiritual/like-minded faith community - its a wonderful world out there and the fields of mind and spirit are virtually infinite.

OK, well, why did you ask me to think about it? Do you think I am in the former group you have listed? If so, why do you think this about me? Was it a fair judgement in light of the brevity of our disscussion?

Is the blood of Jesus necessary? Can one take Jesus and his words to heart....practice his doctrine and be saved -walk in newness of life, be made whole? He did say to one in a question about the good laws of God.....'do these and you will live'. He said in another place.....'he who observes(keeps) My Word shall never see death'. So...we have to see/examine what Jesus himself taught...in contra-distinction to what others taught about him...and like fishing....keep the good...and throw out the bad. This is part of the process of finding the kingdom - the pearl of great price. Let us re-evaluate all things and hold to that which is good and profitable for our souls.

If you do take Jesus and His words to heart, you will already know how necessary the blood of Jesus is. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and unless you drink His blood, you have no life in you."

Glenn