Jesus resurrection.

[Elijah John]

Does the doctrine of Jesus resurrection enhance or diminish the value of Jesus teachings?

Does this doctrine shift the emphasis from Jesus life and teachings, to his death and resurrection?

From the religion of Jesus *, to the religion about Jesus? (that he is God and that he died to "pay for" our sins).

From a practical form of Judaism, to a fantastical Trintarian Christianity?

Do we have the doctrine of the resurrection to thank or to blame for all of those things? Does the resurrection underline, or distract from Jesus own teachings?

-----------

*The religion of Jesus. I.e. his teaching of love of God and neighbor, repentance and the Father's mercy, and the Kingdom of God.

[Elijah John]

Does the doctrine of Jesus resurrection enhance or diminish the value of Jesus teachings?

Does this doctrine shift the emphasis from Jesus life and teachings, to his death and resurrection?

From the religion of Jesus *, to the religion about Jesus? (that he is God and that he died to "pay for" our sins).

From a practical form of Judaism, to a fantastical Trintarian Christianity?

Do we have the doctrine of the resurrection to thank or to blame for all of those things? Does the resurrection underline, or distract from Jesus own teachings?

-----------

*The religion of Jesus. I.e. his teaching of love of God and neighbor, repentance and the Father's mercy, and the Kingdom of God.

What did Jesus teach that has any value without the resurrection?

Good question. Repentance, the love and mercy of the Father as taught in the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, the Parables. The fact that God is Father, the importance of the Commandments, even for the inheritance of eternal life.
The expansive love of God, that He loves the outcasts as well. And so on...

All these teachings stand on their own merits. In the words of Jesus parable in Luke, (though Abraham speaking from Heaven accross the gulf to the rich man in hell)

they have Moses and the Prophets, if they don't listen to them, neither will they listen if someone rises from the dead.

[peterk]

I think it's a complete package.

Jesus' teachings included "how to live" themes such as loving your neighbour, forgiveness, service to others. But he also taught about himself: I am the way, the truth and the life. I am the living bread. I am the one who claims to share the divine right to forgive human sin.

Moreover, he himself pointed to the resurrection as the seal of his authority. So if he wasn't raised from the dead, then why should we believe those claims he made about himself? And why should we believe that he has any special authority to teach us the "how to live" stuff? We may choose to love our neighbour, but only because we think for personal reasons that it's a good thing for us to do. We certainly have no responsibility to live that way because Jesus said so, and arguably reasons to reject his teaching because of the other areas where he was unreliable.

But if Jesus' resurrection was a true fact of history, and if he predicted this fact in advance of his death, surely that has the most profound implications for everything else he said and claimed.

[Tart]

Does the doctrine of Jesus resurrection enhance or diminish the value of Jesus teachings?

Does this doctrine shift the emphasis from Jesus life and teachings, to his death and resurrection?

From the religion of Jesus *, to the religion about Jesus? (that he is God and that he died to "pay for" our sins).

From a practical form of Judaism, to a fantastical Trintarian Christianity?

Do we have the doctrine of the resurrection to thank or to blame for all of those things? Does the resurrection underline, or distract from Jesus own teachings?

-----------

*The religion of Jesus. I.e. his teaching of love of God and neighbor, repentance and the Father's mercy, and the Kingdom of God.

The resurrection is the one fantastical tail that i believe.. Take all the other miracles away... The Resurrection is the one miracle that I point to as the evidence shows it, and as of God and the design of destiny...

How do Jesus teachings fare in comparison?

What do you mean, by when you ask "How do Jesus teachings fare in comparison?"?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Does the doctrine of Jesus resurrection enhance or diminish the value of Jesus teachings?

His resurrection enhances the value of His teachings (teachings that He learned from His Father).

He was not speaking on his own; He was not just a rabbi or just a prophet; He is the Messiah, the Son of God. He told everyone ahead of time that He would die and be raised again; and then that is exactly what happened.

He told His disciples that they need not fear death; and then he went on and SHOWED them that this was true.

Does this doctrine shift the emphasis from Jesus life and teachings, to his death and resurrection?

His resurrection is about LIFE, so how can it be shifting emphasis away from His life?

From the religion of Jesus *, to the religion about Jesus?

Who He IS... is part of what He taught... is it not?

From a practical form of Judaism, to a fantastical Trintarian Christianity?

Those are two extremes you've got there, EJ. Does it even have to be one of these?



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

What do you mean, by when you ask "How do Jesus teachings fare in comparison?"?

Paul made a whole religion based on the doctrine of the resurrection. Jesus, during his ministry, barely predicted it, if at all. Certaninly not in the portion of the Gospel which contains the bulk of his teachings, the Sermon on the Mount.

Here's an example of what I mean. No mention of the teachings of Jesus in either the Apostle's Creed, or in the Nicean Creed. By reading/reciting the Creeds, one would think that Jesus taught nothing worthy of mention, but simply was "born of the Virgin Mary and was made man" and that he "rose from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures and acended to the right hand of the Father" and "he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead".

No mention that he taught the mercy of the Father, and expounded on the Golden Rule.

His teachings pale to the point of insignificance, when compared to the miracle of the Resurrection. In the mind of many, ethics have a hard time competing with miracles.

Some believers even go so far as to state there was "nothing special" in what Jesus taught, but "what really sets Christianity apart is the resurrection."

[jgh7]

What do you mean, by when you ask "How do Jesus teachings fare in comparison?"?

Paul made a whole religion based on the doctrine of the resurrection. Jesus, during his ministry, barely predicted it, if at all. Certaninly not in the portion of the Gospel which contains the bulk of his teachings, the Sermon on the Mount.

Here's an example of what I mean. No mention of the teachings of Jesus in either the Apostle's Creed, or in the Nicean Creed. By reading/reciting the Creeds, one would think that Jesus taught nothing worthy of mention, but simply was "born of the Virgin Mary and was made man" and that he "rose from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures and acended to the right hand of the Father" and "he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead".

No mention that he taught the mercy of the Father, and expounded on the Golden Rule.

His teachings pale to the point of insignificance, when compared to the miracle of the Resurrection. In the mind of many, ethics have a hard time competing with miracles.

Some believers even go so far as to state there was "nothing special" in what Jesus taught, but "what really sets Christianity apart is the resurrection."

He told of his upcomming death multiple times and explained he would be resurrected after three days. This is not barely predicting something. It is legitimately predicting, or in his case knowing something.

Believing in Jesus means believing in his teachings and the resurrection. If you believe in his teachings but don't believe in his resurrection, then I wouldn't consider that faith. The two are essential, and emphasis on the resurrection only bolsters the authority behind his teachings. Paul repeatedly stresses Jesus' teachings throughout his letters as well. I believe you're painting a distorted picture.

[tam]

[Replying to post 15 by jgh7]

He told of his upcomming death multiple times and explained he would be resurrected after three days. This is not barely predicting something. It is legitimately predicting, or in his case knowing something.

Just to add some scriptural support for what jgh7 said:


Then He admonished the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ. From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!� he said. “This shall never happen to You!� Matthew 16:20-22


For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:40

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." Matthew 17:9

They will kill Him, and on the third day He will be raised to life." And the disciples were deeply grieved. Matthew 17:23

"Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life." Matthew 20:18, 19

And Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about Him. Then He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke this message quite frankly, and Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. Mark 8:30:32


"The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and after three days He will rise." Mark 9:31

"The Son of Man must suffer many things," He said. "He must be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." Luke 9:22

Then [Jesus] took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will flog Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.� Luke 18:31, 32




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tcg]

Just to add some scriptural support for what jgh7 said:

Just to put this scriptural support in the proper light:

All these verses were written decades after the predicted event is claimed to have happened. After, not before. It is not hard to predict what you claim happened decades ago.

As an example. I could have written in book in the mid to latter 90's that in part claimed that JFK predicted his assassination on November 22, 1963.

Would there be any reason the accept my claim unquestionably? Any reason to treat it as a valid claim of predictive power?

No. None whatsoever. The same applies here.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, so there is no question of his resurrection from the dead.

[ttruscott]

*The religion of Jesus. I.e. his teaching of love of God and neighbor, repentance and the Father's mercy, and the Kingdom of God.

These teachings are no more moral than many other religions and have nothing to do with the salvation from the enslaving addictive nature of sin and the legal consequences of sin before GOD...

Does the resurrection underline, or distract from Jesus own teachings?

HIS own teachings about HIS resurrection and its connection to our salvation from sin are the stronger beacon of true light in HIS work as per:

John 1:29 "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

If all He was talking about was ordinary morality then why make His person and message such a focus when it has no more to it that most other teachers of ethics and morals as emphasized in John 5? It is not His ordinary public teachings about how to live that save us but His teachings about His death for us and His resurrection: John 5;24 I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.

Matt. 12:40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.�

Matt 16:21 “From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.�

Luke 24:46-47 Then He [Jesus] said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.�