What news did Jesus actually bring?

[marco]

Jesus came to give us good news. Jesus died and the world moved on. Given that some say he was God, one would expect he had something profound to tell us. He may have had cures for some illnesses -but he didn't pass them on to us. He gave us no information that science could use. Before him good men were good and bad men were bad.

a. Did Jesus tell us anything we could not have figured out for ourselves?

b. If someone in the 21st century were to ask: What was his message, in clear terms, what might the reply be?

[Zzyzx]

.

As a Christian, I agree that Jesus didn't offer us scientific advances,

Did Jesus offer ANY advances (not restricted to scientific)? If so WHAT?

nor was his moral message that different than many others.

Agreed

But those aren't the traditional Christian claims of Jesus' distinctiveness. He didn't come to make dumb people smart or bad people good; He came to bring the dead to life (which should result in knowledge and goodness, but they aren't the same thing).

Bible tales credit Jesus with two examples of bringing the dead to life. If those tales were true it seems a trivial accomplishment – two among billions – for a supposed entity capable of supernatural feats.

The key idea pointed to in the earliest Christian texts are that Jesus came to die for us. Jesus says he came to lay down His life for people (John 10:11, 15) to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28, Mk 10:45).

Is this to say that Jesus came to sacrifice his life (temporarily) as an offering / atonement to himself (or part of himself) for a curse put on humanity by himself (or part of himself) for failure of two people to obey himself (or part of himself)?

Can you show readers how that makes sense.

The idea is that our relationship with God was broken and Jesus came to set that relationship right again, not by giving us knowledge but by changing our humanity (obviously, this would need to continue to be unpacked, but there's the gist).

Evidently that mission was a failure since the “relationship with God� is broken for the majority of the world's population.

Whether or not this actually happened, this is a distinct claim, I think.

Those who make a claim are expected and required in honorable debate to substantiate their claim with credible evidence.

I'm open to hearing which other religions or worldviews have this same news claim.

Each religion and its factions has unverifiable tales about feats by supposed supernatural entities. No specific claim trumps others.

[Clownboat]

Jesus came to give us good news. Jesus died and the world moved on. Given that some say he was God, one would expect he had something profound to tell us. He may have had cures for some illnesses -but he didn't pass them on to us. He gave us no information that science could use. Before him good men were good and bad men were bad.

a. Did Jesus tell us anything we could not have figured out for ourselves?

b. If someone in the 21st century were to ask: What was his message, in clear terms, what might the reply be?

As a Christian, I agree that Jesus didn't offer us scientific advances, nor was his moral message that different than many others. But those aren't the traditional Christian claims of Jesus' distinctiveness. He didn't come to make dumb people smart or bad people good; He came to bring the dead to life (which should result in knowledge and goodness, but they aren't the same thing).

The key idea pointed to in the earliest Christian texts are that Jesus came to die for us. Jesus says he came to lay down His life for people (John 10:11, 15) to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28, Mk 10:45). The idea is that our relationship with God was broken and Jesus came to set that relationship right again, not by giving us knowledge but by changing our humanity (obviously, this would need to continue to be unpacked, but there's the gist). Whether or not this actually happened, this is a distinct claim, I think. I'm open to hearing which other religions or worldviews have this same news claim.

The news claim seems to be 'human sacrifice to a god'.
Human sacrifices to the gods was everywhere. If you are truly not aware of this, I can provide examples.

This addresses your question about what other religions or worldviews shared the same news claim. Many did.

My question to you would be, what is it that you have done in your life that would make you be OK with humans sacrificing another human to a god? No need to incriminate yourself obviously.

I literally cannot think of an action that I have committed that would make me be OK with sacrificing a human to a god.

[The Tanager]

Did Jesus offer ANY advances (not restricted to scientific)? If so WHAT?

The advancement claimed is of being rightly related to God. Others have claimed to show how we can be rightly related to God (so that isn't the difference I'm talking about), but the WAY we become rightly related is the distinction.

Bible tales credit Jesus with two examples of bringing the dead to life. If those tales were true it seems a trivial accomplishment – two among billions – for a supposed entity capable of supernatural feats.

I should have been more careful with my words there. I did not mean bringing the physically dead to life (that is claimed to have happened in the Hebrew Scriptures way before Jesus came), but the spiritually dead to life with God. Again, others have claimed to show the way to spiritual life, but the WAY it is claimed we become alive spiritually is the distinction. It isn't through the eightfold path, or through specific rituals, or through making more moral choices, or through trying our best, or through drug-induced states, or through gaining some special knowledge. It is through Jesus physically dying and rising and being able to change us if we allow him to.

Evidently that mission was a failure since the “relationship with God� is broken for the majority of the world's population.

How does that follow? It seems to assume that humans have no freedom in the relationship. If humans have freedom in the relationship, what Jesus does cannot force the relationship on them.

Those who make a claim are expected and required in honorable debate to substantiate their claim with credible evidence.

Of course. I wasn't saying otherwise. My specific point here is that whether you think it happened or not, you can appreciate that the claim itself is unique to Christianity (or argue it isn't with support). Obviously, once we agree Jesus claims something unique for himself, we could and should ask the question of whether that claim is true or not. We can only do so much in a post, however. And I think the better use of our time at the beginning is to clarify what we think Christianity actually says and means, before looking at whether we should think it is true. If we see that one version of Christianity must be false, that doesn't matter if that version is a possible misunderstanding of Christianity.

Each religion and its factions has unverifiable tales about feats by supposed supernatural entities. No specific claim trumps others.

Of course. I'm saying the supposed supernatural feats are different kinds of feats, however. Some religions say follow these rituals to be right with God(s), some say try your best, some say take this hallucinogen, some say do good, etc. I'm not saying Christianity is the only unique religion or worldview. I'm not saying anything about one trumping the other in the type of claim they are. I'm saying Christianity is UNIQUE in its claim: that Jesus' death changes humanity in a way that we can be right with God. Christianity is not just one of the religions telling us how we should be moral, so that God will be pleased with us. I don't know of other religions saying something very similar "Our God became human and died to redeem humanity and imparts this new humanity by his grace to those who want to be in a relationship with Him."

[The Tanager]

This question deserves a longer response, so I thought I'd give it its own post.

Is this to say that Jesus came to sacrifice his life (temporarily) as an offering / atonement to himself (or part of himself) for a curse put on humanity by himself (or part of himself) for failure of two people to obey himself (or part of himself)?

Can you show readers how that makes sense.

First, we need to make sure we realize that being a Christian is not about believing one particular theory as to what the point of Jesus' dying was. There are different theories and some Christians will not consider you a Christian unless you accept their prized theory, but I think they are dead wrong. The various theories of atonement are not Christianity. Christianity, centrally, is based on the belief that Jesus' death somehow puts us right with God. Theories as to how it works are a different matter. Being a Christian simply means thinking that it works somehow. Just as knowing a meal will do you good if you are feeling tired and hungry is completely different than any theory of how it all works (taking in certain vitamins, proteins, etc.)

Still, I think it is worth looking through these analogies and seeing if they make sense.

As to the one you offered, I don't think that is a proper understanding of what happened. In reading the Old Testament, I don't see the offerings being viewed as a way to earn God's pleasure after having displeased God enough for Him to want to send you to Hell. Therefore, Jesus' death is not an offering to God/Himself to fight that craving for blood that pleases Him so and outweighs his hatred of immoral acts and thoughts. But I'm open to looking at specific passages people think show otherwise.

We could look at other theories, but this is the theory that makes the most sense to me (which I first read about in CS Lewis). Humans are in a hole. We are rebels against God. The only way out of such a hole is to surrender your arms, realizing you've been going down the wrong path and getting ready to start life over again. This surrender is what Christians call repentance. This isn't just eating humble pie. It means unlearning the self-conceit and self-will we have been training ourselves with for all of these years. It means killing a part of yourself. And the worse you are, the harder it is for you to accomplish the turn around. In fact, only a perfect person could repent perfectly. The catch, of course, is the perfect person wouldn't need to do it.

This isn't something God demands of us before taking us back into relationship. It's not a curse imposed upon us for our misdeeds. So, it's not like God could just let us off the hook by a word of forgiveness. This is a description of what it means to get back into a relationship with God. If you want God to make this happen without physical repentance, you are asking God to let you come back without actually coming back. That is an illogical absurdity. It can't happen, logically speaking.

We can't do this on our own (some may be better at it than others, but still they can't get all the way back). Well, what if a perfect God helps us? Okay, but what does that mean? It would mean God having to put some of Himself into us. It's like when you teach your child to write by holding her hand, not simply by telling her how to do it.

The problem is that we need help in surrendering, repenting and the one that can help us, has never done it. With His perfect nature, God has never surrendered. But if God became a man, taking on a human nature that can surrender and avoid the self-conceit and self-will we have trained ourselves with (which leads to our immoral actions)...that being could help us learn how to surrender. We can share in the process only if God becomes a human.

Whether you think this actually occurred or not, right now we should be looking at whether or not it makes sense. Christians claim that we aren't right with God in our very nature, in that we rebel against our Maker, who is pure goodness, and go our own way (which necessarily results in badness). God becomes human in order to learn how to humanly surrender at every moment, including death. God then imparts this new humanity to those who want it by indwelling them with His Spirit.

[The Tanager]

The news claim seems to be 'human sacrifice to a god'.
Human sacrifices to the gods was everywhere. If you are truly not aware of this, I can provide examples.

This addresses your question about what other religions or worldviews shared the same news claim. Many did.

As you can see in my response to Zzyzx, I don't think Jesus' death was 'human sacrifice to a god.' That is one metaphor or analogy that has been used to speak about what occurred. It is used as an analogy (although some Christians miss that, I believe), not as what actually occurred. The Gospel accounts do not present Jesus' death as a sacrificial offering to appease God.

My question to you would be, what is it that you have done in your life that would make you be OK with humans sacrificing another human to a god? No need to incriminate yourself obviously.

I literally cannot think of an action that I have committed that would make me be OK with sacrificing a human to a god.

Neither one I have committed, nor could commit.

[marco]

But those aren't the traditional Christian claims of Jesus' distinctiveness. He didn't come to make dumb people smart or bad people good; He came to bring the dead to life (which should result in knowledge and goodness, but they aren't the same thing).

Then he has either achieved it trivially and invisibly; or he hasn't done anything at all.

If you tell some awe-struck person about Jesus and they listen enthusiastically, you can say that they have stopped being spiritually dead. No change whatsoever has occurred other than they have reacted to a story. But you can claim anything up to the miraculous. It is hardly impressive.

The key idea pointed to in the earliest Christian texts are that Jesus came to die for us. Jesus says he came to lay down His life for people (John 10:11, 15) to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28, Mk 10:45). The idea is that our relationship with God was broken and Jesus came to set that relationship right again, not by giving us knowledge but by changing our humanity (obviously, this would need to continue to be unpacked, but there's the gist).

The problem with this theory is that there is no way in the world that one can say exactly what we have received. The benefit is invisible and undetectable, unless one calls every warm feeling a benefit. Warm feelings come from many other sources.

If there was a broken relationship with God then the very first thing Jesus would require to talk about was that very thing. What it was and how it happened. I can't find any reference to this. But if it is THE essential feature of his coming and dying, he MUST have explained it. Where?

Christ's death unfortunately involved other people who, if his mission was to be a success, were actors in his play. That means the poor Jews who asked for his death were merely fulfilling Christ's plan, and assisting its success. Should they then be called heroes, saviours or at least good assistants?

Perhaps there is a better explanation for Christ's mission than the one you've come up with. But it seems to show that Christ left folk amazingly hazy about who he was and why he came. Dying to destroy death would certainly be great if it meant undertakers became unemployed. But it seems to mean no more than that folk feel nice when they hear a parable. Please let there be a bigger story!

[bluethread]

In Judaism it is not uncommon for one shul to reject the teachings of another.

Well that's what we might call a negative virtue then. Not good news.

That is not the "good news", but an explanation of why Judaism in general does not accept the "good news" of Yeshua.

The second response is directed at Paul's application of the imagery in the Tanakh to Yeshua. Admittedly, that is not apparent to the casual reader. Also, those connections of Tanakh imagery with theological principle were not apparent without Yeshua's life and teachings.

The constant nudge, nudge connecting some detail of Christ with Scripture does not give us a message today, but serves merely to offer some passport papers for Yeshua.

That depends who "us" is. For those who value the Tanakh, Yeshua's life and message do help to clear up the meaning of many commandments and the significance of much of the imagery.

My third point is that the Scriptures need not be presented in a modern textbook or even Dr. Seuss fashion, because we have the resources necessary to put them in the context of the time periods covered and the time periods of the initial readers. However, it behooves the reader to make the effort, because when one restates the writings associated with one culture into the language and context of another culture they lose their proper effect, especially when the one culture rejects the standards of the other.

If it behoves the reader to make the effort, then the effort must be worthwhile. I asked what exactly is Christ presenting to us today, but from all this it seems very, very little, other than a few explanations of ancient writings, explanations that don't elucidate much, but make a greater mystery, especially on guilt and sin. Not good news.

This is where I differ from the evangelicals. It is not good news for everyone, nor is it meant to be. It is kind of a good news/bad news situation. Good news for those who accept that view of the Tanakh and bad news for those who do not.

[marco]

This is where I differ from the evangelicals. It is not good news for everyone, nor is it meant to be. It is kind of a good news/bad news situation. Good news for those who accept that view of the Tanakh and bad news for those who do not.

At the end of the day, when asked what the message was (in clear terms) you tell us that there is both good news and bad news. You admire the Tanakh and you would prefer to think Christ admired it too and urged people to accept it. Many think his own message supplanted the harshness of the old, and set aside the savagery of the Biblical God.

If part of what Christ was saying was that we should accept messages that pronounce death for homosexuality and for extra-marital sexual behaviour, he didn't quite make that clear, and only in backward countries is this view given credibility. Primitive societies were happy to murder and sacrifice people; one would have thought that Christ moved us along a little from that. But maybe not.

[The Tanager]

Then he has either achieved it trivially and invisibly; or he hasn't done anything at all.

If you tell some awe-struck person about Jesus and they listen enthusiastically, you can say that they have stopped being spiritually dead. No change whatsoever has occurred other than they have reacted to a story. But you can claim anything up to the miraculous. It is hardly impressive.

Depends on what you mean by 'invisibly'. Christians will see a change within themselves. They could be wrong and certainly other religions will claim the same change within themselves, so there is no way to prove it to another. I don't see why we expect that the supposed change could be proven to an outsider. And I don't mean to a non-Christian, I mean even to another Christian. Another Christian can be convinced the other person has been changed because of God, but we can't get inside each other and really know what all has went on. There will always be other possible sources of 'warm feelings' or 'spiritual nudges' or whatever.

If there was a broken relationship with God then the very first thing Jesus would require to talk about was that very thing. What it was and how it happened. I can't find any reference to this. But if it is THE essential feature of his coming and dying, he MUST have explained it. Where?

That is what sin is. He forgave people their sins on numerous occasions. He came to call the sinners (Matt 9:13), he said his blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28) and as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45). He claims to be able to give the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) living water to end her thirst. Near the end of their conversation Jesus talks about salvation coming where true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. These ideas of her thirst and this salvation are directly connected. Jesus talked about it in parables like the return of the prodigal son (Luke 15). The boy leaves his father, lives his own way, realizes he has sinned against heaven and his father, but then returns and the father returns him to a full relationship with him.

Christ's death unfortunately involved other people who, if his mission was to be a success, were actors in his play. That means the poor Jews who asked for his death were merely fulfilling Christ's plan, and assisting its success. Should they then be called heroes, saviours or at least good assistants?

How were they actors? It was their choices. Jesus could have accomplished salvation without dying on the cross. All that was required was for Jesus to live a whole human life, which involves death. It could have been a peaceful death and still accomplished the same. But Jews and Romans and even one of Jesus' closest followers made decisions to take Jesus' life violently. So, no, they aren't heroes, saviors or even good assistants.

Perhaps there is a better explanation for Christ's mission than the one you've come up with.

There definitely could be a better explanation. If anyone knows of one, let's talk about it. And let's continue to talk about my explanation, if for nothing else but to help us understand what I'm saying better.

But it seems to show that Christ left folk amazingly hazy about who he was and why he came.

I don't see how my explanation has Jesus leaving people hazy about who he is and why he came. Let's look at the specific texts and discuss those before jumping to that conclusion. Why do you think it hazy? He directly addresses it, especially during the 'last supper,' but even before then.

Dying to destroy death would certainly be great if it meant undertakers became unemployed. But it seems to mean no more than that folk feel nice when they hear a parable. Please let there be a bigger story!

It is definitely claimed to be bigger than that. I have no problem in if you hear, consider and then reject the bigger story that is claimed, but let's get clear on what the claim is before rejecting it. It's never been claimed to be about having a nice feeling. It's never been claimed to be about immortality in this life. It's about being reconnected with God that will impact this life (in what you think about, what you do, how you become less selfish, how you become more joyful, etc.) and extend into eternity. It's something that starts in "this life" and continues after we die, all part of the same one life. It's about having a re-centered life 'here and now' that extends into the 'there and later.'

[marco]

It's never been claimed to be about immortality in this life. It's about being reconnected with God that will impact this life (in what you think about, what you do, how you become less selfish, how you become more joyful, etc.) and extend into eternity. It's something that starts in "this life" and continues after we die, all part of the same one life. It's about having a re-centered life 'here and now' that extends into the 'there and later.'

All is vanity, Tanager. We move mysteriously from metaphor and parable into "life", and even that is in inverted commas. Christ is the vine on Monday, the Good Shepherd on Tuesday and by Saturday he is simultaneously way, truth and life. Unless a man be born again.... Everything has the clarity of clouds on a dark day. What news did Jesus bring, then?

Absolutely nothing. We tell a lie and we are disconnected with God. Christ lives as a man and in some incomprehensible way, the passage of time on earth has restored someone in the South of Italy with God. This is utterly beyond anything that quantum physics hits us with in its incomprehensibility. But, doubtless, there are sheep that know the master's voice and they can make sense of it, in an ovine way. It adds up to a failed mission and gave Muhammad adequate excuse to invent another one, in which he played the principal part.