IT'S RESURRECTION DAY! HAPPY EASTER!!

[indianasmith]

For me, and millions of other Christians worldwide, this is the day we remember the most important event in history:  the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.  This historical event is the cornerstone of Christianity, the reason for our faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen!  Without the Resurrection, the Bible is just another book, and the teachings of Jesus nothing but incoherent ramblings.  But His return from the dead validates everything He said about Himself, and sets Christianity apart from all other faiths in the world.  As Paul himself put it, some 25 years after the event -

"If Christ be not raised, you are still in your sins . . . if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men, most to be pitied."

Take the Resurrection out of Christianity, and all you are left with is a dead rabbi.  But if Christ lives again, then everything is changed - forever!  Have a blessed Easter! 
 

[Allhallowsday]

This historical event is the cornerstone of Christianity, the reason for our faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen! 

Evidence of things unseen?  Can the same be said of Bigfoot?  Read me, teacher, don't misunderstand me. 

Without the Resurrection, the Bible is just another book, and the teachings of Jesus nothing but incoherent ramblings. 

That's an empty-headed remark.  Jesus' teachings neither ramble nor are incoherent.  You are a teacher?  We can discern distinct value:
"Love one another."  "Judge not, lest you be judged."  "Pray for those who persecute you."  "Do to others what you would like them to do to you."  "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

As a devout Christian, Indiana, I expect you can provide many, many more. 

"If Christ be not raised, you are still in your sins . . . if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men, most to be pitied."

Take the Resurrection out of Christianity, and all you are left with is a dead rabbi.  But if Christ lives again, then everything is changed - forever!  Have a blessed Easter!

Peter's remark is about the hideous lot of humanity at his juncture of history and the hopelessness of their era.  That lot may yet plague mankind, but Jesus teaches us to have faith even in our own suffering, and in using simple moral principles we can know we are right, and if necessary, die righteous (something important to moral people) even if everyone declare you are wrong.  Indiana, you certainly place a particular demand upon Christianity.  A "dead rabbi?"  Ugh, that's not only rude and vulgar, but unfair.  You're the one who's incoherent and rambling.  Let's just suppose Jesus was neither the son of God, nor claimed to be such.  Are we better because of the idea that a man died for preaching peace and love?  Does his example not show that any one of us might be capable of such depth of sincerity?  Did his ordinary human life and cruel, humiliating death serve in some incomprehensible way to improve the human condition? 

No, the value of Christianity is not in the promise of eternal life but in the value of each human life, though eternity is the bargaining chip for many.  I'm sorry Indiana, but I did not care for your commentary and I knocked your karma.    

EDIT: Indiana points out my error, rightly so, he cited PAUL and I wrote PETER. 

[indianasmith]

That's a lot to reply to, but I'll give it a quick go before bed!

First of all, yes, Jesus taught many positive, beautiful, ethical things.  However, all of His teachings were rooted in His clear belief that He was the Son of God.  To say that Jesus never claimed to be God's son is to deny the authenticity of just about everything He said about Himself and His mission in the Gospels.  If He did not say those things, then how do you know he said the other things you quote?  Perhaps I should more accurately say that if He was not resurrected, His teachings are robbed of all authority BECAUSE all His teachings were rooted in His claim to being God's son.

By the way, my citation was of Paul, not Peter.  Carefully read the full passage in I Corinthians 15 and see what he said in its entirety.  The entire passage dealt with the truth of the Resurrection, and it is one of the most important passages of Scripture in the New Testament, both for doctrinal and apologetic purposes.  It was written in 56 AD, only 26 years after the Crucifixion, yet Paul, in listing all the eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ, introduces that list by saying "I passed on to you that which I also received . . ." - a rabbinical formula when reciting something from an earlier source.  When would Paul have received it?  Most likely when he visited Jerusalem shortly after His conversion, around 36 AD.  That is only six years after the Crucifixion, and in the very city where Jesus was crucified!  So not only was the Resurrection well known in Jerusalem shortly after the event, but the early church could cite a considerable list of eyewitnesses who had seen the Risen Christ!
  I stick by my statement that without the Resurrection, Jesus could not be the Christ, the son of God.  And if he is not that, then he was a sadly self-deluded soul, or else one of the worst charlatans who ever lived.  All this stuff about him being a prophet, a great teacher, or a good man ignores the many plain and obvious statements He made about His own divinity and exclusive relationship to the divine.

I don't expect you to agree, but I wanted to clarify where I was coming from.  And, since you took the time to reply and challenge me, have some karma on me!

[Allhallowsday]

That's a lot to reply to, but I'll give it a quick go before bed!

First of all, yes, Jesus taught many positive, beautiful, ethical things.  However, all of His teachings were rooted in His clear belief that He was the Son of God.  To say that Jesus never claimed to be God's son is to deny the authenticity of just about everything He said about Himself and His mission in the Gospels.  If He did not say those things, then how do you know he said the other things you quote?  Perhaps I should more accurately say that if He was not resurrected, His teachings are robbed of all authority BECAUSE all His teachings were rooted in His claim to being God's son.

By the way, my citation was of Paul, not Peter.  Carefully read the full passage in I Corinthians 15 and see what he said in its entirety.  The entire passage dealt with the truth of the Resurrection, and it is one of the most important passages of Scripture in the New Testament, both for doctrinal and apologetic purposes.  It was written in 56 AD, only 26 years after the Crucifixion, yet Paul, in listing all the eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ, introduces that list by saying "I passed on to you that which I also received . . ." - a rabbinical formula when reciting something from an earlier source.  When would Paul have received it?  Most likely when he visited Jerusalem shortly after His conversion, around 36 AD.  That is only six years after the Crucifixion, and in the very city where Jesus was crucified!  So not only was the Resurrection well known in Jerusalem shortly after the event, but the early church could cite a considerable list of eyewitnesses who had seen the Risen Christ!
  I stick by my statement that without the Resurrection, Jesus could not be the Christ, the son of God.  And if he is not that, then he was a sadly self-deluded soul, or else one of the worst charlatans who ever lived.  All this stuff about him being a prophet, a great teacher, or a good man ignores the many plain and obvious statements He made about His own divinity and exclusive relationship to the divine.

I don't expect you to agree, but I wanted to clarify where I was coming from.  And, since you took the time to reply and challenge me, have some karma on me!

Of course, Paul.  I'm tired and I type fast.  More of my "carefulness..."   
Still, Indiana, you respond as one who thinks I challenge the resurrection, which I did not.  Though I think as a man, just a man, Jesus was not a "charlatan" or "self-deluded."  I sought to illustrate the greatness and importance of Jesus' teachings, even if one were not to believe in his divinity.  I think it is philosophically possible to separate Jesus' teachings from religion.  What I challenge is your language, which was grotesque, and your point of view, which is narrow. 

[indianasmith]

Hmm . . . grotesque might be a bit strong, but I'll take it under advisement, nonetheless.  I would describe my views not so much as narrow as thoroughly persuaded - but I don't necessarily expect you to agree.

My whole point is this - without the Resurrection, that paramount proof that Jesus was who he claimed to be, he is just another teacher who failed.  Not only that, his teachings make little sense if divorced from His claim to divinity.

But I'm rehashing the same ground again. Good night and good wishes, and thanks for taking the time to reply to what I wrote.  I always welcome spirited discussion, even if my karma takes a hit!


 

[Menard]

If both of you are Lutheran's, this could either get real ugly, or real interesting.


Far be it for me to be a peacemaker (I mean like real far) but I feel like some kind of intersession is needed; if for no other reason, to at least have taken part in whatever transpires after this.

This historical event is the cornerstone of Christianity, the reason for our faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen! 

Evidence of things unseen?  Can the same be said of Bigfoot?  Read me, teacher, don't misunderstand me.

Okay...agreed...evidence of things unseen may not have been the best way to put that, but is it not faith which is inferred? Is faith not having belief in that which cannot be certain, in a mundane sense, but faith itself is certain beyond the mundane?

Faith is the very root which sustains the church, a collective of many. Without it, like a vine without a root, it shrivels and dies.

Though that's what I felt Indy meant, I could be wrong.
 

Without the Resurrection, the Bible is just another book, and the teachings of Jesus nothing but incoherent ramblings. 

That's an empty-headed remark.  Jesus' teachings neither ramble nor are incoherent.  You are a teacher?  We can discern distinct value:
"Love one another."  "Judge not, lest you be judged."  "Pray for those who persecute you."  "Do to others what you would like them to do to you."  "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

As a devout Christian, Indiana, I expect you can provide many, many more.

Aside from the 'empty-headed' comment, I would, in general, have to agree with Allhallowsday on this.

I suspect Indy was inferring that Christ's sacrifice for man, all mankind, was at the center of his teachings (even though each teaching can be taken on its own merit). Without Christ's sacrifice, the distintion between Christ's teachings and those of many other prophets is lessened. Many prophets taught tolerance, selflessness, and love, but how many of them gave their life for the world?

As I said, I suspect that, but I am really having to read that into it.

 

"If Christ be not raised, you are still in your sins . . . if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men, most to be pitied."

Take the Resurrection out of Christianity, and all you are left with is a dead rabbi.  But if Christ lives again, then everything is changed - forever!  Have a blessed Easter!

Peter's remark is about the hideous lot of humanity at his juncture of history and the hopelessness of their era.  That lot may yet plague mankind, but Jesus teaches us to have faith even in our own suffering, and in using simple moral principles we can know we are right, and if necessary, die righteous (something important to moral people) even if everyone declare you are wrong.  Indiana, you certainly place a particular demand upon Christianity.  A "dead rabbi?"  Ugh, that's not only rude and vulgar, but unfair.  You're the one who's incoherent and rambling.  Let's just suppose Jesus was neither the son of God, nor claimed to be such.  Are we better because of the idea that a man died for preaching peace and love?  Does his example not show that any one of us might be capable of such depth of sincerity?  Did his ordinary human life and cruel, humiliating death serve in some incomprehensible way to improve the human condition?

I am just commenting on the dead rabbi part.

Rather goes with what I said above. Though I can see where the term 'dead rabbi' could be offensive to one and not the other, but I do see (without having to read into it) that Indy was distinguish Christ as a living son of God, not a dead prophet, of which there are plenty, but only one Christ.

 

No, the value of Christianity is not in the promise of eternal life but in the value of each human life, though eternity is the bargaining chip for many.

No comment here, just keeping the thread together without deleting any part.

I'm sorry Indiana, but I did not care for your commentary and I knocked your karma.   

I must have missed that teaching where, when Christians disagree, it is advised to use a term from another religion to knock someone down.

You did, however, have the nads to tell him so; and I would have expected no less from you.


Once again, this is just my little intersession.

If I offended anyone...

[---put your own ending here---]

[Menard]

My apologies

(not really, just wanted see what it felt like to say it...won't be doing that again)


I had posted that and had not realized that the the two of you had already talked, made up, and are now all kissy kissy.

Please continue.

[Menard]

And yes, I did mean 'intercession', before one of you points that out.

As you were.

[Patient7]

Okay, I think we should all just stop and think, these comments are starting to lead some arguments, that's not what Jesus died for.  And wheather or not he was the son of God, he preached all of the good and perfect things that exist in our hearts.  I do believe in Jesus Christ, and I hope that people will stop and think before their next post, "Is this what Jesus wanted?"

[Allhallowsday]

Okay, Indy, I restore your karma point.  You made your point quite clear.  Jesus means nothing to you without the resurrection.      To me, loving someone is not because of what they might promise you, but in spite of their shortcomings.  The only thing we can be certain of is our lives now, and Jesus, for one, lived a model life which we can use as a guide.  These other "just" dead teachers would include Buddha, Confucious, Socrates... unforgotten, and not bad company for a "dead rabbi." 

[indianasmith]

Menard, thanks for some really great and insightful comments!  Hurry up and join the board again so I can give you some karma lovin'!

Allhallows, I respect your position and respectfully disagree with some, but not all, of your remarks.  You're a valued voice in this community.

And for everyone who reads this, please understand - I am NEVER offended by good debate!  I live for it!  I am a man of strong opinions, as many of you have noticed, but I also try to respect the opinions of others and engage them in positive discourse.  Now excuse me while I hand out some more karma!

[Patient7]

And for everyone who reads this, please understand - I am NEVER offended by good debate!  I live for it!  I am a man of strong opinions, as many of you have noticed, but I also try to respect the opinions of others and engage them in positive discourse.  Now excuse me while I hand out some more karma!

I agree, I've never really had a good point to make, but I love arguing.  Except for when it gets waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far in and I don't understand a word people are saying anymore.