Jesus' signifigance

[Tom Hancock]

Hi I was posting this form in response to my atheist Residential Instructors take on historical Jesus. The guy took theology through college and went to catholic school through his high school life. Since he knows so much it makes me feel sort of like I need to be able to defend much more when I am talking about why and how I believe. Anyways to the question; he told me that Jesus was not really an important figure towards the Jews when it came down to it all as he only taught virtues of love and not of other significant rules God laid down. I can sort of respect his beliefs a bit as he actually intellectually challenges what he reads and as he accepts the fact that Jesus was a real person but at the same time I still question how he would come to such a conclusion and how exactly I should respond as a christian. Thanks and regards,
Tom Hancock

 

[hedrick]

Most of Jesus’ ethical teachings have parallels among Jews. But Christianity didn’t arise in response to novel ethics.

Jesus taught one thing that was unusual: He said the God had sent him to bring in God’s Kingdom. This was a big deal. God had withdrawn from his people in Ezekiel, where he leaves the Temple. There were lots of opinions about how he would come back, whether with a Messiah and what kind. But having God return was a big deal. Jesus said that God had in fact returned through his ministry. If you look at his ethical teaching it’s all specifically ethics *for the Kingdom.* Jesus said that he was sent to bring the Good News of the Kingdom.

Then Jesus died and was resurrected. And people started to experience him. The Gospels speak of post-resurrection experiences, but Paul and Acts imply additional experiences of Jesus’ presence.

There were other people who claimed to be the Messiah, or had it claimed on their behalf. What was unusual about Jesus was a continuing and growing group of people who thought they experienced his continuing presence.

My impression from both the NT and the history of the early Church is that it’s this continuing presence of Jesus that really got the Church started, more than the idea that Jesus died for people’s sins (though the latter was certainly important).

I also think that Jesus’ concept of the Kingdom was novel. Again, it’s not love and forgiveness alone. It’s the Kingdom as God’s ongoing presence, and love as reconciliation with God and bringing people into that Kingdom. To my knowledge the other messianic pretenders were thinking primarily of a restoration of the Jewish state, a return to the golden age of David’s rule. Jesus’ vision of a Kingdom that was not primarily political (though it had clear political implications), that was open to all people, particularly those currently rejected, and that had Jesus present with it on a continuing basis, does seem unusual.

 

[hedrick]

This whole question is important for the future of Christianity in the US. In the past a lot of Christians seem to have been motivated by fear of hell. But for good or bad, that’s no longer a motivator for many people. Many younger folks no longer see the Church as worth doing.

I don’t think we’re going to manage to rekindle the fires of hell enough to get them back. But the group that is growing the most seems to be the Pentecostals, the folks who make the presence of Jesus through the Holy Spirit real to people. Personally I’m not very comfortable with the Pentecostal approach. But they’re surely right that ultimately the Church is based on an ongoing experience of Christ’s presence. That was the key to Paul’s theology, and also the key to Calvin’s theology. (I note that you’re a fellow Presbyterian.)

 

[AFrazier]

I would tell you that although it is no small task, a careful read of the Talmud would show you a very Jewish Jesus. It would also show you that many of his teachings were not as new as many today suppose them to have been. He frequently threw rabbinical law in the faces of the Jewish elite, and many of his known conversations were shown to have been tests. The various groups, for example, each tested his learning and doctrine. One asked him about the greatest commandment. The Sadducees tried to challenge his very Pharisaical point of view on a resurrection. Reading through the principles discussed in the Talmud, you can even see Jewish wisdom in practice. By example, the Jews believed that the wise man didn't have the best answer, but the best question, and you can usually see Jesus answering baited questions with rhetorical questions to establish the truth of the matter. Whose image and superscription is on the coin? Which of you would not pull his ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath?

So the New Testament evidence would show that Jesus was a solid student of Jewish wisdom and learning. He was, in effect, a good Jew. But his talk of the kingdom was also radical talk, and dangerous. Talking of the kingdom of God was not too far different then than Muslims talking about Jihad today. The Jews were a ceaselessly rebellious people. One of Jesus' own followers was a zealot, no doubt because Jesus' message struck cords with the discontent due to his kingdom message.

The real and substantial reason for his fame is the resurrection. His claims were proved when God raised him from the dead. But this truth made the Jewish authority guilty of murdering God's messenger, son, etc. (however it is that they chose to perceive it), and so rather than being important to them, he became a threat.

There's no substitute for education. If you want to be able to defend your faith against an unbeliever, I would strongly advise that besides studying your Bible carefully, you also get a copy of Josephus (to learn about first century Jewish culture from a first-hand source), and I would suggest reading the Talmud (to get a firm grasp on the intricacies of Jewish law as it existed during that time period). Apart from a few juicy tidbits, you won't really get enough information on a web forum to adequately defend your faith against an atheist professor with a college education in theology.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's just another way of saying "Jesus was a moral teacher". It just trivializes him. After all, history has no shortage of moral teachings that basically all say the same thing. It's an old argument used by irreligious people to be indifferent or intellectually lazy. Jesus stood in the prophetic tradition of Israel, and being a prophet was far more than just being a teacher. Just as an example, we could see someone like Martin Luther King jr. being a prophet in how he directed peoples attention to racial injustice, but calling him a teacher in many ways would belittle and distort the meaning of what he did.

I would be careful about defending your beliefs. Arguing with somebody who is well-educated on the subject is bound to come off as marking you as a rube or conceited. You don't need to defend your beliefs most of the time, really. It's not a matter of having all the answers. Sometimes its more important to just live a good life and that is your best witness.