Like Thomas Jefferson, the teachings of Jesus are the most important IMO, because unless they are followed, all the saving ability means nothing without following those instructions.

It was not until long after Jesus' death that the Gospel and later writers began their explanation and meaning of Christ's death. Not during his lifetime is there evidence that this was the main emphasis, and it was not a sudden, but rather gradual idea that was devised and perpetuated later.

Jesus' death and resurrection would have no more meaning than Buddha or Mohammed if not for his teachings and for that reason, his teachings are the most important, while his death and resurrection make him truly unique.

Elaine
Do I understand you to mean that you trust the biblical writings concerning Jesus teachings done by those writers after his death, but not the salvational writing done after his death by the same writers?

The teachings of Jesus are, for the large part, based on timeless principles that apply to humans throughout all ages. There are also teachings that were not incorporated into the canon.

The miraculous events reported are not supported by any contemporary writers other than recorded in the canon. If by "salvational writing" do you not include his teachings? Or, the miraculous events? What do you consider salvational? Belief in his divinity? His divinity was evidently not accepted during his ministry according to the crowds who questioned his birth and origin as nothing unusual. The miraculous birth narrative was unknown during his lifetime and originated with Matthew and Luke, as neither Paul nor Mark ever mention such a concept as Virgin Birth. Please explain your use of "salvational."

If one fictionalizes the savational aspects of Jesus' death and resurrection, then he is reduced to a highly regarded moral teacher like Confucious or Hillel. While his moral teachings are timeless, the very essense of Christianity is thus undercut, that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ.

In fact, the moral imperatives and principles of both the Old and New Testaments essentially sprout from the same soil of gracious deliverance from bondage...a life to be lived and learned in grateful response to such deliverance. Without the salvational initiative ans accomplishments of God/Christ, we are left with "righteousness by works." Of course, if one sees all the world's various ethical and religious systems as merely many ways to God, it makes no difference.

However, I've always found the objection to the absolute claims of Christ/Christianity of, "there is no such thing as absolute truth," to be quite interesting. It's an absolute claim in and of itself...is it not?

I find it to be an unwitting contradiction of itself...

Thanks...

Frank

Elaine
I was trying to understand your first post in this thread.
I'll try and explain my thoughts as I read it so you can help my understanding.

When you say,
"the teachings of Jesus are the most important IMO, because unless they are followed, all the saving ability means nothing without following those instructions.”

I see here, you value his teachings. But his teachings are recorded in the bible, which I know you see as a collection of self serving (your opinion of the authors motivations, if I’m not mistaken?) books made to suit the different authors purposes.

My question then is if one held the bible is a non authoritative collection of myths and legends, then why see the teachings as any different?
Additionally, about your perception that

"The miraculous events reported are not supported by any contemporary writers other than recorded in the canon."

A tree falls in the woods and the only other person known to be in the area at the exact time didn’t document it, so it never happened? Doesn’t seem to be an airtight refutation to me.
If Josephus didn’t document something it didn’t happen either? Even if he had, couldn’t you simply discount that with the same, he was a Jew who wrote it to suit his own purposes theory?
Other Gnostics and sects of the time wrote things too. Are they virtual facts that confirm the bible is wrong or are they just more authoritatively self serving books too?
How can one "figuratively" claim Josephus and the like are the impartial scientific journalist’s of the time and everyone else has a grand scheme to perpetuate some unknown prank on humanity throughout time?

"Not during his lifetime is there evidence that this was the main emphasis, and it was not a sudden, but rather gradual idea that was devised and perpetuated later."

Do I understand you to mean that Salvation vis-à-vis Christ’s death was a post crucifixion idea?

“His divinity was evidently not accepted during his ministry according to the crowds who questioned his birth and origin as nothing unusual.”

Take the woman at the well account in Samaria. He told them he was the messiah and the whole city accepted him. This was where he told the disciples that going back to their own home would be much more difficult. You know back where all the edumacated people were?

“The miraculous birth narrative was unknown during his lifetime and originated with Matthew and Luke, as neither Paul nor Mark ever mention such a concept as Virgin Birth.”

Now you have Paul and Mark “disputing” Matthew and Luke just because they didn’t write about it too?
May be your right. I mean if they included all the boring begats in the bible why not a complete notarized list of everyone testifying to everything? Could it be because it could still be interpited as a bunch of self serving Jews writing down their myths and legends anyway?

Learning is the happening in the encounter between a receptive mind and a new idea. What is the "big question" Is it not: "What must I do to be saved?" It beats "Where did I come from?" "Why am I here?" "It is right up there with: "Where do I go when I die?"

So how does one separate teaching from salvation, if one is dealing with ultimates?

The two big requests made to Jesus were: "Teach us to pray."
and "What must I do to be saved?"

The Messianic mission required both teaching and a ransom. It seems salvation by faith is the hardest thing to teach. It certainly is the hardest thing to learn. We even puff books like "Steps to Christ" or any other list making tomes. That is why Jesus taught in parables: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like!" One of the hurdles Jesus had to cope with was "false" teaching on salvation. Before the cross nobody understood, even with several thousand years of lambs, goats, and turtle doves being sacrificed. Christ said: "Abraham saw my day and was glad". It took a very hard lesson for Abraham to get the point.

No it is a false dichotomy to separate Christ's teaching from His redemption. Tom

Thanks for your comments Ernie. They seem consistent with Titus 2:11-15.

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
15 These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Regards,

pat

Jesus' teachings and salvation cannot be separated. His death and resurrection to offered would be no different than other pagan gods. However, it is in his life's teachings that he becomes attractive and draws followers. His offering of our life after death is an added reward, but if his teachings were not worthy, why would there be followers? Merely for an eternal life? Surely, there should be more.

Ernie,
Thank you for this stellar commentary!

Jesus' primary mission to earth was to reveal the character and government of God. He did this by his teaching and his interactions with people. Just prior to his arrest he said, I have finished the work I was sent to do, I have revealed God's very self to men.

Men hated that picture of God and killed him in hopes of ridding the world of its power. That God could be like Jesus was unthinkable. But God vindicated Jesus' work and teaching by raising him from the dead. God said, "This is my Son, listen to what he has to say."

I applaud Ernie's balanced commentary, Elaine's courageous comments, and Michael's engaged questioning... In many ways, the dichotomy between "salvation" and "knowledge" is false, as ancient religions inevitably linked the two, although just how they were linked varied greatly. The New Testament itself offers different models of such linkage--John's Gospel should not be read to equate exactly with the individual Pastoral Epistles. Adventist thought, however, has not publicly grappled with the implications of more recent historical research which enables new readings of the New Testament and other early Christian literatures. I hope the term "sola scriptura" is not used by readers to close down the range of readings and interpretations available to us today. I have also found great inspiration in venturing beyond the usual intra-textual reading of the New Testament and discovering the many non-canonical authors who argued for understandings of the death and life of Jesus different from those of the second- and third- century editors who shaped the New Testament. Even if I believe in salvation by grace alone, I admit that the Jesus I have knowledge of today may not be the one I was taught in Sabbath School so many years ago.

PS for all.

Part of His important teaching is Mt.26:27,28. Do you believe His teaching that His blood was to be "shed for many for the remission of sins?" Why or Why not?

Pat

I am listening to the book " A New Earth" Awakening to Your Life's Purpose - written by Eckhart Tolle - for the second time. Which talks a great deal about the teachings of Christ, his purpose here on earth, and what his teachings were all about. My sisters put it on an MP3 disk and sent it to me because it has had such an impact on their lives. There are parts of the book that are not in keeping with the way the Bible tells the story of Christ and his salvation - and yet the message of letting go of self and pride - or as the author puts it the "ego" has had a ring of truth to me. Has anyone else read this book? and if so how would they relate it to this thread about Christ and Salvation?

Ellen

I am always impressed by the clarity of argument put forward by Elaine and Tom, and it was geat to read a note from Graeme who I knew in Aus over 30 years ago... (great photos!)
Salvation is easy to explain, and impossible to explain. God's love is so simple to accept yet so difficult to understand... little wonder Jesus said "unless you are able to become a child again..."
What must I do? Jesus - both teacher and Saviour - gave two answers:
Everything! Nothing!
In the history of Christianity (and, in microcosm, Adventism) there has been a focus on one answer or the other.
In 2008 both answers frighten us. Our Adventist tradition refers us back to doing "Everything!" and our enlightenment reminds us of "Nothing!" Too often the dissonance is too much and we give up on God... Thankfully, God never gives up on us!
The only way to explain "Salvation" is to understand GRACE.

Russell

Thank you for the encouragement and the clarity of your thought. Amazing Grace is too often only a catchy tune. Tom

Ellen, I am one who has been reading Eckhart Tolle's "A New Earth" and have included the web casts and podcasts available. It is teaching me a way to actually put in to practice the instruction quoted in this thread from Titus 2:12,"instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,". As with all doctrines and beliefs, they are a bundle of thoughts and words that may or may not point to truth. Only through being alert and aware of my thoughts can I begin to differentiate between fact and opinion.

It is most helpful for me when reading anything about "salvation" to remember that the word is also translated as "healing".

Dadu - thanks for the response - I agree - the insights in the book help me to understand concepts that at times may be hard to grasp -- being only words. Also, being in the present for a person who has a tendency for incessant chatter in her head - has caused me to feel more alive - The words in the Bible "be still and know that I am God" - I have fought - saying to myself "if God wants to talk with me then he should just keep up with me" -- my life is busy just living - why can't he be in the busy? why in the silence?

The concept of "finding good" instead of "trying to be good" also made sense to me. Are there parts of the book that do not ring true?

Ellen,

In regards to parts of the book not ringing "true". The ideas, such as Presence, that I can test myself by seeing and feeling the truth of them are what make the most sense. I would label those as "ringing true" for now. The parts that I cannot understand or overwhelm me I cannot label as not "ringing true" just yet because I trust Tolle's motivation as a spiritual teacher. There are many places in the book where I have question marks. I plan to re-read the book to keep Presence fresh in my life as I sense my connection to God in this way so much more powerfully. The non-judgment of ourselves it teaches removes one of the big obstacles we put in the way of peace and power in our lives.