# Was Jesus' resurrection theologically necessary? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-resurrection-theologically-necessary/535038 "2010-04-05T16:38:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-resurrection-theologically-necessary/535038/121 "2010-04-13T12:05:09Z")
> [@Velma](#): > > I have a 5 year old son who I know very well. I set up rules for him even when I know he will not be able to keep them. For example, he is disciplined when he lies. Yet I knew before having him that he would not be able to go his whole life without telling a lie, sometimes I can even tell in a given situation that he is going to lie about something before he does it. Should I not set up this rule that he cannot obey? Should he not be disciplined when he disobeys? Is it my fault that he lies? > > I think if we were created so that we could not disobey, then we would be the pawns. Autos do not have free will, people do. If God created us in a programmed manner, then we could blame Him. But we have choice. > > No, the God I believe in did not create a son. The Son is God. (Begotten, not made.) When you say the Genesis account, I assume you are talking about Adam and the story of the fall. I don’t believe in it literally either, (as in, was there a single man and woman and a fruit tree) but as allegory about how man has free will. > > I understand what you are saying in regards to the OT God seeming cruel. Keep in mind that Christians believe all the Bible points to Christ, and God is revealed through Him. I don’t have the ability or time to do a whole OT God/vs. NT God analysis, but Christians believe the Bible is fulfilled through Jesus, so we use his teachings over the OT rules and believe the OT rules no longer apply. > > There are tons of different topics in this thread and books have literally been written about many of the points made here, so I know I cannot do any of them true justice or be very convincing in this forum. In case anyone is really interested in finding out more about how Christian theology answers these questions, you can find fairly brief summaries to listen to here (the topics of Justification and Sin may be particularly interesting): > > [http://www.redeemer.com/learn/resources/keller\_qa.html](http://www.redeemer.com/learn/resources/keller_qa.html) If you look deep enough into your faith, it is based on the word of some Human who said God said, or did some things, so in reality you are believing in humans not a divine being (who no human can prove was God) or that this God did or said anything. It is a matter of faith so if God just hopped into Mary’s womb and became a man, then died God would be dead and no God would be alive to ressurect him, and if He had it set ahead of time that His death would just last 35 hours or so it could harly be counted as a death. My belief is that if some ones faith helps them to be a better person, not harm others with it then it is a good thing for them and doesn’t matter if they have a belief or not. As for free will, then if that were so, then there should be no punishment for sin, because if Adam and Eve had free will and chose to eat the fruit then God knew they were going to eat it, and he is at fault for taking back their free will long enough at least, so they could decide to eat the fruit. He punished them for something he knew ahead of time they would do, and according to Genesis it was the death pelnalty, a harsh punishment for a small disobedience, when He allowed satan to do all sorts of evil things and even allows this monster to destroy His children…not a very lovinf being in my opinion would do such a thing. Then this same God was said to destroy all living things (except a few chosen ones that he let on an Ark) because he regretted creating man…it just doesn’t add up as far as I am concerned. A human parent doesn’t know all things so the difference between a God and a human is quite different. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-resurrection-theologically-necessary/535038/122 "2010-04-13T14:22:25Z")
> [@Velma](#): > > Morality is not enough. Jesus showed in the parable of the prodigal son that both ‘sinners’ (as we think of them, people who do morally bad things) and also people who we think of as morally decent people both need salvation. The prodigal son is the sinner who returns back to his father, who welcomes him. The older son is the moral one, who did all the ‘right’ things. Yet he also turned away from his father because he was upset that the prodigal son was allowed back: > > " The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ > > 31" ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ " > > Should moral people complain when ‘sinners’ receive salvation? Salvation is there for the moral people too (and they need is just as much.) > > Works are important because they are a sign of our love for God, not because they win us points with God or do anything to earn our way. Christians separate morality/deeds from salvation entirely. I know Christians do that and in doing so they ignore or explain away the verses concerning being judged according to deeds , a belief that Jesus himself taught when he stressed that your actions revealed the true person within. IMO you overlooked an important line in your quote. No moral people should not complain when sinners see the errors of their ways, but in the quote the father tells the moral son, “everything I have is yours” so it would appear his behavior did matter. To clarify, speaking as a former Christian priesthood member whose studies led me to no longer believe Christian theology, I am not saying morality leads to salvation. In my studies of the NT and what Jesus taught, our actions are the true demonstration of the condition of our spirit. Over and over again the point is made that regardless of what you believe or what love for the Lord and others you profess to have, your actions will reveal the truth. IMO, and logic, that means anyone who exhibits sincere love and compassion , regardless of any religious or non religious label, is following the teachings of Christ. It also seems logical that a God who created all mankind and loved us all equally, would judge us equally as well. If it’s about choosing love and truth,{1 Peter 1:22, 1 John 3:18 John 4:24} and the inner transformation that comes from that journey {Eph. 4:15, 2 Thes. 2:13} rather than choosing the correct prophet. It’s seems much more logical to me that if choosing love and truth are the keys to our spiritual condition then that’s what counts in anyone, and man made religions and traditions don’t matter at all. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-resurrection-theologically-necessary/535038/123 "2010-04-13T16:27:43Z")
> [@Velma](#): > > you can tell when someone is just saying they love someone and really doesn’t. Their actions don’t show it. We have all seen relationships where one person claims to love another but we know if they really did, they would be acting differently. This is true of us also, when we experience God’s love our actions show it. (By their fruits you shall know them). That does not mean that salvation was dependent on actions. and it doesn’t address reality very well either, or at least generates more questions. We know that people who sincerely accept JC do not immediately become ideal. There is still jealousy, pride, judgment, prejudice. People are complex and multifaceted and the person who does good works one day, may show their prejudice another day. Just imagine all the nice people in the old south who thought they were being good Christians as they discriminated and even despised their fellow man. Are you saying that Christians who continue to sin don’t really love God and aren’t saved? I doubt that because you just said Christians are forgiven all their sins. So, evidently the mix of some good fruits and some bad is okay, but there’s not really a scale right? Do you begin to see the conflict in logic? > [@](#): > > Why are we in debt to God? Is it not reasonable to believe that we as humans do not live up to a Deity’s standards? I don’t see how it is _illogical_ to think that people fail to live up to perfection. It is not illogical to believe we do not live up to perfection. That seems apparent. It’s not even illogical per say, to assume a debt, noting that it’s not particularly logically either. It’s just an assumption. The problem I see is that for a logical chain to actually be reasonable it cannot contain so many assumed truths that are basically pulled out of the air. Perhaps someone more schooled in the rules of logic will correct me and it’s possible to create a chain of logic from entirely fabricated points. That still leaves your claim that Christianity is reasonable and logical , rather than blind faith, in question. If so much of Christianity is baseless assumption about the nature of our universe then it does require a lot of blind faith. This is not even touching on the logical conflicts about love and justice the Christian salvation theology presents. > [@](#): > > Do you never do something you don’t want to do? Eat the last cookie, blurt out something mean? Christian theology says that we are completely fallen, it is not a matter of willpower. Even Paul says he does things he does not want to do. Sorry, although we may do things we think we shouldn’t there are reasons we ultimately do them which translates into, we ultimately wanted to. > [@](#): > > Is the only incentive we have to be good fear of punishment? I hope not. That’s not very good parenting if I teach my child to behave out of fear. Better that he learn to obey out of trust and love and a desire to be better. Weren’t you just talking to another about punishing your child and there being consequences for disobeying? It’s not about fear of punishment. It’s about consequences for our choices. According to you, once we are saved we continue to sin and are still given the ultimate reward. Those who choose to love and be compassionate to others can still be condemned because they didn’t choose the correct prophet. How is that justice and proper consequences for choices? > [@](#): > > That does mean that the excellent Christian get the same reward, yes. And yes, good works cannot save the Atheist or Muslim, etc. just as they don’t save anyone. All people are on the same level and Jesus died for everyone. I understand that part of the theology and I maintain it does not fit with concepts of God as just and loving, or , as I just said, the concept of free will and consequences for actions. If our actions reflect the true conditions of our spirit then the sincere love expressed by anyone, regardless of labels, is just as spiritually correct as any Christians. This is fairly clearly expressed in the NT, that the true condition of your soul, made evident by your actions, is what matters. That would also lead to the logical conclusion that Christians will have consequences for their bad choices regardless of belief. Read the parable of the sheep and goats again in Mat 25. > [@](#): > > I do assume a huge debt. I don’t see why that is _illogical_. It would be illogical for me to say: > There is a debt. > There is not a debt. By itself it’s just an assumption, neither logical or illogical. Something you accept with blind faith since there is no reason to assume it otherwise. It’s the number of key points in Christian theology that are exactly this that led to eventually reject them. and ftr, that does not mean I reject Christ. I reject certain aspects of the Christian vision of Christ and am still able to revere his teachings. I decided to take Christ’s warning of not following to the traditions of men seriously. > [@](#): > > I also think you use the term ‘blind faith’ to mean ‘anything that does not match my own perceptions.’ That’s incorrect so let me explain. I see blind faith as accepting certain theological tenants as fact with no evidence to indicate they are true. Those tenants cannot accurately be called logical when they are assumptions without any evidence. Accepting God exists is one but even getting past that one to specific religious doctrine, we see far to many crucial tenants of Christianity to be exactly that type of pure assumption for it to be referred to as logical and reasonable. > [@](#): > > I think Christians have underlying assumptions about how the universe is set up, but I don’t think they are any more based on faith than any other worldview. They are, but even granting that they are _no more_ faith based than many other world views , that’s not really a defense. > [@](#): > > There is no Biblical command to throw out your brain and trust in crazy illogical claims. Thomas was allowed to touch the wounds for himself. I don’t think Christians have thrown out their brains. I just think the power of tradition and the reinforcement by peers {lots of peers} creates a comfort zone they live in. I’ll give you another example. The Bible as the word of God. There is nothing to indicate that it was God’s master plan that we have this one particular collection of writings to serve as our ultimate guide and authority. It’s tradition plain and simple. It’s tradition that contradicts the actual hard evidence we have about the Bible and as such is clearly illogical. Other religions also have their sacred writings and at least one major one believes we still receive inspirational instructions from God. Personally, I think it’s more logical to think God would continue to commune with us than assume a 2000 year old book is it, but I think it shows the power of religious tradition and how it overcomes reason in even well intended intelligent people. > [@](#): > > I know this is opening up a whole new can of worms that cannot all be addressed here. I don’t hope to convince anyone of anything except to hopefully see that Christian theology does address these issues, we don’t (all) just believe things because someone told us to. I am not a theologian or an apologist, but I have examined my beliefs carefully and have not come to my beliefs through ‘blind faith.’ (meaning that I have no reasons for doing so other than I just like it.) You’re right we’re not going to reach any conclusions here. I’d say that Christianity sincerely tries to address certain issues through reason and scholarship but ultimately, because so many tenants are just assumed truths, it is a lot of blind faith. I think there are a lot of reasons unconscious and otherwise that a particular religion becomes meaningful to someone. For myself, I eventually came to the conclusion that I could still hold what I valued most and seemed the most crucial concerning any spirituality {love and truth} while letting go of the things that were unnecessary and just didn’t make sense to me anymore. I know plenty of great people who are Christians, some Muslims, atheists and other sundry belief systems. If some religion is someone’s vehicle to growth and service more power to them. My objection is that too often, while preaching brotherhood and unity, organized religions like Christianity actually create division with the assumed truths that become focal points of their theology. By clinging to the idea that their assumptions are better than some other religions and “what God really thinks” they set up the division. By deciding they must teach these assumed truths to others as factual they create division. IMHO of course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-resurrection-theologically-necessary/535038.md?page=6)