The resurrection, and salvation coming from god

[dyanaprajna2011]

According to some/most of Christianity, salvation can only come from god, and only because of the resurrection of Jesus. I have a few questions about these claims:

1. Why is the resurrection important? Most religions teach some type of 'salvation', without the need of any kind of resurrection, either of a prophet, saint, or god-man. So why do Christians insist that the resurrection is important?

2. Why do Christians assert that one's 'sins' can only be done away with because of some atonement? Doesn't it make more sense for us to 'atone' for our own sins? This especially doesn't make sense in light of the hell doctrine, but that's for another thread.

3. (this one will be highly metaphysical speculative) Why do Christians say that one cannot be 'saved' without their god? What makes their god special when compared to other gods?

NOTE: I've used Christian terms in the OP, as the topic is based on Christian doctrine, but this shouldn't imply that I agree with them.

I've read many apologetic articles about Buddhism from the Christian perspective, and they all pretty much say the same thing. Buddhism is a great religion, but has no power because the Buddha wasn't resurrected. This is why I wanted to post a topic focusing on this event, and it's metaphysical and spiritual implications. I'm confused as to why this should matter.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

According to some/most of Christianity, salvation can only come from god, and only because of the resurrection of Jesus. I have a few questions about these claims:

1. Why is the resurrection important? Most religions teach some type of 'salvation', without the need of any kind of resurrection, either of a prophet, saint, or god-man. So why do Christians insist that the resurrection is important?

2. Why do Christians assert that one's 'sins' can only be done away with because of some atonement? Doesn't it make more sense for us to 'atone' for our own sins? This especially doesn't make sense in light of the hell doctrine, but that's for another thread.

3. (this one will be highly metaphysical speculative) Why do Christians say that one cannot be 'saved' without their god? What makes their god special when compared to other gods?

NOTE: I've used Christian terms in the OP, as the topic is based on Christian doctrine, but this shouldn't imply that I agree with them.

I've read many apologetic articles about Buddhism from the Christian perspective, and they all pretty much say the same thing. Buddhism is a great religion, but has no power because the Buddha wasn't resurrected. This is why I wanted to post a topic focusing on this event, and it's metaphysical and spiritual implications. I'm confused as to why this should matter.

It's a really complex set of questions you have their. And I think you'll find that the answers will vary not only between denominations but within them as well.

1. The resurrection is important because the flesh is considered weak as paul said "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" the flesh is considered sinful, unclean. You'll notice Benoni has put up a quote several times about the "carnal man" this is the idea that without resurrection we are stuck in a body that has been corrupted by Sin. In the resurrection all will be given a new body, this new body will not experience pain, suffering, and will not be burdened with the sins of the past.

2. Atonement is complicated. You'll find that much of what is mentioned in the letters of Paul is that we are not good enough to atone for our sins. It's the idea that God is so perfect, that to him our Sins are extremely grievous. We cannot atone for that. However you'll notice that this seems in contrast with what is taught in the Christian OT where indeed it is people who atone for their individual sins against God and each other. Even the Lords prayer mentions the line "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have trespassed against us" the idea is that forgiveness is key, if you cannot forgive those who have hurt you, the lord cannot forgive you.

3. This is tied to atonement. The idea is that we are so imperfect our sins divide us from God so greatly that without Jesus there is no way at all for us to even begin making up for the things we have done. Essentially it comes down to "faith" not "works". Why? I'm not quite sure that change as Judaism seems to be one that focused on works, but it may have been a reply to attempt to be able to bring more people into the faith. By going with faith not works, it implies that a person who truly believes will change their actions (by God's power of course), its actually similar (if you remove the God aspect) to the idea that change begins within.

But as I said each denomination and each Christian you have will have varying responses to a point.

 

[nazz]

According to some/most of Christianity, salvation can only come from god, and only because of the resurrection of Jesus. I have a few questions about these claims:

I'm glad you said "some/most" as there are and have been those throughout history who have had different understanding of the Atonement, myself being one of them. I've posted this before in regard to that:

Atonement in Christianity

I subscribe to the Christus Victor model more or less with a Gnostic twist.

1. Why is the resurrection important? Most religions teach some type of 'salvation', without the need of any kind of resurrection, either of a prophet, saint, or god-man. So why do Christians insist that the resurrection is important?

I'll try to answer each of these in terms of the views of traditional Christianity and also my own heterodox viewpoint.

Belief in the physical resurrection of the dead was an important part of Second Temple period Judaism and persists down to this day among Orthodox Jews. In contrast to Hellenistic ideas about the division of soul and body Jews did not see life as possible without some sort of body. Jesus' resurrection from the dead was a "proof" that the dead could be raised. His resurrection is spoken of as the "first fruits" of that process. "Salvation" in the original Greek is connected to the sense of "healing, being made whole" so being reunited with one's resurrected body would be part of that.

Also in order for Jesus to possess the power to save obviously he must be alive in some sense. On a more practical level belief in the resurrection of Jesus was what transformed the disheartened disciples into the bold apostles they became.

As a Gnostic the idea of a physical resurrection in this universe does not make any sense. I look at the resurrection as more of a spiritual event. Atonement does not come through his death but rather through being united with the Father through him.

2. Why do Christians assert that one's 'sins' can only be done away with because of some atonement? Doesn't it make more sense for us to 'atone' for our own sins? This especially doesn't make sense in light of the hell doctrine, but that's for another thread.

According to biblical teaching death is the result of sin. A perfect man would not die but could die to atone for the sins of others releasing them from having to pay for their own sin through their own death. Jesus was that man. This is the basis for the penal substitution theory of atonement that is embraced by most of Christendom.

However you are right it doesn't make much sense for a number of reasons. It's a radical departure from any Jewish teaching and cannot be viewed as some sort of culmination of the sacrificial system of the Torah. In addition Christians still die even though that death is seen as impermanent. And if death is the payment required then why would be people have to also suffer hell?

I do not view the death of Jesus as the reason he came to earth but rather as an inevitable consequence of his mission.

3. (this one will be highly metaphysical speculative) Why do Christians say that one cannot be 'saved' without their god? What makes their god special when compared to other gods?

The standard view is that the God of Israel is the only true God and and all others are false. Therefore there can be no salvation through false gods. I think we need to understand this in context. Israel was surrounded by polytheistic, idolatrous nations. There were basically no other monotheistic cultures in existence. So the idea that one might be saved through belief in a monotheistic deity by another name simply did not exist at that time. Plus acceptance of Jesus' sacrificial death is seen as essential to salvation.

Personally speaking I do see Jesus as an incarnation of God on earth who manifested the reality of his Father. Before this time the Father, the highest deity, was unknown (even by the Jews). I do believe people of other faith traditions can come to know God in different forms but only through Jesus can they know and have a relationship with the Father. My own spiritual experience confirms this truth.