Why stop at the Ressurection?

Originally Posted by innerlight

When Jesus died and rose from the grave showing his mastery over death and life. Why did he stop shortly after that and ascend to heaven? Why not continue his teachings? He obviously would of been able to shake more heads and beliefs with the knowledge that he was crucified and then returned from that and keep on teaching. What he said would be more effective.

Excellent point ... but I suspect it's something similar to what they called in the Star Trek series .... "the prime directive."

At what point do you influence history to the point of making people robots to your will, as opposed to free will?

Originally Posted by psychoslice

So many traditions of men, this is exactly what we have to go beyond, beyond the traditions and myth to the truth within and only within.

The Tradition of the Church is not "the traditions of men" attacked in the Bible.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by agiosotheos

The Tradition of the Church is not "the traditions of men" attacked in the Bible.

I believe that the tradition of the church is the tradition of men of the church, these were added to the words of Jesus and therefore assumed holy.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

I believe that the tradition of the church is the tradition of men of the church, these were added to the words of Jesus and therefore assumed holy.

This view is not supported by the Bible. The Bible has nothing supporting sola scriptura and much supporting the Tradition of the Church.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by agiosotheos

This view is not supported by the Bible. The Bible has nothing supporting sola scriptura and much supporting the Tradition of the Church.

I see what is in the bible what you cannot see, when you say the tradition of the church, what church are you talking about ?.

Originally Posted by agiosotheos

There is a longstanding tradition that Mary, His Mother, was resurrected three days after she was buried.

There is also a tradition that John, at the end of the 1st century, requested to be buried alive, and once someone tried to dig him up, his body had disappeared.

These are references to initiation "deaths," a mystery tradition that predates Christianity by two thousand years or more. Just as Lazarus was initiated and "raised from the dead." The reference to the disappearance of the body is occult terminology for the second life one begins after having passed through the mystical death experience. It's basic esoteric Christianity 101.

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by Raptor Witness

Excellent point ... but I suspect it's something similar to what they called in the Star Trek series .... "the prime directive."

At what point do you influence history to the point of making people robots to your will, as opposed to free will?

There would of always been the option that you did or did not listen to it. Just as there is today. In that regard nothing has changed. Some do believe he was so he said he was, and some do not. That would not change.

But I perhaps it was more for them to carry on his works.

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by agiosotheos

Still alive?

According to Orthodox Christianity, Jesus is still alive now.

You mean before He had been crucified and died?

No, the Bible tells us that Jesus ascended into Heaven 40 days after He had Risen, and then 10 days after that the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples.

So then Jesus was the Holy Spirit? Or are we saying he created the Holy Spirit?

[theophilus]

Originally Posted by innerlight

When Jesus died and rose from the grave showing his mastery over death and life.

The resurrection showed more than this. It showed that he death had atoned for sin and now those who put their faith in him could be forgiven.

Why did he stop shortly after that and ascend to heaven? Why not continue his teachings?

He did continue teaching but he did it through the Holy Spirit rather than in person. If he had remained on earth in his body he would have been limited to one location and wouldn't have been able to personally teach everyone. But the Holy Spirit isn't subject to this limitation.


Luke begins the book of Acts with these words:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
Acts 1:1,2 ESV

The "first book" mentioned here is of course Luke's gospel. In Acts Jesus would continue his work but in a different way.

He obviously would of been able to shake more heads and beliefs with the knowledge that he was crucified and then returned from that and keep on teaching. What he said would be more effective.

Are you sure he would have been more effective? The reason people reject the teachings of Jesus isn't lack of knowledge but a refusal to submit to his authority. Those responsible for his death knew that he had risen but rather than repent of their sins and submit to him they chose to try to cover up the resurrection.

God knows better than we do what is the best way to do things. We need to learn to trust him rather than our own judgment.

Originally Posted by theophilus

Are you sure he would have been more effective? The reason people reject the teachings of Jesus isn't lack of knowledge but a refusal to submit to his authority. Those responsible for his death knew that he had risen but rather than repent of their sins and submit to him they chose to try to cover up the resurrection.

God knows better than we do what is the best way to do things. We need to learn to trust him rather than our own judgment.

Playing Devil's Advocate here (hey I'm an attorney it is what I do)...

I think if I saw a dead man get out of the grave and start walking around that it would be enough to convince me that I need to follow him and do what he said, rather than cover it up.

Doesn't it make more sense that the ressurection didn't happen, there was no cover-up, and that the story of him ressurecting was made up by his followers to make people believe that he fulfilled prophecies and really was a true "God Man" unlike the false "God Men" of the contemporary religions at the time?

I also don't think people doubt the Jesus story because they dont want to submit to him, I think they do so because of lack of proof. Other than the Gospels (which were not written by anyone with first hand knowledge, and they have been heavily edited anyway), and the accounts of the early church leaders (Paul) there are no contemporary or early accounts that a man named Jesus even existed (and if you are thinking about the "Josephus quote" it has been proven to be a later addition).

Really the early church leaders created a perfect dogmatic system. There are passeges which state that everything in the heavily edited book is the infallible direct word of God. There are also passages which say that anyone who questions anything in this edited infallible book is an evil-doer who will suffer the worst treatment in the afterlife. Also, everyone needs to believe in Jesus or they are also a sinner and will go to hell. Therefore, there is a perfect closed dogmatic loop that has perpetuated itself throughout the centuries.