I’d like to hear your thoughts on this:
youtube.com/watch?v=YClPvBk3 … _embedded#
Aug
Well, as a universalist, I like that he gets the action of reconciliation correct in terms of direction per the NT texts. 
(Jesus comes to reconcile the world to himself.) I don’t recall GK being a universalist, but hey every little bit helps. 
There are some major Christological issues being given (necessarily) pretty short shrift here. But he makes a good point about identity claims being crucial to Jesus’ teaching (even literally so!–since Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin based on claims about himself. Or Himself. 
)
I was in agreement with him until the last 10 seconds or so, when he went from (correctly, IMO) affirming that Jesus was executed for claiming to be “the Christ, the Son of God,” to then asserting that Jesus claimed to be “the God of all the universe who came down in human form…” Oy vey! 
It’s his statement that we could get rid of Jesus’ teaching and you still have Christianity **** EDIT ** his quote is “Christianity is not based on the teachings of Jesus”.** That makes me scratch my head. I’m excited to be opening Bob Wilsons corner which is based on his Sunday School class because this approach is in question. I would hold that if you throw out Jesus’ teaching, you don’t have christianity. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding Gregs point?
Oh I see what you’re saying. I guess I just originally understood Koukl’s statement as simply being against the more “liberal” position, which emphasizes Jesus’ teaching (e.g., concerning the Fatherhood of God) over his identity as the Messiah and Son of God (as well as his death and resurrection). But having watched the video again, I can see how what Koukl is saying creates kind of a false dichotomy between the importance of who Jesus is, and the importance of what he said and did. Really, I’d say his teaching (both in word and deed) was inseparable from his identity. It both bore witness to his being the Messiah, as well as defined what “kind” of Messiah he was and is (which was not at all what the religious elite of Israel were expecting).
Koukl is right that Jesus’ claim to speak for God with authority was a central offense. But it’s misleading to say that Peter did a sufficient “job” in giving him the right identity, Messiah. For we learn that this actually missed the boat because Peter, like ‘Satan,’ opposed Messiah’s servant-like death. This does not simply expose a failure to identify “who” Jesus is, but to embrace the real values of Jesus’ mission and ministry, which were paralleled by his teachings on the way of life that we too are to follow. Thus, I’m sympathetic that you can’t endorse ‘Jesus,’ apart from embracing his teaching.
Well said Aaron. I get the sense that we all can take one verse and run away with it. In this case, Greg seems to take take Peter’s admittance that Jesus is the Christ and deduces that anything he said had nothing to do with Peter’s acknowledgment. Likewise, Greg also seems to deduce that since Ciaphas tore his robe at the question of being the Christ, it must be that is the ONLY reason. Nevermind John 5 which states that because Jesus broke the sabbath the Pharisees wanted to kill him.
I stand somewhat perplexed that Christians can abandon such critical things such as Jesus’ teachings as being central to our faith.
While I don’t disagree with Greg’s assessment, I do strenuously agree it’s a huge jump to make at the end of a brief internet video. (But then again, the video series is probably made for preaching to the choir. 
)