Yes, the Resurrection is a credibility sign. As for God's redemptive work in the world, what I believe is that God's redemption begins with the TEACHING of Jesus; obedience to this, and baptism into the covenant with him, is redemptive for individuals, and, to the extent that the teachings are disseminated and practiced, this is also redemptive for 'the world.' Second, God's redemption of the world is brought by the RULE of the world by Jesus. When Jesus was raised and appeared to the Twelve he said 'All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me...' Initially, Jesus had taught people how to find the Kingdom of God, but after Jesus completed his divine mission, he was rewarded with the crown as king of kings. This kingship fulfills the prophecy of Daniel 7.13-14 (a universal king called the Son of Man); compare Mat 17 (Jesus' Transfiguration) and Matt 28.2-20 (Resurrection) and Rev. 1.12-19 (The Son of Man appearance). (Incidentally, if you don't yet have Bible software, I strongly recommend the free download at e-sword.net) Jesus is the Lord or King if you like,and a battle and separation is occurring, between Jesus' kingdom and that of Satan in the world. Victory comes, first, for an individual who departs Satan and joins Jesus, then ultimately comes the separation of good from evil. This is the redemption! As for your question about the revelance of the Resurrection to the Kingdom, this is a topic deserving of a lengthy discourse, because a full answer should encompass the many strands of belief regarding the Resurrection, in order to show its meaning in the context of Jesus' establishment of the Kingdom. In simplist terms Jesus said 'I AM the resurrection... (Jn 11.25). Again, I wish I had the time to give you the essay this question deserves! Perhaps a simple one-line answer would be to say that personal adherence to Jesus' Way FULFILLS or PERFECTS the raising-to-life imagery that was encoded in the resurrection lore of those times. As for resurrection and baptism: I am not quite making an outright equation between them. However, baptism into Jesus' kingdom -- and hence, deliverance from death and satan -- is gained by submitting to the true original catechism of the Didache of Jesus (rather than the corrupt baptismal notions expressed elsewhere, such as in Lukan writings). As you note in your final paragraph, I am indeed a heterodox Christian (as so many are!) I do not accept in toto the re-formulation of the faith that occurred in the Seven Councils of the 3rd century. I only accept the earliest primitive form of the teaching (Matthew, Didache, John; and letters of James, John and Peter; and Revelation). So, your observation about my 'rewriting the biblical tradition' and 'revising mainstream concepts' is correct. I happen to think the concept of the canon of scripture is flawed, and likewise wiht some christian concepts formulated after Constantine. Finally, regarding my glib characterization of Islam as differing from Christianity: I still believe this is essentially accurate to say, for a number of reasons. However, it would be foolish to make this too sweeping and categorical, as if there are no sentiments shared between the two. On the contrary, there are a great many teachings in common! (Again, this subject deserves a bit more discussion than I have time!) The deeper question is one of the spirituality behind a teacher and the teaching. In my view, certain essentials must be contained in the teaching in order for it to be said to be 'the same.' One of those essentials is the idea of the Way of Life vs the way of death; Islam, Judaism and Christianity all contain this within the scriptures; however, individual clerics do not always adhere to this. Another 'essential' is the Judgment Day. Again, this can be found in the respective Scriptures, but clerics sometimes omit this or differ about it. The 'essential' that DIFFERENTIATES a Christian teacher from a Jewish or Islamic one (in my understanding) is the concept of Jesus as the Messiah or christ or King or Caliph or Khalifa --whatever word you like, they all mean essentially the same. Christians believe of course that Jesus is the promised King and that he now rules. As I understand things (though of course I may be deceived), the Jews rejected Jesus as the promised King, and Muslims either rejected him too, or perhaps never understood the distinction between a prophet and a divinely anointed king; or -- what I think is quite likely -- the incoherence and inflation of mutliple, incompatible Christologies that were in play, made it difficult for Muslims even to approach the subject.