Is Jesus the only way to God

[Pico]

I don't get the reasoning behind some of these responses.

If Jesus isn't the only way to God, then, for instance, one could attain righteousness by the way of the law of Moses. But Paul stresses in the book of Galatians that if we rely on "circumcision" to make us right with God (circumcision is one of the things the law of Moses commanded the jews to do), then we have alienated ourselves from Christ.

Truth is, nothing we do can un-do what sin has done (separated us from God). Satan has been telling us the same lie since the Garden of Eden: (Gen 3:5) "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God..."

What is eating? Something we do. Every other religion in the world empahsizes something we do: have more good deeds than bad, obey the Law, the 5 pillars of Islam, deny yourself and attain enlightenment, etc. According to the Bible there's nothing you can do to make yourself right with God (which is what the 10 commandments was meant to show us (like it says in the book of Hebrews)).

Only by beliveing that God sent His Son to die for our sins can we be made right with God. If there were many ways to God, then Jesus died for nothing. He was either a liar, or a lunatic.

If the latter two were the case they would not explain the apostles' claim of seeing Jesus risen from the dead, and willingly dying for that claim.

 

[17th Angel]

IOnly by beliveing that God sent His Son to die for our sins can we be made right with God. If there were many ways to God, then Jesus died for nothing. He was either a liar, or a lunatic.

Not buying that whatsoever..... :/

Christ taught about love... Not law. Love one another, love yah neighbour, love your enemy, turn your cheek, He set an example... Love, peace and selfless service to man. And that is how we should be, and for those that are like this... I don't believe they have to worry about accepting anyone as a freaking saviour, cause they have followed in the footsteps of a fine example.

There would be a server lack of logic, reason, mercy and love for a person like that not to be seen as good in the eyes of god, and I know for a fact my god doesn't lack any of these traits.....

A saying I heard somewhere, liked it... "God is love... Not religion."

 

[Thomas]

And what does 'the' church do for me currently? Little or nothing.

The way I read Scripture, I think God is not there for my benefit, but for my sake ... and the same with the Church.

What has it done for me in the past, created a fertile ground for my church to thrive. And in my mind every church, synagogue, temple, mosque, shrine, statue, and yes hall, fills a need for someone and helps them connect to find their way.

Very Romantic, but demonstrably not true.

The Gospel was not, and is not, there to be a smorgasbord of whatever tickles your fancy, which is what people make of it.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

Lumen Gentium[/I] 16]"For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation." Lumen Gentium 16

Speaking from a Christian perspective, I would extend this to not only those who haven't heard, but also those that are within a religious paradigm that has an aberrant or false view of Christ, if so oriented that that they have been taught to believe thus. There is a basic premise in many religions that 1) God exists 2) God created man 3) God has established a law or way for man 4) man has broken the law 5) God provides a remedy.

So long as there is recognition of this premise, I have to believe that the Hand of Salvation is open to all. I believe God is looking more at the heart than any intellectual doctrine that may be invented. The human conscience and the witness of nature is sufficient to bring the kind of conviction one needs to turn to God, at least from what I can glean from Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:14-15.

I believe that there are individuals of every sector of religion and social circles that are seeking after the Ultimate, the Divine, or whatever. They recognize Something other higher that themselves that provides the answer. I have to believe that God looks at the intents of the heart and can reach them where they are.

It must be remembered that God places people where they are, as expressed by the Apostle Paul:

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." - Acts 17:24-28

He didn't place them there to hide Himself from them, no quite the opposite, so that they may feel after Him. He is not far from each of them.

As a Christian, I believe that is one exercises such faith, though there may be little or no knowledge of Christ, but at the very least a honest belief in God or the Highest Ideal, that this in God's eyes is sufficient to enact salvation for them. No matter that they are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Athiest, Mormon, JW, Catholic, or Baptist . I have a hard time believing people will perish just because they are born into the 'wrong' religion.

Is Jesus the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Absolutely. But I do not limit God on how that grace is distributed. I believe the Blood of Christ can extend beyond what we think is capable.

This in no way skirts our duty as Christians to spread the Gospel, for indeed, the power of the Gospel is used by the Holy Spirit to convict man's need for salvation, as the light shine brighter in the heart of those who are listening.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Dondi —

Speaking from a Christian perspective, I would extend this to not only those who haven't heard, but also those that are within a religious paradigm that has an aberrant or false view of Christ, if so oriented that that they have been taught to believe thus.

Quite right. The Catholic Church (like any other) has the right to state where it believes other churches are in error, but that does not prevent ongoing dialogue with other churches.

In fact the Roman Chuch has made significant efforts towards a raprochment with other churches since Vatican II — with success with Oriental Orthodox, as well as Anglican and Lutheran. Greek and Russian Orthodoxy have not been so cordial.

And again, recently a new Catholic/Islamic dialogue has begun and been hailed by both sides.

So long as there is recognition of this premise, I have to believe that the Hand of Salvation is open to all. I believe God is looking more at the heart than any intellectual doctrine that may be invented. The human conscience and the witness of nature is sufficient to bring the kind of conviction one needs to turn to God, at least from what I can glean from Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:14-15.

Agreed. The emphasis then shifts as to why the faith of 1500 years should be denied, in the case of the Reformation, for example. But difference does not prevent dialogue, nor does it preclude the recognition of the spirituality of the other.

I believe that there are individuals of every sector of religion and social circles that are seeking after the Ultimate, the Divine, or whatever. They recognize Something other higher that themselves that provides the answer. I have to believe that God looks at the intents of the heart and can reach them where they are.

Agreed.

It must be remembered that God places people where they are, as expressed by the Apostle Paul

Quite right ... but part of St Paul's mission was explaining to the Gentile world why the Jews had rejected Christ ... and he found fault with them for that.

As a Christian, I believe that if one exercises such faith, though there may be little or no knowledge of Christ, but at the very least a honest belief in God or the Highest Ideal, that this in God's eyes is sufficient to enact salvation for them. No matter that they are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Athiest, Mormon, JW, Catholic, or Baptist . I have a hard time believing people will perish just because they are born into the 'wrong' religion.

Agreed. What you've said is, roughly speaking, Catholic doctrine.

Is Jesus the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Absolutely.

But I do not limit God on how that grace is distributed. I believe the Blood of Christ can extend beyond what we think is capable.

Agreed ... but that does not devalue nor invalidate those Sacramental Graces made available to us, notably Baptism and the Eucharist. Christ founded His Church for a reason ... to assume that whether in or out doesn't matter is in effect to say that the creation of the Church, in fact Christ's whole mission, was an unnecessary and pointless activity.

I would argue that since the Reformation, Christian denominations are doing exactly as you describe — they are limiting the means of the distribution of grace ... the denial of the Eucharist, for example. The arguments against are all according to the limitation, by human reason, of what Scripture can say.

Further, I would argue that He founded a doctrine for us to conform ourselves to it, not to adjust it to conform to ourselves.

This in no way skirts our duty as Christians to spread the Gospel, for indeed, the power of the Gospel is used by the Holy Spirit to convict man's need for salvation, as the light shine brighter in the heart of those who are listening.

As I have said often, my own 'epiphany' was directly due to something said about the Christian Scriptures by a Tibetan Buddhist ... but later I was left in no doubt that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is where I belong.[/QUOTE]

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

does this mean that Jesus is the only way to God ?

There are two concepts to deal with. the first is what is meant by "I am" which I'd rather leave alone for now. The second is what is meant by "through me."

If you are on the bottom floor of a three story house and you want to take the stairs up to the top floor, the way must pass through the second floor.

 

[bob x]

what if... instead of jesus saying... I am THE way, THE truth, The life, he said...

I am a way, a truth, a life...

?

What if he never said any such thing? What Jesus says in "John" fails to match with the other sources. I believe "John" was written once there was an existing church community, to give *the church* an exclusive power: you can't get to God except through Jesus, and you can't know about Jesus except by listening to US.

 

[wil]

The way I read Scripture, I think God is not there for my benefit, but for my sake ... and the same with the Church.


Very Romantic, but demonstrably not true.

The Gospel was not, and is not, there to be a smorgasbord of whatever tickles your fancy, which is what people make of it.

Thomas

Oh but it is obviously demonstrably true...hence the plethora of alternatives to 'the church'!

And the gospel is a smorgasborg was the curtain torn before the cruciction or after pick your gospel. How did Judas die, pick your gospel, we love to claim the synoptic gospels and all their similarities but the contradictions and differences exceed the similarities, with each authors agenda comes his own twist, updating and correcting that of previous authors based on whatever tickled his fancy.

 

[Thomas]

How did Judas die,

Crucifixion? Everybody seems agreed on that.

pick your gospel, we love to claim the synoptic gospels and all their similarities but the contradictions and differences exceed the similarities,

Well that's your agenda, that's not how scholarship necessarily sees it.

But if that's your viewpoint, why believe any of it, Wil? By your rule, every word is suspect, and probably a fiction. Isn't there a fundamental hypocrisy in this position?

In all your posts, I've never seen ever a reason to believe in Christianity, just reasons not to. I just don't get why you bother.

with each authors agenda comes his own twist, updating and correcting that of previous authors based on whatever tickled his fancy.

Again, that's your claim, but it's not proven, nor is it given. It's the opinion of a small segment of scholarship, it's just what you choose to believe.

I always wonder, Wil, if you think this, why do you have any faith in Christianity whatsover? If Christianity means nothing to you, why bang on about it, other than to undermine the faith of others?

Thomas

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

I always wonder, Wil, if you think this, why do you have any faith in Christianity whatsover? If Christianity means nothing to you, why bang on about it, other than to undermine the faith of others?

Thomas

You wonder? I think I could say why.

I think and believe that the christian world's full of fake-christians. Most of people just call themselves christians, knowing nothing of christianity itself.

The Western world is infected with crimes, full with frauds and its only God is Money. People just call christians because tradition demands. They even have no opportunity to choose which religion do they want. They just say - I'm a christian. It sounds - I'm a clever and educated person, I'm not an any sectarian (as they usually think of Buddhists and so forth).

I assert that only their misinformation about another styles of thought makes them believe in things they can't make believe themselves. If we say frankly, christianity cannot satisfy educated people of 21 century. That's why there so many buddhists in the western world, and their number grows from year to year. Remember Madonna, for example.

I'm not a Buddhist, but less a christian. Christianity of nowadays associates in my mind with lie, fake, but traditional and orthodox.

 

[GlorytoGod]

You wonder? I think I could say why.

I think and believe that the christian world's full of fake-christians. Most of people just call themselves christians, knowing nothing of christianity itself.

The Western world is infected with crimes, full with frauds and its only God is Money. People just call christians because tradition demands. They even have no opportunity to choose which religion do they want. They just say - I'm a christian. It sounds - I'm a clever and educated person, I'm not an any sectarian (as they usually think of Buddhists and so forth).

I assert that only their misinformation about another styles of thought makes them believe in things they can't make believe themselves. If we say frankly, christianity cannot satisfy educated people of 21 century. That's why there so many buddhists in the western world, and their number grows from year to year. Remember Madonna, for example.

I'm not a Buddhist, but less a christian. Christianity of nowadays associates in my mind with lie, fake, but traditional and orthodox.

are you on the right thread Dharmaatmaa ?

and least try and keep it on topic, or are you just just testiculating ?

 

[wil]

Crucifixion? Everybody seems agreed on that.

seems your irritation with me is clouding your vision...who agrees Judas was crucified?

Well that's your agenda, that's not how scholarship necessarily sees it.

my agenda, do study, to understand the truth, to be open to it without preconceptions or reservations

In all your posts, I've never seen ever a reason to believe in Christianity, just reasons not to. I just don't get why you bother.

because it is what resonates in me. Why would you wish to push me off the path?

I always wonder, Wil, if you think this, why do you have any faith in Christianity whatsover? If Christianity means nothing to you, why bang on about it, other than to undermine the faith of others?

For the same reasons you bang on about 'the church' and the eucharist. With the direction science, archeology and understanding are heading many of what literal dogmatic religions deam sacred are crumbling...what will you hve to stand on if you don't have a foundation that is stronger than the words that will be disproven. One can only be an apologetic for so long. But there exists an underlying truth of nature, of spirit, of G!d that resonates in me through the Christian understanding...I believe it is worth holding onto And that mind of Christ in you does to, we just come to it from different perspectives.

 

[Nick_A]

what if... instead of jesus saying... I am THE way, THE truth, The life, he said...

I am a way, a truth, a life...

?

It would have proven that he was an advocate of secular Interfaith and the teaching would have lacked the potency to acualize its purpose.

 

[Thomas]

seems your irritation with me is clouding your vision...who agrees Judas was crucified?

Yep, my error, apologies.

my agenda, do study, to understand the truth, to be open to it without preconceptions or reservations

But according to you ... none of it can be said to be true, so how can you discern truth in what you believe to be essentially a fiction?

According to a broad measure of scholarship, the differences in the Synoptic accounts are easily explained without undermining the veracity and authenticity of the text. You however, bring a whole raft of preconceptions and reservations to the text — it's axiomatic to your argument that the text and the authors cannot be trusted, for a number of reasons which are entirely the opinion of critics.

because it is what resonates in me. Why would you wish to push me off the path?

No, I'm saying that if we set ourselves up as the benchmark of truth, then we've chosen the most fallible and unreliable piece in the whole puzzle on which to base our belief. Many so-called truths have resonated with many people, and subsequently been shown to be wrong.

The point I made before is the challenge of Scripture is to measure ourselves against it, not see how comfortably we can conform it to ourselves.

And because there's an inbuilt illogicality — it resonates with you ... yet it cannot be trusted ... that's a dangerous path, in my book, close to self-delusion.

My point is why are you so ready to throw others off the path by undermining their faith.

For the same reasons you bang on about 'the church' and the eucharist.

Not at all. All my arguments offer a reason to believe. All yours offer a reason not to.

With the direction science, archeology and understanding are heading many of what literal dogmatic religions deam sacred are crumbling...

In your opinion. I think you're listening to too many one-sided arguments. In many cases the opposite is actually occurring. Read "The Stripping of the Altars" and a complete revision of the usual propagandist understanding of the Reformation. And archaeology is revealing more and more about the Liturgical nature of the Early Church that fully accords with what tradition has always held to be the case.

what will you have to stand on if you don't have a foundation that is stronger than the words that will be disproven.

You see? You take as axiomatic that the whole of Scripture will one day be proved false. Hardly a 'quest for truth' when we assume the whole thing's false from the outset, is it?

It seems to me your 'truth' is an argument to disprove Scripture, Tradition and the Faith of a Community and which will allow you to believe in whatever you choose.

But there exists an underlying truth of nature, of spirit, of G!d that resonates in me through the Christian understanding...

Not really, as you deny most aspects of Christianity, and insist the rest is unreliable. So the 'underlying truth of nature' is something you've brought to the quest, and then you simply rewrite Christianity to fit that image.

I believe it is worth holding onto And that mind of Christ in you does to, we just come to it from different perspectives.

I'm afraid that's your romantic assumption founded on nothing, it's certainly not the Christ I believe in, as much as you like to tell yourself it is.

As I said above, I offer reasons to believe, you offer nothing but reason to doubt ... not very Christian at all.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Oh but it is obviously demonstrably true...hence the plethora of alternatives to 'the church'!

And the gospel is a smorgasborg was the curtain torn before the cruciction or after pick your gospel. How did Judas die, pick your gospel, we love to claim the synoptic gospels and all their similarities but the contradictions and differences exceed the similarities, with each authors agenda comes his own twist, updating and correcting that of previous authors based on whatever tickled his fancy.

Will

And the gospel is a smorgasborg was the curtain torn before the cruciction or after pick your gospel. How did Judas die, pick your gospel, we love to claim the synoptic gospels and all their similarities but the contradictions and differences exceed the similarities, with each authors agenda comes his own twist, updating and correcting that of previous authors based on whatever tickled his fancy.

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." Simone Weil

Perhaps many of the contradictions you are aware of are actually intentional doors. For example consider Jesus anointed at Bethany

Mark 14:


3While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. 4Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5It could have been sold for more than a year's wages[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

Matthew 26:

6While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
8When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. 9"This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

John 12:

1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.[b]" 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Mark and Matthew refer to Jesus head while John refers to his feet. Is it ignorance or a possible intentional contradiction that is actually a door?

 

[Thomas]

Mark and Matthew refer to Jesus head while John refers to his feet. Is it ignorance or a possible intentional contradiction that is actually a door?

Could be ... never let it be said I closed down a symbolic reading of Scripture.

But we must also accept that the final redaction of Matthew used Mark's Gospel as a structure to give shape and form to what probably started as a sayings document.

John of course was an eye-witness, and his redactors stayed close to his original testimony. He and they had time, seasoned reflection and different issues to contend with.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

What if he never said any such thing? What Jesus says in "John" fails to match with the other sources. I believe "John" was written once there was an existing church community, to give *the church* an exclusive power: you can't get to God except through Jesus, and you can't know about Jesus except by listening to US.

But what if he did? Does that automatically give authority and legitimacy to Christians around the world, just because they are adherents of Christianity, just because they claim to be his followers?

The statement "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" is open to interpretation.

That statement is often used to condemn those "not of the Way," but the question of who is "of the Way" is a matter of opinion. The validity of any judgment or condemnation depends on whether the user of the statement has properly understood the meaning of the words. If the statement has been misunderstood, the user has no authority or legitimacy in his use of that statement.

I can imagine you don't believe Jesus would have said that, because it seems somehow shameful to say it, but I believe that has more to do with your perception of what it means. If someone has used it against you, then I reckon you're giving that person too much credit, as if they have properly understood the statement.

I don't assume I know what it means. I have theories on what it does mean and I believe that if he did say it, then it's more important to figure out what it means for me, rather than for other people. I make a distinction between "beliefs for me" and "beliefs for others." I regard the former as more important. Whatever one believes about the Way, Truth and Life has more value to himself than other people.

A large majority of the things Jesus said appear to be political statements. Politics is driven by perception, by metaphors, by symbolism, by understanding and misunderstanding, and sometimes, by mystery and enigma.

The statement "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" has a sense of mystery and enigma associated with it. Jesus would have been referring to the sum total of his life and sayings. Most people assume it's about Jesus dying for people's sins.

I believe, however, that a better understanding of what he meant would come from considering what Jesus said in a social, political, economic and ideological context. Jesus came to confront a world of social, political, economic and ideological persecution and oppression. I believe the Way, Truth and Life had more to do with that than the common argument and rhetoric that "he died for people's sins."

It is easy to say that Jesus died for your sins. Why? Because you don't have to do anything about it. Meanwhile, social, political, economic and ideological persecution and oppression continue around the world. Injustice does not cease inflicting pain and suffering around the world.

Consider the present global financial/economic crisis. It was caused by people living beyond their means, going into debt to live a life they couldn't afford. But if it isn't debt, it's living a relatively easy lifestyle by buying cheap products produced by the hard-earned, cheap, low-paid labour of someone living overseas in a country poorer than your's. It's the injustice of living in a country that exploits people economically in other countries.

If I think in a social, political and economic context, it really gives me pause to think about the way I live. Am I socially, politically and economically responsible? How am I contributing to injustice around the world?

I also mentioned ideological injustice. I mentioned ideological injustice because yes, religious and spiritual leaders are often part of the injustice themselves with the slogans and rhetoric they use. With their words and actions they assert a certain form of morality, but this morality they promote causes ideological injustice. It causes emotional damage. It hurts people's feelings. It makes them feel guilty and worthless. It makes them either hate themselves or hate others.

Now, I am not taking you to task if you do live in a Western country. If you do, then unless you live a frugal lifestyle, we're both in the same boat. But I can't say that I'm a frugal person. You and I are both contributing to injustice around the world. I'll try my best to change my lifestyle, but it's going to require a lot of courage.

If Jesus appeared in today's world, the 21st century, rather than the 1st century, what would he say and do? I can imagine he'd be condemning George W. Bush and Henry Paulsen for what they've done to the U.S. Economy, and for choosing to help financial institutions, people with big money rather than common tax-payers. I can imagine he'd be condemning fundamentalist preachers for the emotional damage they've caused around the country and the lives they have ruined.

The Way, the Truth and the Life? This is one "way" of seeing it. It could mean different things to different people, but this was the image I saw from reading the New Testament.

 

[wil]

But according to you ... none of it can be said to be true, so how can you discern truth in what you believe to be essentially a fiction?

I'm afraid that's your romantic assumption founded on nothing, it's certainly not the Christ I believe in, as much as you like to tell yourself it is.

As I said above, I offer reasons to believe, you offer nothing but reason to doubt ... not very Christian at all.

Thomas

I read quite a bit, both sides and the books... Do you really think that John wrote John and it was the work of an eyewitness? Written between 90-120...how old was the guy? And I guess that would explain why other scholars think geographical errors indicate it surely wasn't John, but it could have just been his age?

Nick, explain your foot, head doors, Thomas explain who is right and who is in error, or did she oil him head to toe and all three forgot to mention the fact?

 

[Thomas]

Do you really think that John wrote John and it was the work of an eyewitness?

I think the source of the text was an eye-witness, as many, many scholars (and indeed novelists) insist ... if not, then someone pre-empted a literary genre that was not to appear for another 1800 years — not impossible, but a work of genius more unlikely than the idea that the Gospel of John is an eye-witness account.

And that's the point ... if you line up all the many and various arguments, the strongest case is still that the Gospel of John bears marks of a first-hand account, by someone who must have been one of the Twelve, an intimate associate of Jesus, someone educated and fluent in contemporary Rabbinic thought ... and that, taking all these strands into account, the best bet emerges as a man called John, the son of Zebedee — no other contender comes close to ticking all the boxes as he does.

That his testimony was edited and redacted is clear, but the testimony always belonged to the community, it was not something to be preserved in isolation, but something to be transmitted — and there is no material reason nor evidence to presume it to be a false, fabricated or self-serving account, other than the presupposition that it just cannot be true.

Thomas explain who is right and who is in error, or did she oil him head to toe and all three forgot to mention the fact?

OK. You usually anoint the head. All four accounts agree the woman anointed Jesus as a sign of preparation of his death (something missed by those who were more interested in the money). Luke provides an answer:

Luke 7:44-50
"he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them. Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace."
So I suggest that she anointed his head, and his feet because his host was remiss in so doing. Remember, although the Synoptics said 'she poured it on his head', I doubt she crept up and emptied the jar over him like a jilted lover pouring a beer over someone. So she anointed his head, and she anointed his feet, and the remainder she kept, for his burial (John 12:7).

So John, the eye-witness, brings an extra dimension to the testimony.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

I read quite a bit, both sides and the books... Do you really think that John wrote John and it was the work of an eyewitness? Written between 90-120...how old was the guy? And I guess that would explain why other scholars think geographical errors indicate it surely wasn't John, but it could have just been his age?

Nick, explain your foot, head doors, Thomas explain who is right and who is in error, or did she oil him head to toe and all three forgot to mention the fact?

Secularism believes the Bible to be primarily an attempt at a historic account. Those like me believe its essential purpose to be psychological sit the historic backdrop as secondary.

From this perspective, Mark and Matthew are presenting a literal account of the event. John is providing the psychological. From the literal perspective she poured it on his head. From the psychological perspective, she poured it on his feet. It appears as a contrdiction until we grasp what "feet" means in the psychology of the Bible. These passages and their apparent contradictions remind us how to contemplate the Bible beyond the literal secular. For example:

Spiritual Meaning of Feet, Footstool,

The signification of feet, is natural things (AC 2162, 3147, 3761, 3986, 4280, 4938-4952); thus the soles, which are under the feet, denote the ultimate things of nature. That under the feet here denotes the ultimate sense of the Word, which is the sense of the letter, is because it is said of the Divine truth or Word, which is from the Lord, and which is the Lord, as can be seen from what goes before; and the ultimate of truth Divine, or the Word, is such as is the sense of the letter, which is natural, because for the natural man. That the sense of the letter contains within it an internal sense, which is relatively spiritual and celestial, is evident from all that has been hitherto shown about the Word. but the more worldly and bodily a man is, the less he apprehends this, because he does not suffer himself to be raised into spiritual light, and thereby to see what is the nature of the Word; namely, that in the letter it is natural, and in the internal sense spiritual; for the nature of lower things, down to ultimate ones, can be seen from the spiritual world, or from the light of heaven; but not the reverse (AC 9401): thus it can be seen that such is the Word in the letter.