Is Jesus the only way to God

[Marsh]

If the proof is personal and not based on a fragment of papyrus...wouldn't that make the bible invalid and not required...as you are getting your personal proof (as am I) based on those fragments of papyrus?

I see what you mean, Wil, but there's a difference between questioning a scripture based on its content, and questioning a scripture based on agreement of other historical sources and/or archeological evidence.

In the first case, the test of the scripture's merit is based on what it says, and more importantly, on how it speaks to you. After studying the Bible for six years now-- reading it, meditating on it, wrestling with it-- I can say with all certainty that the message I've gotten from it is harmonious from front to back, and because that is even possible (I'm a writer and a student of literature; nobody would be able to manufacture something so complicated without God's help) I can assert that the gospel of John is the true message of God.

In the second case, the test of the scripture's merit is based on whether or not outside sources agree with it. These outside sources are all worldly, rather than spiritual; why would we look to the worldly to prove the spiritual? We certainly don't use the spiritual to prove the worldly anymore, do we? Of course not. So to me, the idea that someone would hold off on their belief until we can excavate a huge latrine in the middle of the desert and use DNA evidence to match the fecal remains to people of Jewish decent, rather than to just read the scripture and decide for themselves just seems absurd.

If you read the gospel of John and find it lacking, then ok, but that's the only grounds that scripture should be discounted upon.

 

[bob x]

I see what you mean, Wil, but there's a difference between questioning a scripture based on its content, and questioning a scripture based on agreement of other historical sources and/or archeological evidence.

Some books, like Joshua or Daniel, are just plain FALSE according to the archaeological evidence. Others, like Exodus, appear highly unlikely, as they describe major events that ought to have left at least a shred of evidence behind, and there isn't any.

In the first case, the test of the scripture's merit is based on what it says, and more importantly, on how it speaks to you.

I can't stand this ideology that a falsehood is a good thing if it feels good to you. The test of the book's merit ought to be truth, first and foremost.

After studying the Bible for six years now-- reading it, meditating on it, wrestling with it-- I can say with all certainty that the message I've gotten from it is harmonious from front to back

You can force anything to be consistent with your presumptions. If you come to the Bible as an outsider, you see the multiple authors as having strongly different views on a number of subjects. The "Jesus" depicted in the gospel of John is all about boasting how great he is, and doesn't talk about doing a lick of good for other people: this is not the same Jesus depicted in the synoptics. But if you are so inclined, you can assume that the Jesus in the gospel of John is also meaning all of the good things, just in between the lines.

These outside sources are all worldly, rather than spiritual; why would we look to the worldly to prove the spiritual?

Why would I believe a source that claims to tell me things about invisible otherworlds, claims that I have no way of checking, when claims that it makes about this world aren't right?
We certainly don't use the spiritual to prove the worldly anymore, do we?

If you read the gospel of John and find it lacking, then ok, but that's the only grounds that scripture should be discounted upon.

I do, also, find the gospel of John spiritually unsatisfying, but that is a separate issue.

 

[juantoo3]

The ancient religions were all losing their credibility. One function of the myths was to help explain the cosmos, and the myths were not working anymore in that respect, given the advances of science (classical science may seem rather weak to our jaded modern eyes, but it was enough to jolt a lot of people out of animistic credibility). But the main function had been to bind communities together, sanctifying their leaderships and customary laws: Roman rule meant that the Apis bull did not sanctify a Pharoah anymore, and that Ephesians were no longer governed by what Diana's priestesses had to say; and the old communities were becoming more intermingled as people moved around, and the communities' traditions had no authority over the young. In Roman times we find many people desparate from something new to believe in, grabbing gods from far away as if they would be better than their own: Cybele Mother of Syria for some reason was popular in Britain; Anubis the jackal-headed god of death became a fad in Italy; Mithra, from the Parthian Empire, did fairly well all over the Roman Empire (it helped that there was almost no contact with the original Mithra-believers in Parthia, so Roman Mithraism could evolve into something else entirely).

The Jews were, politically, trouble-makers, and often unpopular. But what they had was a source of envy to a lot of thinking Romans: a system of customary law that seemed more based in universal principles than the rather ad-hoc rule-codes of many local paganisms, and which was retaining the allegiance of its community even without a surviving dynasty (sometimes they had their own kings, sometimes not; when they did, their kings were often weak; yet the cohesiveness of the Jews didn't seem affected much either way), and purporting to derive from a god of universal rather than local reach. Converting to Judaism was a difficult and rare step, but there were lots of "Theophiloi" (God-lovers) who supported Jewish synagogues, and read the Jewish scriptures. What Christianity offered was a lot of the Jewish package without a lot of the Jewish baggage: a bonding among people that reached across the divisions of ethnic communities and social classes that kept people apart.

Thanks for that Bob! That makes some sense and gives me a couple of more directions to pursue.

 

[Marsh]

I can't stand this ideology that a falsehood is a good thing if it feels good to you. The test of the book's merit ought to be truth, first and foremost.

I'm not sure how one is supposed to assess a spiritual truth with archeological evidence, Bob. You assume it is false because no scientist has proven it true; unknown and false are far different things, Bob, and besides that you are missing the entire point of what the Bible's purpose is.

You speak of truth, but truth isn't what you're after; if it was, you would leave yourself open to the possibility that you may be incorrect. No, the axe you're grinding pervades each of your posts on this subject, like with the way that you label my spiritual beliefs an ideology, and with the absolutist nature of your claims (which went against Newton's scientific method when I went to school). Insofar as you have come among people who share some basic spiritual beliefs, you're like an 18th century Englishman who's gone to China and can't understand why nobody gets what he's saying, and it's my suspicion that if Jesus himself was to appear to you right now, the first thing you would do would be to ask him for two pieces of photo ID.

The search for truth demands that one keep their mind open to possibilities, but ironically that's exactly what you're not doing when you make sweeping generalizations, like saying that the book of Daniel is false. According to whom, Bob? Archeologists? Historians? Scientists? It's a book of prophecy, son! And since prophecy transcends all things empirical, how are empiricists to measure the book's worth, praytell?

 

[bob x]

I'm not sure how one is supposed to assess a spiritual truth with archeological evidence, Bob.

I cannot readily test claims made about invisible otherworlds; but when the person making such claims also makes claims that I can check up on, that is a good test of whether that source is honest and knowledgeable in general. The Bible is a collection of books written by ancient Middle Easterners: I do not in general trust ancient sources, from anywhere, because people back then were ignorant about many things, some quite basic; I do not in general trust Middle Eastern sources, from any date, because the culture has always been marred by violent quarrels and exaggerated propaganda. Were the authors of the Bible less ignorant than other ancients, or less prone to inventing propaganda than other Middle Easterners? Evidently not. So why should I give any credit to anything they have to say? Because it would "feel good"?

You speak of truth, but truth isn't what you're after

Yes it is. You have no right to be making such an accusation.

if it was, you would leave yourself open to the possibility that you may be incorrect.

Of course I leave that possibility open. But you haven't much of an effort to say anything that would persuade me I actually am incorrect.

No, the axe you're grinding pervades each of your posts on this subject, like with the way that you label my spiritual beliefs an ideology,

It is an ideology. That is a very neutral term.

and with the absolutist nature of your claims

I do not feel the need to preface every sentence with "I believe that..." as that would make the text so much more long-winded, but you are free to make that insertion.

it's my suspicion that if Jesus himself was to appear to you right now, the first thing you would do would be to ask him for two pieces of photo ID.

Whereas you, by contrast, would believe any self-promoting guy who claimed to be "JESUS RETURNED", just because he said so? I doubt that.

The search for truth demands that one keep their mind open to possibilities

Some things become so well-settled that it is no longer necessary to keep asking the question all the time. I am not going to be very open to arguments about whether the earth really is flat.

like saying that the book of Daniel is false. According to whom, Bob? Archeologists? Historians? Scientists?

ALL OF THE ABOVE, yes.

It's a book of prophecy, son!

No. It isn't. It was written after the bulk of the events it pretended to "prophesy", and none of the predictions it was making about what would happen next came true. Apologists like yourself invent a "gap" of time between the things that did happen and the things that, supposedly, are still going to happen, but there is no such gap in the text. Where it stops describing the history up to Antiochus Epiphanes desecrating the Temple, and starts describing how the world is going to be miraculously transformed-- that marks the time when the book was written.

 

[wil]

Namaste Marsh,

Not all of us can stand and look across the Red Sea and imagine Moses leading thousands and the sea parting and the Egyptian Army following and then the sea closing on them as the women all break out into a new song...

Yes, we look at the volume and weight of the water and know while there is a story behind what happened and a reason for the story as written, that it is not historical.

It is not a lack of faith of what the bible has to offer.

 

[Nick_A]

Bob wrote:

I can't stand this ideology that a falsehood is a good thing if it feels good to you. The test of the book's merit ought to be truth, first and foremost.

But perhaps through negativity you are incapable of receiving it. Maybe it is this way for most and why Jesus spoke in parables. How is one to know? Does truth come through skepticism or is another quality necessary that the parable can relate to.

 

[wil]

But perhaps through negativity you are incapable of receiving it. Maybe it is this way for most and why Jesus spoke in parables. How is one to know? Does truth come through skepticism or is another quality necessary that the parable can relate to.

I don't beleive many read the parables litterally. And most see multiple layers in the stories of the parables, I surely don't have issues there.

But speaking about them brings up another contemplation. I believe one reason we have the parables is as indicated, so he wouldn't get caught, had plausable deniability with its meaning, the those with ears may hear concept. Another is that it is those parables are easily repeatable, lend to them being remembered in an oral tradition lasting decades prior to being written down. His regular talks and discussions are largely lost. After all he taught for three years...yet you can read every word that was written about him, and every word that was written that he said easily in a couple of weeks. ie 99% of his discussion, 99% of his teachings are lost, and what little we have was written down after decades of repeating...

 

[Nick_A]

I don't beleive many read the parables litterally. And most see multiple layers in the stories of the parables, I surely don't have issues there.

But speaking about them brings up another contemplation. I believe one reason we have the parables is as indicated, so he wouldn't get caught, had plausable deniability with its meaning, the those with ears may hear concept. Another is that it is those parables are easily repeatable, lend to them being remembered in an oral tradition lasting decades prior to being written down. His regular talks and discussions are largely lost. After all he taught for three years...yet you can read every word that was written about him, and every word that was written that he said easily in a couple of weeks. ie 99% of his discussion, 99% of his teachings are lost, and what little we have was written down after decades of repeating...

Yes we can read what was written in a couple of weeks. Yet it may take several lifetimes to understand it. The parable is a means of communicating a concept that prevents our normal self deception from perverting its meaning. Jesus spoke in parables so as to protect people from injuring themselves on the inside. He didn't want to be responsible for another Tower of Babel.

The New Testament is about being fishers of men. It provides a lure. some are attracted to it in their being and seek to experience the "good" their heart is temporarily awakened to. In this way it is real "ART." When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. But at least people don't hurt themselves through parables as they argue over concepts taken superficially in a worldly manner. Superb psychology.

 

[bob x]

But perhaps through negativity you are incapable of receiving it.

You define "negativity" as expecting honesty from a source before believing? I would rather remain "negative" than be a sucker like you who believes any kind of rubbish, from people who have told you falsehoods over and over again, so long as what you are told fits your prejudices. That is the character that you have shown.

Maybe it is this way for most and why Jesus spoke in parables.

I have no problem with the Jesus who is depicted as speaking in parables. It is the Jesus who is depicted as speaking in self-glorifying bombast that I doubt.

 

[Nick_A]

You define "negativity" as expecting honesty from a source before believing? I would rather remain "negative" than be a sucker like you who believes any kind of rubbish, from people who have told you falsehoods over and over again, so long as what you are told fits your prejudices. That is the character that you have shown.

I have no problem with the Jesus who is depicted as speaking in parables. It is the Jesus who is depicted as speaking in self-glorifying bombast that I doubt.

You simply have no concept of "impartiality." You only think in terms of emotional reaction. Negativity is an emotional attitude that by definition denies impartiality and any increase in understanding a parable alludes to requires impartiality.

 

[bob x]

Your guesses as to how I think are as wide of the mark as usual. I was speaking entirely in terms of assessing the evidence impartially; it was Marsh who proposed evaluating truth by "emotional reaction", while I was the one who was rejecting such an approach. And if you paid any attention, you would notice that I am not at all rejecting the gospels which depict a Jesus who speaks in parables, nor indicating any difficulty in understanding the parables; it is the gospel of John we were discussing, a gospel in which the parable-speaking Jesus is replaced by a totally different figure.

 

[TheKhan]

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

GlorytoGod, did you drop this bomb intentionally?

I`ll point out what is at the heart of this debate, I think..

Yes, Jesus is the only way to God.

But the answer is also: No, Christian Churches and Christians are not the only way to God. Christian Churches and Christians try to represent Christ in communities, and unless Christians are perfect beings which I think you already know what Jesus would say, the word "try" in this sentence cannot possibly be removed.

Thus "Jesus" <>( is not equal to ) "Christian Churches / Christians". To assume that they are equal is pretty arrogant, of course there are always exceptions.

At first I thought that Jesus was under-rated by some, but that doesn`t seem to be the case. The self-proclaimed representatives of Jesus seems they are over-rating themselves. Jesus does not necessarily mean the Christian Church. Jesus is not that small. When he means "through me", he means "ME" with a font-size 10000!!!

Sure there may be followers of Christ in the Church, but surely every Christian would agree that Jesus in no way can possibly be completely represented by man who happens to claim that he is Christian. At best most likely he knows a little bit about Christ. Thus I suggest you stop assuming that your Jesus is your Jesus. He is not your idol to worship if that is what you are doing (who am I talking to?).

Under-rate yourselves if you are over-rating, and spike up what you mean by Jesus a couple fold. The church is not the only way to God.

I hope I didn`t walk into a swamp with this one.

 

[wil]

When he means "through me", he means "ME" with a font-size 10000!!!

I didn`t walk into a swamp with this one.

Namaste TK,

Get your hip waders on.

I was contemplating something similar this morning. The Jewish names of people and places also contained traits, naming wells or valleys for abundance, John as Love, etc. Moses wanted to know what to call the spirit in the bush as names were so important. Jesus often referred to the I am presence.

Where two or three are gathered in my name I am in their midst.

When we gather in the (name) nature, the character, the way of the Christ, (I am) G!d is there with us...

Is that a big enough font for ya?

 

[Marsh]

I was speaking entirely in terms of assessing the evidence impartially; it was Marsh who proposed evaluating truth by "emotional reaction", while I was the one who was rejecting such an approach. And if you paid any attention, you would notice that I am not at all rejecting the gospels which depict a Jesus who speaks in parables, nor indicating any difficulty in understanding the parables; it is the gospel of John we were discussing, a gospel in which the parable-speaking Jesus is replaced by a totally different figure.

And basically any approach other than your own, yeah?

Nick's got your number, friend: There is no way that someone would go into a Christian forum and denounce a key belief held by most of them as rubbish if they didn't have an axe to grind. Read your posts again, Bob; you are as far from impartiality as the rest of us, the difference being that you are the one speaking in absolutes.

And yes, I do entirely admit to placing importance on one's emotions when pondering life; that's what humans do. Jesus has emotions, and the Father has emotions, and we have emotions, and to claim that it's possible to understand heavenly things without using your emotions is ridiculous.

 

[Marsh]

No. It isn't. It was written after the bulk of the events it pretended to "prophesy", and none of the predictions it was making about what would happen next came true.

That's... because... it's written... about things... that still... haven't... taken place...

That's what I love (read: find incredibly frustrating) about people who interpret spiritual scriptures with secular terms. You just assume that the prophecies in the final chapters were about Greece and Rome, without ever considering that they might be about other things. Yes, the Greek empire was split into four; does that mean that no other empire might ever rise, and be split into four? It says that the prophecy is sealed until the time of the end, and yet here you are asserting that it has not come true.

It starts with A and it rhymes with "barrogant!"

 

[Marsh]

Namaste Marsh,

Not all of us can stand and look across the Red Sea and imagine Moses leading thousands and the sea parting and the Egyptian Army following and then the sea closing on them as the women all break out into a new song...

Yes, we look at the volume and weight of the water and know while there is a story behind what happened and a reason for the story as written, that it is not historical.

It is not a lack of faith of what the bible has to offer.

Fair enough, Wil. I just have trouble understanding how you can have faith in the message if you don't believe the messenger. If the gospels are not reliable, then how is one supposed to be introduced to Jesus Christ? Personally, I feel that I have a meaningful relationship with him that has transcended the boundaries of what I read about him, but had the gospels never been part of my life, I would never have known him in the first place, and thus wouldn't know him now.

How do you reconcile your high degree of skepticism with your faith, Wil?

 

[wil]

..I just have trouble understanding how you can have faith in the message if you don't believe the messenger. If the gospels are not reliable, then how is one supposed to be introduced to Jesus Christ? ...but had the gospels never been part of my life, I would never have known him in the first place, and thus wouldn't know him now.

How do you reconcile your high degree of skepticism with your faith, Wil?

Faith in the message but not the messenger. Well I grew up with the bible was written by the finger of G!d. That picture etching the 10 commandments into stone...

These are the things I rebel against today. There are letters of Paul that are in contention, the YEPD authors that were once all claimed to be written by Moses, who wrote the gospels, etc. So what messenger I ask? Not one book but 66 books, some with added text and numerous edits and multiple authors all arranged and combined by the council into sacred text. Is that it, was the council the messenger? To me the bible is a compilation of thought that I believe was largely divinely inspired yet restricted by man's intellect, understanding, and his verbal capacity. I think they largely did the best they could toward their agenda with the knowledge and tools they had at the time. (and they all, each author, editor, printer, translator, all had their own agendas)

So I absolutely agree, without these books, authors, editors, compilers etc... I wouldn't have been introduced to all the glory, mystery and metaphysics of Jesus and all the other players, and all the thought contained therin. And I am incredibly thankful for that.

Just as I am appreciative of Columbus instituting travel to this continent, the immigration, the formation of the US and my being born here. Doesn't mean I don't look critically at the abuse of natives, the land, slavery, and all the wrongs and mistakes our country made.

I think we should have the capacity to look at both the formation of this country critically and the formation of the bible as well.

This isn't to say I don't believe as I said everyone along the way doing the best with the knowledge they had, and not judging them by the standards of today with our hindsight, but still being open let the cards fall where they may.

In my mind holding something as sacred and untouchable, undiscussable stagnates our spiritual growth puts walls up between me and my connection to spirit...walls that are obviously man made and not made by spirit.

 

[Quahom1]

Fair enough, Wil. I just have trouble understanding how you can have faith in the message if you don't believe the messenger. If the gospels are not reliable, then how is one supposed to be introduced to Jesus Christ? Personally, I feel that I have a meaningful relationship with him that has transcended the boundaries of what I read about him, but had the gospels never been part of my life, I would never have known him in the first place, and thus wouldn't know him now.

How do you reconcile your high degree of skepticism with your faith, Wil?

I think his middle name is "thomas", and he is afraid to put his fingers through the holes in the Savior's wrists, anckles and side. But still he is fascinated with the concept...

 

[Quahom1]

Namaste Marsh,

Not all of us can stand and look across the Red Sea and imagine Moses leading thousands and the sea parting and the Egyptian Army following and then the sea closing on them as the women all break out into a new song...

Yes, we look at the volume and weight of the water and know while there is a story behind what happened and a reason for the story as written, that it is not historical.

It is not a lack of faith of what the bible has to offer.

LOL, we know for a fact that a wind sheer will part the fingerlings of the Red (Reed) Sea...

So historosity is most likely quite accurate. The timing is the Miracle...

Sorry you can't accept it.