• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

All roads lead to the same God ?

F1fan

Veteran Member
I mean that, in this respect, the title of this thread is somehow true and real... Yes, all formal religious roads lead to a ruling god who needs to be worshiped, praised and obeyed; otherwise the natural earthly game of masters/slaves (pre-programmed by God) cannot be played properly, mainly in the far past (when the art of politics wasn't evolved enough).
So you're saying God exists outside of human imagination, and it is just a game player?

If so, how is it helpful to believe this kind of God?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
How is it possible for there to be a new revelation from God when the bible now completed does not allow for anything of the sort.
Gal 1
6¶I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

This is saying that if any one ,even an angel comes and preaches a different message than the one delivered to them then its false ,don't believe it .
Those verses are about the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is only one gospel of Jesus Christ and those verses are saying not to preach another gospel of Jesus Christ. The Writings of Baha'ullah are not another gospel of Jesus Christ, they are a NEW revelation from God.
The bible does not allow for a extra, new revelation or a new prophet ,guru, Oprah Winfrey ect . Everything is there in the bible the beginning to the end .
I only care about what God allows for. There is nothing in the Bible that says that God cannot speak again.
In fact, Jesus promised that that was exactly what would happen in the future.

Jesus said there were many things left to say and do in the future, things that could not be said back then because people were not yet ready to hear them… And since we know that Jesus was not going to be the one doing them (John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30) we know it was going to be somebody else who Jesus referred to as the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth.

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.


Baha’u’llah did everything Jesus said the Comforter would do.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
But I am afraid that what may look imaginary and non-useful to someone might not be so to some others. Please note that this has nothing to do with one's intelligence level.
Being a realistic scientist, I accept an idea in my set of knowledge if it is logical and useful to me. This idea doesn't have to refer to an existing thing. For example, when I started learning geometry, I accepted the notion of the geometrical dot (point) which cannot exist by definition (dimensionless). If I refused this imaginary idea, I wouldn't be able learning any scientific field which may be based on it.
I also accepted the notion of infinity though I know in advance that I will never reach it (like two parallel lines intersect at infinity). But this imaginary notion of something that cannot exist in our limited world helps, for example, in drawing perspective images. Also, it helps me solving some algebraic problems.
Didn't you hear of the imaginary number (labeled i or j) which is the square root of -1? Again, I accepted it because it helps me solve certain problems and it ends up giving me real and useful results (though it is an imaginary non-real one).

In brief, if the notion of God (the Will/Energy behind the creation of our well defined complex universe, starting from our own body in which zillion of pre-programmed living cells know very well what to do) cannot be useful to someone, it is better for him to just forget it. In fact, I know many people who have no interest in many notions of imaginary things (in Math, Physics and the like) and, at the same time, they are all very satisfied of themselves.

I hope you get now why I started with:
I am afraid that what may look imaginary and non-useful to someone might not be so to some others.
So you don't seem to be disputing that human imagine things they treat as if real. What you seem to be describing here is that if a person imagines something that is useful to them, mainly meaning, that it exists as a real influence in their lives. So to imagine a God as useful to the self is a way of making that God real in the mind, thus a reality. This would be an illusion, and not a real entity existing outside of the mind as imagined.

So while useful, it's not truth or reality. If the self can't admit it's an illusion, then it becomes a liability.



At least it exists in me. Please note that it doesn't have to exist in every living being, humans included.

When I was a baby, I was totally ignorant (had no perception at all) about my own existence and the 'real' world into which I was brought temporarily. Then, things in me have evolved till I asked myself: "For which purpose I was forced to exist temporarily in this universe?". I deliberately used the verb ‘forced’ to emphasize that the beginning of my existence has nothing to do with my actual will by which I can end it anytime or not.

Naturally, to answer this question (crucial to me, so please note that not everyone feels the real need to discover the answer of such a question) I had to search my unknown origin (as in fiction movies); that is searching the Will/Energy behind my own existence. Since many decades, I discovered the answer; logical and useful, to me in the least (besides all other important answers I was looking for). This is why I fully understand, for example, why you have no interest at all in a notion which refers to whatever could be behind your existence.
Humans have an evolved brain that is very good at confusing itself. It wants to be significant while the facts it observes shows our lives are meaningless to the universe. This inner conflict is something religions exploit. It's hard for we mortals to acknowledge we will die and then our consciousness ceases. Now that I'm older I don't worry about this nonsense and I'm doing things that are meaningful to me now.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
// Jesus did not create all things//Thats not what the bible says .

Col 1
16For by him were all things created , that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him , AND FOR HIM

17And he is before all things ,AND BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST .
Those are the false teachings of Paul. Jesus did not even exist when "all things" were created by God.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Some seem to object to the exclusive claims of Christianity. That the Gospel is the ONLY way ,that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven ,that by believing that he died for all our sins , was buried and rose again . That this alone is the only option there is to heaven and eternal life .
But I believe all our claims are exclusive .Even the claim ' all roads lead to the same God " claim ,this is exclusive and rules out the individual claim of another .
Often its made to sound ' tolerant ' ( The new fashionable, buzz word )
" All truth is relative " again, another exclusive truth claim.
" Thats true for you , but not true for me " hmmm lol ?
I used to believe that all religions were just ' sign posts ' to the same goal . Just different ways to express or reach the same goal " Again this is a exclusive claim.
Thoughts?

All roads lead to death from this life we live on earth, whether a person believes in a god or not.
So take any road, have fun, live life, because they all end up at the same "dead" end.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What do you mean by // not the real Jesus who walked the earth/// As described where ?

“That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ….

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy….

Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. “

(Udo Schaefer, Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ )

How Paul changed the course of Christianity
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
//All Christians do not believe that Jesus died and rose again, yet they are all reading the same Bible.//
This would mean they are not Christian . I
No, it would not mean that. Who are you to define what a Christian is? You have no such authority
It is tough tiddlywinks that all Christians do not agree with you about Jesus rising from the dead, some Christians are just more rational than others.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

Beliefs of progressive Christians, secularists, etc. about Jesus' resurrection
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I assume, you are not sure yet about what you learnt from Jesus teachings.
But, on the other hand, it seems very clear that you are very sure about what happened to him concerning the death of his body. So I wonder if it is possible for me to also read he story of Jesus as presented in your world. But I also understand if it is confidential.
Thank you.
KerimF "death of his body "

Jesus didn't die on the Cross, it is for this that his disciples took him up and hurriedly laid him in the Tomb, so that he was urgently treated for his wound inflicted on him on the Cross. It is as simple as that. Right?

Regards
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm referring to the entire bible, which speaks of Jesus .
Luke 24

5¶Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
We'll have to agree to disagree. It seems transparent to me that Jesus is not a Jewish messiah, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood, and is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh.

Accordingly the author of Luke 24:25-27 is in error, at least to the extent that he asserts a connection between parts of the Tanakh and Jesus as "Christ" ie "anointed" ie "messiah", which is purely a Christian appellation.
 

John1.12

Free gift
A number of problems with this response. First, while all Christians believe this verse, not all Christians understand this in exclusivist terms, as you do. They do not interpret this as saying only the Christian religion is how you come to the Father, or the Divine, through Christ, the agent of the creation and redemption. One does not have to join the religion, or swear fealty to a set of doctrines in order to Grace to operate in the world through the Logos.

Secondly, it is probably true that "bible believing" Christians are exclusivists, in so far as "bible-believers" are a very modern, some might say idolatrous, fundamentalist brand of the Christian religion. They tend to think they and they alone have a monopoly on God and Truth. They treat the Bible as a co-equal with God, like the 4th person of the Trinity, or rather the Quadrintity. Most other Christians find this version of the religion an abbiration, and not in line with historical, biblical Christianity.

And thirdly, this reply did not address my original post. Do you care to discuss the differences between exclusivist, versus pluralistic, and inclusivists views within Christianity? Or do you just claim your version alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, equal to God in authority?
The verse doesn't say anything about Joining a religion . This is what sets christianity apart ( not Catholicism, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons , ect) from all religions . Jesus says HE is the WAY THE TRUTH and THE life , no one comes to the father but through him.
 

John1.12

Free gift
We'll have to agree to disagree. It seems transparent to me that Jesus is not a Jewish messiah, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood, and is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh.

Accordingly the author of Luke 24:25-27 is in error, at least to the extent that he asserts a connection between parts of the Tanakh and Jesus as "Christ" ie "anointed" ie "messiah", which is purely a Christian appellation.
Yes they misunderstood that he would come as the suffering servant first. Not everyone misunderstood of course , John the baptist, the 12 , Paul ect . The Jews should have understood he had two parts to his coming, fist as a servant ( Isaiah 53) and what we now are looking to , his second coming, is what they were expecting then . They missed the dual part prohecies. They should have recognised all the signs , miracles ect also .
Luke 7:22

“Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.”
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes they misunderstood that he would come as the suffering servant first.
Isaiah's Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel. It's not a person, and (like the rest of the Tanakh) it's not a prophecy of Jesus either.
Not everyone misunderstood of course , John the baptist, the 12 , Paul ect . The Jews should have understood he had two parts to his coming, fist as a servant ( Isaiah 53) and what we now are looking to , his second coming
No they shouldn't. As I previously mentioned, a Jewish messiah has two qualities ─ he's a leader of the Jews (civil, military, religious) and he's anointed by the Jewish priesthood. Or, exceptionally, it can be an honorific bestowed on a notable outsider.

Since Jesus was none of those things, why should any Jew think he was a messiah?

And a great many quotes from the Tanakh that Christians take to be messianic prophecies simply don't answer that description at all. Indeed, as I said, Jesus doesn't fit the messianic mold and isn't mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh.

By all means don't take my word for it. For example, Isaiah 7:14 ('behold, a young woman shall conceive' in the Tanakh, translated for unknown reasons as 'behold a virgin shall conceive' in the Septuagint), is taken to be a prophecy of Jesus by many Christians. If you read those words in context, and I trust you'll do so, you'll find that they don't speak about a virgin, they don't speak about a distant future, and the child referred to is born within the adjacent narrative.

And that's only one tiny example. The Suffering Servant is another.
 

John1.12

Free gift
A number of problems with this response. First, while all Christians believe this verse, not all Christians understand this in exclusivist terms, as you do. They do not interpret this as saying only the Christian religion is how you come to the Father, or the Divine, through Christ, the agent of the creation and redemption. One does not have to join the religion, or swear fealty to a set of doctrines in order to Grace to operate in the world through the Logos.

Secondly, it is probably true that "bible believing" Christians are exclusivists, in so far as "bible-believers" are a very modern, some might say idolatrous, fundamentalist brand of the Christian religion. They tend to think they and they alone have a monopoly on God and Truth. They treat the Bible as a co-equal with God, like the 4th person of the Trinity, or rather the Quadrintity. Most other Christians find this version of the religion an abbiration, and not in line with historical, biblical Christianity.

And thirdly, this reply did not address my original post. Do you care to discuss the differences between exclusivist, versus pluralistic, and inclusivists views within Christianity? Or do you just claim your version alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, equal to God in authority?
Opinions abound . Yes there are some ' Christians ' who don't believe the bible , they don't actually believe that Jesus was anything more than a wise teacher , coming to bring a message of love, peace , and unity to fellow man . Everything is alegorised to death, Everything is a cryptic, spiritual message, poetry a fable that tells some truths but never really happened. Yes I've come across a few special cases like this .
 

John1.12

Free gift
Isaiah's Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel. It's not a person, and (like the rest of the Tanakh) it's not a prophecy of Jesus either.
No they shouldn't. As I previously mentioned, a Jewish messiah has two qualities ─ he's a leader of the Jews (civil, military, religious) and he's anointed by the Jewish priesthood. Or, exceptionally, it can be an honorific bestowed on a notable outsider.

Since Jesus was none of those things, why should any Jew think he was a messiah?

And a great many quotes from the Tanakh that Christians take to be messianic prophecies simply don't answer that description at all. Indeed, as I said, Jesus doesn't fit the messianic mold and isn't mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh.

By all means don't take my word for it. For example, Isaiah 7:14 ('behold, a young woman shall conceive' in the Tanakh, translated for unknown reasons as 'behold a virgin shall conceive' in the Septuagint), is taken to be a prophecy of Jesus by many Christians. If you read those words in context, and I trust you'll do so, you'll find that they don't speak about a virgin, they don't speak about a distant future, and the child referred to is born within the adjacent narrative.

And that's only one tiny example. The Suffering Servant is another.
Yet here we are 2000 years later still referring to Jesus . Someones wrong here . All the early church were Jews. Paul was a pharisee as trained as could ever be as a jew . The diciples were Jews . Jews receiving Jesus as their messiah. Then the world is turned upside down with the biggest impact on the world.
This verse explains what's going on with Israel .
2 cor 3

11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12¶Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Perfectly summarized. In sheer numbers of believers Allah and Krishna kick Jesus' butt.


Sorry, you forgot to mention the Gods of all other well-known religions in the world on whom your statement also apply ;)


So I am just curious to know if it happened that some Jesus teachings were the cause of anything bad that happened to you, your family or friends.

You give me the impression, so I hope I am wrong, that you don’t like Jesus at all for a certain unknown reason (unknown to me in the least).

But perhaps you mean by Jesus some Christians who couldn’t behave as real disciple of Jesus sometimes; but, as you know, this could happen in best families anytime.
 

KerimF

Active Member
So you're saying God exists outside of human imagination, and it is just a game player?

If so, how is it helpful to believe this kind of God?

You are right if the world is created just for those who are pre-programmed to serve the temporary material world by playing various masters/slaves games by which they can help it evolve by building things (in peace time) and destroying things (in war time). In other words, every region around the world has, by design, to live both times along history. This is a natural truth that no one can change but this doesn't prevent someone to dream of whatever he likes.

In my case, my family (Catholic) denied me because I wasn't interested to play the master or slave (the modern word is follower) in any game; social, religious, political... etc. And I never blamed my relatives because actually I don't belong to the world (also their world) anymore by living the unconditional love/care towards all others; friends and enemies as well. My case reminds me what Jesus says on the Gospel:
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

In other words, I am glad I am mortal since the kingdom I am looking for is not of this world.

Please don't expect to understand deeply anything I said. I am just replying your question. In fact, almost all people in the world cannot, even if they want to, live the Unconditional Love/Care, as revealed by Jesus, in order to feed their living soul (if they got one ;) ) with a joy which is, unlike all one's pleasures and feelings are, not limited by (related to) time and place.

At best your reaction will likely be... "Kerim, your joy you are talking about is simply an illusion".
 

KerimF

Active Member
Kerim said:
I assume, you are not sure yet about what you learnt from Jesus teachings.
But, on the other hand, it seems very clear that you are very sure about what happened to him concerning the death of his body. So I wonder if it is possible for me to also read the story of Jesus as presented in your world. But I also understand if it is confidential.
Thank you.

KerimF "death of his body "
Jesus didn't die on the Cross, it is for this that his disciples took him up and hurriedly laid him in the Tomb, so that he was urgently treated for his wound inflicted on him on the Cross. It is as simple as that. Right?
Regards

So, in your world, the 'entire' story of Jesus life is simply this statement and nothing else! Right?
Regards ;)
 
Last edited:
Top