Interesting Take on ""I am the way and the truth and the life...

[HeretoPhilosophize]

...No one comes to the Father except through me."

I notice that Jesus never directly states that one must believe in the 100% literal interpretation that He is the Son of God. Is Jesus merely saying that believing in His teachings--in particular His teachings about morality, forgiveness, and loving thy neighbor--are what is required to get into Heaven?

I do not mean to start up any kind of angry debate here. I'm new to the forum and am just genuinely interested to hear other ideas on this. I realize my theory flies in the face of Fundamentalism, but I tend to lean towards Christian Humanism, so that is why I am curious. I personally DO believe in Christ as the Son of God, but my sister is more of an agnostic and so is my dad, and my mom is somewhere in the middle of spiritual and agnostic. But what they all share in common is they all follow Christ's teachings. That is why I am very curious and eager to know others' thoughts on this.

Thank you in advance,

Matthew

 

[Awoon]

If you place Jesus as the final authority then by your own authority you can also reject Jesus.

 

[edgewalker]

I like to view this verse as Jesus main message. I see it as Jesus showing that his teachings and the teaching that the kingdom of heaven is within each of us is the saving message he was bringing. The way to God is through the believing that God is within you, this is the saving message. Jesus is saying, believe this teaching and you will meet God. I believe this was a new concept for that time in history, God actually being inside and approachable by merely seeking Him. No one comes to the Father but through me,Jesus, my teachings.

 

[Me Myself]

You may find this interesting :

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...r/119446-where-did-jesus-asked-worshpped.html

 

[Villager]

I do not mean to start up any kind of angry debate here. I'm new to the forum and am just genuinely interested to hear other ideas on this. I realize my theory flies in the face of Fundamentalism

Nothing like starting with a warcry!

 

[blackout]

...No one comes to the Father except through me."

Yes... implied "No one comes to the Father (transcendence) except through the Way, the Truth, and the Life that I have embodied and modeled (for you)."

This interpretation at least make sense.
(whether or not you 'uphold' it as true)
You don't have to contort reality and construct mythologies
to understand and make sense of what it 'says'.

Assuming you WANT your "Christianity" to be some sort of a literal construction.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What's the interesting part?

 

[fallingblood]

...No one comes to the Father except through me."

I notice that Jesus never directly states that one must believe in the 100% literal interpretation that He is the Son of God. Is Jesus merely saying that believing in His teachings--in particular His teachings about morality, forgiveness, and loving thy neighbor--are what is required to get into Heaven?

I do not mean to start up any kind of angry debate here. I'm new to the forum and am just genuinely interested to hear other ideas on this. I realize my theory flies in the face of Fundamentalism, but I tend to lean towards Christian Humanism, so that is why I am curious. I personally DO believe in Christ as the Son of God, but my sister is more of an agnostic and so is my dad, and my mom is somewhere in the middle of spiritual and agnostic. But what they all share in common is they all follow Christ's teachings. That is why I am very curious and eager to know others' thoughts on this.

Thank you in advance,

Matthew

There is a lot here, but I will focus on just a couple of points.

The first thing that is necessary would be to consider whether or not Jesus really said this statement, or if it was added later on. I may not be remembering correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), but I only recall this statement being in John. That causes a couple of problems. First, we don't have it multiply attested to. That doesn't mean that it didn't come from Jesus, but does raise questions. Second, it appears to be a later tradition as John was the last Gospel written. Again, doesn't mean Jesus didn't say it, but raises more questions. Finally, it does appear to be more in line with John's thinking than Jesus. Again, this doesn't rule it out in itself, but raises questions. Putting all three of these together, I would lean towards Jesus not having said it, but still being a possibility. Of course, if I did remember incorrectly, and another Gospel repeats this, then that makes it all quite different.

As for believing Jesus is the actual Son of God, that is not necessary. Looking at John in a larger context, we don't see John claiming that Jesus is the biological son of God. John sees Jesus as something quite different.

Mark also allows for one to see Jesus as not being the actual biological son of God. Matthew and Luke are the ones that make this the clearest. Paul is also important here, where it seems like he is referring to Jesus more as an adoptive son of God.

In addition though, not all of the Early Christians thought Jesus was the actual Son of God. It is highly unlikely that James, the brother of Jesus, and later the leader of the Jerusalem Church, thought Jesus was the biological son of God, for example.

Next, it would be worth looking at the idea of the Son of God in other material from that time. The term Son of God does appear in some Jewish texts. We do see the adoptive idea being there. For instance, King David is said to be the son of God. But it isn't implying that he is the biological son of God. I believe there is also some other references to the Son of God as well, but they are escaping me right now. I know Geza Vermes discusses the topic in a couple of his books.

I would say that Jesus is basically saying that his teachings are what are needed to enter into the Kingdom of God. I think he was more interested in the message that he was preaching, than what titles people gave to him.

As a side note, we do see other important historical figures also being called a son of God. Augustus is a great example as he existed around the same time of Jesus, and was ruler of the Roman Empire which included Palestine. So I think that is a great reference here. That is something to keep in mind.

Personally, I don't think Jesus is the son of God. And I really don't see that taking anything away from him. I still value his teachings, and see him as very important. I just don't see him as divine or the product of the divine.

 

[krsnaraja]

Well at least you make it interesting. You know, somewhat.

It`s the product of 25 years research.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is a lot here, but I will focus on just a couple of points.

The first thing that is necessary would be to consider whether or not Jesus really said this statement, or if it was added later on. I may not be remembering correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), but I only recall this statement being in John. That causes a couple of problems. First, we don't have it multiply attested to. That doesn't mean that it didn't come from Jesus, but does raise questions. Second, it appears to be a later tradition as John was the last Gospel written. Again, doesn't mean Jesus didn't say it, but raises more questions. Finally, it does appear to be more in line with John's thinking than Jesus. Again, this doesn't rule it out in itself, but raises questions. Putting all three of these together, I would lean towards Jesus not having said it, but still being a possibility. Of course, if I did remember incorrectly, and another Gospel repeats this, then that makes it all quite different.

As for believing Jesus is the actual Son of God, that is not necessary. Looking at John in a larger context, we don't see John claiming that Jesus is the biological son of God. John sees Jesus as something quite different.

Mark also allows for one to see Jesus as not being the actual biological son of God. Matthew and Luke are the ones that make this the clearest. Paul is also important here, where it seems like he is referring to Jesus more as an adoptive son of God.

In addition though, not all of the Early Christians thought Jesus was the actual Son of God. It is highly unlikely that James, the brother of Jesus, and later the leader of the Jerusalem Church, thought Jesus was the biological son of God, for example.

Next, it would be worth looking at the idea of the Son of God in other material from that time. The term Son of God does appear in some Jewish texts. We do see the adoptive idea being there. For instance, King David is said to be the son of God. But it isn't implying that he is the biological son of God. I believe there is also some other references to the Son of God as well, but they are escaping me right now. I know Geza Vermes discusses the topic in a couple of his books.

I would say that Jesus is basically saying that his teachings are what are needed to enter into the Kingdom of God. I think he was more interested in the message that he was preaching, than what titles people gave to him.

As a side note, we do see other important historical figures also being called a son of God. Augustus is a great example as he existed around the same time of Jesus, and was ruler of the Roman Empire which included Palestine. So I think that is a great reference here. That is something to keep in mind.

Personally, I don't think Jesus is the son of God. And I really don't see that taking anything away from him. I still value his teachings, and see him as very important. I just don't see him as divine or the product of the divine.

Talk about using a cannon to kill a mosquito.

 

[Villager]

The first thing that is necessary would be to consider whether or not Jesus really said this statement, or if it was added later on. I may not be remembering correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), but I only recall this statement being in John. That causes a couple of problems. First, we don't have it multiply attested to. That doesn't mean that it didn't come from Jesus, but does raise questions. Second, it appears to be a later tradition as John was the last Gospel written. Again, doesn't mean Jesus didn't say it, but raises more questions. Finally, it does appear to be more in line with John's thinking than Jesus. Again, this doesn't rule it out in itself, but raises questions. Putting all three of these together, I would lean towards Jesus not having said it, but still being a possibility. Of course, if I did remember incorrectly, and another Gospel repeats this, then that makes it all quite different.

It's true that only John's gospel contains this statement, but it's untrue that it makes any difference at all. The whole Bible, from the first word of Genesis, through the story myths of Eden, Cain and Abel and Flood, to the Tabernacle, the Levitical code, to the analogy of Joshua (Jesus), through the kings, the Temple, the prophets,to the crucifixion, to the last word of Revelation, is predicated on one thing, and on that one thing only- the penal subsitutionary death of Jesus, by which atonement is made for the sins of the world. After all that, Jesus' statement that he is the only way to the Father seems just a bit superfluous, though of course the Jews who were addressed did not see it as they should have done. Or did not want to see it, which is a recurrent theme with John.

For those who want to see it, who are grateful for that atonement, for those who accept that they have sinned, against God, as well as against their fellows, their love qualifies them for eternal life. For those who are not grateful, because they consider that they have not sinned, or that they have, but don't care about their evils, their indifference (if not hatred) qualifies them for the penalty deserved.

Of course all of the disciples saw Jesus as the Son, i.e. the manifestation of God himself. One of them actually addressed him as that person. Had they not done so, they would never have even bothered to mention Jesus again, after the crucifixion, because they would not have considered their sins, or anyone else's, to have been forgiven. The reason that Jesus must be seen as the Son of God, or worse than nothing, is that only perfection could be acceptable as a moral standard for humanity, because it's the only standard acceptable where God dwells. (Any other sort of God is an impossibility.) And as only one person is perfect, Jesus had to be the manifestation of God himself.

 

[fallingblood]

Talk about using a cannon to kill a mosquito.

Looking at Villagers response, I probably should have tried to use dynamite instead. Or maybe a pitchfork, repeatedly thrusted.

 

[blackout]

What's the interesting part?

Well I think it's just that most christians
put the emphasis on the "I Am" part-
instead of the "Way, Truth, Life" part.

Like as if you literally have to go through JESUS himself,
to get to 'God'.
This interpretation sets him up as more of a "demi god"
who supplies back stage passes to the main event,
than one who teaches others HOW TO BE/become/live
the main event, for themSelves.

Hope that expressed what I'm trying to get at.
I'm pretty tired.

 

[look3467]

HeretoPhilosophize, I will give you my take on it so as to give god the credit for a well planed out event.

First we have a lost world. Second, God chooses a people to represent His laws.
Third, He re-introduces the tree of life to a lost world as Jesus.
Fourth, because the chosen people were the only people to have a relationship with Him via the prophets, the patriarchs, while the rest of the world had none.
Fifth, in order for God to reach out to the rest of the lost world He had to come to His own and be rejected, thus giving the rest of the world the same opportunity to access Him.
Hence, the "cutting off" of the chosen by the statement of Jesus. "I am the way.........." and the cutting off of Jesus as well at the cross.

That is the original intent for that verse, but is also applicable as a requirement, because in reality, it is the truth.

So, what ever belief one holds does in no way deter the work of Jesus, but does remain an option to want to believe in Him or not.

The invitation is out, come if you will.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Villager]

Looking at Villagers response, I probably should have tried to use dynamite instead. Or maybe a pitchfork, repeatedly thrusted.

The sound and fury of the disarmed.

 

[javajo]

But what they all share in common is they all follow Christ's teachings

So, what did Jesus teach?

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 8:31
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:26

Romans 5:8 says, But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. I believe if we believe in Christ, that he died to pay the penalty of our sin (death), we are freely and eternally saved. This is what I believe Christ meant when he said in John 3 and 12, 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33This he said, signifying what death he should die.

When those bitten by deadly serpents in the wilderness looked to the bronze serpent on the pole Moses lifted up, they lived. Likewise when we trust Christ who died to pay the penalty of our sins (death), we also live eternally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...No one comes to the Father except through me."

I notice that Jesus never directly states that one must believe in the 100% literal interpretation that He is the Son of God. Is Jesus merely saying that believing in His teachings--in particular His teachings about morality, forgiveness, and loving thy neighbor--are what is required to get into Heaven?

Didn't Jesus also say something like "what you do to the least of your brothers, you do to me"? I think what you're saying fits fairly well with this idea that acceptance of Christ is reflected (or maybe actualized) in care and concern for others.

 

[javajo]

Didn't Jesus also say something like "what you do to the least of your brothers, you do to me"? I think what you're saying fits fairly well with this idea that acceptance of Christ is reflected (or maybe actualized) in care and concern for others.

One who has trusted in Christ will love others with the love of Christ in real, practical ways.

 

[Muffled]

...No one comes to the Father except through me."

I notice that Jesus never directly states that one must believe in the 100% literal interpretation that He is the Son of God. Is Jesus merely saying that believing in His teachings--in particular His teachings about morality, forgiveness, and loving thy neighbor--are what is required to get into Heaven?

I do not mean to start up any kind of angry debate here. I'm new to the forum and am just genuinely interested to hear other ideas on this. I realize my theory flies in the face of Fundamentalism, but I tend to lean towards Christian Humanism, so that is why I am curious. I personally DO believe in Christ as the Son of God, but my sister is more of an agnostic and so is my dad, and my mom is somewhere in the middle of spiritual and agnostic. But what they all share in common is they all follow Christ's teachings. That is why I am very curious and eager to know others' thoughts on this.

Thank you in advance,

Matthew

He doesn't say that.

I think that is an oxymoron.

That is because Jesus says if you see Him you see the Father. (John 14:9) You come to Him you come to the Father. He says I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

 

[Jethro]

To believe in Jesus as the way, the truth and the life, means to firstly believe that He is the only way to God, by faith in Him, because He is the Son of God. Secondly, to believe that He is the truth and nothing but the truth. Thus, believing that everything he said is the truth, and so following His teachings. And thirdly, to believe that He is the life, and so able to give eternal life to those who believe in Him. Furthermore, believing in Jesus means to believe that He died to save sinners.

Therefore, believing in Jesus is more about believing who He is and what He has done, rather than just simply following His teachings, which all true believers do naturally anyway.