Traduttore traditore
What a brilliant answer. It certainly convinced me.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Traduttore traditore
Thank you
Do you think the context in which scripture is written makes a difference at all?
Context always matters in Scripture, but I don't know what specifically you are referring to when you ask your question. So if you could please elaborate I'd be happy to respond.
Lets consider the context of John 14:6
...
The world of the Jews did not even remotely approach the type of global vision that we have now. The Jews' world vision was confined to surrounding regions throughout the Middle East and what was in the Tanakh. Most Jews were illiterate and relied on religious teachers for instruction.
It must be stated that in no way was Jesus referring to other religions. For example Islam would not come for nearly 600 years. Buddhism and Hinduism although present in India/Asia were unknown to the Jews.
Certainly He did and it was only with last major missionary outreach through the British Empire that most countries had received the gospels, arguably fulfilling a prophecy in Mathew 24:14Jesus was the one who told them to go into all the world to preach this same message. In all four Gospels, and Acts. Most of Acts and the various epistles deal with the Gospel being brought as far as they can at that time.
Church history also reflects this by recording the 12 apostles went as far away as places like India, Persia, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Russia, Kazakhstan, Poland, Carthage, and Yemen (although I use modern names for some of those places).
Jesus would not give them a message of exclusivity and tell them to give this message to the whole world if it wasn't exclusive for the whole world.
I think you are viewing the true vine words in the same narrow way as John 14:6Context involves also looking at the whole of what Jesus said. The very next chapter, John 15, has many things which go against your proposition that there is nothing exclusive about Jesus as the way of salvation.
Yes, a lot of room in the kingdom of heaven.Jesus also said in John 14 that He was going to be with the Father to prepare rooms for them to join Him, and in that context also says that the only way to come to the Father is through Jesus.
I see a loving and just God throughout but the OT and NT. Your perspective of God appears neither loving, nor just.Another reason that context does matter is when looking at the whole of scripture, both NT and OT, to see if such your interpretation of a single verse is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
The existence of false religions doesn't detract from the existence of true religions.Other false religions did exist at that point, and they always have throughout the history of Israel. The idea that there was one truth to follow, but many idolatrous lies, is a common issue is the OT and would have in no way been news to Jews living under pagan Roman oppression surrounded by other middle eastern pagan nations.
The point I made is that the Jews who rejected their Messiah were still saved anyhow.So in that sense it's irrelevant whether or not the Jews were aware of every false religious belief in the world
I am the way, the truth and teh life, NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me--Jn 14:6
And there is salvation in on one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.---Acts 4:12.
Where does you Bible say something different?
What a brilliant answer. It certainly convinced me.
Please check out post #183 for my response. Also #185
I don't think the recipient was particularly convinced of my explanationThen again the purpose of this post is to generate some discussion and consider different perspectives.
Certainly He did and it was only with last major missionary outreach through the British Empire that most countries had received the gospels, arguably fulfilling a prophecy in Mathew 24:14
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
It must be noted that much of the context of the NT such as empires, slavery, and men dominating women is part of an old world order along with exclusive Christianity.
I'm arguing it was a message of inclusivity given Love of God and our neighbour is the greatest commandment
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
The point I made is that the Jews who rejected their Messiah were still saved anyhow.
I think you are viewing the true vine words in the same narrow way as John 14:6
How about this verse from John 10:16
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."
Could the other sheep in other folds not be from other faiths?
I see a loving and just God throughout but the OT and NT. Your perspective of God appears neither loving, nor just.
So you admit that Jesus not only told his followers to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, but that He prophesied it would happen?
Do you not see how that disproves your claim that the message of Jesus is not just intended to be for the Jews?
That statement doesn't change what Jesus said, or who it applies to.
unapologetically exclusive because He has set the parameters by which we must come to Him. We don't get to set our own terms of relationship with God, we either submit to His terms or deal with the consequences, it's our choice.
I would pose this question to you:
Do you expect God to let someone to continue to worship and pledge allegience to fake idol demons, and refuse to repent of commiting evil, and still expect God to come into union with them and abide eternally with them?
That's not what I'm saying. Of course we have free will.Another question: Do you expect God to just change everyone forcibly so they conform to the image of His son, even against their will, so in the end everyone gets saved no matter what?
Yes it could, including those that adhere to religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism or indeed have no religion.He could be talking about God-fearing gentiles, like those we see in Acts of the Apostles 10. People who try to live in accordance with the will of the one true God, but just need to be brought the Gospel message.
He could also be referring to people who don't know Him yet, but whom He knows have a heart ready to respond to the Gospel message.
Shepherds like Buddha, Muhammad, and Krishna.In fact, the very definition of a sheep excludes that possibility - Sheep follow their shepherd. John 10:27
There is absolutely no reason why a Loving, Compassionate, and All-powerful God does not guide other peoples and not just one people.If you aren't following the one true God and obeying His voice then you aren't His sheep.
I'm good with Gods' justice. I'm not good with mans' religious prejudice and bigotry justified using Gods' word.The problem with your statement is, from beginning to end in the Bible, we see God's justice found in bringing judgement on those who reject Him and persist in rebellion to Him and hurting others.
The authority and authenticity of the various books that make up the New and Old testament need to be a starting point for our discussions.Do you think everything the Bible says about God and His relations to man is true, or do you feel comfortable throwing out the parts that you feel don't conform to your preconceptions about what God should do in order to be considered loving and just?
If you really knew your bible you would appreciate that's its a book of change. God doesn't change but His Grace and guidance change towards His creatures according to their capacity does change. eg Much of Mosaic law is no longer applicable whereas once it was.Any verse has to be read in the context of understanding what the whole Bible says, because God doesn't lie or change
Its not unconditional. I never said that.We can truthfully say that the Bible as a whole doesn't support your claim of unconditional salvation for everyone.
Some Christians belief that there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus.
One of the most commonly quoted passages from the bible to justify this view is: John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
What's the best way of looking at this passage?
?
Some Christians belief that there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
What's the best way of looking at this passage?
May peace be with you,
Each person must decide the best way of looking at this passage, using not only their heads, but also their hearts to find its true meaning. This is not easy because we are imperfect and often unable to reach an objective understanding.
One thing to consider is what Jesus means when he says "me." If there is a special meaning to who he meant, then that would change the meaning of the passage. For instance, many indigenous people believe that the Earth is a living expression of the Godhead, the male aspect being the Father, and if that was true then Jesus would be referring to the Earth-- that no one cometh to the Father in Heaven except through the Earth.
It is good to empty ourselves and pray upon these matters to find the truth.
All religions are based on mythology, like it or not.
Do you believe in any Biblical scripture besides the Gospels? The prophets? The letters of the apostles? The book of Acts?Of course. I am a Baha'i. I believe in the same God, Jesus, and Gospels as you do.
I'm not sure that really answers my question, because it doesn't really define how you approach the authority of Scripture.The authority and authenticity of the various books that make up the New and Old testament need to be a starting point for our discussions.
Based on what scripture? The scripture contradicts your claim:I don't think you are hearing me on this one. The Gospel of Christ was largely for the non-Jews.. We get to catch up with the Jews. The Jews despite their rejection are still Gods' chosen people, God still loves them and salvation is still available to them through the Abrahamic Covenant, despite their rejection of their Messiah.
Are you denying that Jesus, and the whole NT, distinctly makes a separation between people; between those who follow Him and those who don't, with eternal consequences based on that decision?This is OT thinking.
But we do get to appreciate that there are different ways of interpreting sacred scripture and how it would apply to the exigencies of our time.
The statement in regards to a completely different life with democracy, equality of men, and women, the oneness of the human race, education, the rise of science, a better understanding of human history and comparative religion changes the context in which we view the message of the Gospels.
...
We need to frame our questions in a 21st century context otherwise the sacred words become
empty and obsolete.
Jesus and the apostles had the authority to abrogate the laws of Moses. That doesn't change the fact that it was the law of God, However it was a new Covenant that Christ brought.
Jeremiah 31:31
Of courseDo you believe in any Biblical scripture besides the Gospels? The prophets? The letters of the apostles? The book of Acts?
I accept the authority and authenticity of the Bible. Maybe you should reflect on the meaning of the words authority and authenticity. Can I be any clearer?I'm not sure that really answers my question, because it doesn't really define how you approach the authority of Scripture.
Of course not, do you?Do you throw out sections of the Bible that you don't believe are true?
This is why I'm losing any hope of a reasoned conversation with you. You seem to be wilfully misunderstanding what I'm saying.Is it only authoritative, in your view, if you think you can "re-interpret" it to conform to what you already believe to be true?
What do you do with the parts of scripture you can't make conform to your beliefs? Do you change your beliefs to line up with the Bible, or do you declare the Bible to be untrue?
Where we differ is our interpretation of the scripture we both believe in.
If it were that clear then why is Christianity so divided and has so many different understandings.
I notice you didn't respond directly to any scripture I gave you that shows your interpretation cannot be the right one.
Some Christians belief that there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus.
This could mean only Christians make it to heaven and people of all other faiths are destined for hell.
One of the most commonly quoted passages from the bible to justify this view is: John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
What's the best way of looking at this passage?
Is their reasonable justification for Christians' claims that only their faith can save? Is there a better way of understanding salvation?