Failure to communicate?

[Desert Snake]

Jesus said in no uncertain terms, that HE is the way to salvation, in fact we HAVE to go through Him to be saved, it seems there is a constant banter/opinion of somehow, Jesus is not the Prime Deity. He clearly is stating He is. What is the communication breakdown here?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Jesus did not clearly state anything. Men that lived 100s of years after jesus supposedly lived wrote down various stories of dubious (at best) validity, and now there are many people who clearly do not know the difference between someone clearly stating something and fables.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus did not clearly state anything. Men that lived 100s of years after jesus supposedly lived wrote down various stories of dubious (at best) validity, and now there are many people who clearly do not know the difference between someone clearly stating something and fables.

No, it's in John. That's part of the Gospels. I'm not talking about if you believe it or not, I'm talking about the doctrine, the Scripture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus said in no uncertain terms, that HE is the way to salvation, in fact we HAVE to go through Him to be saved, it seems there is a constant banter/opinion of somehow, Jesus is not the Prime Deity. He clearly is stating He is. What is the communication breakdown here?

What makes you think that any of this implies that Jesus is the "Prime Deity"? Those verses work just as well if Jesus is merely the "prime" messenger or instrument of God/the gods.

Also, "Jesus SAYS that he is God" does not equal "Jesus IS God. "

 

[Desert Snake]

What makes you think that any of this implies that Jesus is the "Prime Deity"? Those verses work just as well if Jesus is merely the "prime" messenger or instrument of God/the gods.

Also, "Jesus SAYS that he is God" does not equal "Jesus IS God. "

No, see I don't think so. I'll present some. /KJV/

Ok, then sounds like lies, but I'm referring to Christians who don't seem to think He is the Prime Deity, not unbelievers.

And, to clarify, sometimes the idea of secondary Deity etc., or authority, is only gotten, from opinions in debate, it isn't always blatantly clear that that is what is being stated/implied.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus said in no uncertain terms, that HE is the way to salvation, in fact we HAVE to go through Him to be saved, it seems there is a constant banter/opinion of somehow, Jesus is not the Prime Deity. He clearly is stating He is. What is the communication breakdown here?

The exchange goes like this:
Jesus says, "I am going to prepare a place for you... and you know the way to the place where I am going."
Thomas says, "We don't know where you are going. How can we know the way?"
Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

It's not the way to salvation -- it's the way to the Father that Jesus is speaking of. it's highly metaphoric language.

 

[Sleeppy]

His sheep hear his voice; keep doing what you're doing. Everyone else will continue in God's will as well.

 

[Desert Snake]

The exchange goes like this:
Jesus says, "I am going to prepare a place for you... and you know the way to the place where I am going."
Thomas says, "We don't know where you are going. How can we know the way?"
Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

It's not the way to salvation -- it's the way to the Father that Jesus is speaking of. it's highly metaphoric language.

Hmm yeah good catch.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm yeah good catch.

So you think that Jesus describing himself as the way to the Father implies that he is the Father?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, see I don't think so. I'll present some. /KJV/

I look forward to it.

Ok, then sounds like lies, but I'm referring to Christians who don't seem to think He is the Prime Deity, not unbelievers.

Why not?

And, to clarify, sometimes the idea of secondary Deity etc., or authority, is only gotten, from opinions in debate, it isn't always blatantly clear that that is what is being stated/implied.

Since I have absolutely no idea what you meant by this, it hasn't clarified anything. The reverse, in fact.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you think that Jesus describing himself as the way to the Father implies that he is the Father?

I need to compare verses. I'll present some. Not sure If it's an either or thing.

Now, we know that He is the Son of God, so that is covered, what needs to be presented is the unity of Godhead aspect.

 

[Desert Snake]

I look forward to it.


Why not?


Since I have absolutely no idea what you meant by this, it hasn't clarified anything. The reverse, in fact.

Hmm okay, well you can present evidence if you want. You already know the trinity idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm okay, well you can present evidence if you want.

This is your show - you can provide evidence.

You already know the trinity idea.

If you're asking whether I understand it, I don't think anyone does.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is your show - you can provide evidence.


If you're asking whether I understand it, I don't think anyone does.

Seems you aren't here for discussion, and I'm not here to convince you of anything.

 

[Amechania]

Trinity is not complicated: Jesus is two persons one of which is three persons one of which is Jesus. What could be simpler?

 

[fantome profane]

No, it's in John. That's part of the Gospels. I'm not talking about if you believe it or not, I'm talking about the doctrine, the Scripture.

If it is in John, why isn't in in Mark? Don't you find that strange?

If you were writing about a man who claimed that he was the only way to salvation, would that not be something you would mention? If he said that, it would certainly be the most important thing to report if you were going to tell someone about him. But the Gospel of Mark never says that. If he said that it is just absolutely bizarre that Mark never tells us. But multiply that strangeness. Along comes the Gospel of Matthew, where someone decided to write another Gospel specifically to include things that the Gospel of Mark missed. And does the Gospel of Matthew tell us that Jesus said this? No. And the Gospel of Luke around the same time, a Gospel that claims to have done a lot of research to give us a more complete story of this person. Does the Gospel of Luke tell us that Jesus said this. No.

If Jesus said this can you believe that three Gospels just neglected to mention it?

Very very strange.


Unless of course Jesus didn't actually say that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Trinity is not complicated: Jesus is two persons one of which is three persons one of which is Jesus. What could be simpler?

.............:spit:

I understand the concept, proving it with Scripture is another matter.

 

[Desert Snake]

If it is in John, why isn't in in Mark? Don't you find that strange?

If you were writing about a man who claimed that he was the only way to salvation, would that not be something you would mention? If he said that, it would certainly be the most important thing to report if you were going to tell someone about him. But the Gospel of Mark never says that. If he said that it is just absolutely bizarre that Mark never tells us. But multiply that strangeness. Along comes the Gospel of Matthew, where someone decided to write another Gospel specifically to include things that the Gospel of Mark missed. And does the Gospel of Matthew tell us that Jesus said this? No. And the Gospel of Luke around the same time, a Gospel that claims to have done a lot of research to give us a more complete story of this person. Does the Gospel of Luke tell us that Jesus said this. No.

If Jesus said this can you believe that three Gospels just neglected to mention it?

Very very strange.


Unless of course Jesus didn't actually say that.

That is the thing, though. If we are assuming some type of revisionism, editing etc. of Scripture, we can't easily tell which 'way' it was going...perhaps Jesus did emphatically state that.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No, it's in John. That's part of the Gospels. I'm not talking about if you believe it or not, I'm talking about the doctrine, the Scripture.

OK.

If you concentrate solely on the gospels you can get a fairly consistent picture of how juesus believed we should behave in this world. The passages regarding the kingdom are very subjective.

Once you begin reading the epistles it is all very unclear. The problem is that words are merly symbols of thought, and the moment they leave the lips they are subject to interpretation. When they are written down they are subject to nit-picky interpretation that seldom, if ever, undertands exactly what the auther meant. This is especially true with inprecise non-technical language. Metephors are the worst.

However, if you concentrate on how to live and behave here and now, as exemplified in the stories and words attributed to jesus himself, you will be very clear and find you have no need to understand all the confusion and failure to communicate today.

 

[fantome profane]

That is the thing, though. If we are assuming some type of revisionism, editing etc. of Scripture, we can't easily tell which 'way' it was going...perhaps Jesus did emphatically state that.

Are you suggesting that perhaps these words were in the first three Gospels, but some latter scribe edited them out? Is that what you are suggesting?