...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.