The Exclusivity of Christianity: Myth or Reality

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you may be interpreting this is far too literal terms, creating divisions where there are none. First the Logos of John 1 is not "the message of Christ". It is God "manifesting", or "speaking" if you will. It also clearly states "the logos was theos", the logos is God. Logos is not a "representative" of God, but God manifesting. Logos is the manifesting God.

You could think of it terms of the light from the sun. It is the "sun" manifesting. It's not a representation of the sun, but is the sun in manifestation. So Logos is God manifesting and manifested. If you process that understanding, the rest of what John says falls into place a little better. "He that has seen me has seen the Father". "I and my father are one". Christ is an "intermediary" in the sense that the light from the sun is how we see that nuclear reaction that is the sun itself manifesting form. Without the form, the sun is unmanifest, unknown. But that form, the light, is not "another sun". Make sense?

Representative comes from Hebrews. Im a "mirror" image of an invisible god" (out the house to quote ver batum). The hughest prophet. Things of that nature.

Perfect example:

An ASL Interpreter (any interpreter) represents his clients as a medium between the two in both their languages and culture. As such, whatever the client says, I say. If my client talks about sex, I talk about sex.

You can can title me a representative because I represent my client. Although a good term, its not all correct.

You can call me My client because what he says is what I say. But then, that is incorrect because my culture has some influence in how I interpret. It cant be avoided. That Does Not mean the message is invalid nor does it mean that my client has a lower position because I speak for him. It just means I am a medium.

You can call me a manefestation of my client. Although supernatural sounding which it need not be, my client and I are one and the only way you can transmit your message is through me, so I am a manefestation (to an outsider) of my client because whatever my client says, I say.

You are using supernatural words that are not needed to explain the role and relationship of christ "and" his father.

The sun example isnt a good one but it makes sense. If the moon hits the water, the reflection is not the moon. It has its own name, entity, and characteristics. Regardless of its relationship with the moon (and light to sun) it is Not the moon.

It is a "mirror image of an visible moon".

The moon and reflection are one because aithout the moon, thered be no reflection.

ONE means relationship. A union between two people. "We" and "they".

Eveything jesus did he did Not attribute to himself. If he were god, he would have. There is nothing metaphysical about the concept. Only mainstream christians have an issue with it. I know many other christians and those of abrahamic belief can see pass that. They know a creator is not a human being. Its an insult in all faiths I come accross. Mainstream christianity is the only religion I know that makes a human a creator.

The light is not the sun. The reflection is not the moon.

Their relationship with each other does not make one the other.

 

[Kemosloby]

I'm really not following the logic of this or how it relates to what I said. I believe we have free will, and this point goes far afield from what I was talking about.

The passage you quoted means we may know there is a God by observing creation, intelligent design, karma etc. But Jesus says, you "know" God the Father by Jesus's good works.

 

[moorea944]

Now tell it to me in Koine Greek.

Actually what it means is that the Father and Son are of a like mind; on the same page; in sync. Jesus is saying that he knows what God wants, and is teaching accordingly. Even when he says, "The Father and I are one," it follows the same principle above. It's also why he says, "...for the Father is greater than I." Jesus was separating himself from God.

That and if Jesus was God the omniscient, then he should have known the boy that he "cast a demon out of" was actually just epileptic.

How true!! Jesus never tells anyone that he is God or co-equal. Great post, thanks!!

 

[Kemosloby]

How true!! Jesus never tells anyone that he is God or co-equal. Great post, thanks!!

Scripture doesn't say Jesus is co-equal. God the Father is greater and not subject to the Son.

 

[moorea944]

Scripture doesn't say Jesus is co-equal. God the Father is greater and not subject to the Son.

I know, I was just quoting what people say about God, Jesus and the trinity (which I don't believe in).

 

[Sonny]

Carlita said,

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You sorta skimmed over the important part - "and the word WAS God."

John 1:14

- And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 10:30 - I and [my] Father are one.

Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

These verses explain both the Trinity (2 of the 3 Persons) and that Jesus is the only God (Is. 43:10/11- Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.I, even I, am the LORD and besides Me there is no Savior.)
There are too many verses that either point to Jesus as God or implies He is to think Jesus isn't the only God who became a man in order to teach mankind His truth and His Plan of Salvation.

 

[Sonny]

I will tell you what I know. Theologians disagree on who wrote the Gospel of John. Some swear that it was the Disciple John, while others maintain that the author is anonymous. The writer never identifies himself, so no one can say for certain. The style of writing, and the details of Jesus' life, differ greater from the Synoptic Gospels. What we do know is that the author is supposedly the "disciple that Jesus loved the most." But it might not be who you think!

Not to go all Da Vinci Code on you, but Mary Magdalene also wrote a book, which is considered an apocryphal writing, not canonical. It was discovered in 1896, and other fragments have been found since then. Mary was always by Jesus' side, she was present during the crucifixion, and she was the first one at the tomb. The culture back then was very male chauvinistic, and even Peter opposed Mary's words. It would come as no surprise that they would not officially include her as part of the "inner circle closest to Jesus." If anyone knew Jesus' life, it would have been Mary.

It is quite possible that the Disciple that Jesus loved the most, was Mary Magdalene, and she was the author of the Gospel of John. Levi (Matthew) even acknowledges that Jesus loved her the most.

Yeah, but- Jesus chose 12 of His disciples (Mary was a disciple) to be His Apostles. Those 12 knew Him better than any other disciple. They were all men. Mary doesn't appear to have followed Jesus all over Creation. And she would certainly have been mentioned if she had written a gospel or been that important- consider Rahab and the woman that washed Jesus' feet as examples of notoriety. There were other OT women mentioned as well. I don't see Mary as a remote possibility of writing St. John's book. And, Jesus said His gospel was easy to understand by all people's, learned, intelligent and the not so much ones. I don't see deep conspiracies or rabbit holes in the Bible. It stands on what it says, nothing more Imho.

 

[Sonny]

Agreed. Its intellectually dishonest to imagine otherwise.

Included is an extract from a tablet written by Abdu'l-Baha for your consideration:

"As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses."

Having said that there are verses about the infallible Divine inspiration of the apostles animating the sacred texts.

As I believe in the same God, Jesus, and Gospels as the Christians I try use scripture, reason, wisdom and courtesy to make my point. I often fall short

Can it not be said the same of him and his writings? What I find most convincing in religion is what is said, how it's said and whether or not their words match what we know is true, such as in prophecy. I have never seen or heard of in other so-called sacred writing accurately predicting a completely unknown, like when the Bible says in the End Times that food prices would cost an average person's daily wage. We see that getting closer every few months with prices going up and product size/amount getting smaller. And the Bible has many such prophecies.

 

[CG Didymus]

You sorta skimmed over the important part - "and the word WAS God."


These verses explain both the Trinity (2 of the 3 Persons) and that Jesus is the only God (Is. 43:10/11- Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.I, even I, am the LORD and besides Me there is no Savior.)
There are too many verses that either point to Jesus as God or implies He is to think Jesus isn't the only God who became a man in order to teach mankind His truth and His Plan of Salvation.

The big question is: Is Christianity the only true religion? But then, which Christianity? The one most of us have a problem with sounds like the one you believe in. A very literal interpretation of the Bible, believes Jesus is part of a triune Godhead, that there is a devil and a hell and all who don't believe in Jesus and get saved are going to be sent to hell. They also believe that all have sinned and the most righteous amongst us is like "filthy" rags compared to God's righteousness. And, we can all be saved and made righteous because Jesus paid the price by dying and then rising from the dead.

If this is true then what else is needed? Christianity has the only answer to humanity's problem. However, if it's not true then what is Christianity? The Baha'i Faith wants to and needs to make it one of many religions that is true. But, they can only do this by making certain verses allegorical. By saying Christianity does not have the only answer. That it is only part of a progression of teachings from the one God, and now we all should listen to the new truth, the Baha'i Faith.

Is this true? How does the Baha'i Faith explain who God is and what's His plan? How does it explain away the exclusivity of Jesus and Christianity? Are they right in what they say... that Jesus is one of many "manifestations"? Have Christians, from the very beginning, misinterpreted what Jesus was trying to tell them? That there is no hell. There is no devil. Jesus is not God. He didn't physically rise from the dead. I doubt you think that, but that is what the Baha'i Faith is really saying.

Yes, I can see the Baha'i point of view... all religions are one... if we get rid of all the things that make one religion different than another... if we get rid of all the things that makes one religion better than another... and the things that makes one religion right and the others wrong. It always comes back to Jesus, though... is He who He says He is? Or, should I say... Is He who Christians believe Him to be? Or, is He who Baha'is say He is?

 

[Sonny]

The big question is: Is Christianity the only true religion? But then, which Christianity? The one most of us have a problem with sounds like the one you believe in. A very literal interpretation of the Bible, believes Jesus is part of a triune Godhead, that there is a devil and a hell and all who don't believe in Jesus and get saved are going to be sent to hell. They also believe that all have sinned and the most righteous amongst us is like "filthy" rags compared to God's righteousness. And, we can all be saved and made righteous because Jesus paid the price by dying and then rising from the dead.

If this is true then what else is needed? Christianity has the only answer to humanity's problem. However, if it's not true then what is Christianity? The Baha'i Faith wants to and needs to make it one of many religions that is true. But, they can only do this by making certain verses allegorical. By saying Christianity does not have the only answer. That it is only part of a progression of teachings from the one God, and now we all should listen to the new truth, the Baha'i Faith.

Is this true? How does the Baha'i Faith explain who God is and what's His plan? How does it explain away the exclusivity of Jesus and Christianity? Are they right in what they say... that Jesus is one of many "manifestations"? Have Christians, from the very beginning, misinterpreted what Jesus was trying to tell them? That there is no hell. There is no devil. Jesus is not God. He didn't physically rise from the dead. I doubt you think that, but that is what the Baha'i Faith is really saying.

Yes, I can see the Baha'i point of view... all religions are one... if we get rid of all the things that make one religion different than another... if we get rid of all the things that makes one religion better than another... and the things that makes one religion right and the others wrong. It always comes back to Jesus, though... is He who He says He is? Or, should I say... Is He who Christians believe Him to be? Or, is He who Baha'is say He is?

Even if what you say about Christianity is true (it ain't true) we still have to understand that there can only be ONE God. Bc of the vast differences in what each religion teaches/believes we can see 1 of 2 things.
1. Godis an incredibly stupid - or at least extremely forgetful- being. Or,
2. Only ONE religion can possibly be true. I opt for the latter, naturally. But, the question then becomes - which God/religion is the true one? Now, that's a lot tougher to figure out. The onlyway to do that is study/or read trustworthy folks that have studied what each religion teaches, find what each has said (such as predictions/prophecies) and compare them for truthfulness and to each other. I've done this (not every religion but many) and found that the Bibles prophecies are more numerous and have come true, in minute details, than the others. That is the only way I know how to find out the truth about God. Oh, discard the others once you find the religion with provable prophecies (if one has correctly fulfilled prophecies then, by default, the others are man-made religions). It's kinda easy when viewed this way.

 

[jtartar]

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?

adrianhindes,
There is no way to salvation, except through Jesus Christ!!! This statement is proven true by the clear statement of the Holy Scriptures at Acts 4:10-12, which says that there is not another name under heaven, by which we MUST get saved. There is no salvation in any other name under heaven!!!

 

[omega2xx]

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?

There is not a better Biblical way. If the Bible is true, there is only one way to heaven.

 

[omega2xx]

As a complete distortion and mistranslation of what he actually said.

No it isn't. That translation is given by exerts in Greek.

 

[omega2xx]

What makes more sense, that GOD HIMSELF physically wrestles with humans, or that he sends an angel like he did when he destroyed Sodom?

The concept of guardian angels is in the Bible.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is not a better Biblical way. If the Bible is true, there is only one way to heaven.

I must have a different translation of the bible. Where does it say there is only way to heaven?

 

[roger1440]

What's the best way of looking at this passage?

Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

When I said: "But, without the resurrection, Christians have nothing." That's when you said, "Not true." Here's a quote from 1Corinthians 15:12-19 NIV. "12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."
How do you interpret what Paul is saying here, and how do you explain the verses that have people seeing and talking and touching the risen Jesus? Thanks.

Thank you for the post.

When considering St Paul's words we need to consider the context. For example earlier in the same chapter, Paul is saying Jesus had appeared to him as He appeared to all the apostles.

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." 1Corinthians 15:7-8

However we know that Paul never saw Jesus. He heard Jesus speaking to Him on the road to Damascus Acts 9:1-7. This was his conversion experience.

This is an important clue that Paul is not speaking about the physically resurrected Christ but something else. So what else could Paul be referring to?

Abdu'l-Baha decribes Christs' resurrection as follows:


"Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.


Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it."

For Christians it is clearly hard to let go of the idea of a physically resurrected Christ and to see a deeper symbolic meaning instead.

Once you are prepared to accept that this might be true, instead of a physical resurrection, then I'm happy to discuss further including what Jesus said about HIs resurrection and the appearances as recorded in the Gospels and Acts.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you know Hebrew?

No, but my English is good.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I agree - as long as that unity is founded on truth, and not simply common beliefs.

Jesus did say the truth shall set us free... John 8:32

Perhaps he did - no offence meant, but I find most of Jesus' alleged teachings quite poor in substance and value.

You are unlikely to offend me. I know many wonderful people who have had extremely negative experiences with Christians, especially the fundamentalists. Did you have something specific in mind?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Can it not be said the same of him and his writings? What I find most convincing in religion is what is said, how it's said and whether or not their words match what we know is true, such as in prophecy. I have never seen or heard of in other so-called sacred writing accurately predicting a completely unknown, like when the Bible says in the End Times that food prices would cost an average person's daily wage. We see that getting closer every few months with prices going up and product size/amount getting smaller. And the Bible has many such prophecies.

Yes...Sometimes it can be hard to make ends meet.

I'm unfamiliar with the prophecy you refer. The parable of the short changed shopper perhaps?

Seriously the priniciple you may be considering is expressed in Deuteronomy 18:22

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Here's some light reading to get you started

Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era: Chapter 14

Bahá'í prophecies - Wikipedia