The Exclusivity of Christianity: Myth or Reality

[Dawnofhope]

"The Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.' ... Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Lord Buddha in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Lord Buddha and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'" (DN 11).

This quotation sounds remarkably similar to John 14:6. Thank you.

As you appreciate Baha'is recognise that Buddism has the same Divine origins as the Baha'i faith, namely the "Unknowable Essense" we call God. The challenge for people of all faiths is to better appreciate what unites us, instead of emphasising what divides.

Did not Jesus refer to those who could hear but were spiritually deaf, and for us all to overcome spiritual blindness?

Best Wishes

 

[oldbadger]

.......................... . But you can't interpret jewish views from the NT, you have to do it from the old. ..............

Yes you can, but not from John.
G-Mark shows the stories of Jews (J and JtB) who were speaking out, acting out and demonstrating for Jewish Laws, Jewish Values, Jewish Justice and Jewish Integrity against a treasonous and deceitful Jewish leadership (the priesthood).

...all within the NT.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And He also said:
"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."
John 10:16

That, too.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes you can, but not from John.
G-Mark shows the stories of Jews (J and JtB) who were speaking out, acting out and demonstrating for Jewish Laws, Jewish Values, Jewish Justice and Jewish Integrity against a treasonous and deceitful Jewish leadership (the priesthood).

...all within the NT.

The Jews do not believe in the NT only the first five books of their Bible.

You would have to understand it from a Jewish perspective, which means someone who does not view jesus as the messiah. It also means you can't use the disciples word for it because they did see jesus as the messiah to which jesus accused accurately by the Jews because he claimed the same. Their bias prevents you from seeing Jewish teachings from a Jewish perspective. Jesus never wrote down his own words. Everything was oral. So, you are dependent on people that the Jews don't even see as an authority for understanding god and scripture.

I'm trying to think of a good example. However, you have to understand culture and language has a lot to do with the interpretations of scripture. So, you can't use scripture written years after the Torah to determine what the Torah means unless you actually read the Torah an understand it from a Jewish perspective not a Christian one.

 

[oldbadger]

The Jews do not believe in the NT only the first five books of their Bible.

You would have to understand it from a Jewish perspective, which means someone who does not view jesus as the messiah. It also means you can't use the disciples word for it because they did see jesus as the messiah to which jesus accused accurately by the Jews because he claimed the same. Their bias prevents you from seeing Jewish teachings from a Jewish perspective. Jesus never wrote down his own words. Everything was oral. So, you are dependent on people that the Jews don't even see as an authority for understanding god and scripture.

I'm trying to think of a good example. However, you have to understand culture and language has a lot to do with the interpretations of scripture. So, you can't use scripture written years after the Torah to determine what the Torah means unless you actually read the Torah an understand it from a Jewish perspective not a Christian one.

.......... all in which case you don't understand what jesus's mission was really about.
It was ALL about justice, law, care and social responsibility being returned for the sake of the working JEWISH people.
I don't care whether Jews today accept that or not. I don't care whether Christians today accept that or not. It's simply the true story as written down in G-mark (less the Christian editing and additions), probably from the memoirs of Cephas, and during his lifetime.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

.......... all in which case you don't understand what jesus's mission was really about.
It was ALL about justice, law, care and social responsibility being returned for the sake of the working JEWISH people.
I don't care whether Jews today accept that or not. I don't care whether Christians today accept that or not. It's simply the true story as written down in G-mark (less the Christian editing and additions), probably from the memoirs of Cephas, and during his lifetime.

The problem is (and I study to work in language/culture and interpretering, so this isn't opinion) is that if you are to understand a specific view point, religious or not, that is not your own culture, you must speak to or refer to the culture and language with which those points originate from not from a secondary source.

The NT is not at all accepted by Jewish people and I know they know more about the OT Torah than most Christians who have not looked into it without comparing it to their own beliefs rather than the Judaism.

They are looking through Christian lens; and, to understand the first five books of the Bible, you cannot do that. Regardless of what you believe, it could be about any subject.

It would be silly for me to go to the sacred text of Bahaullah to learn about Jesus rather than going to the NT. It would be silly to learn about the Creator in the NT-Christian faith without learning about who the creator as described in the OT-Jewish faith.

It would be silly for me to ask a Bahaullah about Jesus' teachings all because, if I were Bahai, he is mentioned in their text. I would go straight to the source, the written source, the people who are still alive today, and focus on their interpretation.

I can disagree with it and not care all I won't but that won't chance the fact that you can't learn about someone's culture and belief if you are listening to someone who says they are the Messiah while in the OT, no one saves but the creator himself. If you are trying to justify the NT by the OT Torah, that's somewhat hard if you believe jesus is god.

Your belief is putting a lens over what the OT says in contrast to the NT. It's sad to see that; but, there it is.

 

[Neo Deist]

In regards to who is the author I believe it was the apostle John but could not prove it with certainty.

Such is the problem with many books in the Bible. Religions, denominations or organizations will interpret things a certain way in order to sync to their beliefs. People have a tendency to be biased. I don't have a problem with them doing that, as long as their views don't hurt anyone else. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be respected with regard to religion. It's the ones that are so concrete in their beliefs and go out of their way to force their views on others, that I have issues with.

 

[Neo Deist]

The problem is (and I study to work in language/culture and interpretering, so this isn't opinion) is that if you are to understand a specific view point, religious or not, that is not your own culture, you must speak to or refer to the culture and language with which those points originate from not from a secondary source.

Finally, someone else gets it! Well done.

 

[soulsurvivor]

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?

What many people don't realize and most Christian do not yet accept, is that Jesus is just one incarnation of the Son. There have been many incarnations of the Son before Jesus and there will be many more in the future. In this passage Jesus is speaking as the Son rather than Jesus the person. (which is why Jesus speaks in the third person often in the Bible).

So the passage should be read as 'the only way to the Father is through the Son', the Son being the second person of the Trinity rather than Jesus himself.

It goes further than that - He is not saying that he will take only those who believe in Him. The Son takes everyone to the Father (or heaven) eventually - that includes non-believers, agnostics, heathens, atheists, communists etc.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Such is the problem with many books in the Bible. Religions, denominations or organizations will interpret things a certain way in order to sync to their beliefs. People have a tendency to be biased. I don't have a problem with them doing that, as long as their views don't hurt anyone else. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be respected with regard to religion. It's the ones that are so concrete in their beliefs and go out of their way to force their views on others, that I have issues with.

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

 

[Neo Deist]

"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."

Abdu'l-Baha was a wise man.

 

[oldbadger]

The problem is (and I study to work in language/culture and interpretering, so this isn't opinion) is that if you are to understand a specific view point, religious or not, that is not your own culture, you must speak to or refer to the culture and language with which those points originate from not from a secondary source.

I referred to G-Mark and chosen pieces from Matthew, Luke and even John.
There is no doubt in my mind that Yeshua BarYosef stood for the working people of Galilee. He spoke Eastern Aramaic with Galilee accemt. He was a Galilee Jew.
The evidence is there.......

The NT is not at all accepted by Jewish people and I know they know more about the OT Torah than most Christians who have not looked into it without comparing it to their own beliefs rather than the Judaism.

I'm neither Christian nor Jew, and selling my findings to neither. They can keep or leave 'em.

They are looking through Christian lens; and, to understand the first five books of the Bible, you cannot do that. Regardless of what you believe, it could be about any subject.

For a language student you're tripping up. You start your sentence about 'them' (Christians) and then jump into what I can or cannot do! Tell them, not me!

It would be silly for me to go to the sacred text of Bahaullah to learn about Jesus rather than going to the NT. It would be silly to learn about the Creator in the NT-Christian faith without learning about who the creator as described in the OT-Jewish faith.

Well, then, don't do that!

It would be silly for me to ask a Bahaullah about Jesus' teachings all because, if I were Bahai, he is mentioned in their text. I would go straight to the source, the written source, the people who are still alive today, and focus on their interpretation.

WEll then, you'd better read G-Mark, because that's just about the closest and most accurate report about Jesus, even with the later inclusions, alterations, additions and exaggerations.

I can disagree with it and not care all I won't but that won't chance the fact that you can't learn about someone's culture and belief if you are listening to someone who says they are the Messiah while in the OT, no one saves but the creator himself. If you are trying to justify the NT by the OT Torah, that's somewhat hard if you believe jesus is god.

Yeshua never claimed to be a Meshiah.

Your belief is putting a lens over what the OT says in contrast to the NT. It's sad to see that; but, there it is.

What belief?
What do you think I believe?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's just a fact that if you want to learn about the meaning and point of something that is not of your own culture, you can't take second hand opinion.

I referred to G-Mark and chosen pieces from Matthew, Luke and even John.
There is no doubt in my mind that Yeshua BarYosef stood for the working people of Galilee. He spoke Eastern Aramaic with Galilee accemt. He was a Galilee Jew.
The evidence is there.......

Why use the NT to understand about Jewish tradition. Why not use the OT or even better ask and refer to resources by actual people who follow and is still part of that line of people and culture? You can do whatever you want; and, that's not my point.

I'm neither Christian nor Jew, and selling my findings to neither. They can keep or leave 'em.

Okayee.

For a language student you're tripping up. You start your sentence about 'them' (Christians) and then jump into what I can or cannot do! Tell them, not me!

I'm not a translator, I'm an interpreting student. This isn't a class project nor an essay. It's just stating fact. If you want to learn about X, go to the people who know about X not ask Y about X as if they both share the same opinion. In a lot of cases, and subjects religious or not, they don't.

WEll then, you'd better read G-Mark, because that's just about the closest and most accurate report about Jesus, even with the later inclusions, alterations, additions and exaggerations.

I'm not christian either; but, when I studied the Bible, I studied it in context. If the Bible says "thou shall not kill" in one book, "thou shall not murder" in another, and the G-Mark says "thou shall not take a life."

I kind of get the point that a life shouldn't be taken regardless the intent since the Bible is about god giving life and he is also the one that takes it. So, it would be a waste of my time to try to read "perfect" translations unless I'm going into that field or interested in the study. The Bible is pretty easy to understand.

Yeshua never claimed to be a Meshiah.

Jesus claimed to be a savior to the jews and gentiles (no jew, no gentile). When someone is a savior of a group of people, that person is called a Messiah.

Again, though, context means a lot. The bible doesn't say "Being GLBTQ is a sin", but it does say homosexuality is a sin. Yet, people will think the two mean the same thing; and, they do not according to scripture.

So, context means a lot when understanding the meaning unless you are in theology class writing an essay or something since you are not a christian either.

 

[CG Didymus]

I
Not true. They have a religion similar to other religions.

Early Christians viewed hell below the earth and heaven up in the sky. If we still believe these are the physical locations in the phenomenal world we are in trouble. If we believe that heaven is in an invisible realm, then Jesus physically rising into the sky makes no sense.

A spiritual resurrection in light of the symbolism of the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Christ makes profound sense. It accounts for the 'ascension' of the Christian faith or ascendancy of the body of His faithful believers through trials and tribulations. Besides Paul who insisted on the resurrection as an indispensable aspect of Christian belief claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ himself never did literally. He has blinded and heard the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

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.

 

[buddhist]

This quotation sounds remarkably similar to John 14:6. Thank you.

As you appreciate Baha'is recognise that Buddism has the same Divine origins as the Baha'i faith, namely the "Unknowable Essense" we call God. The challenge for people of all faiths is to better appreciate what unites us, instead of emphasising what divides.

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

Did not Jesus refer to those who could hear but were spiritually deaf, and for us all to overcome spiritual blindness?

Best Wishes

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

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

Citation please?

Do you know Hebrew?

 

[Windwalker]

It says they Shall see God, not that they have seen God.

Apparently it was Jesus in the Garden, and Jesus is also God, but not God the Father. Those who saw God actually saw Jesus before Jesus came in the flesh. Also notable in the psalm, "The Lord said to my Lord" meaning " God the Father said to God the Son"

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Ro. 1:20. The hidden things of him through creation are clearly seen and made known so that they are without excuse. In other words you can see God in everything, if you have the eyes and the heart willing to see.

You are mistakenly reading the prolog of John when it is speaking of the Logos manifesting the invisible God to mean literally that until Jesus of Nazareth no one had ever seen God and was utterly blind. The Logos in the prolog IS the manifestor of God eternally. If you are seeing the Logos, you are seeing God. All creation is God manifesting, through Logos. And we all behold that. We all can see God. And that is not limited to one religion.

 

[Windwalker]

For example, the prepositions give a way the relationship between father and son.

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

Jesus is an intermediary and representative. So whatever christ says it is what god says. So the Word (the message of Christ; what he sent) is god's word not christ. Christ does not claim what he says is his own. He says it is of his father. That's in scripture.

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?

 

[Kemosloby]

Ro. 1:20. The hidden things of him through creation are clearly seen and made known so that they are without excuse. In other words you can see God in everything, if you have the eyes and the heart willing to see.

You are mistakenly reading the prolog of John when it is speaking of the Logos manifesting the invisible God to mean literally that until Jesus of Nazareth no one had ever seen God and was utterly blind. The Logos in the prolog IS the manifestor of God eternally. If you are seeing the Logos, you are seeing God. All creation is God manifesting, through Logos. And we all behold that. We all can see God. And that is not limited to one religion.

No, otherwise you could look at Cain smashing Able in the head and say, God does all things and that must be how God is. But Jesus says No, by my good works you know God the Father.

 

[Windwalker]

No, otherwise you could look at Cain smashing Able in the head and say, God does all things and that must be how God is. But Jesus says No, by my good works you know God the Father.

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.