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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Exclusivity of Christianity: Myth or Reality
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
What a brilliant answer. It certainly convinced me.
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.
The point I was making is: if we take the Bible as our starting point of authority, whether it be Old or New Testament, then at some point claims of guaranteed universal salvation logically don't hold up.
If rebelling against God takes you out of His presence and leads to death, and there's only one God, then how can you expect to abide for eternity in His presence without making the choice to submit to His authority again?
Some do try to claim that maybe God is just able to get everyone to come around, or maybe there is a way to be saved after death. I think it's difficult to truthfully say that based on what the Bible tells us, but regardless even if one believes that they are still left with an inescapeable Biblical fact: There is only one God, and if people don't choose to stop their rebellion to Him then they cannot expect to have eternal abiding relationship with Him.
So really at that point someone is not able to argue that all paths legitimately lead to God. Based on the Bible, we can we confidently conclude that most ideological and religious ideas lead to a dead end because they aren't really bringing you any closer to an abiding and obedient relationship with the one true God (and many, in fact, are teaching things that would do the opposite). The Biblical universalist is therefore merely arguing that, despite all these other paths leading to dead ends, that God will still somehow work it out in the end to show them the right way and everyone will choose to accept it. Well, it might be a belief they have, and it might be what they think should happen, but it's not what the BIble says will happen.
Lets consider the context of John 14:6
Jesus is speaking to His disciples who of course are all, like Jesus are all Jews. He has just informed them of His impending martyrdom. They are distraught and He is comforting them. When He says "I am the way, the truth, the light, nobody goes to the Father except through me" He is reiterating that He is the Promised One that the Jews have been waiting for and they need to turn to Him, not to another.
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.
Jesus is also indicating that He will be the new focal point for worship rather than the Temple. This becomes apparent with considering the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation 21:22
There are scripture that indicate despite the Jews rejection of their Messiah, the issue of whether or not they are saved is not the main concern - see Romans Chapter 9 and 11 and Mark 3:28-30
Best wishes
Jesus 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.
Context 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.
He is called the true vine. There is only ever logically one truth, but there can be innumerable lies.
We must abide in obedient loving relationship with Him in order to bear fruit and have life.
Those who don't will be cut off as unfruitful and thrown into the fire.
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.
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. We we do that we can see your interpretation wouldn't hold up for many reasons, but I'll give two big ones (one of which I kind of already covered, but I can restate it differently):
Logically a position of locality for Jesus also doesn't make sense for the simple fact that Jesus, and God in the OT, is repeatedly shown to be the creator of the entire universe and the uncontensted ruler over all of it. John 1 and pretty much the entire book of Revelation being very explicit examples. But if you doubt this I can find references all throughout the NT, in both the Gospels and by multiple epistle writers, to Jesus as the Lord and creator of the universe.
If Jesus is commanding your obedience to Him in order to abide with Him, and you want to abide with God for eternity, then you have no other way to abide with God for eternity but by the conditions Jesus gives because there's only one God, one Lord, in existence. All others are false gods and lords, pretenders.
Logically it also makes no sense to claim that God only intended to provide a local solution to the problem of sin, salvation, and restoration through Jesus, when Genesis records that the fall of all mankind has the same common source: Rebellion against God, sin, and broken relationship with God, which leads to death. That is why Jesus is the answer, taking away our sin, enabling us to live a life obedient to God, and restoring our relationship with God for eternity, giving us eternal life.
There is no other remedy for the problem of the fall given in the Bible. But Jesus did command us to take this message of the remedy into all the world.
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.
By definition, there is only one truth, but innumerable possible lies. You don't need to be aware of what all the lies in order to be told the truth and obey it. 1+1 always = 2. No matter how many different wrong ways people try to solve the equation, and even try to come up with excuses as to why they are right, the fact is 1+1 still only = 2 and always will.
So in that sense it's irrelevant whether or not the Jews were aware of every false religious belief in the world at that time, or whatever would be invented in the future. It doesn't impact their ability to be told a universal truth by the one true God and then apply it.
Last edited:
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."
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?
Yes, a lot of room in the kingdom of heaven.
I see a loving and just God throughout but the OT and NT. Your perspective of God appears neither loving, nor just.
The existence of false religions doesn't detract from the existence of true religions.
The point I made is that the Jews who rejected their Messiah were still saved anyhow.
Best Wishes
Please check out post #183 for my response. Also #185
I don't think the recipient was particularly convinced of my explanation
Then again the purpose of this post is to generate some discussion and consider different perspectives.
Shem Ben Noah
INACTIVE
Could not care less. I haven't taken christianity seriously for a long time. Except maybe Messianic Jews, at least they get his name right. But that movement is all but dead nowadays, too many posers ruined their credibility..
Please check out post #183 for my response. Also #185
I don't think the recipient was particularly convinced of my explanation
No non-believe will be consider anythign we says about the Bible is true. As you said, this for discussion, not for conversion.
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 just intended to be for the Jews?
That statement doesn't change what Jesus said, or who it applies to.
Of course it's inclusive in the sense that God offers his love and redemption to all who would take hold of it: But I think you entirely missed the point I made:
Which is that although God is inclusive in the sense of welcoming everyone and providing the way, but 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. We see that in Genesis, in God's relations with Israel, the words of Jesus, and the end times prophecy found in books like Revelation. This same truth is being communicated to us - God has terms of relationship that we have to meet. We have to be willing to let go of the things that separate us from Him. We don't get to do whatever we want, unrepentently, and continue to have unbroken relationship with Him.
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?
If you say no, then that settles the issue: God does have standards and conditions on the restoration of relationship with us.
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?
If you say yes to that, don't you see that salvation is still only defined only as coming to, through, and by Jesus? Nobody comes to the Father except through Him. You don't get to plot your own path to God.
Matthew 7:13-14
I believe I address that fallacy with my comments above.
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.
One thing we can say for certain, based on the entire context of the Bible and everything else Jesus said: Is that he would not be saying that people who follow false idol gods, and live in ways contrary to what God commands, would be considered His sheep.
In fact, the very definition of a sheep excludes that possibility - Sheep follow their shepherd. John 10:27
If you aren't following the one true God and obeying His voice then you aren't His sheep.
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.
Rebellion led to the fall. It led to the flood, destruction of cities, the collapse of nations, and the death of individuals. This is not just Old Testament. In the NT we see judgement on individuals like Ananias and Sapphira, a man is blinded in Acts 13, many statements by Jesus talking about future judgement (Example: Matthew 10:15), and much of the book of Revelation shows God's ultimate judgement on a rebellious evil world who refuses to repent of their evil (which also coincides with prophetic visions found in the OT).
I think a question I would have to pose to you at this point is:
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?
I think we need to establish that underlying assumption before we can discuss what the Bible actually says.
Now, it's one thing to say you don't believe what the Bible says, but it's quite another to try to claim the Bible actually supports what you believe while at the same time rejecting most of what it says just because you disagree with it. You can't claim to interpret the Bible as saying one thing if you aren't also willing to to reconcile that with the context of what the rest of Scripture says. Ie. You can't claim Jesus taught something in one verse that would be contradicted by many other things He said, especially when there is more than one way of interpreting the one verse in question.
Any verse has to be read in the context of understanding what the whole Bible says, because God doesn't lie or change (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:16). There is a consistent message being communicated to us by God from the beginning of the world. We can truthfully say that the Bible as a whole doesn't support your claim of unconditional salvation for everyone.
Last edited:
Thank you for your lengthy reply. You are obviously sincere and committed in your belief so I will try to answer most of your questions
Of course. I am a Baha'i. I believe in the same God, Jesus, and Gospels as you do.
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.
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.
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
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.
This is OT thinking. We need to frame our questions in a 21st century context otherwise the sacred words become empty and obsolete. Of course there is reward and punishment. This is pivotal to God's justice. However there is also Mercy and Forgiveness and this is central to Gods' greatest commandments. Having said that love and justice are of course connected.
However salvation is not based on a literal interpretation of John 14:6
Of course. I am a Baha'i. I believe in the same God, Jesus, and Gospels as you do.
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.
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.
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
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.
This is OT thinking. We need to frame our questions in a 21st century context otherwise the sacred words become empty and obsolete. Of course there is reward and punishment. This is pivotal to God's justice. However there is also Mercy and Forgiveness and this is central to Gods' greatest commandments. Having said that love and justice are of course connected.
That's not what I'm saying. Of course we have free will.
Yes it could, including those that adhere to religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism or indeed have no religion.
Shepherds like Buddha, Muhammad, and Krishna.
There is absolutely no reason why a Loving, Compassionate, and All-powerful God does not guide other peoples and not just one people.
I'm good with Gods' justice. I'm not good with mans' religious prejudice and bigotry justified using Gods' word.
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.
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.
Its not unconditional. I never said that.
However salvation is not based on a literal interpretation of John 14:6
Last edited:
Upaava
Member
Upaava
Member
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.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
All religions are based on mythology, like it or not.
Thank you for your response
I've posted my thoughts about the meaning of this earlier in the thread. I've no problem with these words, but I have a different understanding from many Christians. I am concerned about verses such as these contributing to religious bigotry and prejudice. I understand that Jesus would only have love and deep appreciation of the teachers of other major world religions.
Jesus is speaking to His disciples who of course are all, like Jesus are all Jews. He has just informed them of His impending martyrdom. They are distraught and He is comforting them. When He says "I am the way, the truth, the light, nobody goes to the Father except through me" He is reiterating that He is the Promised One that the Jews have been waiting for and they need to turn to Him, not to another.
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.
Jesus is also indicating that He will be the new focal point for worship rather than the Temple. This becomes apparent with considering the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation 21:22
There are scripture that indicate despite the Jews rejection of their Messiah, the issue of whether or not they are saved is not the main concern - see Romans 9 and 11 and Mark 3:28-30
Best wishes
Yes, it is so important to always keep in mind that the sacred texts are filled with hidden intrinsic spiritual meanings and to take care when interpreting literally, especially from the Gospel of John.
Do you believe in any Biblical scripture besides the Gospels? The prophets? The letters of the apostles? The book of Acts?
I'm not sure that really answers my question, because it doesn't really define how you approach the authority of Scripture.
Do you throw out sections of the Bible that you don't believe are true?
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?
Based on what scripture? The scripture contradicts your claim:
Matthew 10:5
Matthew 15:24
Jesus was sent first to the Jews.
Almost the entirety of the audience to which He spoke were Jews.
In a sense he was sent only to the Jews, because it was His apostles who were sent out to the gentiles in His name.
Not only does the Scripture say He was sent to the Jews, but it says they rejected Him:
John 1:11-12. And those who did not receive Him did not get to become children of God.
Further, Peter, speaking to the Jews, said this:
Acts of the Apostles 2:36-41
Do you not realize that scripturally, both OT and NT, the Messiah is the promised savior of the Jews? He's never said, or even implied, to only be the savior of the gentiles. The scripture is clear: Jesus was sent to save the Jews. His commands are meant for them as much as everyone else. There is no scriptural justification for saying otherwise.
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?
That's not just an OT concept. I can pull up the NT verses that all fit this concept if you need it, but here's some to get you started:
Matthew 25:31-46
Matthew 13:36-43
Matthew 10:28
Mark 9:43
John 3:18
John 8:51
John 6:35-37
John 5:28-29
John 15:1-6
The reason you find it in both the OT and NT is because God is consistent throughout history. He doesn't change and He doesn't lie. Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19.
I gave many scriptures from the Bible that show why it is exclusive in the sense of there being a narrow way to reunion with God.
If you think that's a wrong conclusion about what Scripture says, then you're going to need to use Scripture to prove it.
If your interptetation of a passage directly contradicts what the rest of the Bible says, then your interpretation cannot be right. When a Bible passage is rightly interpreted, it will be in harmony with the entire Bible.
Such generic statements don't really serve to address the issues being discussed.
Because they don't begin to explain why specifically you think we should regard my outline of Scripture as inaccurate, or why your viewpoint represents a more accurate understanding of Scripture.
One thing I can tell you for sure: Is that you can't apply what the Bible is saying to you in your context unless you first identity what it is saying to the people to whom the words were first given in their context.
What scripture do you think supports your statement?
I can show some scripture that goes against your claim:
Matthew 5:17-20
Psalms 119:160
God's law is eternal, and nothing in the New Covenant contradicts God's law:
In the context of Matthew 5 as well, we see that Jesus never undoes the law of God: He just takes people back to the morals underpinning the law of Moses and calls them to an even higher standard of observance based off that.
Matthew 5:27-28
In the cases where Jesus clashes with the Pharisees over certain issues, Jesus is never ignoring the law of God; He's ignoring the traditions of men which actually have nothing to do with the law of God.
Mark 7:8
Matthew 15:2-3
Last edited:
I doubt if we are getting any closer to understanding each other. I'm losing confidence we will.
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. The fundamental problem is when one person or group understand the bible differently from another. One group insists that their way is the only way to see it. Then they start to see the other group as being misguided heretics, morally deficient, unreasonable, and spiritually blind. They start accusing the other of removing parts of the bible to suit themselves, to twist the words of God, and so it goes. Maybe we don't have bloodshed with masses of people dying in the name of Christianity like bygone ages but we have animosity and misunderstanding in the name of God.
Of course
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?
Of course not, do you?
This is why I'm losing any hope of a reasoned conversation with you. You seem to be wilfully misunderstanding what I'm saying.
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. The fundamental problem is when one person or group understand the bible differently from another. One group insists that their way is the only way to see it. Then they start to see the other group as being misguided heretics, morally deficient, unreasonable, and spiritually blind. They start accusing the other of removing parts of the bible to suit themselves, to twist the words of God, and so it goes. Maybe we don't have bloodshed with masses of people dying in the name of Christianity like bygone ages but we have animosity and misunderstanding in the name of God.
Understand, I'm not accusing you of throwing out parts of the Bible, I'm simply asking you to clarify your position so I know where you're coming from.
Interpretation is extracting what the text was intended to communicate, the meaning.
I notice you didn't respond directly to any scripture I gave you that shows your interpretation cannot be the right one. That Scripture demonstrates why your understanding of John 14:6, as not being exclusive, cannot be true. Because there has to be harmony in the Scripture if we start from the position that it is all God's truth.
If your interpretation of that verse were correct, then you would be able to demonstrate why the scripture I gave is still in harmony with it. Or why my understanding of those verses cannot be true based on other verses in the Bible.
Maybe this question will help clarify where you are coming from: Do you think that anyone can interpret the Bible any way they want, even if it can be shown to contradicts what the text is reasonably intended to communicate?
Or do you think there is a standard of harmony, context, linguistics, and reason which all play a role in allowing someone to demonstrate what the proper interpretation(meaning and intent) of a text is?
Or at the very least, being able to say that some things cannot be said to be true about the text, even if there is no agreement on what exactly it does say?
Some people have a wrong understanding of what Biblical interpretation is. They think the Bible is like a rorschach test that has no right or wrong answers, but reflects whatever you want to see. The truth is that it's more comparable to a lengthy letter or email you receive - The intent and meaning is determined by what the author of the letter intended to communicate to you. Given that, there are certain things you can state definitely about what the author was communicating to you based on a contextual reading of the whole letter, taking into account your relationship and prior communications if necessary to add contextual understanding.
But the author only had a narrow range of meaning to communicate. You cannot truthfully interpret the letter to mean whatever you want it to. If someone tried to do that in the business world, government, or the military, they would find themselves in serious trouble very quickly - because they are doing the opposite of what was communicated to them in textual correspondence, and there was a reasonable expectation that they should be able to discern the meaning of what their orders were. They cannot use the defense, when on trial for breaking the law, that they just interpreted what they were allowed to do differently than most people, because there is an implicit expectation that a reasonable person is expected to be able to understand the meaning of what they were told to do in writing.
That's why I'm trying to figure out what you think it means to "interpret" the Bible.
Do you even recognize the need to harmonize your interpretation of John 14:6 with everything else Jesus said, everything else the NT says, and everything else the Bible says? Or do you feel free to just interpret single verses any way you want without regard for what the whole Bible contextually says?
Protestant Christianity (those who regard the Bible as their final authority on what is true) is remarkably unified on their understanding that Jesus is the only way to the Father - because that's really the only honest interpretation you can pull out of the Bible's communication.
There are an extreme minority that say otherwise, but usually you find they reject the Bible as an authority and as a result they often reject other basic Biblical tenets about Jesus as well.
Interpretation is extracting what the text was intended to communicate, the meaning.
I notice you didn't respond directly to any scripture I gave you that shows your interpretation cannot be the right one. That Scripture demonstrates why your understanding of John 14:6, as not being exclusive, cannot be true. Because there has to be harmony in the Scripture if we start from the position that it is all God's truth.
If your interpretation of that verse were correct, then you would be able to demonstrate why the scripture I gave is still in harmony with it. Or why my understanding of those verses cannot be true based on other verses in the Bible.
Maybe this question will help clarify where you are coming from: Do you think that anyone can interpret the Bible any way they want, even if it can be shown to contradicts what the text is reasonably intended to communicate?
Or do you think there is a standard of harmony, context, linguistics, and reason which all play a role in allowing someone to demonstrate what the proper interpretation(meaning and intent) of a text is?
Or at the very least, being able to say that some things cannot be said to be true about the text, even if there is no agreement on what exactly it does say?
Some people have a wrong understanding of what Biblical interpretation is. They think the Bible is like a rorschach test that has no right or wrong answers, but reflects whatever you want to see. The truth is that it's more comparable to a lengthy letter or email you receive - The intent and meaning is determined by what the author of the letter intended to communicate to you. Given that, there are certain things you can state definitely about what the author was communicating to you based on a contextual reading of the whole letter, taking into account your relationship and prior communications if necessary to add contextual understanding.
But the author only had a narrow range of meaning to communicate. You cannot truthfully interpret the letter to mean whatever you want it to. If someone tried to do that in the business world, government, or the military, they would find themselves in serious trouble very quickly - because they are doing the opposite of what was communicated to them in textual correspondence, and there was a reasonable expectation that they should be able to discern the meaning of what their orders were. They cannot use the defense, when on trial for breaking the law, that they just interpreted what they were allowed to do differently than most people, because there is an implicit expectation that a reasonable person is expected to be able to understand the meaning of what they were told to do in writing.
That's why I'm trying to figure out what you think it means to "interpret" the Bible.
Do you even recognize the need to harmonize your interpretation of John 14:6 with everything else Jesus said, everything else the NT says, and everything else the Bible says? Or do you feel free to just interpret single verses any way you want without regard for what the whole Bible contextually says?
Protestant Christianity (those who regard the Bible as their final authority on what is true) is remarkably unified on their understanding that Jesus is the only way to the Father - because that's really the only honest interpretation you can pull out of the Bible's communication.
There are an extreme minority that say otherwise, but usually you find they reject the Bible as an authority and as a result they often reject other basic Biblical tenets about Jesus as well.
Last edited:
No. It shows that I doubt if we can have a meaningful conversation about those verses.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
It gets worse than that....Christianity has splintered into thousands of groups, each claiming a certain exclusivity.