the right religion

[Ouroboros]

Shh, shh! That's their big selling point! They have to keep people convinced that we need salvation in the first place1 Don't want the masses to realize that we don't need salvation!

We do need salvation...



from religion.

 

[1robin]

We do need salvation...



from religion.

That is like saying we need ethics or legality to free from troublesome morality.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Shh, shh! That's their big selling point! They have to keep people convinced that we need salvation in the first place1 Don't want the masses to realize that we don't need salvation!

A woman friend of mine, sick with the flu, went for a doctor visit. The doctor (a woman) began preaching to my friend that she was guilty, as we are all guilty and born that way, and so my friend must think about saving herself. Then she gave her a script for antibiotics and some fundie religious tracts.

First convince everyone that they are dirty. Only then will our offer of Holy Soap be well received.

 

[Secret Chief]

We do need salvation...



from religion.

So on the news tonight...Hezbollah and alQaeda like to kill in the name of different brands of Islam. One is sunni, one shia. Can't remember which but it's irrelevant. In Syria right now they're terrorising men women and children in the name of two versions of the same non existent delusion. There must be a pretty decent positive correlation between areas of organised violence and Abrahamic beliefs. 2000 years and still slaughtering. Nice one, deity.

Save us indeed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We do need salvation...



from religion.

Indeed. But as always, the only savior from religion is ourselves.

A woman friend of mine, sick with the flu, went for a doctor visit. The doctor (a woman) began preaching to my friend that she was guilty, as we are all guilty and born that way, and so my friend must think about saving herself. Then she gave her a script for antibiotics and some fundie religious tracts.

First convince everyone that they are dirty. Only then will our offer of Holy Soap be well received.

:areyoucra True story?

Yes, religion is a cure for an imaginary ailment. It's like that bumper sticker "I was born right the first time!".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

:areyoucra True story?

Alas, yes. I wanted to report the doctor to some medical disciplinary board, but my friend wouldn't let me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Alas, yes. I wanted to report the doctor to some medical disciplinary board, but my friend wouldn't let me.

I would've reported her, anyway. That's insane!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So on the news tonight...Hezbollah and alQaeda like to kill in the name of different brands of Islam. One is sunni, one shia. Can't remember which but it's irrelevant. In Syria right now they're terrorising men women and children in the name of two versions of the same non existent delusion. There must be a pretty decent positive correlation between areas of organised violence and Abrahamic beliefs. 2000 years and still slaughtering. Nice one, deity.

Save us indeed.

When an ideology promotes the view that there is only one right way to live and to believe and all the unbelievers are "unrepentant sinners", "infidels" and "kafirs", violence is sure to follow. It's a violent form of tribalism.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I would've reported her, anyway. That's insane!

Yeah, and people wonder why I care so much about opposing conservative Christianity. Doctors, like parents, are authority figures. When they talk insane stuff like original sin, some people are going to accept that they know what they're talking about. And so the weirdness spreads.

I've got enough insane people in my life. I don't need more.

 

[Secret Chief]

When an ideology promotes the view that there is only one right way to live and to believe and all the unbelievers are "unrepentant sinners", "infidels" and "kafirs", violence is sure to follow. It's a violent form of tribalism.

Such niche tribalism! Muslims killing each other for cheerleading the wrong brand!!?? And how is Assad anything more than a war criminal? Save us from this madness. It's 2014, not 1414.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, and people wonder why I care so much about opposing conservative Christianity. Doctors, like parents, are authority figures. When they talk insane stuff like original sin, some people are going to accept that they know what they're talking about. And so the weirdness spreads.

I've got enough insane people in my life. I don't need more.

Exactly. Unless that doctor was working at a Christian clinic where you can expect a degree of preaching, she was violating her authority and had no business doing that.

Such niche tribalism! Muslims killing each other for cheerleading the wrong brand!!?? And how is Assad anything more than a war criminal? Save us from this madness. It's 2014, not 1414.

They're all criminals. But the Jihadists in Syria are the biggest threat for now.

 

[Nakosis]

That is a crucial component of my position. I do not need clarity concerning what I believe. I need clarity concerning what you said.

So you are then ok with someone else suffering in your place?

No dogma, central doctrine, or affirmation claims that either the wine or the bread are the central message of Christ. They are details or commentary and not in any way essential messages. Essential doctrines are what I must believe or what without them my faith would falter upon. If neither of those were mentioned I would still be as born again as I am. They are elements that tie together themes and are not themes themselves. In fact they are not even literals. They are analogies. They are also never ever translated or equated as teachings and his life. The wine is his blood and the bread his body. They symbolize our solidarity with his crucifixion and do not mean even remotely what you claim. Where did you even get this? Gnostics nor even cults teach that to my knowledge.

The bread is easy...

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

The wine is never really explained in the gospels. One get it from looking at the nature of reality. I look at the sky and say it is blue. You ask where I get that from. I say by looking at the sky. You'd tell me it's not according to scripture.

If you could let go of some of the symbolism necessary for your belief you could probably see it too.

What authority in the history of mankind would have a better position to know the story, truth, and teachings of Christ than his hand picked apostles? I am using their claims not mine nor any church fathers. They lived the exact type of lives that would lend them all credibility and no church authority has significantly changed or altered their words. That is what I live by.

It's not necessary for the messanger to understand the message he is given to convey and since Jesus wrote nothing himself there is no guarantee about accuracy. What you live by you should be able to verify by more then just what others have said. Just how I see things. You obviously can accept the authority of any person dead or alive regardless of any justifiable reason. However any expectation that they should be accepted by anyone else as having authority to speak for God is not reasonable.

I did not know what you originally said and have no idea what this is either. Me and you are two opposing sides of an issue. Your blindness is obviously not leading me anywhere.

I'm not leading and you are obviously not following.

Is there any hope we can get back to discussing the exclusivity of truth and Christ's clear statements?

We did, we defined truth and seemed to reach an agreement...

Understanding the statements of Jesus require both the bread and the wine. There is a limit to what words can convey. The truth is a lot of the understanding derived from scripture is guesswork.

But ok, lets see where this goes. What statements made by Jesus (hopefully made prior to the resurrection) make Christianity the exclusive religion of God?

 

[Ouroboros]

Indeed. But as always, the only savior from religion is ourselves.

True that.

That's what the story about Jesus is about. We are to become Jesus, die from ourselves, and come to life as new and free from religion and dogma.

(I'm sure I'll get crap for that statement now. LOL!)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's what the story about Jesus is about. We are to become Jesus, die from ourselves, and come to life as new and free from religion and dogma.

I like to argue about the historical Jesus sometimes -- because I find it interesting -- but people seem to think I'm trying to attack Christianity when I deny the existence of a 30CE Jesus. Even non-Christians think I'm behaving badly to do that.

But I'm not. Sure I'm undermining much current Christian thinking, but I know that Christian theology can adapt to any and all issues of literal vs. metaphorical. Even the non-historicity of Jesus.

The theology you present above is just as legitimate as any other theology which is based on the Bible and Christian tradition. May many Christians adopt it, asap.

 

[Nakosis]

I am a human. Humans undertake nothing of this complexity that is free from error. I at times get my facts mixed up, am ignorant of counter claims from time to time, and misunderstand context on occasion. My goal is perfect, my execution is not.

Yet in saying this, you realize we are relying on other humans to report to us on events which happened 2000 years ago.

There is no other option that to make educated guesses at history. That is the what the historical method produces. My claim is that my guesses or conclusions are the best possible.

Fair enough. My point is only to differentiate speculation on historical events from truth which can be individually verified.

I do not understand the purpose here.

We were discussing authorship not character. I asked if you (as it seemed you were) conceded Paul's authorship but denied the other NT writers. I usually get the exact opposite. I have no idea why Paul's character is on trial.

Other authors identified their selves. How is that the test for authorship. The most influential piece of data concerning authorship is that no contenders beyond the tradition authors exist for almost all the NT books. Mathew, Mark, etc... may not be free from any contention but they are by far the most evidenced authors. There are no contemporary claims by anyone else to authorship.

Sorry, failed attempt at a bit of sarcasm...

I believe one or more of the Gospels did mention authorship. If you find a declaration convincing then why are you not convinced for example by the extensive claims to a careful and extensive examination of all relevant material like eye witnesses, and earlier records.

Here I'm relying on other sources. I've no reason at this point to dispute them.

Authorship of the New Testament - RationalWiki

You can't possibly know that and reason is firmly against you. A mute teacher of mankind is about the worst possible conclusion there could be. The most rational conclusion is that he made countless declarations and that they were for the most part faithfully and emphatically recorded and even the holy spirit assisted in the accurate transmission of his message. Not to mention the confirmation of consistency and internal coherence with even people who had taught a thousand years earlier. What other book can boast a consistent narrative over almost 2000 years?

What I meant was Jesus did not write any teachings. So we are left to rely on individuals, human like you, who as you pointed out, "Humans undertake nothing of this complexity that is free from error."

1. Not a single word in any core doctrine I hold to is derived from my own words.
2. I in a complete vacuum arrived at the identical conclusion on all basic doctrine as scholars have consistently done for over a thousand years of protestant history. It also has over 90% agreement with all the great Catholic scholars for the past 2000 years.
3. None of it is even based on a single authors words.
4. It is also based on the words of the men who in all of histories years had the greatest access to the facts.

There is never a complete vacuum. Most often people are unaware of the influences that have gone into the development of their thinking. Our thinking, our thoughts we call our own do not spring from a vacuum. Though on a conscious level our thinking appears to do so. To some degree this can be understood with the idea that if something is repeated/heard often enough it becomes accepted as true. This does not occur on a conscious level. So I accept that to you, you have independently arrived at the same conclusion. However I'm pretty certain this is not reality.

However none of this was the point. The point was you cannot seriously believe you can contend with the most scrutinized book in human history by using your speculative musings about the very issues they and not you were in a position to know the truth of. You might as well have brought a knife to a gun fight with a Abram's tank.

I suspect the Abram tank is made of cardboard, in which case I'm better off holding a knife.

I cannot consider your position because it at least did not come with anything to consider. You did not reference any texts, no reasons why you would know a single thing you claimed, no philosophy, etc.... in short nothing to evaluate.
To accept as a probability perhaps,

Al evidence based reasoning. This is what is called the argument from uncertainty inflation. It involves pointing out or inventing uncertainties with a view and then amplifying what amounts to exactly what is to be expected and is overcome through scrutiny into what cannot be overcome by any method whatever. IOW you equate a lack of complete certainty with the inability to make reliable conclusions in order to justify a false plausible denial. In addition to what I stated there are an additional two terrible problems with doing this. The first is my most resented pet peeve.

1. You employ a criteria to return the desired level of uncertainty that you will immediately abandon for just about any other event or concept you evaluate. You do not throw your hands up at the car dealership because you can't know for certain you are picking the right care and give up. No you resolve the slight uncertainties and make the best conclusion possible. My biggest complaint in debates is the non-theists employment on an industrial scale of double standards. If you cannot determine the historicity of the claims in the most textually attested events in all on ancient history then all of ancient history is unresolvable.
2. The particular conclusion that the gospels are correct in all central claims to events is confirmed by the born again experience. There are hundreds of millions of claims to this confirmation and they are numbers no other religion can even fractionally compete with. Unlike most other claims I can know the truth of what I believed by it's unmistakable spiritual confirmation through an event that cannot be described fully in human language but must be experienced to be understood.

So again what do you have to back up your speculation that can even get in a discussion with just the slight portion of what I have to back up my beliefs?

The three common positions here are pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism.
Pluralism - there are many paths to God.
Exclusivism - there is one path to God.
Inclusivism - There is a core truth but how we come to understand this truth is from individual paths.One fairly well known inclusive was C. S. Lewis for example.

So I take it your position is that Jesus taught Exclusivism.
My belief is one of inclusivism. That Jesus taught core truths, but how one arrives at accepting those truths is not necessarily defined.

 

[Nakosis]

Just to support that C. S. Lewis position was one of inclusivism...

There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. -C. S. Lewis

 

[1robin]

So you are then ok with someone else suffering in your place?

That is not really an option and it certainly is not a relevant question. You can't suffer for me so I do not need to decide if I would be ok with it. Not that whether I am ok with something has anything to do with whether it is true or not anyway. Long before I existed mankind needed a solution to a problem it created, but had no way to rectify. God could have let it go there and remained just as much God as he is anyway. However Jesus said he would take our punishment for us and provide what we could never supply ourselves. Whether I like that or not has nothing to do with anything and was only a diversionary attempt at a moral high ground trap. The issue is whether the evidence supports this occurring or not. I think it overwhelming does and my experiences of God have been based on the truth of it having occurred. Whether I like the planet mars or not has no effect on whether it exists or not. These are silly tactics not an argument.

The bread is easy...

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

The wine is never really explained in the gospels. One get it from looking at the nature of reality. I look at the sky and say it is blue. You ask where I get that from. I say by looking at the sky. You'd tell me it's not according to scripture.

If you could let go of some of the symbolism necessary for your belief you could probably see it too.

Oh come off it. This is one of the least contested Christian doctrines in history. All major denominations for over a thousand years read the same bible you referred to and got the exact interpretation I supplied. It is part of official traditions, doctrines, and creeds. I know of no denomination or even cult that has adopted your interpretation.

Here are the clear verses on it.

New International Version
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

English Standard Version
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

(6-51)I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6-52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. (6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (6-54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (6-55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. (6-56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. (6-57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. (6-58) As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. (6-59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.(6-60) These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

What are your thoughts on this?

A. In John 6:51-59 Jesus is speaking figuratively. He never intended that they eat His flesh or drink His blood in the literal sense, but that they “partake” of His death in order to gain life. He had made the transition from literal to figurative when He compared Himself to the manna their forefathers had eaten in the desert in verses 48-49. The manna had sustained their forefathers’ temporal lives, but He would sustain their eternal lives. In the literal sense all of His followers died, just as those in the wilderness had, so He had to be speaking figuratively.

As you hopefully can see the meaning of the bread and wine has been known from clear scriptures for over a thousand years. Almost no disagreement exists concerning it because it is simply stated point blank by Christ himself. You can also see what it symbolizes had nothing to do with actual flesh and blood but participation in the covenant relationship purchased by Jesus body of the cross and the blood which sealed it. I have no idea why you feel so desperate to make it into something it obviously isn't. What do you think you would gain by taking interpretations virtually the opposite of the almost universal determination of theologians, commentators, and scholars ever since Christ said them?

It's not necessary for the messanger to understand the message he is given to convey and since Jesus wrote nothing himself there is no guarantee about accuracy. What you live by you should be able to verify by more then just what others have said. Just how I see things. You obviously can accept the authority of any person dead or alive regardless of any justifiable reason. However any expectation that they should be accepted by anyone else as having authority to speak for God is not reasonable.

It most certainly is if the messenger will face scrutiny and be responsible for expanding on or clarifying that message. If we have a Jesus of the bible this is no postman delivering a message but a being by which all things were created for and through him. Who was the very embodiment of divine knowledge. I have no idea why you would suggest otherwise to begin with but there is no evidence anywhere to suggest Christ did not understand what he taught.

Every college class room on earth states as reliable history the words of men based on the recording of them by others. They even do so in most cases without even meaningful fraction of the textual integrity the bible has. Why are your standards for the bible completely different from the standards used in all of historical study in all other areas? You do not live your life by that standard. You must and do take second hand information as reliable daily. Why the double standard? Yes that is a rhetorical question.

I'm not leading and you are obviously not following.

Ok

We did, we defined truth and seemed to reach an agreement...

I will take your word for it.

Understanding the statements of Jesus require both the bread and the wine. There is a limit to what words can convey. The truth is a lot of the understanding derived from scripture is guesswork.

But ok, lets see where this goes. What statements made by Jesus (hopefully made prior to the resurrection) make Christianity the exclusive religion of God?

5th graders in Sunday school have al been taught the exact same thing about the bread and wine regardless of denomination that the earliest church fathers and scholars and experts ever since then have determined the blood and bread mean. It is not ambiguous, it is not unclear, it is simply and emphatically stated and it is not what you claimed. You are welcome to interpret the bible any way you wish, however if that interpretation flies in the face of 2000 years of virtually universal conclusions you can't expect it to be persuasive. I still cannot figure out why you would be that desperate to change the meaning of the bread and wine. What are you gaining by winging it so far out on the fringe?

 

[1robin]

Yet in saying this, you realize we are relying on other humans to report to us on events which happened 2000 years ago.

The bible clearly states the holy spirit was sent to remind them of the events they witnessed or researched. I am not simply depending on man. That explains why every single other work that was totally written by man, of any type, on any subject in ancient history can not even get in the same realm of the bible's textual tradition. Not one man made work is even a distant second. I do not see how men alone could have produced the bible. Men have certainly been involved but what they produced has a textual tradition that exceeds by light years everything else they have created.

Fair enough. My point is only to differentiate speculation on historical events from truth which can be individually verified.

I thought it a given that the faith position was not the certainty position. That is a little deceptive. I have objective proof and confirmation of at least the core Gospel message, but that evidence is not available to others. The point is that a Christian may know for a fact God exist but the evidence used in argumentation about that are less than an absolute certainty as others perceive it.

Sorry, failed attempt at a bit of sarcasm...

No worry's sometime I am a little slow.

Here I'm relying on other sources. I've no reason at this point to dispute them.

Since the times of the early church fathers, the apostle Matthew has always been accredited with the authorship of the first gospel (canonically). Even the title "According to Matthew" (KATA MAQQAION) is found in the earliest manuscripts, and was the most highly regarded and quoted of the gospels by the church fathers. [1] Matthew is also called Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), and was the son of Alphaeus (Luke 5:27). He was a tax collector (telwnhV), probably stationed on a main trade route near Capernaum where he would have collected tolls for Herod Antipas from commercial traffic. [2] Additionally, being a tax collector might better qualify Matthew for his role as an official recorder of the life and actions of Christ. [3] After the resurrection there is no other mention of him in the New Testament.
Study Resources :: BLB Introductions to the New Testament Books

Authorship of the New Testament - RationalWiki

I would have to read the entire Gospels again to find what I am thinking of. Since that is impractical let me quickly give you something that indicates a great deal of reliability concerning authorship:


Luke 1

New American Standard Bible (NASB)


Introduction

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things [a]accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and [c]servants of the [d]word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having [e]investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been [f]taught.
Luke 1 - Introduction - Many have undertaken to - Bible Gateway

The above combined with messages relating to Paul, style, and the education level and point of views of Luke's author make Luke almost a certainty as the author.

Let me ask this however. In what way would it make anything more reliable if each Gospel had as it's first line I __________ wrote this this thing. Do you think the bibles critics would say ok, it says __________ wrote this so it's authorship is without question. I would imagine no increase in certainty and no decrease would accompany those inclusions or exclusions and the exact same scrutiny concerning testimony, sincerity, access, consistency, integrity, agreement with prophecy, consistency between the multiple attestation, etc.. would take place with or without those claims and should. Not that even KNOWING for a fact they wrote them makes them more reliable anyway. We know Caesar wrote the Gallic wars. The fact he wrote them is what makes them so unreliable. He lacked the necessary military experience and clout needed to rule. He set off to get some, and a long way away from those who read it he sent in regular propagandized claims about his hyperbolic deeds.

I think biblical authorship is fairly reliable in general but I do not think it would make much of a difference if it was not. Not certain, just reliable enough to justify faith. Over 100 of the best biblical scholars there are worked on the NIV. There is a long intro about authorship in that version. They credited every traditional author with authorship except for Hebrews. Which is ironic because Hebrews is also the most textually accurate book.

What I meant was Jesus did not write any teachings. So we are left to rely on individuals, human like you, who as you pointed out, "Humans undertake nothing of this complexity that is free from error."

Not entirely, as I stated those same men recorded the holy spirits being sent to make sure it was recorded initially in an accurate manner. I have no idea how much weight that carries with you but to a man who has experienced the holy spirit it makes all the difference in the world. You at least would have to admit it potentially can make a huge difference.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

There is never a complete vacuum. Most often people are unaware of the influences that have gone into the development of their thinking. Our thinking, our thoughts we call our own do not spring from a vacuum. Though on a conscious level our thinking appears to do so. To some degree this can be understood with the idea that if something is repeated/heard often enough it becomes accepted as true. This does not occur on a conscious level. So I accept that to you, you have independently arrived at the same conclusion. However I'm pretty certain this is not reality.

Your right, but in this case that works against you. I was raised in church but my Christian mother was slowly killed by cancer. The sicker she got the more I hated God if he did exist. I joined the military and commenced to trying any other faith, philosophy, drug, and meditation type of methodology I could find. I finally gave every theologically associated teaching the boot as man made garbage. I did not believe a God existed but just in case he did I hated him. That was my mind set the month before a good friend gave me a book about the bible and it's doctrines. Out of respect to him I read it as fast as I could just to get through with what I thought was complete garbage. However before I got very far some strange and non-natural stuff began to occur. Eventually I found a bible and started reading it's core teachings. Somehow I simply knew it was telling me the exact truth. It was so overwhelmingly convincing I asked Christ to save me without any expectation or knowledge of anything noticeable being given in return. I was stunned to find I was in God's direct presence. Instantly I lost all desires for chemical habits I had no will power to break. I instantly knew the truth of and experienced central doctrines of Christ. I lost all desire to curse instantly. I experienced more love than the entire totality of my entire life in one moment. I experienced more contentment than I had ever thought possible. My entire character was immediately changed. I had never been to a church that had an alter call. I had never seen anyone saved. I had no expectations (in fact al expectations were against a response from God), no anticipation, I did not even know the teachings on salvation. I however walked around in a daze for three days. The only terms I could describe the way I felt in were as if I had been reborn. I had never even heard the term born again prior to this but that is exactly the words I chose. people kept asking me what was different, had I gotten a hair cut, inherited some money, or fell in love. I literally could not describe what had occurred in human language that would do any justice. I thought what next. I thought a dreaded church must be selected, the next thought I had is that I had no idea which one. I spent an entire year reading without any influence from anyone of any kind. I was in no group, discussed it with no one, and made my interpretations with influence. I then compared them to creeds. I found Baptists were identical, but my doctrines formed without influence were almost identical in every way to orthodox Protestantism and almost identical to Catholic creeds. My only influence was a couple of decades of disbelief and/or resentment towards God and no formal training in any doctrine of any kind. Sorry for the length, I was too lazy to quit.

I suspect the Abram tank is made of cardboard, in which case I'm better off holding a knife.

You would not be if you were actually trying to stab one.

The three common positions here are pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism.
Pluralism - there are many paths to God.
Exclusivism - there is one path to God.
Inclusivism - There is a core truth but how we come to understand this truth is from individual paths.One fairly well known inclusive was C. S. Lewis for example.

I agree with your definitions but two of these are not justifiable possibilities. That is the issue not what we label them. Pluralism is impossible and Inclusivism is irrational.

So I take it your position is that Jesus taught Exclusivism.
My belief is one of inclusivism. That Jesus taught core truths, but how one arrives at accepting those truths is not necessarily defined.

It is a fact he taught the most exclusive message imaginable. The issue is whether he was right or not. I was not trying to say his core truths cannot be found regardless of background. For example I do not believe Mormon doctrine is Christian but there are many Christians in Mormonism, etc..... Other faiths can arrive at truth and even saving faith but they do so in spite of their doctrines not through them. Christ nor God IMO speaks through Islam, but I imagine he speaks to Muslims that are wiling to listen.

 

[1robin]

Just to support that C. S. Lewis position was one of inclusivism...

I would not agree with some of Lewis's claims but the claims you presented were not inclusive. He agrees with I claim. That God does not speak through Islam but may speak to Muslims. He does not speak through the Vedas but he does speak to Hindus. He is right in suggesting that person with a heart for Christ but still tangled up with non-Godly doctrines would concentrate on those doctrines in his cultural background that agree with the Bible. That does not mean God inspired them. All faiths have some truth in them, that is not to say God inspired those texts. I almost always agree with Lewis and in this case my only issue is with him apparently not incorporating the born again experience in his statements. According to Christ there are no followers of his that are unaware they are such. You are not a Christian until you are born again, through faith in Christ, and by the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. That does not take place without knowing it.