Thread: John 14:6... I am the way and the truth and the life Board: Chapter & Worse / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=000009
Posted by Simon (# 1) on
:
Verse nominated by David Brown
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6, in context)
David comments: It has fed generations of Christian arrogance. Did he really mean that other religions are invalid and are missionary-fodder? I think it's a little more complex than that.
CJ Medway comments: It is the most divisive, misunderstood and misused verse by those who claim salvation is limited only to "Christians", rather than to anyone who has and keeps Christ's commandments.
How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!
[ 29. July 2009, 09:26: Message edited by: Simon ]
Posted by Nia (# 14193) on
:
I liked Brian McLaren's response to this verse. A brilliant reply istm. He takes the full context where the disciples are confused. Jesus is telling them that they cannot follow him to where he is going - not yet at least. So Thomas asks, 'well, how do we get to the Father, then?' Jesus reply is along the lines of 'don't worry, just trust in me. I am the way and the truth and the life. If you believe in me you will come to the Kingdom.' He points out this is not aimed at Hindus, Moslems or atheists - but is aimed to reassure the disciples who are confused and scared.
Anyway, McLaren's response is both brilliant and moving - take a look: McLaren John 14
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
My understanding is the same as Nia's.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
Marcus Borg claims that Jesus meant that death of self and re-birth is the way to the Father. Christian baptism is one way, but other religions also offer similar patterns to approach the Deity. Not sure I fully accept his argument as there are other verses that can be taken to mean that Christ is the only way.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
I would call this one of the clearest and most important verses in the Bible. It's insanity to vote for it to go, you might as well vote out "You shall have no other God's before me"!!
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Why?
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
I can't remember where I read this, but one interpretation (which I like very much) of this verse is:
"No-one comes to the Father unless I say so"...meaning that it is the Risen Christ who is the judge, and no-one else. So stop using this as an excuse to judge other people & decide that They (whoever they are) are not worthy...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Jesus is the way to the Father because he united the divine and human natures in his flesh, and because he overthrew death and sin. This ISTM is the heart of the Christian message, and if you eradicate it you are left with nice-guy-ism, which is swell, but isn't Christianity.
That said I'm a universalist* and think that you don't need to know the name of the bridge to cross it.
*exceptions made for extreme hold-outs, of which I hope there will be none.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QB]
That said I'm a universalist* and think that you don't need to know the name of the bridge to cross it.
That's interesting, so you think Jesus performed some unique and essential role but what he did changed things for everyone and one does not have to hold specific beliefs about him in order to benefit? - but you should try to live in the spirit of his teachings? Is that what you mean? If you are a universalist what do you think happens to those who are very far from living Christ-like lives but not out and out 100% evil? Do you believe in some sort of Purgatory?
Posted by wehyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
That's interesting, so you think Jesus performed some unique and essential role but what he did changed things for everyone and one does not have to hold specific beliefs about him in order to benefit? - but you should try to live in the spirit of his teachings?
That's definitely something I can completely agree with.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QB]
That said I'm a universalist* and think that you don't need to know the name of the bridge to cross it.
That's interesting, so you think Jesus performed some unique and essential role but what he did changed things for everyone and one does not have to hold specific beliefs about him in order to benefit? - but you should try to live in the spirit of his teachings? Is that what you mean? If you are a universalist what do you think happens to those who are very far from living Christ-like lives but not out and out 100% evil? Do you believe in some sort of Purgatory?
I hold out the possibility of post-mortem repentence.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
The problem with this has always been "what about people who couldn't have heard of Jesus?" (whether through geographic separation, or being born too soon)
Did God actually intend to cut off all humans who didn't have the chance to know Jesus? Did God intend that all the Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/whatevers should be thrown into the pit, despite their proper observance of their honestly-held beliefs?
I can see Him being peeved with someone who deliberately rejects Jesus' message, but too many people take the quoted line as "everyone who isn't Christian like me will be thrown away"
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QB]
That said I'm a universalist* and think that you don't need to know the name of the bridge to cross it.
That's interesting, so you think Jesus performed some unique and essential role but what he did changed things for everyone and one does not have to hold specific beliefs about him in order to benefit? - but you should try to live in the spirit of his teachings? Is that what you mean?
I'm with Mousethief on this one. There are people who whilst not Christians (and sometimes even rejecting Christianity) who are responding to grace and living humble lives seeking to do love mercy and do justly who strike me as being closer to Christ than some who loudly proclaim their Christianity (and I say unto you not all who call 'Lord, Lord'). God knows our hearts and what we have been through (and some people's rejection of Christianity is very similar to Christ's criticism of the religious of his day).
Read C.S Lewis' The Last Battle and note what happens to Emeth.
On the verse specifically, I agree with the quotes in the OP that this verse has been used to bad effect, but that doesn't make it a bad verse.
If there is a way to God other than through Christ's death and resurrection then why were they necessary? I believe they opened the gate of heaven to everyone.
Carys
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I'm with mousethief 100% on this one too, including the universalism & postmortem repentance (the full model of which I got from an Orthodox article someone posted here on the Ship). I've usually used a different analogy - that you don't have to understand how your lungs work in order to breathe (but you do have to breathe to live). I like the bridge analogy, though. I might start using that instead.
So you can read the passage something like: "Any way one gets to the Father turns out to be Me." Critics of Christians' accepting of other faiths as legitimate usually think we're reading the passage as "I am a way, a truth, and a life..." but I certainly don't read it that way. I'm pretty sure I'm completely orthodox with regard to who Jesus is: the second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully human, etc.
This is a specifically Christian way to make room for people of other faiths. Some find it patronizing to do that - you know, along the lines of the "anonymous Christians" - but I'm grateful for the similar space other faiths make for me.
So while I find some uses of this passage problematic, I think the verse itself is wonderful and would not give it up.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
If there is a way to God other than through Christ's death and resurrection then why were they necessary? I believe they opened the gate of heaven to everyone.
Hear, hear.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wehyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
That's interesting, so you think Jesus performed some unique and essential role but what he did changed things for everyone and one does not have to hold specific beliefs about him in order to benefit? - but you should try to live in the spirit of his teachings?
That's definitely something I can completely agree with.
And I want to thank Orlando for putting it so succinctly, though I think that teachings without a body are too abstract for my way of living, which is why I'm actually strengthened by the "I am" statement. He's not just telling us what to do. He's being the thing we should do, and so we follow Him* (not some mere set of rules and regulations).
* Non-gender specific usage. If an "it" had a personality, I'd gladly say "it."
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
He's not just telling us what to do. He's being the thing we should do, and so we follow Him* (not some mere set of rules and regulations).
* Non-gender specific usage. If an "it" had a personality, I'd gladly say "it."
I really like what you're saying here. Having a person to follow also means that we're not focused on keeping ourselves pure - if we have to go through the mud to follow Jesus, that's fine. There's forgiveness in Christ. It would be better to risk failure, moral failure, even, in order to get up and follow Jesus than to not follow Jesus in order to maintain one's purity. (NB I'm not saying Jesus would lead us into sin, but rather in his person he kinda redefines the whole thing. If in order to follow Jesus, you have to work on the Sabbath, break your fast, or leave your religious vows, e.g., it would be sin to refuse to follow Jesus in order to maintain your otherwise commendable religious observance.)
Oh, and IMO you can call Jesus "Him" - He was a male human and he remains fully human, in what form, we don't quite understand, but until we see evidence to the contrary, we might as well keep using the gendered pronoun for him that applied while he walked the earth!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Let's try to understand this with reference to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The poor bloke is unconscious, bleeding at the side of the road. Along comes his "saviour" - the Samaritan. The Samaritan looks at the unfortunate victim, and thinks: "I can't save him while he's unconscious. I must wake him up. I have to get him to acknowledge me - my true identity - who I really am - otherwise it would be a sham for me to help him." He tries to wake him up, but to no avail. He fails to obtain from the wounded man the correct "confession of faith" and so sadly he walks away leaving the poor man to die in the gutter.
Of course he could save him (as he did) and the victim could then later reject his love. But is that what we are really talking about?
Or here's another one:
Jesus goes around blessing and healing people during his ministry on earth. Then in Matthew 16:13, Jesus, when he is alone with his disciples, asks the following question: "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" And they reply "John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets". Then we have the famous confession from Peter, when he affirms that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
So we learn that Jesus has been going around blessing and healing people who only believed him to be a prophet - and nothing more than a prophet. And here's the punch-line: in Matthew 16:20 it says that Jesus commanded his disciples to tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ! In other words, Jesus was quite content to leave people in their ignorance as to his true identity. And yet, apparently, that was no bar to them receiving healing and blessing!
Food for thought. What are the implications of this in our dealings with Muslims, for example, who only see Jesus as a prophet?
It seems the Bible is not so cut-and-dried as some in the Church would have us believe.
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It seems the Bible is not so cut-and-dried as some in the Church would have us believe.
With the greatest respect, I think you're preaching to the choir here. I doubt there's anybody that posts on these forums that thinks the Bible is `cut and dried'.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber
With the greatest respect, I think you're preaching to the choir here. I doubt there's anybody that posts on these forums that thinks the Bible is `cut and dried'.
I was just expressing my point of view and not attempting to preach to anyone in particular. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion?
And how can you be so sure that only a certain type of person visits this forum?? I have only been involved with this website for a few days and already I've read posts by theological conservatives, "liberals" and atheists. So I am not sure quite what you are saying.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have only been involved with this website for a few days and already I've read posts by theological conservatives, "liberals" and atheists.
Yep, they're all here...
The good, the bad and the ugly.
Posted by Angus McDangley (# 11091) on
:
I certainly wouldn't see this verse as pointing to exclusivism. If we believe as the Evangelist did that Jesus as the Word made flesh, then I think that a legitimate interpretation would be to see this verse in terms of Grace. God is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to God except via God i.e. God is as much the journey as the destination. Humans can't save themselves any more than they can raise themselves on the last day.
Posted by TiggyTiger (# 14819) on
:
I believe they opened the gate of heaven to everyone.
This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, is it not?
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber
With the greatest respect, I think you're preaching to the choir here. I doubt there's anybody that posts on these forums that thinks the Bible is `cut and dried'.
I was just expressing my point of view and not attempting to preach to anyone in particular. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion?
And how can you be so sure that only a certain type of person visits this forum?? I have only been involved with this website for a few days and already I've read posts by theological conservatives, "liberals" and atheists. So I am not sure quite what you are saying.
I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to offend. My point was only that, in the four years I've been reading these forums, I haven't heard anybody -- of any theological leaning -- express a view that amounts to Scripture being `cut and dried'.
Actually, that isn't strictly true -- I have seen such sentiments expressed, but not by anybody who has hung around.
When I read your post, it came across as ``My view of Scripture is more subtle and nuanced than the hidebound conservatism of most Christians''. I have a hair trigger for this kind of thing, which I hear a lot.
Since this isn't what you intended to say, I apologise.
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So we learn that Jesus has been going around blessing and healing people who only believed him to be a prophet - and nothing more than a prophet. And here's the punch-line: in Matthew 16:20 it says that Jesus commanded his disciples to tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ! In other words, Jesus was quite content to leave people in their ignorance as to his true identity. And yet, apparently, that was no bar to them receiving healing and blessing!
So what's the difference between being a prophet and the Messiah? A matter of degree?
Messiah just means annointed. Like Kings and priests were annointed. It has broader implications in that the Messiah would rescue Israel from its overlords.
Son of God can just mean one who is very close to god.
So "ontologically" speaking, I think its quite acceptable to say a large part of scripture does not express Jesus as Messiah as second person of the trinity. This is a later development....
And like you say....this opens things up much more.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
Messiah just means annointed.
Wrong. That's the ETYMOLOGY of the word, not the MEANING. The two are not identical. The messiology (if that's the right word) of Israel went far beyond the Messiah being anointed like a priest or a king, he became an escatological figure, the long-awaited one, who would (as you say) deliver Israel. By the time Jesus came along, there was a whoooooole lot more freight on that word than just "anointed like a king or priest".
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Seb:
Messiah just means annointed.
Wrong. That's the ETYMOLOGY of the word, not the MEANING. The two are not identical. The messiology (if that's the right word) of Israel went far beyond the Messiah being anointed like a priest or a king, he became an escatological figure, the long-awaited one, who would (as you say) deliver Israel. By the time Jesus came along, there was a whoooooole lot more freight on that word than just "anointed like a king or priest".
Absolutely true; and depending on who you were in 1st-century Judaea, you might have expected different things from the Messiah. What the Zealots thought of the Messiah differed somewhat from what Pharisees thought, or Essenes, etc. F.F. Bruce teases out the different expectations fairly well in his New Testament History, which I think is still in print.
Posted by Seb (# 14696) on
:
I rather doubt first century Judaism thought the Messiah would be both fully god and fully human tho ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Unless of course we are talking god as in the emperor was god too....
Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on
:
quote:
So stop using this as an excuse to judge other people & decide that They (whoever they are) are not worthy... [/QB]
Matt. 7:1, in context. Where we are commanded to Judge, in context. Just remember that there's a huge difference between Discernment and Condemnation, which are both aspects of judging someone.
Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on
:
How I deal with who is going to be there and who is not:
I can hope and believe anything I want, and I could be wrong for it. I'm not going to stake my life or anyone else's life on anything less than what that book says (things it doesn't cover aren't my business, things that have nothing to do with commands are not my business). Checked the Greek, it reads the same, so I'll take it literally, and go from there.
Other verses point out times when Godly men were taken away from this world without the benefit of Christianity (like: Elijah pre-death(had the Law) Enoch pre-death (before the flood), and the Criminal on the Cross post-death). So I know God can do it, and I know that some may well be known for not being a Christian. Those do not concern me as they are the ones that God deals with, but to those around me, I'm called to be their representative and to be persuasive, imitating Paul as he imitates Christ in the Quest for more Christians. Following too far down the track of everybody's going to Heaven means that I've got no reason to share Jesus with anyone. They already have them whether they want him or not?
So, even if I think I'll meet Ghandi in heaven, I'm still going to do my job as a Christian.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
It's highly disappointing that anyone would put this in their "worst verses" list, but not surprising.
The verse goes straight at the heart of postmodernism's ultimate truth (that there is no ultimate truth).
While people may not like it, anyone who thinks it's one of the "worst verses" might as well give up Christianity, because very little in the rest of the Bible will make sense to them.
Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on
:
We know that the four Gospels were written by four different people in different places at different times over a 6o year period after the death of Jesus. We do not know who these people were although the later Church gave them names. The four Gospel writers never met Jesus. They knew Jesus only through the oral and written material that reached them. From this material they saw Jesus a little differently. John saw Jesus and God as "one being". So in John's view the path to God goes through Jesus. So was Jesus devin or human. Anybody want to continue the story and tell us how the Nicene Creed did or did not solve this for the Church?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
CJ Medway comments: It is the most divisive, misunderstood and misused verse by those who claim salvation is limited only to "Christians", rather than to anyone who has and keeps Christ's commandments.
Kudos to CJ Medway. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
To me it is clear that Christ meant that anyone who keeps His commandments is on "the way". Anyone who lives as Christ taught. Anyone who lives a life of love to God and the neighbor. Anyone whose heart is in the place that Christ describes in His sayings. This is "the way" and it leads to heaven.
Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on
:
The person who wrote John starts his Gospel by telling his reader who he thinks Jesus was(THE WORD). He also changes the day of his execution relative to the other three Gospels to made Jesus the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. Is it possible that he put these words on Jesus' lips since he was so sure that Jesus was one with God? Will somebody please roll out the "N" creed that spells all this out for good christians.If I am not mistaken it all comes from John and tells you something about his agenda.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
We know that the four Gospels were written by four different people in different places at different times over a 6o year period after the death of Jesus. We do not know who these people were although the later Church gave them names. The four Gospel writers never met Jesus. They knew Jesus only through the oral and written material that reached them. From this material they saw Jesus a little differently. John saw Jesus and God as "one being". So in John's view the path to God goes through Jesus. So was Jesus devin or human. Anybody want to continue the story and tell us how the Nicene Creed did or did not solve this for the Church?
Hamp, dude, you want to get a little basic Biblical education before you go making hugely dogmatic assertions. Might try reading through Kerygmania a bit--or asking rather than assuming. Lay a foundation, because right now it sounds like you don't have the basic info correct.
Posted by Timothy412 (# 15379) on
:
Hai.
I came to accept Jesus after hearing this bible passage. The priest at my church explained this passage not long ago in a talk at our sunday worship service: the quote means that those of us who are lucky enough to have heard the gospel are saved but those who haven't or refuse to accept jesus are damned this is why evangelism is so important because we otherwise enable ppl to go to hell.
Thank you.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
"Those who are lucky enough.."? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
And that is good news in what way, young man?
Here's a useful theological term for you: eisegesis. It means reading a presupposition into a statement, instead of taking the statement on its own terms. If you read commentary on the text in question, you will find that the text does not say, "No one comes to the Father but by thinking certain Right Things about me," "No one comes to the Father but by doing right things," "No one comes to the Father except by some lucky happenstance," etc.
Posted by Timothy412 (# 15379) on
:
Hai lutheranchick.
i'm new so I dont have editing fuctions yet so replace the word lucky with fortunate. I feel sorry for muslims and hindus who havent heard the good news of Jesus thats all.
THank you
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy412:
i'm new so I dont have editing fuctions yet so replace the word lucky with fortunate.
Can you explain the difference? Seem like two words for the same thing, to me.
Posted by Timothy412 (# 15379) on
:
Hai mousetheif
because there is no such thing as luck luck is just another name for superstition
unfortunately many people dont take it on themselves to preach the gospel so they let people carry on not being christian im lucky that somebody pointed out the errors of my ways and i accepted jesus into my life and I have a personal relationship with him and i go to mass every Sunday and receive him in the sacrament lords supper. if i hadnt been fortunate enough to hear the message i would be heading to hell both during this life and afterwards becoming a christian gave me a second chance in this life and for the next life.
Thank you
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I thought not.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Timothy, you're a newbie, so I trust that as you continue on the Christian path you'll avail yourself of some meaty, challenging Bible study and other adult formation as it becomes available to you...but consider that, in the text in question, what Jesus is saying is that it's through his self-sacrifice and ultimate defeat of death itself that reconciles us all to God, independent of any real or perceived merit on our parts (including thinking the Right Things about God). That puts an entirely different light on "No one comes to the Father but through me." That doesn't diminish the significance of Jesus' salvific work -- quite the opposite, I think -- nor does it negate the value of evangelism; of letting other people know that God loves us and will do -- has done -- everything possible to bring us into relationship, and calls us to likewise heal and bless the world.
Posted by Timothy412 (# 15379) on
:
Hai
I'm a catholic Christian not a lutheran and i don't think thats taught like that in our church i'll carry on believing what my parish priest says.
Thank you.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
It's actually not a "Lutheran" take on that verse, but rather one held by theologians in a variety of Christian traditions. But you'll find that out.
Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on
:
Timothy412
Your priest seems to have answers, mine did not for this one. Please ask him about the following;
Paul's letter to the Roman Church is to introduce himself to a church he has never visited. If Peter founded the Roman Church and was the first bishop( Pope) why would he not mention him in his letter of introduction since they were so close? Just maybe our priests do not have all the answers
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy412:
Hai.
I came to accept Jesus after hearing this bible passage. The priest at my church explained this passage not long ago in a talk at our sunday worship service: the quote means that those of us who are lucky enough to have heard the gospel are saved but those who haven't or refuse to accept jesus are damned this is why evangelism is so important because we otherwise enable ppl to go to hell.
Thank you.
That's not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. The official line is that people of other faiths can come to the Father through Christ - that is through his atoning work - whether or not they know or acknowledge it.
Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on
:
Everyone please, I am not a scholar, expert or anything of the sort. Most of what I know about the Bible comes from taking these courses:
The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers
From Jesus to Constantine
Historical Jesus
Lost Christianities
New Testament
The Making of the New Testament Canon
Apostle Paul
Jesus and the Gospels
Story of the Bible
Exploring the Roots of Religion
Early Christianity
History of Christian Theology
Philosophy of Religion
Great Figures of the New Testament
Old Testament
Natural Law and Human Nature
The Catholic Church: A History
Popes and the Papacy
Book of Genesis
Skeptics and Believers: Religious Debate in the Western Intellectual Tradition
Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation
Augustine: Philosopher and Saint
Late Antiquity: Crisis and Transformation
Great World Religions
Emperors of Rome
Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World.
Are the professors who give these courses scholars, authorities, experts? In my opinion you have to take the course and decide for your self. The courses are available to all. What I do is pick out of the courses what I think are religious sticky points and post them with the hope that someone out there will have a source that throws a different light on the point.
Hamp
Posted by Seeker100 (# 15458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
CJ Medway comments: It is the most divisive, misunderstood and misused verse by those who claim salvation is limited only to "Christians", rather than to anyone who has and keeps Christ's commandments.
Kudos to CJ Medway.
To me it is clear that Christ meant that anyone who keeps His commandments is on "the way". Anyone who lives as Christ taught. Anyone who lives a life of love to God and the neighbor. Anyone whose heart is in the place that Christ describes in His sayings. This is "the way" and it leads to heaven.
Good Post!
Posted by Seeker100 (# 15458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Simon:
Verse nominated by David Brown
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6, in context)
David comments: It has fed generations of Christian arrogance. Did he really mean that other religions are invalid and are missionary-fodder? I think it's a little more complex than that.
CJ Medway comments: It is the most divisive, misunderstood and misused verse by those who claim salvation is limited only to "Christians", rather than to anyone who has and keeps Christ's commandments.
How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!
This verse is one of the most misunderstood and misused verses in the bible.
When read wrong it implies that non-Christians have no contact, understanding or relationship with God. This interpretation is false and hurtful as everyone on earth knows God as God constantly speaks to everyone on earth in their heart. Many of the non-Christian world obey this inner voice and follow the Lord by loving their fellow man.
Non-Christians however when they love and obey God in their heart are missing something that Christian believers have. Christian believers have God, not only as a voice in their heart (as non-Christians do), to be obeyed, but they also have God in the physical world. Jesus is God come into the physical world. He is the love to be loved and the love to be served in the physical realm.
Thus the Christian when he or she serves God serves Jesus in everyone they meet. The Christian meets Jesus literally in every human being, the good and the bad.
Thus when Jesus is talking about nobody comeing to the Father but by Him, He is not saying that people of other faiths do not come to God in their hearts. He is saying that without Him mankind cannot meet and serve Him in the physical realm by seeing Him in others.
As Christians we are so blessed to be able to meet and serve our living saviour in every human being on earth. This is the way we come to the Father by meeting the Son in everyone. Jesus is literally in everyone, the good and the bad and as Christians we can serve Him there.
Chritianity is thus a gift to people of all faiths that love God as in Christianity they can serve their God (Love) in the physical dimension.
This is what this verse is about.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Very nice Seeker. That's what I think as well.
Lest anyone think that Christ is therefore unimportant, or that it's not important to be Christian, I would compare spiritual health with physical health, as Jesus does when He says:
quote:
Mark 2:17 “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Luke 4:23 “You will surely say this proverb to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself!'"
If a person wishes to be physically healthy he would be wise to follow the standards accepted by the British or American Medical Association. In fact anyone who fails to adopt the lifestyle recommended by these groups is quite likely to be unwell. The hope, in fact, for the eradication of disease world-wide lies in these practices. They are "the truth" according to the best understanding of the medical community, and alternate theories are not acceptable. They are "the way, the truth, the life" in the realm of physical health.
But no one would claim that people world-wide who know nothing of the western medical community, and could care less what they think, are necessarily unhealthy. Nor would anyone claim that the very doctors who preach the message of health are necessarily healthy themselves.
Health doesn't care who you are or what you believe. Rather it depends on a set of universally applied objective laws. If you eat right, exercize, and enjoy other favorable conditions, you are likely to be a healthy person.
This doesn't make medical research and knowledge unimportant. They are vital. They really are "the answer" to the world's medical woes.
The point is that what is true is true, and everyone who lives by the truth will be blessed by God.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0