Is Jesus the only way?

There are three principal texts (though there are also others) used to defend this notion. On the surface, they appear straightforward. But, like most things textual, they are not so cut and dry in context.

1) "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

It is possible to look at this one not as a universal declaration, which would be peculiar as Jesus (at least in the Synoptics) is addressing only Jews. In other words, he is not saying he is the only way, he is saying that he, as opposed to Jewish Law, is the way, the truth and the life.

2) "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

If we look at the context in which this was said, Peter is speaking to the Jews at Pentecost. He is not addressing Gentiles (though there may have been a few stray God-fearers in the midst or perhaps some Roman soldiers), he is speaking to the Jews as v. 8 states:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers and elders of the people...'"

In other words, there is no other name [i.e. as opposed to the Law] under heaven whereby we [i.e. Jews], can be saved.

3) "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)

This is a reference to Isaiah 45:22-23:

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else.

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

Notice that it is at the name of Jesus every knee will bow. But notice who it is to: God the Father. This is not saying that every knee will bow to Jesus but will bow in recognition of His lordship as it was bestowed upon him by his Father (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:28).

It is fairly clear that these interpretations, taken in their proper context specific within the book in which they fall (rather than conflating them with the New Testament as a whole), are not without merit.

This is actually not a dig at the truth claims of Christians. This is more to bring awareness to the simplistic method in which these Scriptures are often used. They are often a shortcut to any true dialogue. Consider also that many people do not accept the Bible as authoritative.

Worse, these passages are often used in place of the more difficult proof: one's life. This, more than anything, is the issue. The only real proof of the Christian message is found in the lives of those who claim to follow Jesus. It isn't about being right; it is about life.

Many a well-meaning Christian will quote these verses as if they somehow prove, in and of themselves, that only someone who believes in Jesus will reach heaven. I don't know that Jesus (or Paul) ever phrased it in such fashion. It seems to me that this "going to heaven" thing is of recent origins and has no appeal to me. If that is my motive for the whole shebang then send me to hell.

Rabiah of Basra, an early Muslim mystic/ascetic (see, the "spiritual mutt" thing is in the blood...) is quoted as saying:

"O God! if I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell; and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine everlasting beauty!"

My sentiments exactly.

What kind of a Christian?

That's a really tough question. I guess I am "supposed" to be a Christian of the Trintarian variety. To a degree I am though sometimes I feel as if I hold to this as an objective categorization to keep it separate from the "other" variations of the Christian, defined more by what it is not than by what it is, the apophaticism of the mystics.

I do see how it developed and the need for it. Something was necessary to give a cohesive structure to the Church in order for it to survive as it has for 2,000 years. Given what we have in the Bible - Father, Son, Spirit - and their workings throughout the New Testament writings, it is sensible that the Trinitarian doctrine developed. It is not, as many claim, illogical, as it was logic that built the Trinitarian edifice. There is a limit to this logic, however, and there does come a point where logic is baffled because we recognize the limits of words and language to convey the deeper things of religious experience. This also is not illogical. All religious traditions agree that while words are necessary to take us "there" a point comes where words fail.

But there are times when I view Jesus as universal soul, the "celestial self" of whom Henry Corbin writes, the fravarti, the Daena we will meet on the road to the Cinvat Bridge. This vision is found in Manichaeism, Sufism and Pure Land Buddhism. But it is not foreign to Christianity. In Corbin's view, Jesus was viewed by some (e.g. in the Shepherd of Hermas) as an Angel along the same lines. And the more I understand the idea of the Imam in Shi'ite Islam the more it makes sense. There can be no doubt that there are parallel lines of "seeing" between this vision of Islam and the Christ who is "angelic" in this sense.

So which Jesus?

Then there is the cultural Jesus, the "substitute Jesus" of the cult of celebrity, whether musicians, movie stars, pro athletes, talk show hosts or any other "famous" person in whom we place our trust and allegiance, only to cruficy them when they fail. Why else are the tabloids so popular? It's because we want to know the dirt they do. We prop them up, support their lifestyles so that we can, in a sense, fund them the lives we wish to live, watch them as voyeurs, safely from a distance, and then thrive when they fall.

There is the Islamic Jesus, the Buddhist Jesus, the Jewish Jesus, the Jesus Seminar Jesus, the macho Jesus, the feminist Jesus, even the atheist Jesus. Lots of Jesuses out there. Which Jesus?

Isn't it quite possible that all these views of Jesus actually embrace him? Perhaps Jesus has become nothing more than a collective projection of an innate goodness onto a "figure" named Jesus, whose roots are found in the New Testament but who has become the repository of the collective human consciousness. Perhaps the "New Age" Jesus is in full effect.

I think any vision of Jesus will always develop and change over time. After all, this is theology plain and simple. There is really no theology proper in Islam. Theology implies an independent interpretation and, as such, has been controversial in Islamic history. Judaism also does not place great emphasis on theology. Theology, in these two faiths, are basically the equivalent of what is believed. But there are, in general, no disputations about the "nature" of God.

Theology really developed in answer to the question Jesus poses: "Who do you say that I am?" It is this, when analyzed through independent reason and the adoption of Greek philosophical methods and terms to a Christian paradigm, that drove Christian theology. So while every avenue of who Jesus was/is has been, throughout the great debates in Church history, analyzed and discussed and argued about, there is still a challenge on the individual level to wrestle with this question.

It is this wrestling, and a more independent streak in the post-Enlightenment world, that has led to all the divisions within Christendom and has given rise to the post-denominational world of the Church today. Add to this the Jesus of culture or of other religions and the mystery of who he really was/is increases.

As a Christian to not wrestle with this question requires blind allegiance to a teacher or pastor or blind allegiance to ignorance (i.e. fear). As a thinking Christian, wrestling with this question, while potentially dangerous, can be liberating. This does not mean leaving Christianity or abandoning Jesus or somehow failing God.

No, this means that you, as an individual, take responsibility for finding the answer on your own. Any visionary, anyone who has had an experience with the "risen Christ" has done so when he ventured beyond the confines of familiarity and contentment and journeyed out beyond into the realms of darkness where the soul is on its own, where the soul can find a true and genuine faith.

This is the realm where the "mystic" or the "visionary" who comes back with a tale to tell and a desire to help others. But this is also the realm in which, if not careful, the self-declared mystic and visionary comes back and leads eager and gullible souls to hell (think Jim Jones).

Self-definition is tough. I hate labels and categories. Labels and categories serve as a reference point, a leaping off point, but in the end they too need abandoned. Even the name of Jesus can become a hindrance as we creat an idol out of the imagery we attach to the name.

I am reminded, as is often the case, of the Dao De Jing:

"The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao.

The name that can be named, is not the eternal name." DDJ, 1, Feng translation

Yet the question remains: "Who do you say that I am?"

Think Christ is for sissies?

Any Korn fans out there? Brian Head Welch discusses what led to his leaving Korn.



The paradox of Christianity is that it brings the toughest of men to their knees. It is then that they realize true strength.

Freedom from Addiction

If you struggle with pornography, this video is a must see:



If you think Christ is for lightweights, think again. Below is a great site for some testimonials of what Christ has done for people.

Gospel Theology for the Real World

There is help and there is hope.

In Christ, new is creation...

"Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor 5:17, KJV)

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, {he is} a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor 5:17, NASB)

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." (Galatians 6:15, KJV)

"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." (Galatians 6:15, NASB)

In both cases, the Greek is kainos ktisis. Yet in the NASB one is translated "new creature" and the other as "new creation."

The term ktisis can be used as a general term for creation (cf. Romans 1:20).

I'm no expert in Greek but, if I remember correctly, 2 Corinthians 5:17 can read "new (is) creation." Notice the italics in 2 Corinthians 5:17 meaning that the words are not there but are added/implied in the translation.

This makes sense to me, at least in 2 Corinthians 5:17 even in the larger context of New Testament thought. It isn't that we obtain a new nature (after all, what nature would we receive?) but that our existing nature is infused with the Holy Spirit. This is the "born again" experience. It is the power of resurrection working in us. Our old nature is not tossed out, something disposable. In baptism it dies with Christ; in him the resurrection begins and continues through each of us who accept him.

We are given another set of eyes. We see creation anew. New is creation.

Even in Galatians 6:15 this also makes sense. In Christ, not only is man restored but, through man, in Christ, the entire creation is to be restored. This is consistent with Pauline thought:

"For we know that the whole creation (ktisis) groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." (Romans 8:22)

This simply reveals the challenge of translation. There is always bias (not necessarily a bad or negative word) and a theological position behind any translation and it is thus also interpretation.

Yet there is also freedom in this. "New is creation" or "is a new creation" or "is a new creature" are all possibilities, creating a broad expanse of spiritual implications in each variation. Rather than Biblical literalism, why can we not accept that the Word is so much larger than the box we seek to put it in merely for our own comfort?

John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 Part Two

And we continue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliberCadillac

Whether or not the early Church Fathers “made the connection” is somewhat superfluous.

I am simply pointing out that they were either reading the texts in the original Greek, their native language, or heard them spoken in such fashion. I don’t know for certain that the koine Greek in which the texts were written was the same dialect as that of the Fathers but Greek was the native tongue of the early Fathers.

For us today, it is a dead language so we are learning it less intuitively and much more theologically.

Quote:

We have since had some 2000 years of brilliant (and at times, not so brilliant), scholars examining the Scriptures and discovering things that they may have never even imagined.

Certainly and in many cases for the better. But we have also had 2,000 years of theology by which we read into the texts. More recent doesn’t always equate to better.

Quote:

Secondly it’s an argument from silence. While we have Church Fathers commenting on the passage of John 8:58 itself, (as you provided), we don’t seem to have any that actually comment directly comparing John with Exodus.

I would think that if it was so blatantly obvious, they would have said something. I remain convinced that textually the connection was not there.

Quote:

I will, however, zero in on this particular passage from Irenaeus:

First of all, the brackets are completely yours. Irenaeus does not say “i.e. the Father not Jesus.”

Of course he doesn't. That's why I put the brackets in there. Didn’t mean to imply they were in the original text.

Quote:

Secondly, notice the first sentence that states, “Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God…”

What Irenaeus had ‘already stated’ is found in the preceding paragraph where you will find him declaring,

“Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it:..” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VI,1)

Quote:

Irenaeus is clearly stating that the name “Lord” and the word “God” (as used in the OT), refers to both the Father and the Son.

That's my point. It is the Father and the Son. The key is that the "He who is" (i.e. the ho on as found in Exodus 3:14 of the LXX) refers to the Father.

Quote:

As I stated before, since they don’t comment directly about a comparison, no conclusions should be made. We don’t know if they ever made the connection or not. If they did, there is nothing extant that has survived.

That too is an argument from silence. What we do have is a pretty strong indication that they did not make the connection.

Quote:

I don’t really buy that they misunderstood him in this context. They certainly rejected him, they certainly felt he posed a threat to their authority, I doubt they ever believed him, but misunderstand him? I think not! While Jesus was at times very misunderstood by everyone, (including his own disciples), John doesn’t tell us this was the case here.

He doesn't say they misunderstood him in other places either but it's pretty evident they do.

Quote:

It does when you understand that the EGO EIMI name literally means the “eternally existing one.”

The ego is for emphasis of eimi. Eimi is the Greek verb "to be." It does not mean 'eternally existing one.' Ho on, not ego eimi, in the LXX, means "he/the one who is".

Quote:

When Moses asked God what his name was, the name given was “the eternally existing one.” (EGO EIMI).

Ho on, not ego eimi. It would read in English something like this: "I, even I, am he who is." The ego eimi is the "I, even I, am" and the ho on is the "he/the one who is" part.

John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14

This was part of a debate. My responses are in blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliberCadillac

Your argument is based on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies objections to the deity of Christ. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

My argument is based on the original Greek of both the New Testament and the Septuagint.

I'm not denying that Christians believe in the deity of Jesus. I'm saying that John 8:58 is a tenuous connection to Exodus 3:14 and that this verse was not understood by the early Church Fathers (who were Greek) as Jesus calling himself YHWH.

Quote:

The problem with their argument and yours is two fold. One is that you will never get any biblical language scholar to agree with what you just said...

Why not?

Besides, it would also mean that the Church Fathers didn't understand the original Greek. They do not make the connection:

John 8:58:

"And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham." - Irenaeus, Lost Fragments, LII

But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am") - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XIII, 4

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;” and again, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am. - Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, IX

Exodus 3:14-15:

Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all [i.e. the Father, not Jesus], who also said to Moses, “I am that I am [i.e. the Father, not Jesus]. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;” and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, “I am come down to deliver this people.”

For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself — He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father. As also Esaias says, “I too am witness,” he declares, “saith the Lord God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am [Isaiah 43:10].” - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VI, 2

I don't have the original Greek available of Irenaeus or Ignatius but I'm guessing you'll find that the "I am" of Isaiah 43:10 above is ego eimi that parallels John 8:58. The "He who is" in the above passage, used of the Father, will be ho on.

Perhaps talk of Trinitarian language (though the Holy Spirit is absent from mention of Father/Son in the above passage) would come in to play here but the Fathers do not draw a direct connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. From what I can tell the connection isn't made between Isaiah 43:10 and John 8:58 either.

Justin Martyr speaks in great detail of the burning bush incident in chapter LXIII of his First Apology of Justin but no connection to John 8:58 (which, perhaps, he didn't know).

I'm open to hearing thoughts on the above mentioned passages.

Quote:

...and secondly it doesn’t explain why the Jews being in the Temple courtyard “took up stones to stone him.” This reaction by Jewish leaders could only have been justified because they viewed Christ’s statement as blasphemy.(See Leviticus 24).

Maybe they misunderstood him. After all, they misunderstood him everywhere else in John's Gospel.

Quote:

Claiming to be YWVH (which is a Hebrew construction of the Hebrew form of EGO EIMI) would certainly constitute blasphemy. If Jesus was merely stating that he lived before Abraham (as JW’s contend), Jesus would have only been making a ridiculous claim. There is no Levitical Law that justifies the stoning of lunatics.

Again, maybe they misunderstood him. Or perhaps they understood that since only God pre-exists for Jesus to say he pre-existed meant he was making himself equal to God as John says elsewhere. Contextually, that makes a lot more sense then Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I am God" which makes no sense.

Quote:

My point to the Al Fatihah was, what Jesus claimed in John 8:58 would be analogous with a Muslim prophet walking into Mecca, and then standing in front of the Kaaba and yelling, “I am Allah!”

Are you saying Jesus said to the Jews, "I am God"?

Ok, so I was feeling sorry for myself yesterday...

Sometimes it takes a day like yesterday to get perspective on where we are. By the end of the day I was really sick of me. So of course the message at church this morning was on the Kingdom. In other words, the satisfaction of one's life is in direct proportion to the focus on self. Complete focus on self leads to complete misery. A fulfilled life is determined by how much one focuses on others.

Now, without being centered (however you understand that), total focus on others can in itself be a selfish act, whether it is being done out of lack (and thus with expectation, no matter how subtle, of benefit) or with the motive of achievement. In other words, it really isn't about the other as the other is but a mean to an end and that end is self.

No, this other centeredness must emanate from a center and that center must be free of self. Only then does it work. Only then can you expand outwards towards other free of the pollution of selfish motives and, in return, receive back, without expectation but by a natural process, the true self.

Without getting all New Agey, Christ is the center and we reflect Christ to others; in return, by interacting with others, Christ is reflected back to us (our perception determining how this is seen). We are but mirrors for Christ. The "true" us is Christ. As Paul says, it is no longer "I" but Christ living in me. In this sense, the more Christ is in us the more "I" am Christ.

So, as usually happens, when we let it, God once again shows me up. Which is good. That means I was not too far out of alignment. A little corrective, a little forgiveness and a little humility and growth can once again occur.

Yes, loss of hope is really a failure to be grateful.

What happened on the cross?

I hear it said frequently that God died on the cross. Then I hear the next statement that God in Christ died on the cross. Or that Jesus' human nature died on the cross but his divine nature didn't. There are a million different variations on this theme.

But it hit me in church today that what happened on the cross was the door shut when Jesus died. That open door to heaven, that immediate access to God through Jesus closed when his heart stop beating. That was the darkness spoken of in the Gospel accounts. God was still in the world as there is nowhere He is not but what happened there on Calvary is that intimacy, that intensity, of God present in full through the fleshly being of Jesus was gone.

God was intimately present in Genesis. Over time, as the Biblical writings attest, God is more and more distant from His people. Yet the Second Temple period is not silent; the "400 years of silence" of which Christian tradition speaks is a myth. No, the literature of this period of time is immense. The Nag Hammadi caves attest to this. So they were looking, seeking, asking, writing amidst the continuous confusion their lands being swarmed with invaders, from the Babylonians to the Greeks to the Romans, a whirlwind in which the Jewish homeland was caught.

So he was sought in a Book, in the Word, both in the Hebrew writings and the Greek philosophy that had made such inroads. And here comes the Christian claim that God Himself was found not in a book, not in philosophy, but in a person. God, in fullness, dwelling in and through Christ. It was if you could look into Jesus and, seeing through him, see God.

This was what was closed when he died on the cross. The stories of him lived, books about him were written and the Holy Spirit is ever present within the hearts of believers making Jesus very real and very present in their lives. But these are growing pains, both of the individual who accepts this call, and that of the world as a whole made up of the individuals who accept the challenge to follow him and make him real in the world.

But on the cross that door was closed. To those who witnessed it they sensed that communion with God has been broken, that there was a rift in the universe.

And then there is the resurrection. Jesus, no longer entangled in the likeness of men, is free from the fetters of death. He is the resurrection; he is the new life; he is the firstborn from the dead; he is the Alpha and the Omega point of this new creation, restoring the original creation that men had lost.

He has opened us a new door into the heavenlies, having entered the Holy of Holies, his life, his sacrifice, his blood, the completion and perfection of all that the Law desired to do in men. There was nothing left for men to do; he had accomplished all that men could ever hope to achieve, all that men longed for in the deepest parts of their bowels. He is now priest, king, lord, all of those titles given to lesser men as "types" of what Jesus was to become.

So God did not die on the cross. Jesus died on the cross.