...Of Interest

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Hi Bob,

No I am not. I just do not know how to respond to you.

For example here, when Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father, except through me”, I do not know how it can mean that "Jesus is the prime example of trust in the Grace of God, and only by faith in that Grace … "

First I thought what Jesus said is straightforwardly clear: it meant what it meant.

I do not see the reasoning of the person you are quoting and neither did you explicate it. But then it is a side issue and neither refuting nor affirming my point that Jesus is the only way to God, and so I would have just left it unanswered. But then …

If you are trying to imply that some ‘John’ put words in Jesus’ mouth just to counter the Gnostic, then you are bringing another dimension of complexity altogether. I am not going there. In any case the testimony of two or three witnesses are true, and the doctrine of Jesus being the only way is not just founded on this verse, but also in Acts and the epistles of Paul too. But if you want to disbelieve those too, fine. Then just tell me what you think: is Jesus the only way?

22

ImmanuelAy,

I really am not trying to hijack your thread but I have a question.

I sort of see how you can say that if you are a believer (in whatever god or gods) that you can get to heaven. But what about us atheists? Do only atheists go to hell? Or what about atheistic religions like Buddhism for example?

23

Hi Chan,

The first thing we have to understand is that, if at all, Jesus is talking to Jews, to his fellow people. He is not talking to gentiles of any other confession. But he well be talking to Jewish people who opposed his ‘Way’ – and it may well be that ‘John’ has him talking to people who have opposed that Way around seventy years later.

Since the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, a lot of work has been done to point out that John’s Gospel seems to dispute the gnostic position whilst remaining the most mystical in character. Indeed the whole Gospel of John is a fascinating composition that has attracted a number of scholars to express admiration of the symbolic character.

“In Galilee, the first sign is the miracle of wine and water; the second is one of life; the third is bread; and the last (in the postscript) a miracle of the Christian symbol, the fish. No narrative in Hebrew scripture, let alone in the pagan Greek world, had been so densely woven around a web of coherent themes. Light and Darkness, Wine and Water, Truth, Bread, Eternal Life return again and again in what is said and one. Either we see or (like ‘sons of darkness’) we do not: these themes have special meaning for the Gospel’s individual hearers because they live in a new Christian context. With hindsight, they have deeper insight: it is this gap which the author so strikingly exploits to bring home Truth.”
- Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version

It is in the mystical understanding of ‘the Christ’ that the survival of the church was seen to rest after the disappointment of the eschatological hope. How could something so central in the teaching of the church be overcome without mysticism. At the same time, the gnostic non-commital approach threatened to destroy the church. Already Paul had written much to overcome the gnostic influence, but ‘John’ had a more urgent mission.

“John’s Jesus relieves the tension that filled the early Christians; the long overdue wait and the tardiness of the apocalypse which never came has been explained at last. By the beginning of the second century, when it was realized that Jesus was not coming as promised, John comforts his fellow Christians and allows them the luxury to carry on in life as normal. John’s Jesus is preparing their proper place and it is on his timetable, not theirs, and in due course he will let them know when it is ready.”
- James Still, “The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus”

It becomes clear then that the Gospel of John has a mission, clearly outspoken at the end. His mission was to nourish faith in a way that had not yet been undertaken. That is why the Gospel is so very different from the synoptic Gospels.

“John is distinct from the Synoptic Tradition because of the nature of the transformation of Jesus. The shift takes us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people’s messiah, to a Wisdom, a sophia, that pervades all things and all people.”
- James Still, “The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus”

If Jesus did speak the words of John 14:6, then he spoke them to Jews. Otherwise they were meant for Christians who were bringing their church into grave danger. The words cannot be regarded as exclusive towards other creeds and religions, but as a means of distinction within Judaism or Christianity. He was saying, “My Way of loving commitment is the only way, it is the truth to be proclaimed and the only life in the Grace of God we have!”

Shalom
Bob

24

Dev,

I do not believe that when Christ said that he is the only way through which one can find salvation is to be taken at face value. I think that he meant that being like him in spirit and intention will lead to the Father. So, if a person is a good person, a moral person, helps the homeless on the street with some change etc., then he shall find salvation whether or not he believes in the Christian God. Gandhi for example, it would be a shame that such a man find his way to Hell simply because he did not believe in God. And besides, I have a quote as my signature, it says, “What is God if not but a dream?”

But, to get to the point, first we must ask ourselves; do Buddhists go to a Christian Heaven? More than likely not, this will also indicate that they do not go to a Christian Hell, either. Is this to say that the Christian Heaven is the best? Nope. Christians tend to have the divine comedy as inspiration for their beliefs in a Heaven and Hell, as if it is a physical place where our bodies and consciousness as we know it, somehow, reanimate and become whole again. A skillful Buddhist will go to Heaven, and one that is unskilled will go to Hell, but never a Christian Heaven or Hell.

If you are an Atheist, don’t worry about going to Heaven or Hell, your afterlife will be guided by whatever acts you do while alive. Christians go to Christian Heaven, Muslims go to a Muslim Heaven, and Buddhists find Nirvana, Hindu go to Vishnu or whichever God they worshipped. In the end, for me, Heaven is a state of mind while dreaming. And death is that eternal sleep, so what is God if not but a dream? Will you dream well while you sleep, or will you suffer? It is all up to you.

An analogy: When you’ve hurt someone and you regret it, the night you sleep might be restless. But if you have helped someone that day and changed their world, you’ll have a smile through the whole night. So once again, what is God if not but a dream?

25

And who was ‘John’ writing to?

If what ‘John’ wrote is not applicable to non-Christians, then is the gospel - “good news” - also inapplicable to non-Christians? And so how are non-Christians to become Christians?

In any case whatever you are saying - that the book of ‘John’ is an anti-Gnostic exposition for Jews and Christians(?) - is merely an academic conjecture, a hypothesis of sorts. I do not think that is the only conjecture you can make.

I can also take it more simply that no one put words in Jesus’ mouth, and that the gospel is for all the world, whether you be Jew or Greek, ie God’s chosen or otherwise, slave or freeman, etc etc. And specifically whatever ‘John’ wrote can be read by anyone for what it is, even today.

In any case there are corroborating evidences in other writings by other authors, eg Luke the doctor, and of course Paul, the untimely apostle.

And you too are avoiding me. You did not answer my question: Is Jesus the only way to God, for all peoples, for all times? Whether you say yes or no, please give me your reasons. And please stop quoting other people: I want to know what you know and think, and how you know.

26

Hi Chan,

I did but unfortunately you seem to need particularly blunt answers.

No, Jesus did not speak in this situation to all peoples in all times. Jesus spoke to Jews as a Jew and his message was for ‘the lost sheep of Israel’ alone. That is why I have repeatedly pointed out that Jesus was not aware of his importance and even played it down - which is supported by the synoptic Gospels. The Agenda of the fourth Gospel was a different one.

If he spoke the words at all, then in a particular context. Either he spoke them to Disciples opposed to his ‘Way’ and this ‘speech’ was used by ‘John’ to contend with a similar case seventy years later (perhaps with the context that Gnostics who spread the Gospel of Thomas were answered by an unfavourable account of the role of Thomas among the Disciples) or John put the words in his mouth to comply with the concept he had composed.

Shalom
Bob

27

But, on the balance of evidence, I can say that ‘John’ didnt put words in jesus’ mouth and that what ‘John’ wrote is for a univeral audience. You have not refuted this.

28

Nobody writes for a universal audience - unless he overestimates himself. But you speak of evidence. Since I am not to quote anyone - you want to hear my views - I will describe what I see to be as important as well I can.

The author of the fourth Gospel communicated his thoughts and interpretation of the story of Christ using the words, meanings, traditions, techniques and symbols familiar to him and his readers. He called upon the Tenakh to assist in his storyline and here again he communicated his own interpretation of scripture.

The author used an acceptable method of Jewish exegesis to bring together the two ‘creation’ stories and the story of ‘wisdom’ contained in the Tenakh to explain the Christ event. The purpose of this seems to be to demonstrate that ‘Christ’ is the ‘man’ of Gen. 1.27, the first man to be created in the ‘image of God’. In this way, the first creation story of Genesis cannot be understood as history but in fact as Prophecy: God’s plan or ‘logos’ for mankind. The Gospel attempts to convey the Mystery of Christ – essentially a divine idea – through stories of Jesus of Nazareth. The terminology stating that ‘logos became flesh’ expresses the idea of a myth that has become reality.

This unaccustomed interpretation of the creation myth, however, challenges the traditional interpretation of the ‘fall’ story and nature of man. It seems fairly certain that the author recognised that his own interpretation would neither be universally held nor would be universally accepted and that is why the Gospel is written in dialogue with other viewpoints.

Therefore, the main purpose the author had was to express his understanding of the ‘hour’ or ‘kairos’, which is the overall theme of this collection of stories. This theme is purposely hidden under the surface of the stories and perhaps the author chose to present it in such a manner to express the mysterious quality. This Gospel is certainly the most favoured among the Mystics.

A recurring theme in this Gospel is ‘transformation’; there is the transformation of water into wine and the concept of new birth. How this transformation is assumed to occur seems to depend a great deal on how the scriptures are interpreted.

The paradox of the Gospel is the author’s love of the word ‘truth’ and the contradiction in what might be described as ‘fiction’ or ‘falsehood’, because it is serves the storyline and is not in keeping with the synoptic Gospels. The author was assumably aware of the distinction between ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’, yet he apparently made a conscious decision to convey the ‘truth’ about ‘Christ’ through stories some of which may or may not have had a historical factual basis.

Of course, many fiction writers, both ancient and modern, have chosen to employ this technique for assorted reasons, but this has a bearing on whether the Gospel has a timeless and universal message that is to be taken literally today.

Shalom
Bob

29

Nobody writes for a universal audience?

So is the gospel of Jesus Christ universal or not?

30

The ‘good news’ of Christ is that God needs no provoking, his realm is ‘in the midst’ of us, and love emanates from him. The good news is, that the hard and strong will fall, but the soft and weak will overcome. Being stiff and unbending is the priciple of death, to be gentle and yielding is the principle of life.

Blessed the poor in spirit,
blessed those that mourn,
blessed the weak,
blessed those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
blessed the merciful,
blessed the pure in heart,
blessed the peacemakers,
blessed those who are persecuted because of righteousness.

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim
freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.

All of this is ‘good news’, evangelion, gospel. And this good news was for the Jews. But the Spirit of such a gospel can’t be restricted and those who put their trust in such a proclamation, find themselves in the realm of God. Such news is not exclusive, but inclusive - but if it were exclusive, it would exclude non-Jews.

Therefore, what ‘John’ is trying to do seventy years after the death of Christ, may be his attempt to overcome a crisis, but if it is not understood within this context, but rather universally, you begin to make bad news out of good news. This happens because snippets of the Bible are taken out of context and glued together to make up sentences that were never written.

Much of the exclusive statements of Paul, for example are intended to bind the members of churches together, reminding them of what brought them together originally. The fact that he polemicises is understandable in context - but is destructive out of context.

Shalom
Bob

31

Of Course, Bob, this relates to a wider methodological question facing the historian: is it ever fair to ascribe to ourselves an ability to judge the context of a ‘text’.

Paul’s polemic is subject to yoru recpetion of it- which depends on you. How confident are you that your ability to ‘contextualise’ Paul is foolproof?
I’m sure not 100%.

Likewise the gospels. And for that matter any historical ‘source’ (particularly ancient). Best, I think, to ‘read’ texts than ‘contextualise’ them and to rely on ‘readings’ or ‘interpretations’ rather than ‘contextualisations’.

This way, you sidestep the awkward confrontation of Wittgenstein’s work on language.

32

Hi gavtmcc,

It is my intellectual duty to at least try to understand the context - even though I may have difficulty. What we have here is the attempt to contextualise verses the literal interpretation and universal application. I can hardly believe that you support the latter. Of course you are right that the task of understanding the context, especially two thousand years on, is extremely difficult, but this would apply too, to the intention of universally applying the text to a modern situation.

My approach, in connection with the Mystics, is to use scripture as a source of inspiration for intuitive insights, which serve my own perception of life. I have a deep affinity with the the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the weak, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers and those who are persecuted because of righteousness. I miss this affinity in the evangelical attitude because you get the feeling that they are trying to spread a ‘certainty’ and that scripture has to support that certainty.

I have experienced this difference on the bed of a dying person who was very old. The lady told me that she was worried because she couldn’t remember scripture that she had learned daily. I asked her if she could remember what feeling she had, when she read the Bible. She said, yes, it was a warm feeling. I told her to hold on to that feeling and forget scripture.

Her husband said I was irresponsible, since nobody came to the father by holding on to a feeling. He sat down and proceeded to read the Bible to her. I had the feeling that he was worried that she wouldn’t be ‘saved’ if she couldn’t remember scripture - which isn’t what I hear Jesus saying.

Perhaps you can see by that example that I understand that our philosophical problems come from the use of language and not particularly from the real world. I find that many problems that we discuss here are of that nature.

Shlaom
Bob

33

And so we are stuck on one side of the fence or the other. Are the ‘scriptures’ to be read literally or metaphorically? Paul and John were concerned with the creation of a religious organization with authority. The church (organization) had to speak with one voice based on one authority(sacred texts). We must remember that there were many different groups writing their own interpretations of the message of Jesus. For the Pauline church to survive it had to suppress any interpretation that might lessen it’s authority. The gnostic tradition did not accept a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words, but rather focused on his message and ‘salvation’ was to ‘see the light’ and therefore see the ‘father’. It was a personal and internal revalation not governed by a church or it’s priests. Could they accept the statement, “I am the way, the truth, and the light”? Yes. But the understanding was much different than that of the Pauline church. Little wonder that gnosticism was branded heretical and every effort was made to destroy both the apochrophal texts and its’ followers.

Obviously, the Christian churches failed and so the battle still rages on…

JT

34

We can argue forever about what the text means and make countless, unrefutable conjectures as to the reasons and context why something was written, or said, or purported to be said. Anyone can say anything. So how do we agree? We cant.

But let say today we found a letter, and we read it and we all could not agree to what it means or the reason why it is written. What then shall we do? Well simple: just asked the author, if he is still alive.

35

Welcome to the world of the professional historian.

This however is not true!

36

It is.

I didnt say anything anyone said is true.

That will be a different matter.

37

It is NOT true!

What if I am dumb?

What if I am in a coma?

What if I can’t speak the correct language?

What if I can’t understand the concept necessary for its expression?

These are the reasons why you’re wrong.

38

Well you just illustrated the difficult of merely reading text and the problem of language to convey meaning. :smiley:

Yes technically you are right, but surely you know what I meant.

And the purpose of text or language is meaning. The ‘technicalities’ of language is flawed in and of itself. A rock may not be the perfect hammer in terms of ergonomics, but it does the job of driving the nail in. And once the nail is in no one remembers the stone anymore.

39

Yes, I was just hammering it home (if youoll pardon the pun) that we should be very cautious in our writing and phrasing.

40

OK OK I am well-hammered. Now shall we throw away the rock and get on with sitting on the well-nailed chair? :smiley: