Originally posted by: ThePresenceit seems obvious to me that 'but by me' is much more than just a claim of Godhood, as you put it. It is that, but it's more. It excludes those who don't believe it. He also said 'No one comes to the father' without sharing that belief. Meaning, at least to my understanding, that someone who never heard of Jesus, and therefore never has an opportunity to accept this belief - is doomed.
Once you have Godhood of Jesus, the issues for believers are questions of variations of identities and states of God. It's confusing and mysterious, and even if we're comfortable with some part of it, we can find some other part to confuse us, and we could not really claim to understand all of it. This does not say that it is impossible, just that it's confusing. I can understand one saying in this context that it's so confusing as to be unbelievable, but it's not so unbelievable for a believer is it? Religious belief has divine incarnation / prophethood as necessary components for the communication of religious belief.
So if you equate Jesus with God, then "No one comes to the Father but by Me" is equivalent to "No one comes to God except by God". This is what I meant by "truism" and why I went into the claim of Godhood -- that if you do an equivalence of Jesus to God, which is necessary for this point in the first place, then this point is not as strange as requiring worship of Jesus as a specific man.
As previously discussed, the statement also goes into the need for divine grace and help, and as I see it, the need to attend a
personal God in addition to the aloof
impersonal One.
"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." ( John 5:22-23)
This is a somewhat stronger statement, and indicates a division of
role. The
personal God has the role of dispensing ultimate grace on man, and the seeker has the task of honoring the
personal God in this role.
Ultimately however, there is no division between the Father and the Son, the impersonal God and the personal God, because God is One. That is my ultimate solution to the confusing problem -- recognize that there is a difference between the personal and impersonal God from the point of view of humanity and most importantly the seeker, but also that as God is the ultimate singular, there can ultimately be no conflicts.
Continuing on this point, I would substitute any One God (ideally personal) and pretty much cover every religion, thereby showing that Jesus' statement does not necessarily damn sincere followers of non-Christian faiths, in the manner already expressed by Krishna.
I don't see how you are addressing the question of someone who never had a chance to hear of Jesus. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I don't see it in your posts.
I'd say "the Son", not "Jesus". In my view, His role as the personal God here is the important element, not the man as such. I've tried to address this point from the point of view of multiple faiths, showing that this requirement is not necessarily inconsistent with other faiths.
The Bible also gives the following passage on this subject:
"All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." ( Luke 10:22)
This relates to my starting point on confusion of identities and states of God, and while it doesn't help much and generates even more confusion, it also implies that some of this is
unknowable except by divinity and divine grace, so knowing such specifics in advance
cannot be required.
So my suggestion is to draw on the ultimate necessary union of Father and Son when it's too confusing.
===========================
The concept of eternal suffering is a huge problem, and it's one that I believe the Christians and Muslims by large haven't addressed adequately, which is why I previously referred to Hinduism and Buddhism in this context. This is to also say that neither eternal damnation nor eternal salvation are cheap and small concepts.
Salvation is religious esoterica, but God, being who He is, is not cheap, and wants to lead us to that ultimate grace.
A good life is not cheap either, even if it is not enough for eternal salvation.
To put it another way, we are all eternally damned until we are saved. We are not cheaply or quickly saved. A good life and religion are important parts of some paths towards salvation although they are not necessarily sufficient, and God being the ultimate freedom, also has the right to grant salvation to anyone at any time He wills.
===========================
The Bible also goes into warnings against creating barriers to faith. This of course applies to any people of any sincere faith. But here, Christians should take heed of this point -- by imagining a God who cheaply damns everyone, and especially damns otherwise good people to an eternity of suffering, some Christians have IMO not properly understood their own faith, and also created a big barrier for belief for others.
Of course, Christians alone don't bear the responsibility for perpetuating such misconceptions, and some of it they do out of wish to do good, and the understanding of their faith. To that, I say: I'm pretty sure that the Bible also warns about taking a book too literally in the face of a greater truth. Listen to your heart and what it tells you.
===========================
Best wishes to everyone in their spiritual quests and I hope that these ideas of mine don't push too many of your hot buttons. I apologize for that. While I don't discount my faith, I do discount my knowledge of the ultimate truth.
Cheers.
Facebook
Twitter