- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Vivek: Jesus is A son of god but not THE son of god. A way to heaven but not THE way
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:52 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What do you do with Jesus’ own claim to exclusivity?
John 14:6: I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.
I'm sure most Christians are familiar with this verse. Now, what do I do with it? I reject your interpretation of it entirely. Jesus is showing the way through his life, teachings, love, and self-sacrifice. "Through me" means walking the path he modeled - love, forgiveness, justice, union with God - without requiring explicit belief in his divinity.
Why do I do this? Because the stories are no different across cultures. Jesus appears to be what the Hindus would refer to as a Bodhisattva. Someone who has forsaken or postponed Nirvana/parinirvana in order to help others along their path to ascension.
Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection are presented as redemptive - he suffers and "dies" for the sake of humanity's salvation. This echoes the Bodhisattva ideal of delaying or forgoing full personal liberation/enlightenment out of compassion for others.
Jesus teaches the way to the Father, forgives, heals, and calls on others to emulate him. A Bodhisattva remains engaged in the world to liberate/guide beings trapped in suffering.
And Jesus's very incarnation to begin with has a direct parallel to the Hindu concept of the Bodhisattva/avatar of a divine being entering the human plane to help others ascend/have everlasting life.
They're telling the same damn stories, just at different times and packaged for different cultures. And this is why I reject your interpretation of John 14:6 and also your claim that the philosophies are contradictory. They are anything but. You just haven't put any thought into anything outside of Christianity other than what your preacher tells you about it.
And I reiterate that anyone thinking that they have a monopoly on knowledge of the divine is both a fool and a bigot.
This post was edited on 5/2/26 at 12:56 pm
1
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:53 pm to KiwiHead
quote:I have at least an idea of what I speak, though I'm always open to correction
You really have no idea of that which you speak, but you say it with much force of conviction.
quote:They reject that wording precisely because they don't speculate on the mechanism, which is why they refer to it--as they do a lot of things--in terms of "mystery".
The OC does believe in the Bread and Wine becoming the body and blood and thus does believe in transubstantiation. They just think the Thomistic explanation is a waste of words and energy.
I acknowledge that they functionally agree with the real (localized) presence, but my point was that they don't agree with the RCC in all respects.
quote:I think what you guys do a lot is take later terms and concepts and anachronistically force those back into the writings of the early fathers, as if they meant exactly what you mean.
You can go back as far as Ignatius of Antioch to see early endorsements of the Eucharist. Ignatius was a disciple of John so Ignatius had to get it from somewhere. He did not make it up and it has been part of the Christian world since at least 75 AD. So it's not a "Roman" thing solely. The Copts also have the Eucharist as center and are not in full communion with Rome and had not been since 451 AD ...... crazy monophosytes.
Ignatius was writing against the Docetists that denied Jesus had a real body, but only seemed to have one. His language emphasized the real nature of Christ's incarnation, and was not writing a systematic theology on eucharistic mechanics.
In addition, Ignatius' words by themselves say nothing more than what Protestants would say.
For instance, when he says, "…I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for the drink, I want his blood…” (Letter to the Romans, Ch. 7), Protestants would use the same language. In fact, when repeat Christ's words during the institution of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) every time we partake
I'm from the Reformed tradition, and both the Reformed and Lutheran traditions in particular also believe in a real presence of Christ. The Reformed view Him as really present spiritually, while the Lutherans believe in a mora localized presence without the elements changing (consubstantiation). But both believe that we can look at the bread and wine and call them the body (flesh) and blood of Christ in a real sense.
In addition, elsewhere Ignatius writes that the flesh of Christ is not flesh, and His blood is not blood: "…You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ)” (Letter to the Trallians, Chapter 8).
Here he says that faith is Christ's flesh and love is His blood. Obviously you don't accept his words here as literal, but you do when it comes to his letter to the Romans.
quote:While I reject your oversimplified statement that "Protestants" believe and practice as you stated (which is another reason why you can't just lump us all together over and against the RCC any more than I can lump the RCC, EOC, Coptics, and other non-Protestants together), but do accept that many do.
So Fu, it is you Protestants who decided to interpret the New Testament for yourselves and make the Preacher man the main focus of your worship not Christ. Your services tend to be mostly nothing more than spiritual TED Talks. The service is not moving towards something. The Eucharist is an outward sign of the members of the church participating actively to being one with Christ.
Words and yelling alleluia are mere performance and the quoting of selective verses a poor substitute for really understanding the liturgy
My denomination does not see the "Preacher man" as the main focus of worship, but the word of God preached by the Preacher. Our services are not TED Talks, but solemn worship of God, where He speaks to us through His word and we respond to Him through our prayer and praise by singing the Psalms (His word). We also regularly participate in the Lord's Supper (monthly, in our congregation, though many do so weekly), and we spend almost as much time in preparation and administration of the Supper as we do the sermon on those weeks (which are not 10-minute homilies, mind you).
The lack of solemnity of worship is woeful in much of Protestantism, but I also believe worship has been perverted in Rome. There is no perfect expression of it this side of heaven, so what we have are more pure and less pure expressions, through hopefully faithful and sincere.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 1:43 pm to AlterEd
quote:Oh, so you reject the historical and orthodox interpretation of it across all history. I see.
John 14:6: I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.
I'm sure most Christians are familiar with this verse. Now, what do I do with it? I reject your interpretation of it entirely.
quote:Where did you get that from the text, itself? Where in the Bible--particularly from Jesus' teachings in the Gospels--does Jesus teach what you just said he did in your interpretation? The New Testament in particular is quite clear that Jesus is speaking of himself exclusively as the "door" one must enter, not merely a model for everyone to live by.
Jesus is showing the way through his life, teachings, love, and self-sacrifice. "Through me" means walking the path he modeled - love, forgiveness, justice, union with God - without requiring explicit belief in his divinity.
Regardless, of that, the immediate text and context simply do not say what you are saying it says.
1) The grammar of the text demands exclusivity. Jesus' words of "no one comes...except through me" are strong in the Greek. Jesus was being emphatic about teaching about Himself, not merely His example.
2) The immediate context isn't speaking to mere ethical behavior. Just a couple verses earlier, He commanded belief in Himself (v. 1), not a command to just do as He does. In addition, Jesus is speaking about Himself, not a conceptual type of obedience or goodness. The context is about Jesus' preparation for His death and His leaving His disciples to prepare heaven for them. His response (of Him being the way) was to a question posted to Him about knowing the way to the where Jesus was going. It wasn't a diatribe on ethics.
3) The broader context of John demands Jesus is speaking exclusively of belief in Himself, not just following His example. In John 3 (right after the famous gospel message of belief in Jesus for everlasting life in verse 16), Jesus elaborates by saying, "Whoever believes in [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God". Jesus is speaking to life or condemnation through Himself exclusively.
In John 8:24, Jesus again refers to belief in Himself as necessary for being forgiven of sins (which is necessary to go to Heaven): "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” He didn't say that they just needed to follow His example, but that they needed to believe in Him. That passage ends with the statement, "As he was saying these things, many believed in him." (v. 30). It doesn't say, they believed Him, or they believed what He said about what they must do, but that they believed in Him.
4) The apostolic witness confirms this, as the rest of the NT teaches the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation. Acts 4:12 says it plainly in speaking of Jesus: "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
5) The "pattern" explanation makes no sense, because Jesus wasn't teaching merely to be a good person, but that it was necessary for Him to die to atone for sins. We can't atone for our sins by our deaths. If merely dying was the way to salvation, then we wouldn't need to be told that. We could just live however we wanted and then die and go to Heaven. No, Jesus said He laid down His life for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28). Jesus needed to die to forgive sins, which is not something we can do.
Therefore, your explanation/interpretation is devoid of all biblical context and clarity on this topic. It boils down to you already believing that Jesus isn't exclusive, and therefore you re-interpret His words in light of your own belief on the topic, leading you thinking Jesus confirms universalism rather than Him being the one way to salvation.
quote:Not true, as explained above.
Why do I do this? Because the stories are no different across cultures. Jesus appears to be what the Hindus would refer to as a Bodhisattva. Someone who has forsaken or postponed Nirvana/parinirvana in order to help others along their path to ascension.
quote:Jesus' death to pay for sins against God is nothing like mere compassion for others. We cannot do for others what Jesus did.
Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection are presented as redemptive - he suffers and "dies" for the sake of humanity's salvation. This echoes the Bodhisattva ideal of delaying or forgoing full personal liberation/enlightenment out of compassion for others.
quote:See above. Jesus didn't die to be a guide for others, but a payment for sins.
Jesus teaches the way to the Father, forgives, heals, and calls on others to emulate him. A Bodhisattva remains engaged in the world to liberate/guide brings trapped in suffering.
quote:Again, the Old Testament was written to show people their sins against God and need for a savior/messiah, not to teach people how they can be good enough to attain their own salvation. Jesus' message was redundant at best, if it was what you claim it was.
And Jesus's very incarnation to begin with has a direct parallel to the Hindu concept of the Bodhisattva/avatar of a divine being entering the human plane to help others ascend/have everlasting life.
No, Jesus came to be the fulfillment of what God already revealed in the Old Testament, namely that a perfect and unstained (by sin) sacrifice was needed to take away the sins of humanity so we can rightly stand before a Holy God. No one could do that but Jesus, for many reasons that you are ignoring or ignorant of.
quote:But they are not telling the same stories! You are looking for overlapping concepts without looking at the details as to why they are different. The differences make all the difference.
They're telling the same damn stories, just at different times and packaged for different cultures. And this is why I reject your interpretation of John 14:6
quote:They are factually contradictory because each of those religions expressly states as truth things that are contradictory to other truth claims of other religions. It is the very definition of the law of non-contradiction. You are refusing to see it because you don't think the differences of the truth claims matter when they really do.
and also your claim that the philosophies are contradictory. They are anything but. You just haven't put any thought into anything outside of Christianity other than what your preacher tells you about it.
quote:I find it funny that you don't see the irony in this statement. You are claiming that what you say is true (that anything thinking that they have a monopoly on knowledge of the divine is both a fool and a bigot), and yet I am claiming that you are false. By condemning my truth claim, you are doing what you are accusing me of doing, by holding a "monopoly on knowledge..."that I don't have. If you were logically consistent, you would have to reject all truth claims, including your own, but even then, you can't get around truth claims because even to believe that no truth exists, you have to believe that claim, itself, is true.
And I reiterate that anyone thinking that they have a monopoly on knowledge of the divine is both a fool and a bigot.
Your relativism is self-defeating.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Oh, so you reject the historical and orthodox interpretation of it across all history. I see.
This isn't true. Here are a few theologians/scholars who agree with my interpretation:
John Hick: He argued for a shift in Christian ideology to what he considered a "Copernican revolution", with God being at the center and all religions being valid responses to the divine. He viewed John 14:6 as being transformative, not exclusive.
Paul F. Knitter: advocated for a "soteriocentric"(salvation-centered) pluralism focused on ethical fruits and liberation. He interprets Jesus's claims as being about living through his example, rather than requiring exclusive belief in his divinity.
Raimmon Panikkar: a Catholic priest and scholar of interfaith dialogue. His "cosmotheandric" vision saw reality as divine-human-cosmic. He offered deep non-exclusive readings of Christian texts such as John 14:6, emphasizing the Universal Christ and multiple valid paths.
And there are many, many more. Karl Rahner, Brian McLaren, Richard Rohr, Wesley Ariariajah, Marcus Borg, etc, etc, etc. And many of these come from Catholic and Protestant sources.
quote:
Oh, so you reject the historical and orthodox interpretation of it across all history. I see.
If you can't get your first retort correct I'm not going to bother wading through the frickin thesis you wrote afterwards.
This post was edited on 5/2/26 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
find it funny that you don't see the irony in this statement. You are claiming that what you say is true (that anything thinking that they have a monopoly on knowledge of the divine is both a fool and a bigot), and yet I am claiming that you are false. By condemning my truth claim, you are doing what you are accusing me of doing, by holding a "monopoly on knowledge..."that I don't have.
I'll touch on this too because of the sheer idiocy of the statement.
No. Not at all. What I am saying is that Hindus leave room open for other faiths being valid paths as well as their own. Whereas most Christians try to claim that their way is the only way, as you are doing. You are, in fact, claiming a monopoly of knowledge about the divine, whereas I am saying multiple ideologies are likely to be valid paths. There is no irony in my statement. It is a fact.
Which brings me to another point. I've seen this many times now on this board and it is what gives Christians a terrible name in the eyes of many non-Christians. Vivek said outright that their beliefs teach them that Christ was showing people a valid way to salvation. But that they believe there are other, equally valid paths. Before even getting halfway down the first page of this thread you see outright bigotry on display by so-called "Christians" for anyone daring to contradict their beliefs.
If you ask me we will come to find heaven populated by far more Hindus than Christians for this fact alone. A Christian simply cannot stand the idea that someone thinks differently than they do, whereas the Hindus actually believe in living an ethically sound life and so long as you do you'll like where you end up.
In other words, Christians need to tend their own frickin house before casting judgment on others for their beliefs.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:29 pm to AlterEd
quote:Forgive me if I wasn't clear. I was talking about the historical understanding within Christianity for 2,000 years, not the last 100 years of higher criticism and a few scholars who are hostile to the Christian witness, seeking to replace it with their own pluralistic understanding of reality, as you are doing.
This isn't true. Here are a few theologians/scholars who agree with my interpretation:
quote:You provided a list of non-Christians or heretic "Christians" whose beliefs directly contradict orthodox claims about Christ as divine, resurrected, or some other variation that goes against historical Christian creeds and confessions.
John Hick: He argued for a shift in Christian ideology to what he considered a "Copernican revolution", with God being at the center and all religions being valid responses to the divine. He viewed John 14:6 as being transformative, not exclusive.
Paul F. Knitter: advocated for a "soteriocentric"(salvation-centered) pluralism focused on ethical fruits and liberation. He interprets Jesus's claims as being about living through his example, rather than requiring exclusive belief in his divinity.
Raimmon Panikkar: a Catholic priest and scholar of interfaith dialogue. His "cosmotheandric" vision saw reality as divine-human-cosmic. He offered deep non-exclusive readings of Christian texts such as John 14:6, emphasizing the Universal Christ and multiple valid paths.
And there are many, many more. Karl Rahner, Brian McLaren, Richard Rohr, Wesley Ariariajah, Marcus Borg, etc, etc, etc. And many of these come from Catholic and Protestant sources.
Cherry-picking a few modern "scholars" who reject the biblical and historical view of Christ doesn't answer my concern.
quote:I think you shouldn't throw stones if you are living in a glass house. You didn't even bother to consider what it was that I was saying, that the historical witness of Christianity has always been that Jesus was speaking of His divine mission to save sinners, not be merely a "good example" to others. Christianity is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ as the God-man, not merely a decent moral teacher, as you seem to be focusing on.
If you can't get your first retort correct I'm not going to bother wading through the frickin thesis you wrote afterwards.
If you can't get this one point right in our discussion, I fear for what you might say if you continue to respond
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:30 pm to AlterEd
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The Bible is the inerrant word of God. Jesus came to save not to condemn.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:31 pm to Flat Town Tiger
quote:
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Yes, he did. Good job. You pass 8th grade Bible study.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:31 pm to ole man
quote:
Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, whatever it is, if you can't, won't confess JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR you ain't gettin to heaven Period... it's as simple as that.
Do you believe that you being born as an American to Christian parents was due to divine guidance, or was it random chance?
If it was random chance, what if you had instead been born to Muslim parents in some sparsely populated wasteland in one of the Stans? Do you think that you would eventually convert to Christianity regardless?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:34 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
Vivek is going to hell so why should I be care what he thinks about heaven.
The only way to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Do you believe that you being born as an American to Christian parents was due to divine guidance, or was it random chance?
If it was random chance, what if you had instead been born to Muslim parents in some sparsely populated wasteland in one of the Stans? Do you think that you would eventually convert to Christianity regardless?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:36 pm to TTOWN RONMON
quote:
As a preacher of 40 plus years I do not study that crud
Wow. That pretty much ruins your credibility.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:43 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You provided a list of non-Christians or heretic "Christians"
I provided a list of theologians and scholars who agree with my interpretation. And there are MANY more. There are entire Christian denominations that prefer my interpretation.
The United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church (Anglican), the Presbyterian Church, The United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. There are also the Quakers, the Unitarian Universalist congregations, the Emergent Church.
And last, but not least, The Roman Catholic Church itself.
So no, it's not just a "few." It's a great many. Including the original Christian Church. And again, since you couldn't get your first retort correct, there is no sense in discussing this with you further.
If your church cannot come to a consensus agreement in something this important within your dogma, do you think I give a shite if you disagree with my assessment of it? Hell no, I don't. I'm in the right here. Wanna know how I know? Because my interpretation is also the one that makes frickin sense.
This post was edited on 5/2/26 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:48 pm to AlterEd
quote:I think you missed my point. I'm moving beyond just the Christian truth claim about Christ to the concept of truth, itself.
I'll touch on this too because of the sheer idiocy of the statement.
No. Not at all. What I am saying is that Hindus leave room open for other faiths being valid paths as well as their own. Whereas most Christians try to claim that their way is the only way, as you are doing. You are, in fact, claiming a monopoly of knowledge about the divine, whereas I am saying multiple ideologies are likely to be valid paths. There is no irony in my statement. It is a fact.
All religions are making truth claims, including Hindus.
When the Hindu teaches that sin is based on ignorance rather than a transgression of God's moral law, they are directly contradicting the Christian truth claim. Same for the contradiction of the claim of original sin vs. karma and accruing guilt from our past lives.
When the Hindu teaches about impersonal karma, itself, it contradicts the personal God and offenses against Him.
Even the nature of a singular personal God in Christianity (monotheism) contradicts both the impersonal reality taught in Hinduism and even the polytheism of the various gods that many Hindus worship.
The goal of Hinduism is to leave the illusion of this reality through good works rather than to have forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone in Christianity. There is no need for a substitutionary atonement in Hinduism, but there is in Christianity.
Even the identity of self in Hinduism is different from Christianity, as the Christian identity is in Jesus Christ and will continue forever while the Hindu idea of identity is to lose it and become one with all else.
I could go on and on, but Hindus make truth claims about reality that are contradictory to the truth claims that Christians make. Both cannot be right, logically.
quote:Yes, because the Christian message is absolutely, 100% EXCLUSIVE! When someone teaches that salvation exist apart from Jesus Christ, then they are contradicting the truth that Jesus, Himself, proclaimed.
Which brings me to another point. I've seen this many times now on this board and it is what gives Christians a terrible name in the eyes of many non-Christians. Vivek said outright that their beliefs teach them that Christ was showing people a valid way to salvation. But that they believe there are other, equally valid paths. Before even getting halfway down the first page of this thread you see outright bigotry on display by so-called "Christians" for anyone daring to contradict their beliefs.
It isn't just the truth claim itself that is wrong, but the results. Christians teach that salvation exist only for those who trust in Jesus' work to forgive their sins. If someone doesn't trust in Jesus, they will not be saved, and they will suffer for eternity. We do not want people to suffer that way, and so we teach the exclusive claim of Jesus that you must believe in Him.
When someone comes along and says that Jesus' claim is not true, and that you don't actually need to believe in Jesus, we believe they are not just teaching a false message, but a DANGEROUSLY false message that will lead many to Hell.
We also recognize that this exclusivity will bring detractors, and that many non-Christians will hate that message. That's what Jesus taught when He said He didn't come to bring peace but the sword, pitting mother against daughter, sister against brother, and friend against friend for His name's sake. The message you are claiming about Jesus is non-offensive, but Jesus taught that people would be offended by His claim.
quote:You have an entirely false view of Christian teaching as well as Hindu teaching, it seems, and therefore you don't even understand the implications of what you are arguing.
If you ask me we will come to find heaven populated by far more Hindus than Christians for this fact alone. A Christian simply cannot stand the idea that someone thinks differently than they do, whereas the Hindus actually believe in living an ethically sound life and so long as you do you'll like where you end up.
If Hinduism is true, then Christians will just come back after death and try again. If Christianity is true, then Hindus will die and go to Hell forever. That is the essence of why both religions do not teach essentially the same thing, and why both cannot be equally true at the same time.
This is why I said you are being irrational.
quote:If we are being consistent with what Jesus taught, we will most certainly cast judgement on others for their beliefs. That is what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about: your beliefs and actions are an offense against God and will result in everlasting damnation and suffering by a holy God if you do not believe the truth of Jesus Christ and walk in obedience to Him.
In other words, Christians need to tend their own frickin house before casting judgment on others for their beliefs.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 2:55 pm to AlterEd
quote:OK, and that says nothing to what I argued. I said my understanding of John 14:6 is the historical and universal understanding of Christianity for 2,000 years.
I provided a list of theologians and scholars who agree with my interpretation. And there are MANY more.
You provided some names of modern (last 100 years) non-Christians or "Christians" that reject the orthodox understanding of Christians for 2,000 years prior, including several that reject basic claims of Jesus' divinity, which is the cornerstone of Christianity, itself.
quote:
There are entire Christian denominations that prefer my interpretation.
The United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church (Anglican), the Presbyterian Church, The United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. There are also the Quakers, the Unitarian Universalist congregations, the Emergent Church.
And last, but not least, The Roman Catholic Church itself.
So no, it's not just a "few." It's a great many. Including the original Christian Church. And again, since you couldn't get your first retort correct, there is no sense in discussing this with you further.
as a Presbyterian, you're going to have to justify including Presbyterianism in that list, because we adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith which absolutely denies what you are claiming. quote:My church does have a consensus agreement.
If your church cannot come to a consensus agreement in something this important within your dogma, do you think I give a shite if you disagree with my assessment of it? Hell no, I don't. I'm in the right here. Wanna know how I know? Because my interpretation is also the one that makes frickin sense.
And whether or not errant churches exist today doesn't even scratch the surface of my argument. I said that the historic position has been exclusivism, not inclusivism, as you are claiming.
You are a religious liberal who clearly doesn't understand Christianity, and you certainly don't give a rip about the Bible's teaching about Jesus' exclusivity. You gave your own false interpretation of one verse based not on what the Bible teaches, but on what you want that verse to be teaching.
You are incoherent and irrational, as well as factually and historically wrong about Christianity.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 3:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I said my understanding of John 14:6 is the historical and universal understanding of Christianity for 2,000 years.
If you know anything about the earliest days of Christianity, I don’t know that you can use the term “universal” here.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 3:11 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:There has never been a position of the Christian Church that taught that Jesus was a mere good example to follow, and that the Christian faith was pluralistic.
If you know anything about the earliest days of Christianity, I don’t know that you can use the term “universal” here.
Christians were persecuted and martyred from the first century for their exclusive claims, refusing to acknowledge Caesar as a god and lord.
Whatever else might be said, Ed’s interpretation is not supported at all, which is why he has to use scholars from the last 100 years to cast doubt on what Christians have taught and believed for 2000 years.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 3:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
There has never been a position of the Christian Church that taught that Jesus was a mere good example to follow, and that the Christian faith was pluralistic.
Eh, again, this ignores the diversity of thought and belief in the early days of Christianity.
quote:
Christians were persecuted and martyred from the first century for their exclusive claims, refusing to acknowledge Caesar as a god and lord.
Not really. That’s the story that Christians wound up telling, but history shows that the persecution of Christians in Rome was much more complex than that.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 3:50 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
"The only path to heaven is through jesus christ"
Yea frick all 7.8 out of 8 billion people who dont worship god the same as you do. And most of the "christians" are in name only and dont practice what they preach.
Muslims are dumb but man y'all are fricking insufferable.
Yea frick all 7.8 out of 8 billion people who dont worship god the same as you do. And most of the "christians" are in name only and dont practice what they preach.
Muslims are dumb but man y'all are fricking insufferable.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 3:55 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
Gotta give Trump credit for NOT bringing this chameleon into his administration.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 5:08 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:The only group that comes close that is known today would be the Ebionites, who were more of a Jewish sect that thought Jesus was a human (only) messiah that was to fulfill the Jewish prophetic fulfillment and lead other Jews back to obedience to the law. They were apparently an extremely small group and were rejected by both Christians and Jews, alike.
Eh, again, this ignores the diversity of thought and belief in the early days of Christianity.
So my point stands: At no time did the Christian Church teach that Jesus was a mere example to be followed, or that the Christian faith was anything other than exclusive, denying the worship of other gods and ways to salvation.
quote:Pliny the Younger’s Letter to Trajan did seem to indicate that within 100 years of Christ, Christians were being executed for being Christians and not worshipping the Roman gods and the emporer.
Not really. That’s the story that Christians wound up telling, but history shows that the persecution of Christians in Rome was much more complex than that.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News