Who said that Jesus is the only way?...Jesus did

[adeodatus]

Grace, peace and love be to all.

Christians believe and profess that Jesus is the only valid to God the Father. However, as knowledge is gained about other religions, this claim, seem more and more arrogant, bigoted and downright wrong.

However, this claim was not invented by modern day , mainstream Christianity. This claim was made by Jesus himself and his early followers. What follows are passages of scripture makes this claim. I'll start with the most famous. All emphasis made in the scriptures are mine.

Jesus words

John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."

Matthew 11:27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

The words of his early followers

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Acts 17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

There was no doubt in Jesus' mind that he was indeed the only way to God. And, his early followers confirmed that in their writings about Jesus Christ.

This is the reason why Christian make the claim that Jesus is the only way to God, because it was how he understood himself. Christians also believe that God validated the claims of Jesus, by his resurrection from the dead.

So, let it be clear, that exclusiveness is not a claim made up by mainstream Christianity, we are repeating what Jesus and his followers said.

In order to debunk that claim one must go to the source. Many have done that, some try to twist his words, some say that he never said most of what we think he said (Jesus Seminar) However, make no mistake, Jesus taught his followers that he was the ONLY valid way to the one true God.

I hope this help, and I hope good discussions can be started.

Peace!

[brag]

Most Hindus do not have a problem with Jesus as Guru and God in the Hindu Guru/God tradition. What most Hindus have a problem with is Jesus as the ONLY WAY as preached by some proselytizers. The missing years of Jesus continue to raise speculations about where Jesus was and His possible study of the Vedas.

For most religious/spiritual people, salvation is the goal, although Salvation/Heaven/Paradise may mean different things in different religions.

There is no doubt that every people speak proudly about their beliefs in God through their own indigenous cultural, religious and spiritual practices in the tradition and environment in which they live.

A simple look at some practices, beliefs and faith in God, some twenty thousand years or so ago, much before the advent of Adam and Eve, will show that the Father in the form of Lord Rama came and promoted righteous living as a central principle also for the attainment of liberation/salvation.

The same Father, again some five thousand or so years ago, came and spoke directly to his children in the form of Lord Krishna, and again, He said He was the source of all with examples of love and duty as another central principle of life for liberation/salvation.

We are compelled to ask how the declarations by the Father/God many years earlier differ from what Jesus is reported to have said some two thousand years ago about His being the life, truth and way, etc., in his capacity as the Son of the same Father.

Again, we are forced to ask why only recording of one principle of the teachings of Jesus by only one of His Apostles should cancel out all the teachings of the same Father in all previous incarnations. It would be interesting to find out why such and important statement cannot be found in all the recordings of all the apostles.

It is obvious that when some of us believe in incarnations of God, we also believe that it is the same Father/God appearing in a new form He chose. So the question is how does the messages of God by each Avatara or deity of God make one form of God more legitimate than another?

It is more likely that more of us are more likely to accept the word of the Father over the Son, especially when what the Son said contradicts what the Father said before in differing ways about the life, truth and way, etc., in previous incarnations.

I know the answer about the Father and Son being One, but for dialogue sake, let us try and understand why some words in the Bible are understood literally, and some are not.

Every deity of God extols His teachings as the only One to follow. It is also, perhaps, in the same Abrahamic/Christian updating tradition that Islam also preaches that the Quran is the most updated word of God which is hardly believed by the same Christians who believe in the updating of God's words, but not from the Only Way to Mohammed as the last Prophet of God with the Quran as the most updated scripture of the Abrahmic religions.

Each deity of God brings a special message according to the needs of the time, place and the situation. Only a deity of God can utter such words as being the life, truth and way, etc., with such confidence. But did He use the word ONLY in his statement? Who else would we expect to demonstrate such confidence in Himself?

Jesus as man, being a deity of God, must have had to establish and affirm his relationship with His Father in such terms for leading His followers. He would have been foolish not to have done so.

If we take a closer look at Hindu teachings, we will see the importance of the Guru as God for facilitating the true devotees' entrances into the Kingdom of God within. So it is logical to accept what Jesus as the Son of God or Guru said as only an extension of what Lord Rama and Lord Krishna as Fathers would have advocated about the role of the Guru in their own time. The Guru tradition in Hinduism is as old as time itself.

But notwithstanding all of the above citations, let us take a closer look at how Jesus spoke. Jesus most often spoke about the Spirit, not the flesh. He always emphasized that the Kingdom of which He was King was not of this world. So it goes without saying that when Jesus referred to Himself as "Me," He must have been speaking about the Christ Consciousness through which we enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the same Spirit or Christ consciousness we and others refer to as the Brahman, Yaweh, and Allah Consciousness.

"Take refuge in me" is a common thread in all the religions of Sanathana Dharma or the Aryan religions. Some twenty thousand years before the advent of Jesus, Lord Rama demonstrated by practice the road to Godhead by righteous living in the Guru tradition.

Five thousand years before Jesus, another Avatara or deity of God, in the person of Lord Krishna also said to seek refuge in Him and only Him.

Later, the Buddha who did not preach about God, but righteous living and suffering asked his followers to seek refuge in Him.

The question for contemplation is how does the command "Take refuge in Me" differ from what the Son of God, Jesus is reported to have said about Him being the Life... or as Hindus say the Guru.

Krishna
https://one-spirit-tribe.org/universal_ ... a_0070.htm

Buddha
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/wh ... ev/177.htm

Rama Rajya
http://oldchakra.com/articles/2001/11/1 ... /index.htm

Holy Spirit
http://executableoutlines.com/hs/hs_03.htm

[SeandSand]

I pray to my Lord God Jesus Christ every day:I also say my Psalms...I find time during the day to
give at least one hour of devotion of prayer.....I only started doing this 2 years ago...I should have stated much longer ago..... but God said that it is never too late.

[brag]

Great for you. I now ask of nothing from God as I understand God as my Heart taking care of my every need.

[adeodatus]

May the grace that comes from Jesus Christ be with you.

Most Hindus do not have a problem with Jesus as Guru and God in the Hindu Guru/God tradition. What most Hindus have a problem with is Jesus as the ONLY WAY as preached by some proselytizers. The missing years of Jesus continue to raise specualtions about where He was and His possible study of the Vedas.

Do you recall the title of my post? Or, have you read the preamble to my post? The reason for my post, was to show that it is NOT the proselytizers, that preached he was the only way, it was Jesus' self awareness: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."(Jesus Christ, Gospel of John Chapter 14:16) There was no doubt in Jesus' mind as to how he viewed himself.

Also, you must consider the following before you adhere to the Jesus went to India theory:

1. There is no historical information what-so-ever that places Jesus in India.
Most "documentation" comes from psychic messages (e.g. The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ and the readings of Edgar Cayce) and they conflict with each other. The only evidence that even claims to be historical was supposedly viewed by Nicolas Notovich in 1887 in a monastery in Tibet. The alleged scrolls about the prophet Issa have never been produced and the monks who were supposed to have them denied any knowledge of either the scrolls or Notovich.

2. The Gospels teach Jesus stayed in Israel.

1. Our best historical accounts strongly imply that Jesus stayed with his family the entire time He grew up, as would be expected of a young Jewish lad.

Matt 2:23 "...and He came and resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'"

Lk 2:51-52 "And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth; and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

2. Both of these accounts are immediately followed by the account of John the Baptist, implying Jesus' baptism was the next significant event in Jesus' life. If Jesus had traveled to the East it would have been a critical theological event and would not have been left out of the historical record. Jesus' earlier trip to Egypt as an infant (Matt 2:13-15) was included.

3. Other references tell us that the townspeople of Nazareth were taken aback at Jesus' wisdom as He preached. The implication is that He grew up in their midst as a normal Jewish boy. They were amazed at the Messianic emphasis of His ministry. This was an entirely new element.

Lk 4:22 ""And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, 'Is this not Joseph's son?'"

Matt 13:54-56 (cf. Mk 6:3) "And coming to His home town [i.e. the place where He grew up] He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished, and said, 'Where did ths man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Where then did this man get all these things?'"

3. The expense and distance make such a trip unlikely.
This kind of travel would have been extremely difficult for a youngster. The distances that had to be covered were incredible for anyone in that time, adult or child, given the methods of transportation. In addition, Jesus came from an extremely poor family who could not afford the incredible expenses a trip like that would incur.

4. Gentile culture was repugnant to Jews.
At that time in history Jewish involvement with gentiles was strictly limited. Non-Jewish culture was repugnant to a Hebraic (as opposed to Hellenistic) Jew. Jesus would have little cultural tolerance for living in the midst of idol worshiping gentiles in India.

5. Jesus taught Judaism, not Hinduism.
Theologically, Jesus' teaching was completely antithetical to the world view of eastern religions. His theology was thoroughly grounded on a Hebraic concept of God and reality. Jesus continued to refer to the Old Testament, indicating His respect for the Law and the prophets and the God of Israel. In fact, He kept the Law impeccably. He never quoted or even alluded to the Vedas.

6. Conclusion:
Every shred of hard evidence we have places Jesus in the land of Israel for His entire life except the brief sojourn in Egypt (which the historical accounts are careful to note).

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5357

For most religious/spiritual people, salvation is the goal, although Salvation/Heaven/Paradise may mean different things in different religions.

There is no doubt that every people speak proudly about their beliefs in God through their own indigenous cultural, religious and spiritual practices in the tradition and environment in which they live.

A simple look at some practices, beliefs and faith in God, some twenty thousand years ago, much before the advent of Adam and Eve, will show that the Father in the form of Lord Rama came and promoted righteous living as a central principle also for the attainment of liberation/salvation.

The same Father, again five thousand years ago, came and spoke directly to his children in the form of Lord Krishna, and again, He said He was the source of all with examples of love and duty as another central principle of life for liberation/salvation.

We are compelled to ask how the declarations by the Father/God many years earlier differ from what Jesus is reported to have said some two thousand years ago about His being the life, truth and way, etc., in his capacity as the Son of the same Father.

This confirms my observation of different religions, they all cannot be right. In this case, both Christianity, and Hinduism cannot be valid and correct. For, example, the Hindu Scriptures teach that there were people before Adam, the Bible teach they won't (irreconcilable contradiction) Also, the Hindu scriptures teach that there were other "incarnations" of God, when the Bible teaches there was only one...Jesus, the ONLY begotten of the Father (again irreconcilable contradictions) Which follows they both CANNOT be true. They can HOWEVER both be false. We must however examine the CLAIMS that were made by each religious text. Examine the historicity of each of them, their logic of reasoning, and other circumstances surrounding the transmission of the text etc etc etc.

Again, we are forced to ask why only recording of one principle of the teachings of Jesus by only one of His Apostles should cancel out all the teachings of the same Father in all previous incarnations. It would be interesting to find out why such and important statement cannot be found in all the recordings of all the apostles.

The questions should be asked in this way, WHAT GOOD REASONS we have for believing. You should only believe something if good reasons are given for believing something to be true. Again, you statement revisits the original conundrum it CANNOT be the same Father. For Jesus said that he is his ONLY Son and the Bible teaches that this ONLY Son was INCARNATED. No other incarnations. Again, they both CANNOT be right. If God exist one must be right, or both wrong.

I have to go an complete work. I will continue posting replies to your post during the course of the day.

Until then peace be with you.

[brag]

We can go on ad infinitum citing our own beliefs about what is written in scriptures, but who can say for sure by whom, when and where all our scriptures were written, and if they are truly proofs of anything at all.

Most of our beliefs in our scriptures come from full faith in them, no real proof of anything at all. To say that one is correct and the other is false is only about proselytizing one's religious beliefs.

There are still ongoing debates within Christendom about the authenticity of their own scriptures, and many new religions have emerged out of these same debates and doubts.

It is widely believed that the Dead Sea scrolls point to nothing new in the teachings of Jesus from those of the Essenes of which he belonged, and hence the reasons for the incompletion of that precious work.

[adeodatus]

It is obvious that when some of us believe in incarnations of God, we also believe that it is the same Father/God appearing in a new form He chose. So the question is how does the messages of God by each Avatara or deity of God make one form of God more legitimate than another?

This is true theoretically. However, practically and realistically this is not what we have. We have the alleged incarnations of God ALL contradicting each other. What Jesus teach about the Father, is as similar as a computer is to a toaster oven to the Hindu teachings about God. So, they CANNOT be talking about the same God.

Every deity of God extols His teachings as the only One to follow. It is also, perhaps, in the same Abrahamic/Christian updating tradition that Islam also preaches that the Quran is the most updated word of God which is hardly believed by the same Christians who believe in the updating of God's words, but not from the Only Way to Mohammed as the last Prophet of God with the Quran as the most updated scripture of the Abrahmic religions.

I'll repeat it again. It is either in this case, Islam is correct or God's revelation in the Bible correct, they cannot in this case be true at the same time. We must then go outside our own scriptures examine it from that angle. See if it have and good reasons to believe in one revelation over another. And if in fact God exists, then we have GOOD reason to believe that he has revealed himself, comprehensively. Now, if the world religions agreed on what and who God is, then we need not go through this but as it stands, well, you know what I gonna say...they can't all be right.

Each deity of God brings a special message according to the needs of the time, place and the situation. Only a deity of God can utter such words as being the life, truth and way, etc., with such confidence. But did He use the word ONLY in his statement? Who else would we expect to demonstrate such confidence in Himself?

No he did not. However, he used the word "the" which is enough to show the exclusive nature of the declaration. He did not say he is A WAY he said he i THE WAY. And, he goes on to say, NO ONE come to the Father BUT BY ME, NO ONE Brag no one. Jesus understood himself as the ONLY way to God the Father. Christians are not making up these exclusive claims. If you don't agree with it, then fine, but, this is what Jesus thought about himself.

[adeodatus]

We can go on ad infinitum citing our own beliefs about what is written in scriptures, but who can say for sure by whom, when and where all our scriptures were written, and if they are truly proofs of anything at all.

Good question, we can examine the scriptures that we believe in. Find out if there are GOOD reasons to believe, in one set of scriptures over the other.

Most of our beliefs in our scriptures come from full faith in them, no real proof of anything at all. To say that one is correct and the other is false is only about proselytizing one's religious beliefs.

Again, it comes down to an age old question truth, is it relative or absolute?

There are still ongoing debates within Christendom about the authenticity of their own scriptures, and many new religions have emerged out of these same debates and doubts.

Please tell us about the on going debates within Christendom about the authenticity of the Scriptures I would love to know about them.

It is widely believed that the Dead Sea scrolls point to nothing new in the teachings of Jesus from those of the Essenes of which he belonged, and hence the reasons for the incompletion of that precious work.

Nope, Jesus teaches are not brand new. And, this is where Jesus differs from the other religions. Christianity is not about teachings per se, it is about a MAN Jesus. It was Jesus' death on the cross is the important thing. Though what he said is tremendously important, his mission was to offer his death as a ransom for mankind. So it's not so much about Jesus teachings, it is about Jesus' WORK and ACTION in the world. This is why Jesus understood himself as the only way, not because of his teachings but because of who he was and what his mission was(to reconsile the world to God)

[brag]

We all say the same thing about the scriptures in which we believe and place our faith, so your argument "it is either true or not true" is not valid. It is in the tradition of limiting knowledge to make it dogmatic, without which certain beliefs fall apart.

Some see the sky and believe it exists while others say, not so. Where is the reasoned judgement and scientific proof for our belief in scriptures? Is it only in believing what we see and read?

Jesus, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed and others are models and embodiments of truth for many. So why take that away by saying that Jesus is the only model of truth when human transformation for salvation is the goal?

We place faith in our scriptures based on what we know about the sacrifices, penances, etc., made in order to give us our scriptures because their only concern was the welfare of the world.

We can only say that we place faith in our scriptures based also on certain information we intuit and know to be true in our hearts, but that is no proof of God or that scriptures are correct. We have a history of the rejection of old scriptures and new beliefs emerging.

To say that Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed said so is no proof that our scriptures are infallible. We only believe them to be true and compare them with our overall experiences of truths we experience and believe.

Doubting what our wise men and women tell us is different from searching for truth in our hearts and believing them until they settle without doubts in our hearts.

Doubts and disbeliefs make us vulnerable to the extent that we never grow sufficiently in faith to win God's grace for revealing His truths in our own hearts.

[adeodatus]

We all say the same thing about the scriptures in which we believe and place our faith, so your argument "it is either true or not true" is not valid. It is in the tradition of limiting knowledge to make it dogmatic, without which certain beliefs fall apart.

That is why we must examine the scriptures we put our faith in and seek to find good objective reasons to believe in those scriptures. Also, we must put some of the claims that the scripture in questions makes about things. We must examine the historicity of the texts in question (for they all record things that happened in time and space) Again, it goes back to the question, what is truth? and another can that truth be ever known.

Some see the sky and believe it exists while others say, not so. Where is the reasoned judgement and scientific proof for our belief in scriptures? Is it only in believing what we see and read?

Again, is truth relative to a person or is it objective? In the instance of the sky, it's an objective truth it does exist, I don't think any sane person will argue that. Unless he has philosophical motives but objectively the sky does exist. The reasoned proof? I cannot defend the other religious texts, but, there are good reasons for believing Jesus walked the earth and then rose from the dead. I have put some forward with my discussions with alien, you can search for them.

Jesus, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed and others are models and embodiments of truth for many. So why take that away by saying that Jesus is the only model of truth when human transformation for salvation is the goal?

I did not say that my friend...Jesus did. The problem you have is not with me, but with Jesus. Here is what Jesus Apostles said about him:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is

no other name

under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

No other name my friend, this is what Jesus thought about himself, not what we think about him.

We place faith in our scriptures based on what we know about the sacrifices, penances, etc., made in order to give us our scriptures because their only concern was the welfare of the world.

No this is not true, at least for me.

We can only say that we place faith in our scriptures based also on certain information we intuit and know to be true in our hearts, but that is no proof of God or that scriptures are correct. We have a history of the rejection of old scriptures and new beliefs emerging.

Exactly, it does not make it true! neither does it proves that God exists! We must examine the scripture without bias...examine the claims they make, examine the circumstances surrounding the claims.

To say that Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed said so is no proof that our scriptures are infallible. We only believe them to be true and compare them with our overall experiences of truths we experience and believe.

This still does not make it true, as you said above. Again, it comes down to the question...what is truth brag? Do you think truth about any matter can be discovered?

Grace and peace to you!

[brag]

"He said so" is all the proof you are willing to offer? That is faith, not proof. But let us say it is truly what He said, where are the historical writings of the other Apostles or witnesses to back it up? Were they absent when he made such an important statement?

And you are not willing to accept that the statement "take refuge in me" was not said by other deities of God? Are you contending that other scriptures that essentially point to the same thing as what Jesus is alleged to have said are false and not believable?

[adeodatus]

"He said so" is all the proof you are willing to offer? That is faith, not proof. But let us say it is truly what he said, where are the historical writings of the other Apostles or witnesses to back it up? Were they absent when he made such an important statement?

No, this is not the proof for believing the words he said. The proof would be, the wealth of manuscripts we have and how they are 99.5% accurate when compared with each other, how well the documents hold up to the historical method, the rapid growth of the Christian religion, the empty tomb...All those are proofs. However this is not what my argument was. I said "He said so" because you said:

So why take that away by saying that Jesus is the only model of truth when human transformation for salvation is the goal?

So, I went on to show you WE don't say that, but Jesus did.

The Apostles were there when he made that statement all except Paul. Also, there are a great deal of statements made by his apostles, that described their belief that Jesus is the only way to to God. let me quote a few.

Apostle Peter

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Apostle Paul

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.

Apostle John

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1)

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14)

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. [12] He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11-12)

It was a clear teaching of the Apostles that Jesus alone was the way to God, life and salvation. Modern day Christians did not make this up.

And you are not willing to accept that the statement "to take refuge in me" is not a truth spoken by other deities of God or that other scriptures that essentially point to the same thing as what Jesus said are false.

Good, then we have a clash! And, as I have said over and over and over once we have a clash they both cannot be right. Also, Jesus what Jesus said did not just mean "take refuge in me" he meant taking refuge in ME ALONE is the ONLY way to salvation. This is the difference between Jesus and other religious figures. While others(perhaps excluding Islam) speak of other ways, Jesus spoke no such thing, him and his apostles all taught that Jesus was the ONLY ONE VALID way to the Father. So, if Krisha and other deities meant that when they uttered "take refuge in me" then we have a clash of exclusivity which brings us back to the dilemma...they all cannot be right, either all wrong or one right.

[brag]

It cannot be a clash when the Father of Jesus, Krishna/Rama whom Hindus know to be one and the same, said to take refuge in them, and Jesus, the Son, said the same thing, but a little differently.

Both are correct, becaue they are one and the same person in different forms speaking at different times to different understandings of the need for God. How is this different from Christian theology that says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One? When both of us understand it the same way according to our scriptures, how can it be a clash?

The fallacy is in limiting God to just one form as Jesus, the son. You do not know what the Father looks like, but we say the Father is one and the same as Lord Krishna and Lord Rama who took a different form according to the needs of the time. Here Jesus was expounding the Hindu philosophy of Advaitha taught in the Vedas whe He said He and the Father are the same.

The belief in only one form of God puts Him in a box from which He can never be released according to your understanding. That means He cannot take another form of His choosing. Yet the debate continues as to what Jesus looked like, and if he will be recognized when He comes again. That will not be a dilemma for Hindus, as we will always accept him as another Avatara of God like Rama and Krishna.

[adeodatus]

It cannot be a clash when the Father of Jesus, Krishna/Rama whom Hindus know to be one and the same, said to take refuge in them, and Jesus, the Son, said the same thing, but a little differently.

A little differently? Oh no brag, Jesus understood himself as being the exclusive way to God. Hence, if someone else say that they are also a way to God we HAVE a clash. Listen again carefully to what Jesus said.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.(John 14:6)

The key word there is EXCEPT. What can be clearer? So, let's not pretend that Jesus did not mean that he is the only way to God. You are free to disagree with him, that's your free choice. However, Jesus made it clear that there is no getting to God expect through him.

It follows then, unless Krishna /Rama made the same exclusive claims Jesus made, then they did not speak the same thing.

Both are correct, becaue they are one and the same person in different forms speaking at different times to different understandings of the need for God. How is this different from Christian theology that says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One? When both of us understand it the same way according to our scriptures, how can it be a clash?

It is a clash because Jesus said that he was the ONLY way to God, not ONE of the ways. And no one can get to the God he spoke about except through him. Now, whether you speak that to the people in Palestine, or America, or China or whether you preach that 3000 years ago, or even 3000 years form now. It's universality remains the same! It's an absolute truth no matter the time it was said or to whom it was said!

Also, the message that Jesus was the only way to salvation was to be proclaimed TO THE WHOLE WORLD. It was not to remain in Israel.

Then he said to them, "As you go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to everyone. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn't believe will be condemned (Mark16:15-16)

This showed the universality of Jesus' message! It was for everyone, in all times...even to the end of the world. In fact Jesus goes so far to say, whoever DON'T believe in him and baptized in HIS name will be condemned. And, this is what the first apostles preached saying:

There is no salvation by anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved."(Acts 4:12)

So, let's not pretend that Jesus Krishna/Rama preached the same thing. According to Jesus' words and the teachings of his apostles after, Krishna/Rama Mohommed, Bhudda, etc are not valid ways to God. I did not say it, Jesus did. Or you can prove me wrong, by quoting verses from the Hindu scriptures that talks about the exclusiveness of Krishna/Rama.

The belief in only one form of God puts Him in a box from which He can never be released according to your understanding. That means He cannot take another form of His choosing. Yet the debate continues as to what Jesus looked like, and if he will be recognized when He comes again. That will not be a dilemma for Hindus, as we will always accept him as another Avatara of God like Rama and Krishna.

Oh no my friend. This does not by any means put God in a box. Knowing what something is, and knowing how it all works out are two different things. Jesus is the only way to God. How it all works for, people who have not heard about Jesus, babies, people who may not understand because of mental deficiency, like mentally retarded etc etc, however, is a mystery. God in is power is very capable in working in someone's life to show him/her the truth about himself and his Son. So, though God revealed himself fully in Jesus alone, this no way puts him into a box. Also, God himself is ACTIVE in bringing people to himself and his Son. So, God in no way says "I sent Jesus, I did all the hard work, uluh now fight up to find him. No! The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is ACTIVELY drawing people to themselves. So, God revealing himself in Jesus alone does not in any way box him up.

There is not issue of recognizing Jesus, for he told us how he will come back.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Matthew 24:27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Matthew 24:30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

Mark 14:61-62 Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Might One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

His entrance will be grand! no debate that I know of, when Jesus comes back.

Grace and peace to you!

[brag]

What you mean is that one day, two thousand or so years ago, in a world known to have been peopled thousands of years earlier, God for the first time, took a form as His only son, Jesus. It simply means that no one ever knew God as the Father before, because He never took form and became know to the people who lived earlier than Adam and Eve.

There was no need for the Father to let Himself be known, we guess. The Father had no problems with people understanding His presence in nature and the powers of nature. Then suddenly He decided He would change all of that, and show up as the Son, leaving the Father personality behind to watch the Son.

We can assume that what Jesus meant was that He had misled previous generations in His prior forms and teachings in the persons of the other Fathers as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna and even mislead people in His preachings through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

God as the Son, proclaimed that His new form, as Jesus, would be the only way. He Jesus, simply wiped out all previous traditions of worshipping the Father and replaced it with worshipping the Son as the only way. (Lord Krishna is also worshipped as the child/son in Hinduism.)

Yet in the same Abrahamic tradition, and according to the Bible, we would have no problem accepting that the same God in the Spirit of Yaweh come in the form of Jesus, not to establish a new religion, but to fulfill what was written in the old scriptures, in order to continue and preserve the teachings of the old religion, not to wipe them out. How odd it is that in the same tradition of fulfilling the old way, a new way should repalce the old way as the only way. But we know this is not true as the teachings of the Old Testaments continue side by side with the New Testament

It is in the same Abrahamic tradition that God took many forms as He needed in order to carry out His lessons for the salvation of man. The principle of the Holy Trinity, with three separate modes of functioning as God, makes new Gods possible, even when we know it is the same One God with three forms for different purposes, similar to the Hindu Trimurti, Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva of a much earlier tradition.

What it seems to mean is that the new tradition of worship and belief in Jesus did not emerge from the older Abrahamic tradition at all , but stands on its own as new, and it negates older traditions of beliefs in God or that God worship was not important to earlier peoples. But we ask how that can be so, as Jesus said that he had come to fulfill the scriptures, not to condemn them.

We may want to think a little about Christian theology which speaks about God in different human forms through the same God or Holy Spirit, the same one God or Trinity principle of God, which Christians and others prefer to refer to, as Hindu polytheism, but Abrahamic monotheism.

The Holy Spirit is also said to have the power to enter any deserving, existing human body and carry out the works of God for transforming the hearts of man for salvation.

Again according to Christian theology, God does not have to take a new body to make His presence and works known and felt. We remember Saul/Paul through whom the Holy Spirit carried out the works of Jesus.

It is the same God, through Jesus, that made it possible for Saul/Paul to carry out His works when Saul persecuted Jesus earlier. Saul became more important and more effective than any or all of the original disciples put together. It was Paul who became the backbone of the teachings of the Catholic Church with his Pauline principles, the same Paul who never met Jesus.

All of the disciples consistently showed a poor understanding of the teachings of Jesus until God, the Holy Spirit, entered them only after the crucifying of Jesus. One can also say that the crucifying of Jesus was only incidental, and it also conveyed the message that the presence of Jesus in body alone was not needed to carrry out His works for the redemption of man, as God in the persons of man can do so, as both Christians and Hindus believe God does.

Another Spirit of sorts, that of the Devil, is also said in Christian theology to have the ability also to enter a human body, as in the case of Judas, to do the bidding of the Devil. So the Spirit principle of both God and the Devil can do anything and still remain the only posaitive way in the case of Jesus, and in the case of the Devil, the only negative way.

So what Christian theology says is that God can take any form or multiple forms if He wishes, in accord with the needs of the time, and still remain God. It may suggest that there is no need for God to return in His original form as Jesus or as an Avatara or a Prophet of God, and that God can always be amongst us, continuously establishing as many pathways as He wants to lead us to Him, as many of us and especially Hindus believe.

We may want to reflect, again, on how some aspects of Christian theology is not much different from the much older Hindu theology. Even the so called polytheism and form worship of Hinduism are similar to what was practiced and is still practiced in the Roman Catholic church which some prefer not to call polytheism and Idol worship.

[shield_2006]

THIS REALLY POINTLESS-REALLY. AT THE END OF THE DAY IT IS A MATTER OF BELIEF SYSTEMS AND EACH WILL HAVE TO RELY ON THAT FOR THEIR OWN SALVATION. I SEE NO POINT IN TRYING TO PROVE WHICH IS THE TRUTH.

THE DISCUSSION GIVES CREDENCE TO THE STATEMENT THAT GOD UNITES MEN AND RELIGIONS SEPARATE THEM. WE CAN ONLY HAVE "FAITH" THE BELIEF,THAT OUR HOPE IS RIGHT.

[brag]

I suppose you mean that the only way belief is pointless, not that God is pointless.

[shield_2006]

I suppose you mean that the only way belief is pointless, not that God is pointless.

I really doh plan to stay in this because I realise it is a private party to which I am inappropriately dressed-BUT-my point is that we believe what we believe and hope it is the truth. Nobody eh come back yet to leh we know for sure if is paradise with 70 virgins of angels or reincarnation or whatever.

[adeodatus]

What you mean is that one day, two thousand or so years ago, in a world known to have been peopled thousands of years earlier, God for the first time, took a form as His only son, Jesus. It simply means that no one ever knew God as the Father before, because He never took form and became know to the people who lived earlier than Adam and Eve.

Oh no, it definitely does not mean that at all. The word we use to describe Jess coming to earth is "incarnation". The second person of the Trinity existed for all eternity. We hear John echo this his Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1)

After he was incarnated, and was made flesh, he was given the name Jesus Christ (Christ of course is not his last name, but a Title it means messiah or anointed one) John again echoes this

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.(John 1:14)

This is the incarnation, the point in time where the second person of the Trinity became flesh! However, he existed before that point where he became flesh of course he did not exist as flesh, but spirit. So the Trinity was active even BEFORE the incarnation and first advent of Jesus Christ. Just look at the Old testament, the same God worked even BEFORE Jesus was incarnated.

There was no need for the Father to let Himself be known, we guess. The Father had no problems with people understanding His presence in nature and the powers of nature. Then suddenly He decided He would change all of that, and show up as the Son, leaving the Father personality behind to watch the Son.

Oh yes, he had a problem with people understanding his presence in nature. The problem is that they were still sinning. They were still going their own way, doing their own thing., here what Paul, Jesus; apostle taught.

Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things. Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

The "Father personality" was in no way left behind. Here is what Jesus said told Philip his disciple:

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and that will satisfy us."Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work. (John 14:8-10)

We can assume that what Jesus meant was that He had misled previous generations in His prior forms and teachings in the persons of the other Fathers as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna and even mislead people in His preachings through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We don't have to assume. It is a fact that the teachings of Krishna/Rama is irreconcilably different to that of Jesus' So, we don't have to make any assumptions there at all.

God as the Son, proclaimed that His new form, as Jesus, would be the only way. He Jesus, simply wiped out all previous traditions of worshipping the Father and replaced it with worshipping the Son as the only way. (Lord Krishna is also worshipped as the child/son in Hinduism.)

Oh no he did not wipe out any form of tradition at all. To worship Jesus IS to worship the Father. Look at what Jesus said:

If anyone serves me, he must follow me. And where I am, there my servant will also be. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him."(John12:26)

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.(John20:23-24)

It is in the same Abrahamic tradition that God took many forms as He needed in order to carry out His lessons for the salvation of man. The principle of the Holy Trinity, with three separate modes of functioning as God, makes new Gods possible, even when we know it is the same One God with three forms for different purposes, similar to the Hindu Trimurti, Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva of a much earlier tradition.

The Christian definition of the Holy Trinity does not make new Gods possible at all. The Trinity is not simply 3 different modes of functioning, there are three separate PERSONS NOT modes. A lot of people think that what the Trinity means. That we have one God, and at one time he takes the form of Holy Spirit, then another the Son then another time the Holy Spirit. This is a error called modalism! The Trinity is 3 distinct persons that makes one being...God..3 in one. Not one with three different modes of functions. So, if Trimurti, Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva is separate modes of functions, it is in NO WAY similar to the concept of the Trinity.

Again according to Christian theology, God does not have to take a new body to make His presence and works known and felt. We remember Saul/Paul through whom the Holy Spirit carried out the works of Jesus.

There is no comparison here. Jesus Christ was not just a man with the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. He was "God made flesh" However, this knowledge comes with a proper understanding of the Trinity. When we understand this, we can then understand the passage of scripture "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"

It is the same God, through Jesus, that made it possible for Saul/Paul to carry out His works when Saul persecuted Jesus earlier. Saul became more important and more effective than any or all of the original disciples put together. It was Paul who became the backbone of the teachings of the Catholic Church with his Pauline principles, the same Paul who never met Jesus.

A the Old "Paul never met Jesus" I never really understood what implications this fact will have on the teachings of Paul. Please do explain.

We may want to reflect, again, on how some aspects of Christian theology is not much different from the much older Hindu theology. Even the so called polytheism and form worship of Hinduism are similar to what was practiced and is still practiced in the Roman Catholic church which some prefer not to call polytheism and Idol worship.

Polytheism in the Catholic Church? Wow, as a Catholic, I can say this is a grave mis-understanding of the Catholic form of Worship. The Church teaches we are to worship the ONE true God, the Trinity...Please if we worship any other God that I don't know about please point to Catholic teachings that teaches otherwise. And as for idol worship, I know of NO teaching in the Church that says we are to give idols any sort of worship. If you know of a secret teaching please bring it to the board. Unless you do, you are making unsubstantiated claims which should be ignored...

Grace and peace be unto you.

[brag]

Perhaps you are able to explain why the concept of the Trinity is so poorly understood by so many Chrisitians and its true meaning still being explored?

The Holy Spirit link below may help.
http://executableoutlines.com/hs/hs_03.htm

No one can even prove that the apostle John himself wrote what Jesus preached. But never mind that, as none of the other apostles repeated anywhere such an important statement made by Jesus.

Since faith in scriptures is no proof of anything, you and I can go on expressing faith in our scriptures with all the confidence in the world, but we know it does not prove a thing, only lots of fancy words to make the belief convincing.

Besides, you may want to explain why the writings of the other disciples did not make it to the level of scripture?

We don't even have to go that far back in history about faith in Godhead. We have a well known phenomena in our midst which we believe by faith to be Godhead.

Like in the times of Jesus, many doubt His claims of Godhead and many more confirm it by their own experiences of Him. Millions of every religion around the world have no doubt that His eighty five years in the form of Sathya Sai Baba is no other than the Lord Himself.

But as usual, many will cite the warnings of Jesus that many will come in His name, and they will dimiss His claims of Godhead.

[adeodatus]

Perhaps you are able to explain why the concept of the Trinity is so poorly understood by so many Chrisitians and its true meaning still being explored?

I cannot answer this question, for I'm not other people. However, the general consensus, is that they themselves never read much about the concept of the Trinity.

No one can even prove that the apostle John himself wrote what Jesus preached. But never mind that, as none of the other apostles repeated anywhere such an important statement made by Jesus.

It cannot be proven, as how you can prove that the sun is out or that the sky is blue. However, if we think along those same lines, we can apply that to MANY ancient works of History. How we know, for SURE anybody wrote anything? The fact is we can have a the level of certainty that we can have of other works of History. Also, there is a method in working with ancient documents (its called the historical method) which we can use to examine the circumstances surrounding ancient documents.

Also we have the field of textual criticism, where COPIES of the text are examined to see whther they internally agree with each other. If they do agree with each other we can be resonably sure that the body of copies where faithful to the original. In this test, the Gospels pass with flying colors. The copies are about 99.5% internally cohesive. THis figure of course, is unherd of in the English word.

Also, we have testimonies of the disciples AFTER the original apostles who gives us info about who wrote what.

So, we can be reasonably sure that John wrote down what Jesus thought.

Also, why do you think that because ONE teaching is not repeated over and over take away from the fact that it was thought. A truth of a teaching is not defendant on it's presence in every book of the Bible.

Since faith in scriptures is no proof of anything, you and I can go on expressing faith in our scriptures with all the confidence in the world, but we know it does not prove a thing, only lots of fancy words to make the belief convincing.

EXACTLY, this is what I've been saying all the time. And this goes for EVERY religion. Faith in your own religion does not prove that it's true. We must go OUTSIDE of that religion and search and EXAMINE it's claims. THEN make a judgment.

Besides, you may want to explain why the writings of the other disciples did not make it to the level of scripture?

What other disciples? Be more specific, then we can have a discussion. "Other disciples" can mean anything.

Like in the times of Jesus, many doubt His claims of Godhead and many more confirm it by their own experiences of Him. Millions of every religion around the world have no doubt that His eighty five years in the form of Sathya Sai Baba is no other than the Lord Himself.

I will answer this only if I'm sure of what you mean. Are you saying that Sai Baba is some how the same person as Jesus? I may have misunderstood if so please correct me.

The Lord be with you!

[SeandSand]

Thus ends "the Holy Battle" between Adeodatus and Brag........in the end I feel that they should
have reached a compromiseing agreement................ent?

[lexbarker]

This holy battle could be easily settled by this chap:

[adeodatus]

Thus ends "the Holy Battle" between Adeodatus and Brag........in the end I feel that they should have reached a compromiseing agreement................ent?

It's not a matter of compromising, for we cannot compromise with something that's not our own concocted beliefs. We are having a discussion, on objective entities...namely different bodies of so-called revelation of God. So, we cannot each compromise, we must both stand or whatever truths that we believe each of the revelations put forth. Truth cannot be compromised.

However, what needs to be investigated are the CLAIMS of truths that each revelation makes. We must investigate the facts surrounding each revelation, the history surrounding them, their traditions etc. So the real issue here is not compromise...but again the age old question. What is truth, when that is found, it cannot and should not be compromised.

So, the deeper question which we SHOULD ask ourselves is what is truth...does truth exist? if it does exist can it be known? That my friend are the issues.

This holy battle could be easily settled by this chap:

Lexbarker, the issue of truth is something we all should look into. So, instead of posting videos that has nothing to do with what we are discussing why don't you join the conversation? Even if you don't believe in any religion THAT IS STILL A BELIEF, so you unconsciously are in the search for truth, and have beliefs of one sort or another. So, you can join the discussion!


Peace and love be to you all.

[lexbarker]

Adeos, there had been discussions like this over the years and my conclusion is we don't really know. There has been no proof that God (as we preach today) exists and a greater part of the bible is plagiarized from the Egyptian Book Of the Dead. For all I care we could be products of evolution or some space alien.