Many Mansions *Christian Discussion*

[JunkYard]

John 14 1-26

Lets discuss this a bit. Is Christ the only way to God, or did he simply create/show the bridge by which all mankind can travel? Is a literal belief in the person nescessary, or is there another way?

Please explain why you believe what you do, I'll share my views and we'll have ourselves a nice civilized discussion. (Quoting scripture is expected) I'll do the same. We'll keep it with in the limits of biblical text, and our personal views of it.

p.s. To those who are offended by this stuff: Do the right thing, and just stay away, unless you actually have something to contribute. :thumbsup:


Junk~

JunkYard Reviewed by JunkYard on 03-02-2007. Many Mansions *Christian Discussion* John 14 1-26 Lets discuss this a bit. Is Christ the only way to God, or did he simply create/show the bridge by which all mankind can travel? Is a literal belief in the person nescessary, or is there another way? Please explain why you believe what you do, I'll share my views and we'll have ourselves a nice civilized discussion. (Quoting scripture is expected) I'll do the same. We'll keep it with in the limits of biblical text, and our personal views of it. p.s. To those who are Rating: 5

[delusionsofNORMALity]

though i do love the philosophical aspects of spiritual discussion, having no faith in your mythology i'm afraid i'll be unable to join you.:sadcrying
have fun.

[JunkYard]

Do you have a view at all? That might contribute to the discussion? I'd love to hear your views, bro! You got yourself quite a mind. :thumbsup:


Junk~

[delusionsofNORMALity]

i'm a bit of a church burner and i think y'all deserve a thread to discuss this topic within your own belief system.

[sharer6969]

John 14 1-26

Lets discuss this a bit. Is Christ the only way to God, or did he simply create/show the bridge by which all mankind can travel? Is a literal belief in the person nescessary, or is there another way?

As a "mere Christian" (though perhaps of a very uncommon sort), I'd say yes, He is the only way to God. But, what that in fact means is much subtler than most people realize, esp. if all of their knowledge of Christianity has come from televangelists and American style "evangelicalism."

As far as the Christian is concerned, "reality" is "Christian". Or put another way, Christianity is accurately descriptive in what it says about life and destiny. We don't (or at least we shouldn't!) live in some "fantasy world" which we call "Christianity" - Christianity rightly understood, is a realist religion. When it emerged, popular religion for most people (save the Jews) was completely divorced from reason. Philosophy was a different animal from such religions, and very often had an unspoken contempt for the "piety of the masses."

Christianity from it's beginnings posited itself as something interested in history (and not mythic cycles like most cultic religion), and ready to take advantage of the "cream" of secular philosophy - and in those days, that meant Hellenic Philosophy - Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Plotinus, those cats.

As such, it is a very reasonable deduction that "Christ as unique Saviour" must be in accord with our belief in the universality (the literal meaning of "catholicity" or "catholic") of His mission and His work. The Scriptures say that God is not a respecter of men, that He makes light and rain to fall upon the righteous and the wicked alike. They also say that it was God's love for mankind (and for the creation as a whole "the world" - meaning the kosmos and all within it, esp. man) which motivated the coming of Christ. Further the Scriptures state plainly that Christ's "work" was for everyone, and that He "knocks at the door" of all men's hearts.

So what it ultimately means for someone to have an authentic relationship to Christ, is incredibly subjective. It's possible for the most doctrinally correct man to be proud and full of evil and to receive no benefit from that knowledge. On the other hand, someone can be really grasping for the truth, and that reaching may eventually be fulfilled in a way not sensible to anyone else in this life. After all, who knows what those who truly die see or are given - the only Near Death cases we have (if you trust the testimonies) are from people who obviously didn't "follow through." While it's not true that "dead men don't tell tales", in this case it would seem to be.

I guess if anything, the purpose of the "visible church" is to bare witness to the world to come, and which already is (though few can see it.) Unfortunately, human beings are inconsistent at best, so that "witness" historically is all over the place - from really enlightened souls, to some real scoundrels who are ultimately the cause of popular atheism in modern society.

So, it could be said that something like an "implicit faith" may very well exist. Christ is the Logos, the intelligability and rationality of all existence, God - God Who has entered an embrace with the universe by truly becoming a man. That means He is not trapped in minds, words, or even the best of books, but is very much alive, and very much a part of all things and all people. Subjective opinions can get in the way of this dynamic, or they may be neutral - what that means for this or that person is ultimately impossible for any other human being to know.

So, obviously the Christian must "preach Christ." Anything else would not be the whole truth, the most essential truth. It would be like saying "you need good nutrition to live" - but would that necessarily mean someone couldn't scrape by on what nutrition they found in say, junk food? Obviously not... people manage. Grace "manages" too.

[sharer6969]

though i do love the philosophical aspects of spiritual discussion, having no faith in your mythology i'm afraid i'll be unable to join you.:sadcrying
have fun.

You're right, it is mythology. Of course, "myth" never meant (in it's classical use) "untrue." The truthfulness of mythic literature varies by degrees and by kind. The Christian simply says his is a "true myth" - it is descriptive of reality and man's destiny.

[JunkYard]

Nice post and thank you so much for joining. Your views are right inline with my own (For the most part) but I do have to question what it means to you to "preach Christ". This means so many things to so many people, from the fundalmentalist to the liberal. I'm a liberal --> Way left, so my idea of preaching "Christ" is more than likely different from your own.

As far as Christ "the person" being the only way to God, I'd have to disagree. In my mind, Christ the Spirit, or essence is the only way to God. By this I mean that God's essence was/is Christs essence and it is this essence that actually saves and lends one the abilty to know God on a deeper level.

Christ said that there are many mansions in his fathers house, and to me this implies that God is present in many places, people, religions, or even in some who lack religion or belief in the divine at all.

I simply believe that where love is, there God is also, and we can talk about biblical reference to this idea if your not sure where I'm getting it.


Junk~

[RichieRich]

Nice topic Junk. I thought I would chime in as this is one of my favorite chapters in the book of John. This is where Jesus comforts his disciples and tries to prepare them to be without him. I believe that Christ is the way to God. Would I say that he is the only way to God.....Yes...
Would I limit God and say thats the only possible way he could work? Of course not. But I personally am more concerned with the knowledge that I have as opposed to all the things that I don't know. I know how Christ has affected my own life. I also like how he says " In my Father's house there are many rooms, if it were not so, I would have told you". Peace..:jointsmile:

[sharer6969]

Nice post and thank you so much for joining. Your views are right inline with my own (For the most part) but I do have to question what it means to you to "preach Christ". This means so many things to so many people, from the fundalmentalist to the liberal. I'm a liberal --> Way left, so my idea of preaching "Christ" is more than likely different from your own.

One can be what some would call "a fundamentalist" yet still be genuinely a liberal, which in it's original understanding means one who recognizes the value of liberty, and that such liberty should be allowed to flourish wherever and whenever possible.

As far as Christ "the person" being the only way to God, I'd have to disagree.

If that's where the Spirit and the human meet, that's where they meet - a man in time. Now, because He's connected by as man and God to all other things, that can realize itself in all sorts of ways, perhaps ways not all of us can see. But that's a very basic part of Christianity - Truth incarnate.

In my mind, Christ the Spirit, or essence is the only way to God. By this I mean that God's essence was/is Christs essence and it is this essence that actually saves and lends one the abilty to know God on a deeper level.

Yes, but when He said "follow my way, for I am meak and humble of heart", He was speaking from the lips of a first century Palestinian Jew. Apart from this, "Christ Spirit" is just a bunch of airy fairy ideas...nothing concrete. Indeed, you wouldn't have those ideas without that concrete person and the expectation of that concrete, historical person...the "Saviour" archetype which existed in all cultures, but never as a historical fact.

So what you're describing is ok, but only in so far as it goes - Christianity says something beyond this.

Christ said that there are many mansions in his fathers house, and to me this implies that God is present in many places, people, religions, or even in some who lack religion or belief in the divine at all.

It means that He not only (as a man, as a real historical man born of a real historical mother in a real historical place) has been translated into a higher place (the Highest, in fact - "on the right hand of God" is the way the Bible puts it), but that we too can be as well. It's a parallel to what He taught about His being "the Son of God", but that all men are called to be "sons of God". I don't see how that would amount to an endorsement of everything anyone wanted to say about God.

But see, that's precisely the thing - some of the things "those people" say are true. And that truth, is of God...is it enough for them? Can it be? What is the road that a given man will have to take to be reconciled to God in Jesus Christ? Who can say...it can be obvious, or it can be very hidden. I'm not one to judge another's servants.

BUT, wouldn't be a good idea to perhaps share the "good news" (that's what "Gospel" literally means) that there is no enmity between God and man in Jesus Christ? That He is typologically and concretely the basis for not only man's, but the very creation itself's relationship to God? It's very nice to create different metaphorical tales about God from human history and the creation (as did other ancient peoples), but what about what God says and does for us all? Jesus is very much the "Word of God" in the flesh. So we shouldn't be ashamed at all to tell others about our hope. To even say that it's "the truth", or at least the highest articulation of "how it is", free from falsehoods which may put division back between us and our Creator? To an extent we are all deluded...we're all working through various false ways of thinking, abandoning less and less accurate metaphores for reality. Or at least we ought to be. But I'd submit that this is only possible with some kind of recongition (however implicit) of Jesus Christ by the mind, surrender to Him by the will, and longing for Him with the heart. Again, that may occur implicitly, or not be completed/manifested in any way "outsiders" can see in this present life. But that's "how it is." And that's ok, because God is good. He's not "out to get us". He's on our side. He even suffers and dies with us.

I simply believe that where love is, there God is also, and we can talk about biblical reference to this idea if your not sure where I'm getting it.

I agree, God is love. The problem is that kind of love (agape in the original Greek New Testament), the type of "love" which is of God, is not the only thing we call "love." There are lesser types of affection and attraction, even to the point of longing, which while not necessarily bad in and of themselves (that's contextual/subjective to human nature and an individual's circumstances and understanding), are not this kind of "love." That is because it is entirely non-self interested. It's "unmercenary" - it doesn't exist seeking something in return. It simply "is." We as human beings rarely have anything like this sort of love on our own, and certainly not to the extent God does, save we should choose this.

So, the lesser forms of love are like "agape", but they're not the same. They may lead toward it, or they may lead away from it...depends. But they're not one and the same.

I point this out, because a lot of people throw the words "Christian love" around or even just "love", way too freely. It's a much harder flower to cultivate in the human heart, and realistically much rarer, than people would like to think.

[JunkYard]

1st Corinthians 13

for both you and Ritchie

Prophecy will disapear, so will knowledge, but love is eternal, and such was the way of the Christ man.

On the subject of agape, man is perfectly capable of that kind of love, so says Christ. As a matter of fact, it was both of his commandments.