Narrow Path or Many Paths?

[metis]

Being judgmental is a different issue.  The NT scriptures teach there is only one way to God, and that is through His designated mediator/high priest. 

But are those statements accurate or were they additions put in after Jesus was martyred as we've discussed before?  That, of course, is a rhetorical question since we've discussed this many times before.   

It may be rhetorical, but anyone could say what you're saying about any historical literature, which sort of dilutes the challenge into something not very meaningful in debate.

Absolutely.  We have to realize that when we read any history, we are reading the author's take on what did or did not happen.  Therefore, we need always to have a certain degree of skepticism and, as we've seen many times in our lives, it's far too easy to believe in that which one wants to believe.   

However, what I am not advocating, and I know that you're aware of my position on this, is that we treat all historical accounts as trash, including the N.T. accounts.  But most Christian theologians that I have read over the decades do not believe we can take all the quotes of Jesus as being something that Jesus actually said.  However, which he did say versus which were fabricated after he was martyred is pretty much impossible to verify two thousand years after the fact.       

[metis]

I have a very difficult time accepting the "narrow gate" analogy.  Why would God make different peoples throughout the world but then only tell one small group of people in one small area in the world about the issue of "salvation"?  Wouldn't that imply He had no concern about the others?     

That really depends on a few different factors including who salvation applied to and what sort of salvation we're talking about.   

Maybe you can explain your response above?

[Acumen]

Being judgmental is a different issue.  The NT scriptures teach there is only one way to God, and that is through His designated mediator/high priest. 

But are those statements accurate or were they additions put in after Jesus was martyred as we've discussed before?  That, of course, is a rhetorical question since we've discussed this many times before.   

It may be rhetorical, but anyone could say what you're saying about any historical literature, which sort of dilutes the challenge into something not very meaningful in debate.

Absolutely.  We have to realize that when we read any history, we are reading the author's take on what did or did not happen.  Therefore, we need always to have a certain degree of skepticism and, as we've seen many times in our lives, it's far too easy to believe in that which one wants to believe.   

However, what I am not advocating, and I know that you're aware of my position on this, is that we treat all historical accounts as trash, including the N.T. accounts.  But most Christian theologians that I have read over the decades do not believe we can take all the quotes of Jesus as being something that Jesus actually said.  However, which he did say versus which were fabricated after he was martyred is pretty much impossible to verify two thousand years after the fact.       

If we cannot be sure, then it is probably wise to go on a piecemeal basis with his quotes.  Just an opinion I think will be a benefit for future debate.

[Acumen]

I have a very difficult time accepting the "narrow gate" analogy.  Why would God make different peoples throughout the world but then only tell one small group of people in one small area in the world about the issue of "salvation"?  Wouldn't that imply He had no concern about the others?     

That really depends on a few different factors including who salvation applied to and what sort of salvation we're talking about.   

Maybe you can explain your response above?

First, the scriptures aren't really exhaustive in it's explanation of who salvation applies to or what sort of salvation is being discussed.  For instance, Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."


However, in 1 Peter 3:18-19, Peter says, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison."


The first passage seems rather simple.  Those who believe and are baptized qualify for salvation; those who don't will not qualify.  However, the second passage is more complicated because it suggests that people who either never heard the gospel, or heard it but refused to receive it, may have another opportunity to accept it even in the afterlife. 

So, it's not at all that clear what groups of people are excluded from salvation.  It it may not really matter if a small group of people happened to be privileged enough to receive the message in some small area of the world.

Second, the scriptures aren't that clear how many types of salvation there are.  Some theologians have theorized there is heaven and the new earth - and they are not the same place.  Some have suggested that heaven is for those who accepted Christ as the mediator of salvation and were therefore justified through the Spirit and the blood, whereas the new earth is for those who never had such opportunities, but managed to live a righteous life nonetheless like the OT patriarchs.

[metis]

The first passage seems rather simple.  Those who believe and are baptized qualify for salvation; those who don't will not qualify.  However, the second passage is more complicated because it suggests that people who either never heard the gospel, or heard it but refused to receive it, may have another opportunity to accept it even in the afterlife.

There's also a reference, I believe it's in Acts, where Paul is preaching to people in one of the Greek cities, I believe, whereas he praises them even though it appears they are not followers of "the Way".  It's been a l-o-n-g time since I looked over that segment, so pardon me if the brain cells aren't able to regurgitate all that well.


 

So, it's not at all that clear what groups of people are excluded from salvation.  It it may not really matter if a small group of people happened to be privileged enough to receive the message in some small area of the world.

Nor do I think it's clear what the exact criteria would be for such a judgement.  Jesus seems to be mostly upset with those who act in ways that are hypocritical and/or selfish who seem to care less about the downtrodden.  However, I do realize I'm treading on awefully thin ice here since our knowledge of exactly what he may have said on this subject is far from complete.

       

Second, the scriptures aren't that clear how many types of salvation there are.  Some theologians have theorized there is heaven and the new earth - and they are not the same place.  Some have suggested that heaven is for those who accepted Christ as the mediator of salvation and were therefore justified through the Spirit and the blood, whereas the new earth is for those who never had such opportunities, but managed to live a righteous life nonetheless like the OT patriarchs.

Maybe that's why Jesus said that it is not our position to judge one another. 

[metis]

If we cannot be sure, then it is probably wise to go on a piecemeal basis with his quotes.  Just an opinion I think will be a benefit for future debate.

We've really been doing this all the way along.  The main problem with this approach, however, is exactly how does one determine which particular verses are recorded accurately versus those that weren't?  Unfortunately, I do not have a magic formula to resolve such questions.  This is one reason why I do prefer Joseph Campbell's approach at viewing all scripture as "myth", which doesn't mean that it's false.  Quite the contrary.  It basically says what appears to have eventually been believed without drawing judgement as to its historical accuracy.

[gluadys]

I have a very difficult time accepting the "narrow gate" analogy.  Why would God make different peoples throughout the world but then only tell one small group of people in one small area in the world about the issue of "salvation"?  Wouldn't that imply He had no concern about the others?     

I don't think he did.  I think he told all people about the Way and all people have some perception of it. We call it by different names:  Tao, Dharma, Christ, but it is the same Way.

I think too that all teachers agree that although many seek the Way, few find it. 

[Acumen]

How is Tao and Dharma the same way as Christ?

[gluadys]

How is Tao and Dharma the same way as Christ?

Christ is the Way; Tao is the Way.  Follow Christ and you will be following the Tao or the Dharma or whatever other name the Way is known by.  Follow the Way by any name and you are following Christ, who is the Way.

[Kefa2]

How is Tao and Dharma the same way as Christ?

Christ is the Way; Tao is the Way.  Follow Christ and you will be following the Tao or the Dharma or whatever other name the Way is known by.  Follow the Way by any name and you are following Christ, who is the Way.

***How sad.

Kefa

[Kefa2]

How can they both be right, Gluadys?  Christianity teaches only one way, and that way is narrow.

In a sense, all the paths are the same path.  Even within Christianity, there is no one way to be Christian.  So I think the idea that there are many paths is a matter of human perception. 

The problem arises when we get judgmental about how other people describe/follow the path. 

*["...Even within Christianity, there is no one way to be Christian..."]

***Again you make a statement that is contrary to what Jesus and the Scriptures declare.

There is only ONE way to become a Christian...you must be born a SECOND TIME [i.e., BORN AGAIN]. The Scriptures and Jesus make the following statements about the ONLY way to be SAVED [i.e., Born again]:

(1) "He was in the world, and the world was made BY Him, and the world knew Him NOT. He came unto His OWN [people], and His own received Him NOT. But as many as RECEIVED Him, to THEM [i.e., Jew or Gentile] gave He POWER to BECOME the SONS OF GOD, even to them [i.e., Jew or Gentile] that BELIEVE on His NAME. Which were BORN, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will  of man, but OF GOD" [John 1:10-13].
(2) "That if thou shalt CONFESS with thy MOUTH the Lord Jesus, and shalt BELIEVE in thine HEART that God hath RAISED Him from the DEAD, thou shalt be SAVED. For with the HEART man BELIEVETH unto RIGHTEOUSNESS; and with the MOUTH confession is made unto SALVATION" [Romans 10:9,10].

My prayer is that you will accept God's precious GIFT of salvation...and that receiving it you will experience that PEACE which surpasses all understanding [Philippians 4:7].

Kefa

[Clyde5001]

Why is this on a Jewish debate board? This has turned into an entirely Xian debate. It should be where Xians can debate it.

[Kefa2]

Why is this on a Jewish debate board? This has turned into an entirely Xian debate. It should be where Xians can debate it.

*["Why is this on a Jewish debate board?..."]

***The purpose of this board [i.e., place] is "to challenge, critique, and debate the principles, tradition, and merits of Judaism." There is nothing that states that I am to be excluded.

This is a DEBATE board...NOT a "Jewish" board. We are here to challenge, critique, and DEBATE the principles, tradition, and merits of Judaism.


Kefa

[SquirleyWurley]

But it's about what's true Christianity rather than what's true Judaism, so it belongs on another board unless that changes.

To help things move in that direction, I suggest considering the fact that Judaism, from what I understand of it, sees itself as a special covenant between their G-d and themselves as a nation, as an example of a higher standard of righteousness, if they follow their covenant, rather than as THE way to their G-d.  Their covenant is a special way to relate to their G-d, and a special way to show others about their G-d, but others can relate to that G-d in their own unique individual ways as righteous gentiles.

Therefore, it seems to me that for a Jew, others may be mistaken about their G-d, others may honor a false god, others may commit idolatry (by deifying Jesus for example), but the way toward G-d is simply to become more righteous, to cultivate the good tendency rather than the bad tendency, and the way to the special covenant with G-d is through birth into a Jewish family, or through conversion.

[Acumen]

But it's about what's true Christianity rather than what's true Judaism, so it belongs on another board unless that changes.

To help things move in that direction, I suggest considering the fact that Judaism, from what I understand of it, sees itself as a special covenant between their G-d and themselves as a nation, as an example of a higher standard of righteousness, if they follow their covenant, rather than as THE way to their G-d.  Their covenant is a special way to relate to their G-d, and a special way to show others about their G-d, but others can relate to that G-d in their own unique individual ways as righteous gentiles.

Therefore, it seems to me that for a Jew, others may be mistaken about their G-d, others may honor a false god, others may commit idolatry (by deifying Jesus for example), but the way toward G-d is simply to become more righteous, to cultivate the good tendency rather than the bad tendency, and the way to the special covenant with G-d is through birth into a Jewish family, or through conversion.

Personally, I can't see how a Jew could accuse a Christian of idolatry.  It's sort of confusing to me.  From what I understand about Jewish thought, they see the scriptures in a figurative and relativistic sort of way.  For instance, I've heard some of them go so far as to say that nothing can be known about God.  If this were true, then no charge of idolatry could be leveled against Christians, since not enough can be known about God to determine that someone is worshiping something other than God.

[SquirleyWurley]

Personally, I can't see how a Jew could accuse a Christian of idolatry.  It's sort of confusing to me.

All they have to do is take the issue of idolatry very seriously and consider the worship of any mortal human being as idolatrous, similar to worshiping the essences of animals or the abstract principles deified by polytheists and animists.

From what I understand about Jewish thought, they see the scriptures in a figurative and relativistic sort of way.  For instance, I've heard some of them go so far as to say that nothing can be known about God.  If this were true, then no charge of idolatry could be leveled against Christians, since not enough can be known about God to determine that someone is worshiping something other than God.

In that case they use the principles from their religion which they claim are revealed: the prohibition against worshiping anything created: i.e., any human, creature, or image.

But yes, they could also remain agnostic and say "well maybe but I don't believe it myself"

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Being polytheist helps with this contrast. 

The Hindus can have many paths to their god.

The Christians can have one narrow path to their god.

The path of Judaism is respected.

And I follow yet another path to yet another god.

Simple for me, can't understand what the disagreement is about.

all

[Chiyo]

Why is this on a Jewish debate board? This has turned into an entirely Xian debate. It should be where Xians can debate it.

I completely agree, Clyde, 100%

BTW. Nice to see you here.   

[Acumen]

Why is this on a Jewish debate board? This has turned into an entirely Xian debate. It should be where Xians can debate it.

I completely agree, Clyde, 100%

BTW. Nice to see you here.   

That's why I split the thread.