Jesus claimed exclusivity

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus isn't just a set of teachings to follow; He is the way through whom we approach and relate to God. He doesn’t just show the path but embodies it, guiding us to experience God personally. In practical terms, this means trusting Him, learning from His life, and seeking to live as He did—filled with love, humility, and faithfulness.

I agree with you.
Jesus didn't just preach the gospel. He lived the Gospel... and He did it all the way to the cross.
That's why He could say with all authority "I am the Truth".
Nobody can say "I am the truth" unless that person really "embodies" the things she preaches.

But then, again, what do we do when we recognize that Jesus embodied (and not just preached) the truth?
"To embody" comes from the concept "body". We see the person doing things with his body that are in accordance to the values she preaches.
This is what Jesus refered to as "eating his body" and "drinking his blood". It is like making that embodiment of truth our own embodiment.

In this thread we are talking about Jesus claims for exclusivity, but it must be uplifting to recognize that Jesus was not interested in being the only one expressing an attribute, but in making us to express those attributes as well.
That's why the Scriptures call us to be kings, priests, judges, one with Christ and His Father. We are called to do things that are even greater than those he did, to be crucified with Him, raised from dead with Him and sit with Him in his throne.

The wonder of Christ's exclusivity is that it is intended to be inclusivity... inclusivity for anyone who follows Him.

 

[Johann]

I agree with you.
Jesus didn't just preach the gospel. He lived the Gospel... and He did it all the way to the cross.
That's why He could say with all authority "I am the Truth".
Nobody can say "I am the truth" unless that person really "embodies" the things she preaches.

But then, again, what do we do when we recognize that Jesus embodied (and not just preached) the truth?
"To embody" comes from the concept "body". We see the person doing things with his body that are in accordance to the values she preaches.
This is what Jesus refered to as "eating his body" and "drinking his blood". It is like making that embodiment of truth our own embodiment.

In this thread we are talking about Jesus claims for exclusivity, but it must be uplifting to recognize that Jesus was not interested in being the only one expressing an attribute, but in making us to express those attributes as well.
That's why the Scriptures call us to be kings, priests, judges, one with Christ and His Father. We are called to do things that are even greater than those he did, to be crucified with Him, raised from dead with Him and sit with Him in his throne.

The wonder of Christ's exclusivity is that it is intended to be inclusivity... inclusivity for anyone who follows Him.

Tired at the moment-11.09 PM here in South Africa brother.

Shalom Achi.

J.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The “Permanent” Covenant of Circumcision: Torah, Hebrew Syntax, and Apostolic Teaching
Circumcision in Genesis 17:10-14 is called an ‘olam berit’ (עוֹלָם בְּרִית), meaning an “everlasting covenant.” The Hebrew term עוֹלָם (olam) indeed often means “forever,” but it can also imply “for an age” or “for a long period.”

In many parts of the Torah, olam is used with a sense of lasting only until God’s purpose in that command is fulfilled, as seen in sacrificial and ritual laws that are also called olam yet are understood as symbolic, pointing forward to something deeper.

The Apostles were addressing circumcision not as a removal of its symbolic importance but as a change in the scope and means of the covenant. In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, aware of the Torah’s teaching, determined that circumcision was not a requirement for Gentile converts.

Paul elaborates in Romans 2:29 and Galatians 5:6 that the “true circumcision” is one of the heart, an inward transformation by the Spirit, which circumcision pointed to but did not fulfill. Paul’s Greek phrase in Romans, περιτομὴ καρδίας (peritomē kardias), or “circumcision of the heart,” emphasizes the deeper spiritual change over the external ritual.

Paul’s and the Apostles’ teachings show not a contradiction but a fulfillment of the covenant’s purpose through Christ. Circumcision served as a symbol of separation and dedication to God, but in Christ, that separation is achieved spiritually rather than ritually. This is seen not as contradicting the Torah but as expanding on its ultimate intention.

I fully support your clear and well-grounded analysis.
My point here is that, to accept the validity of that analysis, any Jew friend who thinks Paul is violating the Law would have to "read in the text" of the Tanakh. Meaning, understand the spiritual sense, the ultimate purpose of God's laws and commandments.
Only in that way we find no contradiction.

There are Christians who think that baptism is essential for the salvation of the soul. Some don't think so. Both use verses from the Bible to support their view... and they are talking about a crucial topic: eternal salvation.
There are Christians who think that believing in the biological evolution of species across millions of years is denying the Word of God... and who could be saved if deliberately denying the Word of God?
Jehovah Witnesses have a case when interpreting literally the commandment of abstaining from blood. Some are willing to die before violating what they see as an explicit commandment from God, never abolished by Jesus or his apostles. To refute that view, we must necessarily see the spiritual side of the commandments of God.

In summary, to say that a teaching contradicts Scripture, we must go to the ultimate, spiritual purpose of a commandment.

 

[JoshebB]

In other words, Jesus couldn't have claimed "I am the Only Way, but not the Only True Messiah", because being the Only True Messiah was equivalent to being the Only Way to salvation of Israel*

*NOTE: Let's remember that salvation meant restoration of a spiritual condition of Israel before God, and restoration a material condition before the nations of the world. The concept of salvation of the soul from a lake of fire in the afterlife was not part of the messianic expectation as taught in the Tanakh.​

That is hugely problematic.

First of all, it does nothing to solve the problem of exclusivity. Second, the argument submitting "true" messiahship is the only way is not only begging the question, it ignores the fact there existed many anointed ones and none of them were the only way of salvation or the only way to God. Perhaps most problematically, is the redefinition of "salvation" mean restoration of Israel. This is doubly problematic if "Israel" is defined as the geo-political nation-state of ethnicity. Jesus is celebrated as a child as the one who saves the world from sin, not just the nation of Israel, and not just restoring that nation. Furthermore, you're wrong about the Tanakh but that has nothing to do with John 14:6's claim of exclusivity.... which is what we're supposed to be discussing. Not only is the view of Tanakh mistaken, it's a red herring. You and I don't have enough history but often have I stated a very blunt dichotomy relevant to Tanakh.

Tanakh is always correct.
Judaism is often wrong.

Jesus constantly corrected the latter. The latter got sin, salvation, restoration, the identity and meaning of God's anointed one, and the way to God wrong. They tried to kill him because he corrected them. Therefore, both logically and exegetically, Post 5 is hugely flawed.

Jesus, the lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world, not just Israel's, claimed he was the only way to God. How do you explain that claim of exclusivity (in a more rational way than Post 5)?

 

[JoshebB]

I agree 100% with you in the exclusivity placed in the term "the..."
Perhaps we still don't agree on the meaning of "way"

To me, "way" means the way to live. The method followed, the teaching applied, the religion experienced.
In the apostolic era, "The Way" was equivalent to the life that was characteristic of the early Christians. It was their religion (in the true and deep sense of religion). We can see this in Acts 19:23, Acts 22:4, Acts 24:14.

So, when Jesus says "I am the Way", he meant "My religion is the Way".

So, the answer to the question is to deny what he said, assume facts not in evidence (He did not mean what he said and said what he did not mean) and redefine words to resolve the conflict?

There is nothing in the entire Bible indicating Jesus was trying to start a new religion. Neither is there any statement of his claiming his lifestyle, or his philosophy (teachings) were the way to God. As I emphasized at the beginning, his teaching was HE, himself was the way and not what all the other competitors claimed.

 

[JoshebB]

Let me consolidate these two sections of your post around the argument from silence.

I claim that Noah and Moses were also the Only Way to God. You say they didn't make that claim.
I could also claim here that you're making an ex silentio fallacy.

No, you cannot because my saying they made no such claim is not about them; it's about the falsehood of the claim they were also ways. In other words, if I were to say, "Donald Trump said he has orange polka-dotted buzzards flying out of his ears," it would be correct to reply, No, he never said any such thing. It is the claim he said buzzards were flying out his ears that is the falsehood, not the truth he never said any such thing.

In the case of Noah, the only way to escape destruction was to pay heed to Noah and get a place with him and his family in the arc.

Completely false. No heeding Noah would work. Only heeding God would work. And as far as the flood goes, the New Testament tells us that was an allegorical use of history by God that foreshadowed the work of Jesus. The New Testament also tells us Noah looked forward to Jesus.

Jesus is the way, the only way to God, not Noah.

In a time where everyone was wicked, Noah is called in the Bible "Perfect", "Righteous".

Better check the Hebrew. No one is perfect or righteous except God. Righteousness is credited to a person based on their faith in God and His covenant promises, nothing else.

Whatever competing message and messenger existed in Noah's time and circumstance, it had to be ruled out, in order to be saved. Believing that a flood would come implied believing the truth. Following Noah advice meant saving one's life.
Noah was The Way, The Truth and The Life.

Noah and his boat may have been the way to escape the lethality of the flood, but every one of those survivors still died and had to stand before God in judgment. All of them were sinner, including the supposedly perfect and righteous Noah (who proved to be an alcoholic) and his son (who proved to be a sodomizing rapist).

The case of Moses is also very evident. Disobeying Moses was disobeying God. Accepting Moses was accepting God. No exception allowed. Rebellion was punished by death. The entire people of Israel asked Moses to intercede for them in order to be saved. They did not ask this to Aaron or Mary. It was Moses or nobody. Moses was The Way, The Truth and The Life.

Hmmm... Have you ever read the Bible?

Disobeying Moses was equivalent to disobeying God only when Moses spoke on behalf of God and those words were disobeyed. Disagreements with Moses happened quite often and no one died.

God is One. He admits no competition.

Jesus is God. You have, therefore, refuted your own argument with that last comment......


...and done nothing to resolve the problem of Jesus' exclusivity other than to deny what he said and make him out to be a liar or a fool.

 

[JoshebB]

As you say, John 14:6, if taken literally, would mean that.
But there is no reason to take it literally, as Jesus Christ is a Person, and not a "Way", "Door", or "Light".

Then you have failed to correctly understand Christianity (and the basic rule of exegesis which require a text be read exactly as written unless there is something in the passage indicating a need to do otherwise). Jesus never said, "My way is better than others," or "My way is THE way." but he did repeatedly speak of his person as the means and the sole means of reaching God. i chose one verse, the simplest, most direct, most explicit verse upon which to base this discussion but a great deal of Jesus' teaching could be brought to bear on John 14:6 to define what he meant in his own words. Similarly, an entire epistolary could be brought to bear on that verse.

But what does Jesus Christ being the singular, exclusive path means to you....?

No, what did it mean to Jesus and his original audience when he spoke those words. We do not get to define it.

If a Person who claimed to be Sent by God, told you that He was "The Way, The Truth, The Life", What were you supposed to do if you assented to such claim?

Follow him, of course.



Take a breath. Peruse your own posts. Look at what has happened. You've asked scores of questions and all they do is obfuscate the question and its answer. The fact remains, if taken literally, Jesus' statement is exclusive (and exceedingly demanding). The only way to avoid the problem of exclusivity is to deny the literal reading and argue he meant something other than what he stated. You've done what others have been doing for the better part of two millennia. If that continues a lot more pushback will ensue as other Christians join the thread (the trolls will come just because you've unwittingly provoked them (at least I assume no manipulation on your part was intended). In other words, you picked a fight and didn't even know you did so. I know you have it within you to have the polite, respectful, cogent and coherent conversation this op warrants.

So back up. Relax and start over.

Try to anticipate my replies. Be selective regarding who you engage because few will be able to have the well-mannered discussion you and I pulled off earlier (and many will take those words of mine as provocation). @Johann, let me encourage you to unpack things slowly because lengthy expositions of doctrine aren't going to answer the question asked, which is......


What are we to do with the exclusive claim of Jesus wherein he claimed he and he alone was the way to God?

He was either correct or incorrect. If he is correct then all the other "great" religious teachers in human history that either marginalized, complemented, or eschewed Jesus are not to be followed. If he is incorrect then all those who even marginally accept his teachings as veracious have compromised their own teachings. Either way, @Pancho Frijoles is in a predicament and putting him on the defensive will not work. Even if you win the argument intellectually that may do nothing to answer the question asked at the personal level.


Pancho. Start over. Try not redefining what Jesus said, especially not in any of the ways already tried because those ALL show a tragic misunderstanding of both Tanakh and the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew. Jesus was a human who happened to be Jewish. None of that will be disputed. However, that is not all that Jesus is. According to Jesus, he is the son of God that is equal with God and everyone in his day knew that was a slanderous claim worthy of death because it is (supposedly) false. If false, then nothing else he said or did should be given a moment's worth of notice. If true, then - insane as it may seem - then when he says he is the only way to God he is saying, he-the-son-of-God-who-is-equal-to-God is the way to the God the Father. You must keep this in mind as you search through the rest of the Bible to explain his words because Jesus is not a Noah or a Moses.

He's a madman.
He's a liar.
He's a fool.
Or we who follow him are.

Or he is exactly who he says he is.

Either way, all four possibilities have relevance to a Baha'i believer so there's no way you leave this conversation without something new to consider.


All the theology and doctrine asked, how are we to handle Jesus' claim of exclusivity? We cannot dismiss him without compromising our own beliefs. Anyone who is not already a Christian cannot embrace him without, again, compromising their already existing beliefs (and that holds true for every denominationalist Christian as it does for any Baha'i).


Jesus, the God/man, is the only way to God.

 

[DavidTree]

I'm opening this thread in order to discuss the sense of exclusivity found on many of Jesus claims, and those of his apostles.
I would like to invite @JoshebB to the discussion.
The aim of the thread is just to exchange views and understand a bit better why we believe what we believe. This may eventually cast light on our shared nature as humans seeking God and enjoying his grace.

I am not a Christian. I am a Baha'i. As a result, I consider as Manifestations of the Word of God several persons with distinct, historical identities, like Noah, Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, among others.

I am aware of the claims of exclusivity made by Jesus and his apostles in many aspects.
I see this as completely natural for a Manifestation of God at a given time and circumstance.
Competing leaders and competing messages that could mislead people must be considered false messiahs, false teachers, false gospels.

If I could summarize my position (that I can elaborate as we advance in the dicussion) I believe there is only one eternal gospel, One Way, and correspondingly, one set of instructions that makes sense to... and must be followed by... a given group of people at a given time of history ( a set that often includes temporary laws, rituals, symbols, or secondary discourses). The Messenger who represents this Only Way, this Only Gospel, has all the right to demand exclusivity.

Seems like you are seeking to prove to God your obedience thru His commandments via good works.

 

[JoshebB]

Seems like you are seeking to prove to God your obedience thru His commandments via good works.

This op was prompted by a collaborative conversation @Pancho Frijoles and I had discussing evolution HERE. That conversation proved civil and well-mannered despite some differences, and it was thought a similar attempt at Jesus' exclusive claims could be made.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No, you cannot because my saying they made no such claim is not about them; it's about the falsehood of the claim they were also ways. In other words, if I were to say, "Donald Trump said he has orange polka-dotted buzzards flying out of his ears," it would be correct to reply, No, he never said any such thing. It is the claim he said buzzards were flying out his ears that is the falsehood, not the truth he never said any such thing.

My claim is that Noah and Moses were The Way at their time and circumstance. Not that the Bible records them saying they were.
Therefore, the hypothetical claim you chose for your example (“Donald Trump said X…” ) is not applicable.

To sustain or refute that Noah or Moses were the Way, we would rather examine if God used them as the only intercessors or connectors of the people of their time. If they were the channels of the only method, comandments or teachings that people should follow,
If you use the absence of a recorded statement from them saying “I am the Way”, to prove they were not The Way, you would be are making an argument ex silentio.

Should we really need to prove that Noah or Moses were The Way?
If Noah was not The Way, then who? If Moses was not The Way, then who?

Completely false. No heeding Noah would work. Only heeding God would work. And as far as the flood goes, the New Testament tells us that was an allegorical use of history by God that foreshadowed the work of Jesus. The New Testament also tells us Noah looked forward to Jesus.

Jesus is the way, the only way to God, not Noah.

Yeshua of Nazareth, the historical individual, was neither observed nor heard in the time of Noah. People observed and heard Noah.
So, how Yeshua of Nazareth could be, as an individual, “The Way”?
This is exactly why we should consider The Way not as a historical individual but as the eternal gospel… the eternal Message and call: repentance and submission to the will of God, our Creator.

Better check the Hebrew. No one is perfect or righteous except God. Righteousness is credited to a person based on their faith in God and His covenant promises, nothing else.

That is irrelevant, my friend: whatever God’s reason to consider a person righteous, if the Message that person embodies and conveys is the Way, then we can trust such person as The Way.
The only requisite of any way to be The Way, is that, in contrast with others that fail to take us to an intended destiny, this one takes us to the right destiny… and the destiny is God.

The fact that Christian religion or way of life was named “The Way” in the Book of Acts proves that it keeps existing even when the Person is no longer seen, heard or touched. The Way, therefore, is not an individual, but a lifestyle embodied or personified in an individual.
That’s exactly why, although Jesus called Himself “The Light of the World”, he called you and me “the light of the world” as well.

Noah and his boat may have been the way to escape the lethality of the flood, but every one of those survivors still died and had to stand before God in judgment.

And what is your point, JoshebB? Repenting was the only way to be saved from the flood. Noah’s call was spiritual, not technical.
The narrative has no meaning for us except from a spiritual sense. Noah preached a salvation not based in ship building expertise, but in genuine faith. The universal flood most likely never existed. It is a metaphor of salvation.

Those who opposed Noah stand before God in judgement and are rewarded according to their deeds, in the same fashion that all those who opposed Jesus stand before God in judgement and are rewarded according to their deeds. Not following Noah, just as not following Jesus, meant not following the Way that would have taken them to God. Do you agree?

Those who opoosed Noah cannot argue with God saying “We did not have opportunity to know the Way, The Truth, The Life and The Light”.