Jesus claimed exclusivity

[JoshebB]

How do we know that those many false anointed ones were not the Only Way to God?

ummm.... You did not think that through, did you?

Let me know what you think and in the meanwhile I’ll share my opinion:
Because what they taught (by words and personal example) failed to lead people to God. Actually, the led people to destruction. Their method (their “way”) was ineffective.

Whatever the claims of those false messiah could have been: whether they proceeded from David, or were David reincarnated, or were sent by God, or by Elijah... whatever the miracles they could have performed... if their words and personal example weren’t able to transform the life of people, leading them to freedom from their current spiritual and material conditions, they were not The Way to God.

Jesus was THE Way because He spoke and acted as THE Messiah, leading people to speak and act as citizens of God’s Kingdom.
His claim for exclusivity was true.

Oh. Jesus was putting on a performance. He wasn't actually the way; he was only acting as if that is the case. Is that argument you're presenting?

Falsehood is the antithesis of truth. The law of non-contradiction dictates falsehood cannot be the way to God. Jesus cannot be being false and be the way. I tried to provide some help when I pointed out Jesus' words cannot be redefined, changes, minimized, or marginalized. Jesus cannot claim to be the Messiah with any honesty if he's acting. Furthermore, it is self-contradictory to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah in one post and then latter assert it was an act. It's also a (another) red herring to move the messianic purpose away from the way to God to speaking and acting as citizens of God's kingdom. John 14:6 is about the way to God, not the way to acting like citizens.

 

[TomL]

ummm.... You did not think that through, did you?

Oh. Jesus was putting on a performance. He wasn't actually the way; he was only acting as if that is the case. Is that argument you're presenting?

Falsehood is the antithesis of truth. The law of non-contradiction dictates falsehood cannot be the way to God. Jesus cannot be being false and be the way. I tried to provide some help when I pointed out Jesus' words cannot be redefined, changes, minimized, or marginalized. Jesus cannot claim to be the Messiah with any honesty if he's acting. Furthermore, it is self-contradictory to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah in one post and then latter assert it was an act. It's also a (another) red herring to move the messianic purpose away from the way to God to speaking and acting as citizens of God's kingdom. John 14:6 is about the way to God, not the way to acting like citizens.

Clearly you have shown Jesus claimed exclusivity

John 14:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[JoshebB]

I strongly disagree.
The gospels are full of evidence that The Way to God was doing what Jesus taught, becoming what He wanted people to become.

The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life. (John 6:63)​

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12)​

​

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.​

... Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.​

...Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.​

...Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.​

...Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.​

​

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory....“Then the King will say to those at His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me food... (Matthew 25:31-35)​

​

Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavily burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me. For I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matt 11:28-30)​

​

Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 18:3)​

​

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven (Mat 7:21)​

***

When Jesus laments the decision of the rich young man, which puts him at risk of entering the kingdom of heaven, Jesus does it on the grounds that the rich young man's unwillingness to do what Jesus asked him to do: detach from his possessions and follow Him.
Jesus didn't bother to consider the young man's theology or Christology (in case he had one).

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go and sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. And come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard this, he went away sorrowful. For he had great possessions.​

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly, I say to you that it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”​

​

​

The passage of the Good Samaritan starts with a question and ends with an instruction.
The opening question made to Jesus is : “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
The final instruction made by Jesus is: "Go and do likewise".

I could go over and over, my friend. Jesus' teachings and example are the Way to God.

ALL of those verses are good BUT you've removed them from their context. You've also ignored the fact most of them say nothing about getting to God and getting to God is the one, single, solitary, lone point being discussed: Jesus claim he and he alone are the way to God. Not the way to life, being pure in heart, a kingdom, becoming a peacemaker, or getting persecuted. In other words, you're still arguing red herrings and all the replacing of different particulars will not change the fact we're talking about getting to God.

Think this through. Don't give me the reason to refute it. Trying to replace being a peacemaker or earning eternal life with the way to God is a false equivalence (the apples and oranges fallacy). The same holds true when trying to equate Jesus' teachings with his personhood, especially when selected verses say nothing about getting to God. Bringing up items that aren't synonymous serve only to distract, and that makes them red herrings. The problem of exclusivity is that anything that's not exclusive runs into conflict with the law of non-contradiction (many anointed one cannot co-exist with a singular exclusive anointed one). Calling anyone's faculties or motives into question is ad hominem. Misrepresenting Jesus' words is a strawman argument. There are many ways to go awry.

I will not be able to find a fallacy in an impeccable argument.

Asserting what someone didn't say is not only an argument from silence; it ignores what Jesus did say, namely he is the only way to God.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

The arrogance of that guy Jesus .

ALL the other great teachers in the entirety of human history all have to go through him if they and their followers want to go to the Father. Any and all other way(s) has to go through Jesus. Are you, a Baha'i prepared to subordinate Baha'ullah to Jesus? The Bab cannot be the first manifestation of God is Jesus beat him to it. The Bab's approval of Baha'ullah is meaningless if the Bab lied about himself and his own relevance to God. I'm not trying to single you out. Nor am I trying to make this specifically about your religious identification or anyone else's. The exclusive nature of Jesus' statement confronts ALL others. And the same holds true for the exclusive claims of any other religious leader (or the religion bearing their name or teaching). They all make exclusive claims. We just happen to be discussing John 14:6 in this thread. As you have proven so far, it's difficult, if not impossible, to accept what Jesus explicitly stated without either changing his words, changing his meaning, minimizing or dismissing his words, or attempting some other obfuscation. As someone who claimed to be God, and equal with God, his claim of being the only way to God is either liberating or damning. There is no other option.


Consider this:

The God of the Bible is a single, solitary almighty and sovereign God. That makes the God of the Bible necessarily a monotheism. Now, logically speaking once there's a claim of almighty-ness it has to be that way. There cannot be two almighty Big-G Gods. Two almighty Gods is self-contradictory because neither is mighty over the other, or if one is mightier than the other than the less mighty god is not almighty, and neither is s/he/it God. This is a logical necessity. That means all polytheisms are lesser gods. We can say the one-God viewpoint may be factually incorrect, that no one Big-G God exists, but we cannot logically say a polytheism is more logical or rational than a single big-G God if such a God actually exists.

So, the God of the Bible's self-claim He and He alone is almighty God and NOT just one of many other gods is an exclusive claim. If that God's claim is correct, then there are no other Gods. There might be some gods existing, but no other Gods.

The same kind of problem arises with any polytheism, only in an internal manner. Greek, mythology, for example, asserted many gods, but no one God. Zeus is supposed to be the head guy but the fact of the Greek religion was that Zeus was not almighty. Only very, very powerful. Hera is always pulling the wool over Zeus' eyes, and Ares and Poseidon are constantly tricking him and the whole lot of all the gods are near-constantly vying for this or that and not a single one of them ever proves to be almighty in all ways at all times. This is the inherent nature of all polytheisms. Zeus can fight with Osiris, who's fighting with Freya, who's having a tiff with Vishnu, who's in a contest with Vulcan, who's conspiring with Molech to defeat Aine, who's tussling with Apistotookii, who's teaming up with Huitzilopochtli in a fracas with Ba'al and Obatala.

And the minute a single almighty God shows up all the other gods prove worthless and impotent.



The same problem occurs the minute Jesus claims to be God who is the way to God. He's either talking jibberish because two almighty Gods cannot possibly co-exist, AND he's making a circular redundancy about himself getting to Himself and no one should follow him anywhere, or he meant exactly what he stated was true and correct in every word. When it comes to religious teachers and they premise there are many ways to God we're all following gods that can, by definition never get anyone anywhere close to God at any time ever, or were following a God that is the way to God.

Therefore, not only do all the attempts to redefine what Jesus said fail..... they prove unnecessary. It was not possible for me to follow Buddha and Jesus because the two men teach some things that are irreconcilable. One (or both) of them MUST be wrong and thereby not the one to follow. You cannot follow Baha'ullah and Jesus because of the same conflict. That guy Jesus turns out to be most inconvenient . We can, of course, follow whoever we choose, but we cannot do so and claim reason also.


The strength of one's disagreement is immaterial.

 

[JoshebB]

Dear @JoshebB : I will be reading your posts carefully, you can bet on it... but I will not be replying until next week.

That's okay. Take your time; the posts don't go anywhere.

I have to moderate my time in the Forum, and give more time to what matters more to My Beloved.

Wise man.

Thanks in advance for your understanding.

hugs

 

[JoshebB]

Clearly you have shown Jesus claimed exclusivity

John 14:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Yes (and thanks for that acknowledgment), and I find the thread curious because the exclusivity was a given from the outset. Arguments conceding a given and then arguing against the given are irrational (self-contradictory). Furthermore, the exclusivity as a given was also couched in the existence of only one gospel. That "one gospel" assertion was qualified to be temporal, existing only for a given (no pun intended) time. That is, imo, a cop out, and purely avoidant way of justifying plurality and relativism, and it begs the question pertaining to who gets to define the amount of time any single gospel remains valid and veracious. When did the gospel of Jesus expire? When did the gospel of Mohammad expire? The gospel of Baha'ullah? Of Smith or Koresh? When did Truth become temporal?

I also find the claim of "one gospel" particularly odd and curious because the word "gospel" is a Roman term that was used specifically to announce a great victory by a Caesar or a General. Although most here may not know my posts about this you've probably read it in other forums. The writers of the four gospels stole the word "gospel" from the Romans. The Greek word "euangelion" (gospel) is colloquially understood to mean "good news," but the Greek word for good is "kalon," and the Greek word for news is "akoe.". An euangelion is not an akoe kalon. Those are two entirely different concepts and conditions. By usurping the term "gospel," the New Testament writers (all or most of whom were Jews) were being intentionally, overly provocative. What was the great victory this crucified former carpenter from Nazareth had won? His own people rejected him, conspiring with their military occupiers to murder him unjustly in a grotesque and cursed manner, one relegated only for criminals. Even his own followers abandoned him.

Well, according to the guys who knew the guy, Jesus defeated death.

And defeating death was something not even a Roman General could pull off. No Caesar could do that! Not only had Jesus defeated death, but having defeated death and come back from the grave, that Jesus guy was now King of all kings, and even Caesar had to submit to the King.

So..... when our fellow poster @Pancho Frijoles says there's only one gospel, then he has placed an enormous burden upon himself. Then, when saying that gospel is only temporary and not eternal, that's an indication either the word is not correctly understood, or the same word is being used with two or more meanings (which is quite common in interfaith conversations) and thereby creating a problem of ambiguity. Both are problems when it comes to the given already conceded: Jesus is making an exclusive statement, one that is so exclusive it conflicts with all other religious teachers (and their teachings).










One last comment: Pancho has comported himself commendably. Discussions on this subject usually become rancorous, if not vitriolic very quickly and we're three pages in and that hasn't happened. Those of you who've traded posts with me elsewhere (especially soteriological and eschatological matters) know I don't tolerate that nonsense long, especially among "insiders". I do not tolerate heretics long, either (I rarely discuss anything with them unless they ask me to do so). As an "outsider" his conduct has set an example for all of us to emulate and, while I won't belabor it further, it deserves mention (Col. 4:5-6). Even though I find th logic employed wanting, and even if we agree to disagree in the end, he has conducted himself in a well-mannered and respectful way and merits the same in return.
.

 

[Johann]

Yes (and thanks for that acknowledgment), and I find the thread curious because the exclusivity was a given from the outset. Arguments conceding a given and then arguing against the given are irrational (self-contradictory). Furthermore, the exclusivity as a given was also couched in the existence of only one gospel. That "one gospel" assertion was qualified to be temporal, existing only for a given (no pun intended) time. That is, imo, a cop out, and purely avoidant way of justifying plurality and relativism, and it begs the question pertaining to who gets to define the amount of time any single gospel remains valid and veracious. When did the gospel of Jesus expire? When did the gospel of Mohammad expire? The gospel of Baha'ullah? Of Smith or Koresh? When did Truth become temporal?

I also find the claim of "one gospel" particularly odd and curious because the word "gospel" is a Roman term that was used specifically to announce a great victory by a Caesar or a General. Although most here may not know my posts about this you've probably read it in other forums. The writers of the four gospels stole the word "gospel" from the Romans. The Greek word "euangelion" is colloquially understood to mean "good news," but the Greek word for good is "kalon," and the Greek word for news is "akoe.". An euangelion is not an akoe kalon. Those are two entirely different concepts and conditions. By usurping the term "gospel," the New Testament writers (all or most of whom were Jews) were being intentionally, overly provocative. What was the great victory this crucified former carpenter from Nazareth had won? His own people rejected him, conspiring with their military occupiers to murder him unjustly in a grotesque and cursed manner, one relegated only for criminals. Even his own followers abandoned him.

Well, according to the guys who knew the guy, Jesus defeated death.

And defeating death was something not even a Roman General could pull off. No Caesar could do that! Not only had Jesus defeated death, but having defeated death and come back from the grave, that Jesus guy was now King of all kings, and even Caesar had to submit to the King.

So..... when our fellow poster @Pancho Frijoles says there's only one gospel, then he has placed an enormous burden upon himself, when saying that gospel is only temporary and not eternal, that's an indication either the word is not correctly understood, or the same word is being used with two or more meanings (which is quite common in interfaith conversations) and there by creating a problem of ambiguity. Both are problems when it comes to the given already conceded: Jesus is making an exclusive statement, one that is so exclusive it conflicts with all other religious teachers (and their teachings).

You seem to be very intelligent and well-educated.

J.

 

[JoshebB]

You seem to be very intelligent and well-educated.

J.

LOL!

That's usually followed by a "....but...."

"You're clearly intelligent and well-educated but you're a dunderhead who doesn't know what he's talking about, and all your knowledge and education have been wasted on worthless man-made inventions showing you don't know Jesus at all."​

So, thank you, @Johann, for the kind words. @TomL and I have traded posts in some pretty rancorous threads, and he'll tell you some think just the opposite. Everyone here is intelligent and learned enough to know how to use a computer in cyberspace. I don't know many here because I've been away from this particular forum for a while but many have been believers for many years, have university education, including that of the seminary (which presumably equipped them to glean scripture better than me), and are more practiced. The simple fact is wisdom is not dependent on a piece of paper. Humbleness is, therefore, the order of the day. We all also know no matter how far along we are on the path of age, maturity, learnedness, and or experience the standard set before us levels the playing field.

Philippians 2:3-4
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

It's really quite inconvenient , and all the more so when coupled with standards like the aforementioned Col. 4:5-6, or Proverbs 15, Ephesians 4, and others.

Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Ephesians 4:25-32
Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another........... Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.


The truth be told, I am weathering a three-month suspension in another forum where a mod and several other posters held a view much different than the one you've just expressed. I'll do what I can to preserve your present pov . It's also true I tend not to post in threads where I'm not already adequately informed. I lurk threads like everyone else. I've made fool of myself discussing the syntax of Greek or Hebrew more than once. My forensic skills are appreciated by most but it's tough to be on the other end of that. Even if I get exhilarated when the tables are turned, I may not like it. Those scriptures prove important for cogent conversation and personal integrity. I'm also a big fan of Bonhoeffer's "Life Together." His exposition on the "ministry of the tongue" was life changing for me.

”Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is any more or less than this… We belong to one another only through and in Jesus Christ. What does this mean? It means, first, that a Christian needs others because of Christ. It means, second, that a Christian comes to others only through Christ. It means, third, that in Jesus Christ we have been chosen from eternity, accepted in time, and united for eternity. First, the Christian is a man who no longer seeks his salvation, his deliverance, his justification in himself, but in Jesus Christ alone. He knows that God’s word in Jesus pronounces him guilty, even when he does not feel his guilt, and God’s word in Jesus Christ pronounces him not guilty and righteous, even when he does not feel that he is righteous at all. The Christian no longer lives of himself, by his own claims and his own justification. He lives wholly by God’s word pronounced upon him, whether the word declares him guilty or innocent.”​

”Often we combat our evil thoughts most effectively if we absolutely refuse to allow them to be expressed in words. It is certain that the spirit of self-justification can be overcome only by the Spirit of grace, nevertheless, isolated thoughts of judgment can be curbed and smothered by never allowing them the right to be uttered, except as a confession of sin… He who holds his tongue in check controls both mind and body (Jms. 3). Thus it is a decisive rule of every Christian fellowship that each individual is prohibited from saying much that occurs to him… to speak about a brother covertly is forbidden, even under the cloak of help and good will; for it is precisely in this guise that the spirit of hatred among brothers always creeps in when it is seeking to create mischief.”​

It's a little embarrassing I had to hear that from Bonhoeffer and not Jesus but I'm thankful God was faithful in making sure I eventually heard it . Your posts evidence so prowess, too, so I anticipate future sharpening reading your posts. I hope you'll remember Post 46 if and when we disagree.


Now.....

Back to the fray! ​

Jesus said many things that are tough to accept, believe, and act upon with integrity but his claim of exclusivity in John 14:6 is perhaps the most challenging. What did he have to say that for? It's much easier to stake my prospects on a list of rules and comparative measurement with other sinners. It's definitively a lot easier to think all the great teachers were saying the same thing leading to the same place.... until meeting Jesus.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

ummm.... You did not think that through, did you?

Oh. Jesus was putting on a performance. He wasn't actually the way; he was only acting as if that is the case. Is that argument you're presenting?

Falsehood is the antithesis of truth. The law of non-contradiction dictates falsehood cannot be the way to God. Jesus cannot be being false and be the way. I tried to provide some help when I pointed out Jesus' words cannot be redefined, changes, minimized, or marginalized. Jesus cannot claim to be the Messiah with any honesty if he's acting. Furthermore, it is self-contradictory to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah in one post and then latter assert it was an act. It's also a (another) red herring to move the messianic purpose away from the way to God to speaking and acting as citizens of God's kingdom. John 14:6 is about the way to God, not the way to acting like citizens.

Dear JoshebB, @Johann and readers

I hope to be able to post replies more or less day on and day off, depending on the changing needs of my personal life at this time. That way I hope to keep the interest of our readers and the flow of our thoughts.
I thank you, JoshebB, for your comments.
***

Let me start by making a statement that I think we all agree on.
Jesus is a Person, and not an abstract concept, an inanimate object, an animal or an impersonal physical phenomenon. Do we agree on that?

So, when Jesus says “I am X” and “X” happens to be an abstract concept, or an inanimate object, an animal or physical phenomenon, Jesus cannot be speaking literally. He is speaking metaphorically, and it is our responsibility to use reason and the rest of Scriptures to find out what he meant. Same with any other entity that we consider to be a Person.

For example, The Bible says “God is Love”. Love is an abstract concept. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT Love. God is a Person who loves.
By the same token, The Bible says “God is consuming fire”. A fire in an inanimate object or phenomenon. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT consuming fire. God is a Person who acts as fire, purifying, destroying and transforming the nature of things.

“Truth” is an abstract concept.
“Life” is an abstract concept.
“Light” is a physical phenomenon.
“Door of the sheep” is an inanimate object.
“Morning star” is an inanimate object (planet Venus)
"Bread" is an inanimate object.
"Lamb" is an animal.
“Word” is an abstract concept.
“Way” can refer to an inanimate object (a road) or an abstract concept (a set of things to do to get somewhere, or a manner of doing those things).


Therefore, literally speaking, Jesus is NOT the Way, the Life, the Truth, The Morning Star, the Light of the World, the Door of the Sheep, the Lamb, the Word, or the Bread fallen from Heaven.

If these expressions are not literal, and we VALUE Scripture, it is our responsibility to find out what they mean.

What follow next is are examples of an effort to understand what those expressions mean. My understanding may be right or wrong, but the effort is absolutely necessary and honest.

• If Jesus says “I am the Morning Star”, he means He signals a change in our situation when our situation seems hopeless, just as Venus signals the imminent arrival of the morning when the heaven is darkest.
• If Jesus says “I am The Truth”, he means He is a Person who speaks and acts only according to the Truth. There is no deception, no lie in Him.
• If Jesus says “I am the Way to the Father”, he means that He offer us the teachings, inspiration, power, guidance, to do what we have to do in order to get to the Father.
• If Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" he means that his teachings and example offer effective guidance on what is good and true.
• If Jesus says (or someone says about Him) "I am the Word" he means he speaks the words of God, unaltered, as if God Himself were speaking.
• If Jesus says "I am the Bread fallen from Heaven" he means that his teachings and example are as essential to our spiritual lives as bread is to our physical bodies. Fallen from Heaven means that those teachings came from God, and not from his own authority.
• If Jesus says "I am the Life" he means more or less the same that "Bread", as explained above.

All the above, being exclusive in the context of competing alternatives (ie, competing claims of truth, guidance, salvation, etc which fail to accomplish what they promise)

Taking all these sayings metaphorically is absolutely consistent with the most elementary notion of Jesus as a Person. In other words, it is logically necessary as per the Law of No Contradiction, that a Person cannot be and not be a Person at the same time and in the same way.

 

[Johann]

Dear JoshebB, @Johann and readers

I hope to be able to post replies more or less day on and day off, depending on the changing needs of my personal life at this time. That way I hope to keep the interest of our readers and the flow of our thoughts.
I thank you, JoshebB, for your comments.
***

Let me start by making a statement that I think we all agree on.
Jesus is a Person, and not an abstract concept, an inanimate object, an animal or an impersonal physical phenomenon. Do we agree on that?

So, when Jesus says “I am X” and “X” happens to be an abstract concept, or an inanimate object, an animal or physical phenomenon, Jesus cannot be speaking literally. He is speaking metaphorically, and it is our responsibility to use reason and the rest of Scriptures to find out what he meant. Same with any other entity that we consider to be a Person.

For example, The Bible says “God is Love”. Love is an abstract concept. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT Love. God is a Person who loves.
By the same token, The Bible says “God is consuming fire”. A fire in an inanimate object or phenomenon. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT consuming fire. God is a Person who acts as fire, purifying, destroying and transforming the nature of things.

“Truth” is an abstract concept.
“Life” is an abstract concept.
“Light” is a physical phenomenon.
“Door of the sheep” is an inanimate object.
“Morning star” is an inanimate object (planet Venus)
"Bread" is an inanimate object.
"Lamb" is an animal.
“Word” is an abstract concept.
“Way” can refer to an inanimate object (a road) or an abstract concept (a set of things to do to get somewhere, or a manner of doing those things).


Therefore, literally speaking, Jesus is NOT the Way, the Life, the Truth, The Morning Star, the Light of the World, the Door of the Sheep, the Lamb, the Word.

If these expressions are not literal, and we VALUE Scripture, it is our responsibility to find out what they mean.

What follow next is are examples of an effort to understand what those expressions mean. My understanding may be right or wrong, but the effort is absolutely necessary and honest.

• If Jesus says “I am the Morning Star”, he means He signals a change in our situation when our situation seems hopeless, just as Venus signals the imminent arrival of the morning when the heaven is darkest.
• If Jesus says “I am The Truth”, he means He is a Person who speaks and acts only according to the Truth. There is no deception, no lie in Him.
• If Jesus says “I am the Way to the Father”, he means that He offer us the teachings, inspiration, power, guidance, to do what we have to do in order to get to the Father.
• If Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" he means that his teachings and example offer effective guidance on what is good and true.
• If Jesus says (or someone says about Him) "I am the Word" he means he speaks the words of God, unaltered, as if God Himself were speaking.
• If Jesus says "I am the Bread fallen from Heaven" he means that his teachings and example are as essential to our spiritual lives as bread is to our physical bodies. Fallen from Heaven means that those teachings came from God, and not from his own authority.
• If Jesus says "I am the Life" he means more or less the same that "Bread", as explained above.

Taking all these sayings metaphorically is absolutely consistent with the most elementary notion of Jesus as a Person. In other words, it is logically necessary as per the Law of No Contradiction, as a Person cannot be and not be a Person at the same time and in the same way.

This is error but I'll let @JoshebB answer you @Pancho Frijoles.

Dear JoshebB, @Johann and readers

I hope to be able to post replies more or less day on and day off, depending on the changing needs of my personal life at this time. That way I hope to keep the interest of our readers and the flow of our thoughts.
I thank you, JoshebB, for your comments.
***

Let me start by making a statement that I think we all agree on.
Jesus is a Person, and not an abstract concept, an inanimate object, an animal or an impersonal physical phenomenon. Do we agree on that?

So, when Jesus says “I am X” and “X” happens to be an abstract concept, or an inanimate object, an animal or physical phenomenon, Jesus cannot be speaking literally. He is speaking metaphorically, and it is our responsibility to use reason and the rest of Scriptures to find out what he meant. Same with any other entity that we consider to be a Person.

For example, The Bible says “God is Love”. Love is an abstract concept. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT Love. God is a Person who loves.
By the same token, The Bible says “God is consuming fire”. A fire in an inanimate object or phenomenon. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT consuming fire. God is a Person who acts as fire, purifying, destroying and transforming the nature of things.

“Truth” is an abstract concept.
“Life” is an abstract concept.
“Light” is a physical phenomenon.
“Door of the sheep” is an inanimate object.
“Morning star” is an inanimate object (planet Venus)
"Bread" is an inanimate object.
"Lamb" is an animal.
“Word” is an abstract concept.
“Way” can refer to an inanimate object (a road) or an abstract concept (a set of things to do to get somewhere, or a manner of doing those things).


Therefore, literally speaking, Jesus is NOT the Way, the Life, the Truth, The Morning Star, the Light of the World, the Door of the Sheep, the Lamb, the Word.

If these expressions are not literal, and we VALUE Scripture, it is our responsibility to find out what they mean.

What follow next is are examples of an effort to understand what those expressions mean. My understanding may be right or wrong, but the effort is absolutely necessary and honest.

• If Jesus says “I am the Morning Star”, he means He signals a change in our situation when our situation seems hopeless, just as Venus signals the imminent arrival of the morning when the heaven is darkest.
• If Jesus says “I am The Truth”, he means He is a Person who speaks and acts only according to the Truth. There is no deception, no lie in Him.
• If Jesus says “I am the Way to the Father”, he means that He offer us the teachings, inspiration, power, guidance, to do what we have to do in order to get to the Father.
• If Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" he means that his teachings and example offer effective guidance on what is good and true.
• If Jesus says (or someone says about Him) "I am the Word" he means he speaks the words of God, unaltered, as if God Himself were speaking.
• If Jesus says "I am the Bread fallen from Heaven" he means that his teachings and example are as essential to our spiritual lives as bread is to our physical bodies. Fallen from Heaven means that those teachings came from God, and not from his own authority.
• If Jesus says "I am the Life" he means more or less the same that "Bread", as explained above.

Taking all these sayings metaphorically is absolutely consistent with the most elementary notion of Jesus as a Person. In other words, it is logically necessary as per the Law of No Contradiction, as a Person cannot be and not be a Person at the same time and in the same way.

 

[JoshebB]

Dear JoshebB, @Johann and readers

I hope to be able to post replies more or less day on and day off, depending on the changing needs of my personal life at this time. That way I hope to keep the interest of our readers and the flow of our thoughts.
I thank you, JoshebB, for your comments.
***

Let me start by making a statement that I think we all agree on.
Jesus is a Person, and not an abstract concept, an inanimate object, an animal or an impersonal physical phenomenon. Do we agree on that?

Yes, Jesus is a person AND a Person, a capital "P" Person. Jesus is also God. Do we agree on that?

So, when Jesus says “I am X” and “X” happens to be an abstract concept, or an inanimate object, an animal or physical phenomenon, Jesus cannot be speaking literally. He is speaking metaphorically, and it is our responsibility to use reason and the rest of Scriptures to find out what he meant. Same with any other entity that we consider to be a Person.

Incorrect. In John 14:6 the two are not mutually exclusive conditions and thinking they are mutually exclusive conditions is the mistake in need of correction.

For example, The Bible says “God is Love”. Love is an abstract concept.

No, love is not an abstract concept, and the Bible elsewhere describes and defines love in some decidedly concreate and not abstract ways.

You have, once again, failed to accurately portray the relevant passages in scripture and twice now rendered the distinctions and overlaps between the abstract and non-abstract as defined in the Bible correctly. I will agree with you on this: reification is bad practice. However, it has not been proven anyone here has reified Jesus' word, nor Jesus necessarily was speaking abstractly. To many people "god" is an abstract concept, but that is not the case when Jesus speaks of "God."

We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT Love. God is a Person who loves.

No, we do not know that and if that is what you think you know then we have the makings of another op where the ontology og God relative to the biblical definition of love can be discussed.

By the same token, The Bible says “God is consuming fire”.

The existence of abstraction does not mean all things are abstractions. That would be committing a construction fallacy or all or nothing.

A fire in an inanimate object or phenomenon. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT consuming fire. God is a Person who acts as fire, purifying, destroying and transforming the nature of things.

“Truth” is an abstract concept.
“Life” is an abstract concept.
“Light” is a physical phenomenon.
“Door of the sheep” is an inanimate object.
“Morning star” is an inanimate object (planet Venus)
"Bread" is an inanimate object.
"Lamb" is an animal.
“Word” is an abstract concept.

None of that is correct. For example, a lamb is an animal, but Jesus being the lamb of God is an abstraction.

“Way” can refer to an inanimate object (a road) or an abstract concept (a set of things to do to get somewhere, or a manner of doing those things).

Then you have contradicted and thereby refuted the argument asserting abstraction and the literal are two different and irreconcilable conditions.

Therefore, literally speaking, Jesus is NOT the Way, the Life, the Truth....

And that is repetition. You've already stated that before and I have already addressed it. Repeating it does not change the facts in evidence or make the argument valid or veracious. What it does make is argumentum ad nauseam.



This discussion boils down to the simple fact you do not believe Jesus was being literal and even if he is being abstract his point cannot be taken literally. Whether his being the way to God is literal or abstract, he cannot possibly be the only way. The purchase of space for diversity is attempted by claiming abstraction, but the abstraction does not dictate diversity. Jesus cannot claim to be the only way if multiple ways exist. He cannot claim his Person is the only way if other persons are also ways to God. He cannot claim his teachings or his philosophy, or his manner of living are the only way if others' teaching, others' philosophies, or others' manner of living are also way to God.

So I, once again, point out we're fifty posts into this subject and the problem of Jesus' exclusivity has still not been resolved. Either Jesus is incorrect, and Baha'ism is implicated in its acceptance of Jesus as a sound, valid, and veracious teacher, or Jesus is correct exactly as written (whether literal or abstract) and Bahai (along with all other views that contradict Jesus) are incorrect and should be discarded.

Jesus' self-asserted exclusivity is a problem either way. So are every religion's points of self-asserted exclusivity.

 

[TomL]

Dear JoshebB, @Johann and readers

I hope to be able to post replies more or less day on and day off, depending on the changing needs of my personal life at this time. That way I hope to keep the interest of our readers and the flow of our thoughts.
I thank you, JoshebB, for your comments.
***

Let me start by making a statement that I think we all agree on.
Jesus is a Person, and not an abstract concept, an inanimate object, an animal or an impersonal physical phenomenon. Do we agree on that?

So, when Jesus says “I am X” and “X” happens to be an abstract concept, or an inanimate object, an animal or physical phenomenon, Jesus cannot be speaking literally. He is speaking metaphorically, and it is our responsibility to use reason and the rest of Scriptures to find out what he meant. Same with any other entity that we consider to be a Person.

For example, The Bible says “God is Love”. Love is an abstract concept. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT Love. God is a Person who loves.
By the same token, The Bible says “God is consuming fire”. A fire in an inanimate object or phenomenon. We know, therefore, that literally speaking, God is NOT consuming fire. God is a Person who acts as fire, purifying, destroying and transforming the nature of things.

“Truth” is an abstract concept.
“Life” is an abstract concept.
“Light” is a physical phenomenon.
“Door of the sheep” is an inanimate object.
“Morning star” is an inanimate object (planet Venus)
"Bread" is an inanimate object.
"Lamb" is an animal.
“Word” is an abstract concept.
“Way” can refer to an inanimate object (a road) or an abstract concept (a set of things to do to get somewhere, or a manner of doing those things).


Therefore, literally speaking, Jesus is NOT the Way, the Life, the Truth, The Morning Star, the Light of the World, the Door of the Sheep, the Lamb, the Word, or the Bread fallen from Heaven.

If these expressions are not literal, and we VALUE Scripture, it is our responsibility to find out what they mean.

What follow next is are examples of an effort to understand what those expressions mean. My understanding may be right or wrong, but the effort is absolutely necessary and honest.

• If Jesus says “I am the Morning Star”, he means He signals a change in our situation when our situation seems hopeless, just as Venus signals the imminent arrival of the morning when the heaven is darkest.
• If Jesus says “I am The Truth”, he means He is a Person who speaks and acts only according to the Truth. There is no deception, no lie in Him.
• If Jesus says “I am the Way to the Father”, he means that He offer us the teachings, inspiration, power, guidance, to do what we have to do in order to get to the Father.
• If Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" he means that his teachings and example offer effective guidance on what is good and true.
• If Jesus says (or someone says about Him) "I am the Word" he means he speaks the words of God, unaltered, as if God Himself were speaking.
• If Jesus says "I am the Bread fallen from Heaven" he means that his teachings and example are as essential to our spiritual lives as bread is to our physical bodies. Fallen from Heaven means that those teachings came from God, and not from his own authority.
• If Jesus says "I am the Life" he means more or less the same that "Bread", as explained above.

All the above, being exclusive in the context of competing alternatives (ie, competing claims of truth, guidance, salvation, etc which fail to accomplish what they promise)

Taking all these sayings metaphorically is absolutely consistent with the most elementary notion of Jesus as a Person. In other words, it is logically necessary as per the Law of No Contradiction, that a Person cannot be and not be a Person at the same time and in the same way.

John 14:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

It's rather plain and exclusive

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In my last post, I argued that when a persons says "I am X" and that X is an abstract concept, inanimate object or physical phenomenon, that person is speaking metaphorically, and we should find out what He means.

In this post, I will be presenting one UNACCEPTABLE implication of believing that Jesus, as a Person, was literally The Truth, The Light, The Way, etc.

If Jesus, as a Person, is The Truth, then any other person that has ever existed or will exist would be the, the deception, the error.
For example, Moses, as a Person, was not Jesus, as a Person. Do we agree?

Therefore, if Jesus as a Person, is The Truth, then Moses was The Lie.
If Jesus, as a Person, is The Life and The Way, the Moses was The Death and a False Door.
Furthermore, if Jesus, as a Person, is the Light of the World, how could He call his followers "You are the light of the world?" We, as persons, are NOT Jesus, as persons.
If Jesus, as a Person, is The Word, then the Word of God was never in any past prophet of Israel, and is no longer in this world.

The only way to understand Jesus sayings "I am X" is that X is something about how Jesus thinks, speaks, acts, that is The Truth, The Life, The Light, the Way, etc.
This is precisely the reason why, even when Jesus as a Person is not on earth anymore, when we reject that "something", ( when we think, speak and act in opposition of Jesus teachings and example) we reject Jesus... and we reject Moses, Abraham, and all the Messengers from God. ON the other hand, when we think, speak and act according to Jesus teachings and example, we accept Jesus... and we accept Moses, Abraham, and all the Messengers from God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yes, Jesus is a person AND a Person, a capital "P" Person. Jesus is also God. Do we agree on that?

The issue has nothing to do with the argument I am making, because I am using examples about God Himself.
I'm saying God is not Love, literally. My argument lies on personhood and not on deity.

Incorrect. In John 14:6 the two are not mutually exclusive conditions and thinking they are mutually exclusive conditions is the mistake in need of correction.

Of course they are mutually exclusive conditions, and your view needs correction.
Jesus cannot be The Truth, The Light, The Life, The Door of the Sheep or the Bread descended from Heaven both literally and metaphorically. He can be all that only metaphorically, because a Person (divine or not) cannot be an abstract concept or an inanimate object.

No, love is not an abstract concept, and the Bible elsewhere describes and defines love in some decidedly concreate and not abstract ways.

Love is an abstract concept.

The description of an abstract concept includes, certainly, concrete examples.
If you want to describe what "heat" is, you will refer to concrete objects and actions, like molecules in movement, or to concrete examples, like boiling water. But "heat" is not the molecules and not the boiling water. Heat is an abstract concept.

Do we really need to go explaining what is an abstract concept and what is not, JoshebB?

No, we do not know that and if that is what you think you know then we have the makings of another op where the ontology og God relative to the biblical definition of love can be discussed.

My assumption is that you are a theist, and that you believe in a Personal God.
If my assumption is true, then you believe that God is not literally Love, but a Person who loves.

None of that is correct. For example, a lamb is an animal, but Jesus being the lamb of God is an abstraction.

Whatever debate we may have on whether "X" is an animal, a concept abstract, a beam of photons, etc. the point is the same: Jesus IDENTITY, PERSONHOOD, is not that of an animal, or abstraction, or beam of photons.
Therefore, whenever Jesus says "I am X" and X is an animal, abstract concept or beam of photons, He cannot be speaking literally.

Then you have contradicted and thereby refuted the argument asserting abstraction and the literal are two different and irreconcilable conditions.

No, my brother: I'm saying that a Person cannot be a non-Person. Those are irreconcilable conditions.
Either if "way" refers to a physical road, or refers to an abstract concept (such as "method" or" process") in both cases Jesus cannot be speaking literally and metaphorically at the same time. He is speaking only metaphorically.

This discussion boils down to the simple fact you do not believe Jesus was being literal

On the contrary, I believe Jesus is a literal Person. That's exactly why I don't believe He is literally the Morning Star, the Truth, or The Way, or The Word. That's why I believe that He, as a Person, thinks, speaks and acts as the Morning Star, The Truth, The Way, or The Word.

The purchase of space for diversity is attempted by claiming abstraction, but the abstraction does not dictate diversity. Jesus cannot claim to be the only way if multiple ways exist.

Step 1 is accepting these sayings as metaphorical.

Step 2 is accepting that , if Jesus claims of exclusivity are not based on his identity as an individual, but on the efficacy of his Message, humans have always had access to The Truth, The Life or The Word or The Light. They have always have had The Way in the absence of a Jesus who can be heard or observed, both in times of King David or in times of President Trump. Both in the Tibet and in Jerusalem.

Step 3 is to accept that God has sent Messengers (and other channels) to convey Truth, Life, Light... to become the Way for people at their time.

He cannot claim his Person is the only way if other persons are also ways to God.

That's correct. That's why I am insisting that the Way to God was not His Person, but what his Person thought, spoke and did.
Noah, Moses, Elijah were The Way to God. Not ways to Beelzebub or destruction.

He cannot claim his teachings or his philosophy, or his manner of living are the only way if others' teaching, others' philosophies, or others' manner of living are also way to God.

If those ways do the job, they prove to be the Same and Only, Eternal Way.
If those ways fail to do the job, they are not the Same and Only Way. They are "another gospel" and should be rejected.

Hatred, arrogance, physical pleasures, wealth, popularity, political power, etc have consistently failed to do the job. They are not The Way, regardless of who is preaching those things.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

John 14:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

It's rather plain and exclusive

Then how the people of Israel came to God in the time of Moses?
Israel took Moses as his intercessor before God, so that God could forgive them and be saved. Was Moses a false intercessor? Was he a false way?
If Noah was not The Truth, did people of his time were right in not paying heed to him?

I encourage you to review how King David asked God for forgiveness after he had killed Uriah to marry his wife.
As you remember, his prayed came to us through a very long and beautiful psalm.
Where in the psalm does David show the minimal need of a future Messiah for God to forgive his sins? Did Nathan fail in explaining to Him that the Only Way was a future Jesus?

Have mercy on me, O God,
according to Your lovingkindness;
according to the abundance of Your compassion,
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
and done this evil in Your sight,
so that You are justified when You speak,
and You are blameless when You judge.
5 I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin my mother conceived me.
6 You desire truth in the inward parts,
and in the hidden part You make me to know wisdom.
7 Purify me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
8 Make me to hear joy and gladness,
that the bones that You have broken may rejoice.
9 Hide Your face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,
and uphold me with Your willing spirit.
13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
and sinners will return to You.
14 Deliver me from blood guiltiness, O God,
God of my salvation,
and my tongue will sing aloud of Your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare Your praise.
16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and a contrite heart,
O God, You will not despise.
18 Do good to Zion in Your good pleasure;
build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You will be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
with burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
then they will offer young bulls on Your altar.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That "one gospel" assertion was qualified to be temporal, existing only for a given (no pun intended) time. That is, imo, a cop out, and purely avoidant way of justifying plurality and relativism, and it begs the question pertaining to who gets to define the amount of time any single gospel remains valid and veracious. When did the gospel of Jesus expire? When did the gospel of Mohammad expire? The gospel of Baha'ullah? Of Smith or Koresh? When did Truth become temporal?

I believe that the Gospel is One, and Eternal.
It is the same Gospel preached by every single Messenger of God. It is framed in different words, images, focus, allegories, rituals, norms, etc.
But the essence has always been the same.
The Gospel is the very good news is that, thanks to God's love/mercy, we can enter the Kingdom if we worship our Creator with all our heart.

Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the eternal gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. He said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come. Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water. (Rev 14:6)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

One last comment: Pancho has comported himself commendably. Discussions on this subject usually become rancorous, if not vitriolic very quickly and we're three pages in and that hasn't happened. Those of you who've traded posts with me elsewhere (especially soteriological and eschatological matters) know I don't tolerate that nonsense long, especially among "insiders". I do not tolerate heretics long, either (I rarely discuss anything with them unless they ask me to do so). As an "outsider" his conduct has set an example for all of us to emulate and, while I won't belabor it further, it deserves mention (Col. 4:5-6). Even though I find th logic employed wanting, and even if we agree to disagree in the end, he has conducted himself in a well-mannered and respectful way and merits the same in return.
.

I highly value your words, JosehbB.
May God always bless you and your beloved ones.
We may take for granted that we will end up having different views on some aspects. I am convinced, though, that those differences are tiny in the eyes of God, to whom our pretended knowledge is that of an ameba before a human.*
My hope is that people who read us will see that people can differ, even passionately, but still see each other as brothers, members of God's great family.

*As an example, when I passionately defend that God is a Person... do I really understand what I 'm saying? No, I don't. I am a blind man who is being allowed by God to touch an ear of the elephant, and you one who God has allowed to touch the trunk. But the elephant is far from being a fan or a thick snake What we can do, then? Well, perhaps share our perspectives on how we think the elephant is like... Certainly, the two of us combined will not figure out the elephant, but at least we will have learnt something and have fun in the process.

 

[Johann]

I believe that the Gospel is One, and Eternal.
It is the same Gospel preached by every single Messenger of God. It is framed in different words, images, focus, allegories, rituals, norms, etc.
But the essence has always been the same.
The Gospel is the very good news is that, thanks to God's love/mercy, we can enter the Kingdom if we worship our Creator with all our heart.

Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the eternal gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. He said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come. Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water. (Rev 14:6)

Do you believe the indicatives and Imperatives recorded in Scriptures?

J.

 

[JoshebB]

In my last post, I argued that when a persons says "I am X" and that X is an abstract concept, inanimate object or physical phenomenon, that person is speaking metaphorically, and we should find out what He means.

In this post, I will be presenting one UNACCEPTABLE implication of believing that Jesus, as a Person, was literally The Truth, The Light, The Way, etc.

If Jesus, as a Person, is The Truth, then any other person that has ever existed or will exist would be the, the deception, the error.
For example, Moses, as a Person, was not Jesus, as a Person. Do we agree?

Yes, I think we agree. If Jesus is the Truth, then Moses is not the Truth. Moses can be truthful, but he cannot be the Truth. Alternatively, Jesus being the Truth must then necessarily also be truthful. Being Truth and being truthful are not the same.

Therefore, if Jesus as a Person, is The Truth, then Moses was The Lie.
If Jesus, as a Person, is The Life and The Way, the Moses was The Death and a False Door.

No. The reason for that is because it is not an all or nothing condition and it is a not a simple thesis/antithesis dialectic. That is, in fact, where many otherwise great teachers have erred.

Furthermore, if Jesus, as a Person, is the Light of the World, how could He call his followers "You are the light of the world?" We, as persons, are NOT Jesus, as persons.
If Jesus, as a Person, is The Word, then the Word of God was never in any past prophet of Israel, and is no longer in this world.

Great question. The fact that you do not know the answer indicates a handicap on your part having this conversation. No one who incompletely or incorrectly understands what Jesus said in the context of all that Jesus said and all that the Bible says is going to be able to address the matter of Jesus' exclusivity. For Christians the written word and the incarnate word are simply variations on the same fundamental ontology. Their difference is teleological, not ontological. This, then, becomes a problem of outsiders defining insiders. This is why I have refrained from diving inti Baha'i positions and teachings other than the single simple of inclusion held within Baha'i. Carpenters don't get to define plumbers, and they most definitely do not get to define porpoises. Therefore, a great effort must be taken on your part to first insure you've correctly understood Jesus (ontologically, teleologically, existentially, etc.) before attempting to use Jesus "against" Christians. This discussion is not fair. It's also a hard enough conversation to have among fellows Christians because there is some diversity within Christianity pertaining to Christology (our doctrine on the nature of Christ). There's a huge amount of diversity outside Christian orthodoxy. JWs and LDSes think of themselves as Christians simply because they have a belief in Jesus. They are going to take up a position between you and I and argue with both of us.

That being said, the salient point is that you've assumed there is only one light and only one type of light in Jesus' use of the word "light" and that is a mistake. You are also practicing what we call "proof-texting," or the practice of using single verse selectively, often removing them from their immediate, local, and global contexts. I'm sure the same thing occurs among your fellow Baha'iists.

In the Bible, Jesus is the light by, which, and for all other lights exist and that would include both physical light and the more abstract condition of illumination or enlightenment.

But that discussion gets us away from the exclusivity of John 14:6 in which there is no mention of "light." You're better off sticking to what is specified; the way, truth, and life of the text..... and even then, you'll have to limit exposition to the context of coming to God because Jesus' statement about being the way, truth, and life is specified in the context of coming to God.

The only way to understand Jesus sayings "I am X" is that X is something about how Jesus thinks, speaks, acts, that is The Truth, The Life, The Light, the Way, etc.

No! That is incorrect. It's incorrect because it is incomplete.

If you and I build and engine and we get it 99% complete and everything we've made and assembled is otherwise 100% correct, we still do not have an engine if we've left out one of the cylinders. In other words, 99% of what we've done is 100% correct but we have not yet been 100% correct because we haven't done 100% of the work. That engine won't work with a missing cylinder.

The operative clause in your statement is the "about how Jesus thinks," when the fact is Jesus is also making a statement about who and what he is. He thinks and acts what and how he thinks and acts because of who and what he is and who and what he is the logos of God that is God by, for, and through whom alone people can come to God.

His is an extraordinary exclusive claim. Jesus is not a manifestation of God. He is God, God inhuman form. This is why I posted the seemingly redundant and circular point: He is God, the only way to God.

This is precisely the reason why, even when Jesus as a Person is not on earth anymore....

hehehehehe Jesus is on earth here and now. There is no place where Jesus is not. Ever. His presence is not limited to temporal physics.

 

[JoshebB]

I believe that the Gospel is One, and Eternal.
It is the same Gospel preached by every single Messenger of God.

Those two sentences contradict one another. The gospel, as defined in the Bible, is another exclusive claim and, therefore, it cannot be said all messengers of God have preached the same gospel if they did not preach Jesus crucified and resurrected as the only way to God.

 

[JoshebB]

I am convinced, though, that those differences are tiny in the eyes of God, to whom our pretended knowledge is that of an ameba before a human.

Do you believe God is a God of reason? (He may be extra-rational, but He is never irrational)