Jesus claimed exclusivity

[Johann]

It seems God's Salvation was fully revealed to men, "The Coming of the Messiah", it just had not yet been made manifest. According to Scriptures God's salvation had been long since revealed to Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, not to mention the Wise men. Even Abraham understood.

Thanks-already posted on the faith of the OT saints.

J.

 

[JoshebB]

I have robust evidence to support that the gospel Jesus preached had very, very little to do with his crucifixion and resurrection.

No, you do not.

His crucifixion and resurrection made 1% of the gospel he preached.

That is a form of ad populum fallacy. That 1% might be the correct percent.

The other 99% was about repentance and becoming citizens of the Messianic kingdom, the Kingdom of God.

False dichotomy. Repentance and the kingdom do not exist apart from his victory over the grave.



What is a "gospel"?

 

[JoshebB]

Jesus did not claim to be God.

This was covered at the beginning of the thread and was asserted as and treated as a given. See Post #2. Jesus did claim to be God, and since there cannot be two Gods in monotheism, any claim of equality with God is an inescapably implicit claim of divinity. John, the same person who recorded Jesus claiming to be the only way to God explicitly stated Jesus is the logos of God that is God.

The value Jesus gave to the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Torah, proves He considered them inspired by God.

Which is not a point in dispute. What is disputed is the baseless claim Moses is a way to God. Moses points to Jesus as the only way to God.

I will be glad to discuss with you and @JoshebB all arguments on the deity of Jesus in a separate thread.

Good. Here in this thread the subject being discussed is the problem of exclusivity in Jesus' statement he is the only way to God.


And you, @Pancho Frijoles, have muddied this discussion in multiple ways, employing a plethora of logical fallacies and digressions, in the effort to defend a lack of exclusivity. Whether Jesus is God or not, he claimed to be the only way to God. Whether he was referring to his teachings or himself, he claimed to be the only way to God. Logic tells us works cannot get anyone to God so logic also, therefore, tells us any "teaching" that operationalizes the way to God is a complete falsehood. Everything Moses wrote was intended to show Jesus is the only way to God. There is only one gospel, not many variations on a common theme or set of principles. In other words, there's not a single point you've broached that has any logical merit, much less consistency with understanding Jesus as Jesus asserted himself. Neither will more fallacy or more eisegesis prove the case against Jesus' exclusivity.

 

[civic]

No Health Professional demands that but it's incumbent and the responsibility of those in charge of administering the vaccination to know about the vaccine's development, effects, and the patient's historical records before administering the vaccine. Responsible Health Professionals do not do it naively nor blindly.

There is also the case of Patients themselves who wish to be informed. That is respected in a society that values free flow of information.

Human Free Will is a gift from God. Don't tell a Calvinist that because he will string you up alive.

A child's faith is not naive. What is naive and void of spiritual reality is the Islamic idea that the Redemptive History of God is void of the transformative restoration of the relationship between humanity and God, achieved through Christ's Incarnation, Sacrifice, Resurrection, and Ascension, that is the basis of our forgiveness.

I like to say what we see online and in person when they come knocking on your door is "Christianese ". We use the same words and phrases from the bible but they have an entirelty different meaning than the Christians which we get from the authoritative lexicons and grammars. And on top of this we see how the biblie itself uses those same words/phrases that affirm the lexicons which they will also deny. You will even hear them say " I believe Jesus words " but when you challenge them you see in reality they deny Him. Honor is one glaring example when it comes to honoring the Son in the same way you honor the Father. We can all see the unitarian does not honor the Son in the same way as they do the Father. In fact they dishonor the Son. There are dozens of such examples with words/phrases with them.

 

[JoshebB]

Your assertion that Jesus and Moses bought a different message from God their Father is foolishness.

My assertion Jesus and Moses bought different messages from God never happened.

What I did say was "Jesus never said Moses was correct." I also explicitly stated everything Moses wrote point to Jesus. Moses was correct but 1) Jesus never stated the words, "Moses is correct," and Jesus never said Moses was correct the way @Pancho Frijoles has portrayed Moses. How could Moses-points-to-Jesus be the case if their messages were different? It is @Pancho Frijoles who has asserted Moses was one way to God, and Jesus another. The opening posts states, "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..." In other words, not only does Pancho have a mistaken definition of what constitutes the gospel, especially the gospel of Christ, but he believes a gospel is temporal. For him the gospel has limits of time and audience, and he can, therefore, call what Moses wrote a gospel and say it was an aspect of the gospel that makes Moses a way to God, just as Jesus is a way to God, along with Laozi, Mīrzā Ḥosayn ʿAlī Nūrī, and Joseph Smith.




You should have remained silent. Please read the posts more carefully.

 

[JoshebB]

Jesus said over and over, Paul said, and the Law and Prophets said over and over that the Pharisees and rebellious Jews were not promoting the Church of God via the Gospel of Christ. One of the most insidious falsehoods promoted by this world's religions, is the false teaching that the Pharisees were trying to "Earn Salvation" by obeying God's Laws. That the disobedient Jews were trying to convert the Galatians to a life obedient to God and His instruction in Righteousness. This leaven, once imbedded in one's heart, infects the entire body as it is written.

I implore you to read Isaiah chapter 1, so that you might understand those who were bewitching the Galatians, and indoctrinating the Gentile converts in Acts 15 and Romans 1-3.

If you do, you will find the Pharisees religion which lived and promoted the rejection of God's Laws and Judgments in order to promote their own religious traditions, but then each week would come to their manmade shrines of worship with the blood of an innocent being, as per the Law, to justify their religion. That is not the Gospel of Christ they were taught by Moses and later by Jesus. Please hear what the Spirit of God inspired for our admonition.

Is. 1: 3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the *** his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

This is Jesus' description of the Pharisees, Yes? What does God tell them?

10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

What does the Gospel of Christ they were given supposed to teach them?

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

How is this not the same thing Jesus teaches?

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

And what is the goal? To call Jesus Lord, Lord? To preach in His Name? To "Transform ourselves" into Apostles of Christ? Not according to Scriptures.

Eph. 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Isn't this the goal, purpose of the Gospel of Christ?

Phil. 3: 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God (Perfection which is) in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Jesus once said to identify the beam in our own eyes, and then cast it out. This is because, in my understanding, that just admitting we have the beam is not sufficient to see clearly to correct others. It is the actual "Beam" that causes the blindness.

What is the specified op-defined subject in this discussion?

 

[JoshebB]

@Pancho Frijoles,

This discussion is winding down (with me at least) because arguments are becoming more repetitious, and I do not do argumentum ad nauseam. If you post more then try to critically examine it before hitting the Post Reply button. Ask yourself what in it might there be that Josh can (and will) cite that is problematic and amend it before I get to it. Do not give me the opportunity to cite the error in content or method. Every Christian here is working toward the exact same goal, and with the possible exception of our use of the Bible, that exact same standard is one I assume you, too, are trying to pursue. The best case ANY of us can make is....



a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.



Yes?

Then make that case. Make it because what's been posted so far is rife with error and so much error it disproves itself. More of the same will change nothing and I will move on. Make the impeccable argument (succinctly) and post it.

 

[Johann]

@Pancho Frijoles,

This discussion is winding down (with me at least) because arguments are becoming more repetitious, and I do not do argumentum ad nauseam. If you post more then try to critically examine it before hitting the Post Reply button. Ask yourself what in it might there be that Josh can (and will) cite that is problematic and amend it before I get to it. Do not give me the opportunity to cite the error in content or method. Every Christian here is working toward the exact same goal, and with the possible exception of our use of the Bible, that exact same standard is one I assume you, too, are trying to pursue. The best case ANY of us can make is....



a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.



Yes?

Then make that case. Make it because what's been posted so far is rife with error and so much error it disproves itself. More of the same will change nothing and I will move on. Make the impeccable argument (succinctly) and post it.

God bless @JoshebB.

That was the best interaction between two individuals I’ve ever witnessed.

J.

 

[JoshebB]

God bless @JoshebB.

That was the best interaction between two individuals I’ve ever witnessed.

J.

Thank you.

I can take credit for only half of that discussion. Ultimately, I give God the glory for I am able to do nothing apart from Him but, more temporally speaking, @Pancho Frijoles gets the other half of the credit. I always endeavor to be kind and patient, but I do not suffer trolls or fools well because they invariably resort to ad hominem and strawmen (logically, the worse, and spiritually the most fleshly and ungodly of the fallacies for discussion boards). It's quite remarkable Pancho posted for six pages, having to engage what brought to bear on this thread, and he did not resort to either of those wretched devices. I know I've said this before: Pancho comported himself well and I, for one, greatly appreciate that. I do not jest when I say his ability to remain respectful in the face of disagreement is the only reason I had the conversation, and if that example persists then I will continue to trade posts with him (despite our differences) on other matters.


Besides, practice makes perfect. I've been doing discussion boards since dial-up . I learned a few things along the way .

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

@Pancho Frijoles,

This discussion is winding down (with me at least) because arguments are becoming more repetitious, and I do not do argumentum ad nauseam. If you post more then try to critically examine it before hitting the Post Reply button. Ask yourself what in it might there be that Josh can (and will) cite that is problematic and amend it before I get to it. Do not give me the opportunity to cite the error in content or method. Every Christian here is working toward the exact same goal, and with the possible exception of our use of the Bible, that exact same standard is one I assume you, too, are trying to pursue. The best case ANY of us can make is....



a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.



Yes?

Then make that case. Make it because what's been posted so far is rife with error and so much error it disproves itself. More of the same will change nothing and I will move on. Make the impeccable argument (succinctly) and post it.

I agree, Josheb, with your perception about the likelihood that this becomes repetitive, mainly because there are some exegetic premises that we don't share. Therefore, further elaboration from any of us, even if made carefully, may not address the root of our discrepancy.

What I can do now, in order to adjourn our discussion, is first to thank you and Johann for your honesty, intelligence and patience.
What you have done is to represent Christ's desire of unity and love, and I am privileged to have witnessed Christ through you.

Second, to make a brief summary in seven points of what I presented. I do it not necessarily to trigger replies, but for the potential benefit of any reader that may get lost in the complexity of our exchanges. If you feel like summarizing your position, I guess that would also be appreciated. I will not reply to your summary so that we can leave the debate properly.

SUMMARY OF PANCHO FRIJOLES POSITION

1. The uniqueness of Jesus as a Person, and the uniqueness of the Message conveyed by Jesus, do not preclude the divine revelation through other Messengers, before and after Jesus. For example, the divine origin of what Jesus revealed at certain time in history does not invalidate the divine origin of what Moses revealed at other time.
2. Each of the Messengers of God is unique in his own way, whatever our particular beliefs on the identify or nature of each Messenger.
3. Each of the messages is unique in its own way, but the essence of the Message is the same across time and geographies. It is the same because it procedes from the same source (God) and with the same general purpose (bring people back to God).
4. The content of the essential message is a call to repent and worship our Creator with all our heart, and love him through the love to our neighbor.
5. The essential message does not include the specific secondary laws, metaphors, wording, rituals, imagery or historical focus, which rather correspond to the needs and circumstances of the people who receives the message.
6. The essential message does not include specific beliefs on the deity, virginal birth, blood atonement or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, since these messages were not the basis of the repentance of any person in the Old Testament, or in distant geographies. Whatever our views are on these discourses or doctrines about Jesus, and whatever the veracity of our views, the Bible and history provides robust support that such beliefs were not demanded as a CONDITION for God to extend his mercy to any person.
7. We demonstrate that we love Jesus, honor Jesus and consider Him to be The Way, the Truth and the Life when we do what He told us to do. This is true for every single human being, regardless of their theological/metaphysical beliefs around Jesus.

 

[mikesw]

I agree, Josheb, with your perception about the likelihood that this becomes repetitive, mainly because there are some exegetic premises that we don't share. Therefore, further elaboration from any of us, even if made carefully, may not address the root of our discrepancy.

What I can do now, in order to adjourn our discussion, is first to thank you and Johann for your honesty, intelligence and patience.
What you have done is to represent Christ's desire of unity and love, and I am privileged to have witnessed Christ through you.

Second, to make a brief summary in seven points of what I presented. I do it not necessarily to trigger replies, but for the potential benefit of any reader that may get lost in the complexity of our exchanges. If you feel like summarizing your position, I guess that would also be appreciated. I will not reply to your summary so that we can leave the debate properly.

SUMMARY OF PANCHO FRIJOLES POSITION

1. The uniqueness of Jesus as a Person, and the uniqueness of the Message conveyed by Jesus, do not preclude the divine revelation through other Messengers, before and after Jesus. For example, the divine origin of what Jesus revealed at certain time in history does not invalidate the divine origin of what Moses revealed at other time.
2. Each of the Messengers of God is unique in his own way, whatever our particular beliefs on the identify or nature of each Messenger.
3. Each of the messages is unique in its own way, but the essence of the Message is the same across time and geographies. It is the same because it procedes from the same source (God) and with the same general purpose (bring people back to God).
4. The content of the essential message is a call to repent and worship our Creator with all our heart, and love him through the love to our neighbor.
5. The essential message does not include the specific secondary laws, metaphors, wording, rituals, imagery or historical focus, which rather correspond to the needs and circumstances of the people who receives the message.
6. The essential message does not include specific beliefs on the deity, virginal birth, blood atonement or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, since these messages were not the basis of the repentance of any person in the Old Testament, or in distant geographies. Whatever our views are on these discourses or doctrines about Jesus, and whatever the veracity of our views, the Bible and history provides robust support that such beliefs were not demanded as a CONDITION for God to extend his mercy to any person.
7. We demonstrate that we love Jesus, honor Jesus and consider Him to be The Way, the Truth and the Life when we do what He told us to do. This is true for every single human being, regardless of their theological/metaphysical beliefs around Jesus.

yeah. no. don't call it compatible with Christianity then. The doctrines you are rejecting notably in item 6 are the basis and backdrop through which people are justified with God. The physical resurrection is the demonstration to all who Christ is and shows he is the only who has not only came among the people as a prophet to warn them of judgment but also came victorious over death so people could be saved through him.

The conditions of accepting the resurrection is like getting a flight scheduled to travel from a New York to London. Your justification is like the plane ticket. The virgin birth, the resurrection, the deity of Christ and many more facts represent the airplane that will fly you to your destination. If the resurrection or deity of Christ is removed, it is like failing to have a plane to fly you across the pond. Maybe you get an alternative plane like a Cessna 172M Skyhawk to take you 675 miles across the ocean. If the virgin birth is removed, it is like failing to add fuel to the plane.

 

[JoshebB]

I agree, Josheb, with your perception about the likelihood that this becomes repetitive, mainly because there are some exegetic premises that we don't share. Therefore, further elaboration from any of us, even if made carefully, may not address the root of our discrepancy.

What I can do now, in order to adjourn our discussion, is first to thank you and Johann for your honesty, intelligence and patience.
What you have done is to represent Christ's desire of unity and love, and I am privileged to have witnessed Christ through you.

Second, to make a brief summary in seven points of what I presented. I do it not necessarily to trigger replies, but for the potential benefit of any reader that may get lost in the complexity of our exchanges. If you feel like summarizing your position, I guess that would also be appreciated. I will not reply to your summary so that we can leave the debate properly.

SUMMARY OF PANCHO FRIJOLES POSITION

1. The uniqueness of Jesus as a Person, and the uniqueness of the Message conveyed by Jesus, do not preclude the divine revelation through other Messengers, before and after Jesus. For example, the divine origin of what Jesus revealed at certain time in history does not invalidate the divine origin of what Moses revealed at other time.
2. Each of the Messengers of God is unique in his own way, whatever our particular beliefs on the identify or nature of each Messenger.
3. Each of the messages is unique in its own way, but the essence of the Message is the same across time and geographies. It is the same because it procedes from the same source (God) and with the same general purpose (bring people back to God).
4. The content of the essential message is a call to repent and worship our Creator with all our heart, and love him through the love to our neighbor.
5. The essential message does not include the specific secondary laws, metaphors, wording, rituals, imagery or historical focus, which rather correspond to the needs and circumstances of the people who receives the message.
6. The essential message does not include specific beliefs on the deity, virginal birth, blood atonement or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, since these messages were not the basis of the repentance of any person in the Old Testament, or in distant geographies. Whatever our views are on these discourses or doctrines about Jesus, and whatever the veracity of our views, the Bible and history provides robust support that such beliefs were not demanded as a CONDITION for God to extend his mercy to any person.
7. We demonstrate that we love Jesus, honor Jesus and consider Him to be The Way, the Truth and the Life when we do what He told us to do. This is true for every single human being, regardless of their theological/metaphysical beliefs around Jesus.

My regrets for the tardiness but I've been traveling.

@mikesw is correct: Post 110 is not compatible with what Jesus explicitly stated because Jesus is making an exclusive statement about himself, not his philosophy. The uniqueness of a messenger and the uniqueness of that messenger's message/teaching are two completely different uniquenesses. The "essence" of the message of Jesus is not the same over time because works cannot get a finite creature to the infinite Creator and all the other messengers in human history taught works could do that. No one can demonstrate love for Christ by obedience to his commands without first being in Christ, and that is the fundamental difference between what he taught and what every other "messenger" in human history taught. They are not actually messengers of God if the contradict the necessity of Jesus himself being the way. They are either mistaken/misguided or liars and, therefore, not to be followed. This is understood through the simple facts finite works of finite creatures cannot reach an infinite Creator. That's not a fact open for debate, nor is it a sectarian point of view. It is basic logical necessity. Only one man in the entirety of human history taught that fact, that truth.

His name, in English, if Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth; the anointed one of God who is God.