Peak Religion

[mikepepler]

God is available to all; the statement that salvation is only through Christ is simply a fact of the divine economy. The name which we give to God, or any of his persons, is irrelevant, surely

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Is that for or against my position? The test is who 'I' refers to.

Who is the great "I am"?

Jesus was referring to himself, and simultaneously to God the Father. Jesus often used the "I Am" phrase, making it clear he was God, which is why the priests of the time got so upset - but I think you knew that already, from your comment. I think it's clear from this and other passages that Jesus was saying that people can be saved only through him. That included the Jews - if you didn't accept Jesus, then you weren't saved. Believing in God is not enough - even Satan believes in God...

[Blue Peter]

Is that for or against my position? The test is who 'I' refers to.

Who is the great "I am"?

Jesus was referring to himself, and simultaneously to God the Father. Jesus often used the "I Am" phrase, making it clear he was God, which is why the priests of the time got so upset - but I think you knew that already, from your comment. I think it's clear from this and other passages that Jesus was saying that people can be saved only through him. That included the Jews - if you didn't accept Jesus, then you weren't saved. Believing in God is not enough - even Satan believes in God...

But, the question remains, who is he (or I)? That bag of flesh and bones or the second person of the Trinity?


Peter.

[mikepepler]

But, the question remains, who is he (or I)? That bag of flesh and bones or the second person of the Trinity?

They are one and the same. God become human. Fully human, so that he could genuinely experience temptation, and fully divine, so that when he was killed it would be a sufficient payment to cover the sin of all the billions of people who ever have lived and will live. Takes a bit to get your head round it, doesn't it? I think it falls into the category of things I mentioned earlier, which can not be understood through human logic, but only with help from God.

[Blue Peter]

But, the question remains, who is he (or I)? That bag of flesh and bones or the second person of the Trinity?

They are one and the same. God become human. Fully human, so that he could genuinely experience temptation, and fully divine, so that when he was killed it would be a sufficient payment to cover the sin of all the billions of people who ever have lived and will live. Takes a bit to get your head round it, doesn't it? I think it falls into the category of things I mentioned earlier, which can not be understood through human logic, but only with help from God.

And so, where is that bag of flesh and bones now?


Peter.

[mikepepler]

But, the question remains, who is he (or I)? That bag of flesh and bones or the second person of the Trinity?

They are one and the same. God become human. Fully human, so that he could genuinely experience temptation, and fully divine, so that when he was killed it would be a sufficient payment to cover the sin of all the billions of people who ever have lived and will live. Takes a bit to get your head round it, doesn't it? I think it falls into the category of things I mentioned earlier, which can not be understood through human logic, but only with help from God.

And so, where is that bag of flesh and bones now?

He was raised from the dead, and then ascended into heaven, from where He will return at the appointed time.

[Blue Peter]

They are one and the same. God become human. Fully human, so that he could genuinely experience temptation, and fully divine, so that when he was killed it would be a sufficient payment to cover the sin of all the billions of people who ever have lived and will live. Takes a bit to get your head round it, doesn't it? I think it falls into the category of things I mentioned earlier, which can not be understood through human logic, but only with help from God.

And so, where is that bag of flesh and bones now?

He was raised from the dead, and then ascended into heaven, from where He will return at the appointed time.

Is he in heaven as flesh and bones?


Peter.

[mikepepler]

He was raised from the dead, and then ascended into heaven, from where He will return at the appointed time.

Is he in heaven as flesh and bones?

Yes. He was raised from the dead with a real physical body that could be touched, He even ate dinner! And this body was raised into heaven. But although it is a physical body, it is different from a normal human body, as will be the body of everyone when they are resurrected:

1 Corinthians 15:35-44
But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Jesus was the first of a new "type", a human body raised into a new state, fit to inherit the kingdom of God.

I think the seed/plant metaphor given above is helpful - there is clearly a relationship between the seed and the plant, but you don't plant a seed expecting a bigger seed to grow, you expect something different, more complex, more impressive.

[Blue Peter]

So, salvation is through the physical Jesus (though a different sort of physical body). How does this salvation work? and how do we know which phrase or thought correctly refers to this Jesus - i.e. what is the mechanism by which my utterance of 'Jesus' or 'Joshua' or 'Jesu' or '2nd person of the Trinity' or whatever correctly refers to Jesus?


Peter.

[Andy Hunt]

I dunno, I am not really expecting to have any kind of body after I die really.

I know the spiritualists believe in 'astral bodies', maybe this is from the passage in Corinthians.

It's only really the four Gospels and the Revelation which have ever really interested me, not really interested in the Old Testament, not really interested in what the Apostles had to say either really TBH.

It isn't even important to me whether Jesus was physically raised from the dead, if he was then brilliant, he must have been 'plugged in' to some serious energies. But even if he wasn't, the truth in his words lives on, and that is enough for me really. It was what he said rather than the things he purportedly did which are really important to me, personally.

Maybe I am just easily pleased!

But then my understanding of Christianity is something I have arrived at on my own. I've never been involved with any kind of organised religion, never been Christened, nothing. I've just read the NT (as well as the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, various Zen teachings, I was taught by the Yogi Stafford Beer etc etc . . . )

[Aurora]

In my previous post I used the phrase 'soldiers in disguise' to describe missionaries.

I borrowed that phrase from a Christy Moore song called 'Natives', the lyrics of which are well worth studying.

For all of our languages, we can't communicate
For all of our native tongues, we're all natives here
Sons of their fathers dream the same dream
The sound of forbidden words becomes a scream
Voices in anger, victims of history
Plundered and set aside, grown fat on swallowed pride

With promises of paradise and gifts of beads and knives
Missionaries and pioneers are soldiers in disguise
Saviours and conquerors they make us wait
The fishers of men they wave their truth like bait
With the touch of a stranger's hand innocence turns to shame
The spirit that dwelt within now sleeps out in the rain

For all of our languages, we can't communicate
For all of our native tongues, we're all natives here
The scars of the past are slow to disappear
The cries of the dead are always in our ears
Only the very safe can talk about wrong and right
Of those who are forced to choose, some will choose to fight
For all of our languages, we can't communicate

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

[mikepepler]

So, salvation is through the physical Jesus (though a different sort of physical body). How does this salvation work? and how do we know which phrase or thought correctly refers to this Jesus - i.e. what is the mechanism by which my utterance of 'Jesus' or 'Joshua' or 'Jesu' or '2nd person of the Trinity' or whatever correctly refers to Jesus?

How it works:

Romans 10:9-10
...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

That's it. If you believe Jesus was raised from the dead, and also acknowledge Him as Lord, then you are saved. But remember, acknowledging Him as Lord is just the first step, as your whole life changes from that point on.

As for names, "Jesus" is just a translation. There's background on the different names here (I've not read it all though):
http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/names

The important bit is knowing who you are referring to, i.e. the man described in the Gospels, who is God's Son, the second person of the trinity. Which precise spelling you use is not important, although there may well be a lot to learn from looking into the different names and their origin in Jewish tradition.

[mikepepler]

I dunno, I am not really expecting to have any kind of body after I die really.
...
It isn't even important to me whether Jesus was physically raised from the dead, if he was then brilliant, he must have been 'plugged in' to some serious energies. But even if he wasn't, the truth in his words lives on, and that is enough for me really. It was what he said rather than the things he purportedly did which are really important to me, personally.

I know we come from different backgrounds Andy, but I still think the fact that Jesus was raised is essential. With your permission, I'll quote from one of the Apostles (I know you said you don't read them...):

1 Corinthians 15:12-23
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

[Blue Peter]

The important bit is knowing who you are referring to, i.e. the man described in the Gospels, who is God's Son, the second person of the trinity. Which precise spelling you use is not important, although there may well be a lot to learn from looking into the different names and their origin in Jewish tradition.

Hmmm! but that seems a little tenuous. After all, it is famously the case that there are an awful lot of Jesus's out there (RC, Protestant, gentle Jesus meek and mild, rebel, etc.).

But, and to take us back to where we started, it also seems that it could be that members of other religions are referring to, let's say neutrally, the 2nd aspect of God, in their various ways,


Peter.

[mikepepler]

But, and to take us back to where we started, it also seems that it could be that members of other religions are referring to, let's say neutrally, the 2nd aspect of God, in their various ways.

I agree that is possible, I have heard of people in remote tribes being contacted and it turning out they worship a creator God who sent his Son to die for them (can't find a reference though...). But the important thing is (if the story is true) that their beliefs were in line with the gospels, even though they didn't actually know of them.

Now for other religions...
Islam for example, although it's closes to the Judeo/Christian faith in many ways, is clearly not worshipping the same God, as he has different characteristics from the God of the Bible, and their views of Jesus are quite different, although they do see him as a prophet.

[Miss Madam]

As an archaeologist by trade, I'm cynical about the lot of them (religions that is). I did quite a bit of research into Mithras, and earlier epic cycles such as the Gilgamesh epic from Assyria (which is what the Noah's ark, and even the Adam and Eve story was based on) when I was doing my first degree and it pretty much erased the last of my christian nostalgia that had been lingering on since my Catholic childhood. Nice stories, but religion, to me - seems to be more about social control than any great truth. There is a clear correlation between the rise of organised religion and social control, the archaeological record in Mesopotamia is perhaps the best example). We all have to find our own truths - or so it seems to me, but then thats a pretty poor way to organise your workforce / electorate / subjects / taxpayers.

For info' - Mithras, a middle eastern sun-god, was born of a virgin in a cave on December 25, and worshipped on Sunday, the day of the conquering sun. He was a savior-god originally in the Persian pantheon, then adopted by Rome, who rivaled Jesus in popularity. He died and was resurrected in order to become a messenger god, an intermediary between man and the good god of light, and the leader of the forces of righteousness against the dark forces of the god evil.

There's nothing new under the sun.

The accuracy of individual lines of any of the 'holy books' is subject to a lot of wishful thinking, they have been distorted over the years through translations, mistranslations and downright political distortion (the King James Version), its actions not words that count I reckon, and spending days poring over individual words could ultimately be time wasted and a lot less valuable than, I dunno - helping out in your local soup kitchen. Without the originals we will never know what was meant by the lines in the bible or the Koran, they have just gone through too many filters and layers of subjectivity. Just look at how the Tain Bo Cuhlain (sic?) cycles were altered when they were transcribed by Irish monks (totally totally different).

If you are religious, IMHO, then enjoy it, but if you proselytise or claim there's only one way to God (and 'que'll suprise' it's your way), then you get an angry kitty.... I'm not meaning to cause a flame war, but I've just got back from a trip to Auschwitz and am down on doctrines and sheeple control methods such as organised religion. Hitler, I'm sure we all know, claimed to be a devout Christian, as did the German population that went along with his crimes (including troops, but also civilians - people knew what was going on in the main - see the letters at Auschwitz attesting to this). The Nazi philosophy reiterated that womens' role in society should be defined by Kinder, Kirche and Kuche. (Children, Church and Cooking). Hmm no ta. If people walked the walk of their religion, not just talking the talk - then we wouldn't have had Auschwitz, Guantanomo, Abu Ghraib etc

Cat