Ambiguous Christian truths?

[McCulloch]

There is no ambiguity to what is and what isn't "Christian truth." Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Jesus. No amount of relativism can alter that reality.

Is there any ambiguity about what is and is not Christian truth? If not why are there so many conflicting Christian creeds, dogmas and theologies?

[dianaiad]

There is no ambiguity to what is and what isn't "Christian truth." Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Jesus. No amount of relativism can alter that reality.

Is there any ambiguity about what is and is not Christian truth? If not why are there so many conflicting Christian creeds, dogmas and theologies?

What underlines all heresy is 'Jesus +'.

If they are saying to get to heaven you need Jesus plus something else then you are off track somewhere as a Christian.

Well....there's a difference between 'being a Christian' and 'being saved." To be a Christian, "Jesus" at the base of your belief system is sufficient.

To be SAVED, evidently, it's "Jesus +" Jesus + Faith.

[mwtech]

What underlines all heresy is 'Jesus +'.

If they are saying to get to heaven you need Jesus plus something else then you are off track somewhere as a Christian.

Well that in itself is very vague, isn't it? What does "having Jesus" entail? You cannot just tell someone they need Jesus and explain no further. You have to do something to get Jesus, don't you? But it isn't enough to just believe, because the bible says even demons believe and shudder. What do you actually have to do?

Whatever you say will be something different than some other Christian, and the reasoning between all these different arguments ends up just jumbling together, making the entire thing look incredibly ambiguous from the outside looking in.

[Elijah John]

Regarding John 14.6,,,,,,One of my favorite authors (I forget which one) made the point of context. Jesus made that claim in contrast to the Temple establishment. That HIS way was THE Way to get to the Father, not the establishment Temple way.

It is doubtful that Jesus would have been refering to some more modern alternatives, such as Islam (which had not even existed then), or simple Deism. So it is doubtful Jesus was saying those ways were false since they did not even exist back then as any kind of systematic theology.

Also he was contrasting his way to the Father to Pagan ways. I doubt Jesus would have considered Islam (an Abrahamic religion) or Deism, (an ethical Monotheistic religion) false ways to God or Pagan in any sense of the word.

I don't know, maybe the author was taking context too far. Maybe John 14.6 meant exactly what it seems that Jesus was saying.

Then again, what exactly does it mean that Jesus is the "only way" ? Pauline and Johannine blood subsistutionary atonement? Or simply following Jesus' way, ie his teachings as found in the Sermon on the Mount?

[Goat]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

How do you know what anyone said or did in history? How does your argument preserve other histortical documents?

History isn't supposed to be the 'infallible word of God' that a number of Christians make the bible out to be.

And, the op is reacting to the claim there is no ambiguity in what is or what is not 'Christian Truth'. Considering the contradictions, and the vast numbers of various interpretations, and the original op, your attempt to divert to other 'historical' documents is not relevant, since , well, it will be admitted that sometimes, historical documents can be ambiguous, and there is no one set 'historical truth'.

The claims for 'Christian Truth' go far beyond what would be accepted or required from 'historical documents'. So, that diversion is a non sequitur

[connermt]

There is no ambiguity to what is and what isn't "Christian truth." Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Jesus. No amount of relativism can alter that reality.

Is there any ambiguity about what is and is not Christian truth? If not why are there so many conflicting Christian creeds, dogmas and theologies?

IMO, christianity is nothing without ambiguity. It helps it survive, unfortunately.
If it was 'the truth' there would be little need for all the differing sects. It's not 'the truth' and 'A' truth. Meaning, it works for some and not others because many people have higher standards than christianity is able to meet in its modern form.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Zzyzx]

It matters because it goes to DI's use of texts. If he can't read a standard text then why should we trust his opinion's on the bible? If he believes in subjectivity and post modernism then we are simply listening to absurdity. Where the reader can interpret the text as he wishes.

I asked this once a few months ago but where are the atheists that can read a text, say, 'Yep, I read the bible, it reckons Jesus is god but I don't believe it.' It is intriguing that non-Christians cannot accept the plain reading of the bible.

I think we should be sceptical of all tales about the past, including those of long ages and evolution and test them all. Do you understand that science can't prove the past and so a story has to be created?

But there are philosophical issues to not having a God (such as the absurdity of subjectivity) that should make one doubt any non objective world views.

[Divine Insight]

It matters because it goes to DI's use of texts. If he can't read a standard text then why should we trust his opinion's on the bible? If he believes in subjectivity and post modernism then we are simply listening to absurdity. Where the reader can interpret the text as he wishes.

This is a gross misunderstanding on your part.

Where do you get off proclaiming that I can't read a standard text? I've already made it clear that when we read texts we should be careful to question them and only accept them as truth when we can independently verify this.

What you seem to be suggesting is that I should just openly accept any text that I might read as though it represents absolute truth. IMHO that would be foolish. Moreover, if you actually did that you would need to believe in every religion that was ever written about.

You're position does not make any sense Wootah.

You are basically demanding that if I'm not willing to believe everything I read, then I cannot read at all. That is absurd.

I asked this once a few months ago but where are the atheists that can read a text, say, 'Yep, I read the bible, it reckons Jesus is god but I don't believe it.' It is intriguing that non-Christians cannot accept the plain reading of the bible.

Again, what are you doing? Demanding that everyone should just automatically believe everything they read? If that's true and you claim that it applies to you, then you should believe in every religion that was ever written down.

Why do you believe in the Christian Bible but not the Islamic Qur'an?

What atheists are saying is that the Bible does not make a compelling case for its claims that Jesus was God. It's not that they don't understand that this is what the Bible is attempting to claim.

Do you believe that Muhammad corrected the Bible by re-writing it as the Qur'an and then fly off to heaven on a horse?

If not, why not?

And how is that any different from someone rejecting the claims of the Bible?

I think we should be sceptical of all tales about the past, including those of long ages and evolution and test them all. Do you understand that science can't prove the past and so a story has to be created?

Science can indeed give compelling evidence for what happened in the past. In fact, the universe we live in is a time-machine in this regard. When we look out into the cosmos we are indeed looking back in time. So science can prove the past via directly observations. We can see that the universe has indeed evolved from less complicated structure to more complicated structures. We even have the physics to understand how this occurs, and we can test that physics in the lab. Not only have we tested it but we have created all manner of technologies with it.

To even attempt to compare science with something like the Bible is absurd. Science has evidence (including a direct window into the past). So science can prove the past, contrary to your claim that it cannot.

Trying to bring science down to the level of unsubstantiated mythologies is truly absurd. It's an insult to human intellect. It's an insult to anyone who knows better. Science is based upon evidence, including evidence from the past (some of which is directly observable because we can actually look into the post astronomically).

These kinds of arguments are really just trying to bring science down to having no credibility at all in a very lame attempt to place non-credible mythologies on a level playing field with science.

That very ploy is actually theistic dishonesty.

But there are philosophical issues to not having a God (such as the absurdity of subjectivity) that should make one doubt any non objective world views.

There is no such thing as "The absurdity of subjectivity". All that amounts to is an unsubstantiated subjective opinion itself.

Imagining a God doesn't solve anything because when you do that all you have done is trade one absurdity for another.

If it absurd that a universe could simply exist for no rhyme or reason, then it's equally absurd that a God could simply exist for no rhyme or reason.

Inventing a God does not solve the problem of an absurd reality.

If a magical God exists that's just as absurd as anything else.

It doesn't help to explain anything.

[Korah2]

[Replying to post 10 by dianaiad]
I see Dianaiad's #10 as correctly parsing Wootah's Post #2 as applying to defining who has accepted Jesus's salvation.
Yet I see Z's #9 as having appropriately parrying Wootah's subsequent attempts to spread historical skepticism. I, Dale Adams, have an M. A. in History, and though I am aware of many deficiencies in historical method, my doubts to not extend to Wootah's extremism.
(I, Korah2, am really just the same old Korah, but the system no longer allows me to log in as Korah, so I registered a new account under my wife's email account. I reported my sin to otseng, hopefully he will get it corrected and this paragraph can be deleted and my username corrected here to Korah.) If I Have committed the unpardonable sin, it has been nice knowing most of you here on DC&R.