No one knows the Father except the Son

[Wootah]

Just for reference:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-27.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm

Matthew 11:27 New International Version (NIV)
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

How can just a man put himself in such a position between you and God?

[steveb1]

Just for reference:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-27.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm

Matthew 11:27 New International Version (NIV)
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

How can just a man put himself in such a position between you and God?

It's easy for the many hundreds of people who have experienced divine union and/or divine communion. One Sufi saint gestured to his clothes and said, "There is no one in these garments but God". The Buddha gestured to himself and said, "Who sees me sees the Dharma". Jesus gestured to himself and said, "The Father and I are One". None of these are claims to be God, God defined as a supernatural creator "out there". Quite the contrary, they are humble statements of ego-emptiness - of the empty vessel that God fills with Himself to the extent that the original ego now only has at most a tenuous existence, fully dependent on the divine Presence within.

So Jesus was not being a megalomaniac if he made some seemingly exclusive claim to be "the only Path to God", first because other divine union mystics made similar claims, and second because "Jesus never met the Buddha" - that is, Jesus had no one else against whose experience he could compare and contrast his own.

In terms of his own culture and experience, Jesus quite correctly thought that his divine union experience was a "one and only" kind of perception. Had he been able to study comparative religion, his view would probably have significantly widened (unless, of course, he actually was just a megalomaniac from the get-go).

Because Jesus was unaware of the Buddha and other enlightened sages, naturally and obviously, he could only make his divine union claims of himself.

[Elijah John]

Just for reference:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-27.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm

Matthew 11:27 New International Version (NIV)
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

How can just a man put himself in such a position between you and God?

It's easy for the many hundreds of people who have experienced divine union and/or divine communion. One Sufi saint gestured to his clothes and said, "There is no one in these garments but God". The Buddha gestured to himself and said, "Who sees me sees the Dharma". Jesus gestured to himself and said, "The Father and I are One". None of these are claims to be God, God defined as a supernatural creator "out there". Quite the contrary, they are humble statements of ego-emptiness - of the empty vessel that God fills with Himself to the extent that the original ego now only has at most a tenuous existence, fully dependent on the divine Presence within.

So Jesus was not being a megalomaniac if he made some seemingly exclusive claim to be "the only Path to God", first because other divine union mystics made similar claims, and second because "Jesus never met the Buddha" - that is, Jesus had no one else against whose experience he could compare and contrast his own.

In terms of his own culture and experience, Jesus quite correctly thought that his divine union experience was a "one and only" kind of perception. Had he been able to study comparative religion, his view would probably have significantly widened (unless, of course, he actually was just a megalomaniac from the get-go).

Because Jesus was unaware of the Buddha and other enlightened sages, naturally and obviously, he could only make his divine union claims of himself.

Excellent, and I would add Mohammad, along with your mention of the Sufis. Islam didn't even exist when Jesus alledgedly made that claim to exclusivity.

Islam and mystics from many traditions teach direct access to the Divine. Seems Jesus was no exception. Ref, the Lord's prayer etc. Forgiveness with no mention of the blood tradiitons of the Temple.

Like John before him. Direct access to God for forgiveness of sins.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

Yes, I agree that Jesus taught unmediated, immediate, "gnostic" experience of God, the Spirit and God's Kingdom. He did appoint representatives, but only to carry his work to the populace (if the Gospel report of his sending of the disciples throughout Judea during his life is historical).

These "apostles" (meaning "emissaries" or "ambassadors") carried Jesus's message about the in-breaking Kingdom, its relationship to the Spirit, about "prisoners set free", godlike mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. But they did not function as "little Jesuses" who mediated either Jesus or God.

The picture I get of it is one of God manifesting in Jesus and Jesus first teaching from that experience to a core select few; then to a larger "curious and interested" number of the general public; and finally to "great crowds". In all that teaching, there seems not to be any notion of a king, pope, pastor, or priestly caste that Jesus installed between himself and the apostles, and/or between himself and God. Not that Jesus did not decree Peter, post-Resurrection, at least in John, to be a former fisherman now transformed into the shepherd of Jesus's "lambs" and "sheep". But that does not a Pope make.

[Wootah]

Just for reference:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-27.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm

Matthew 11:27 New International Version (NIV)
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

How can just a man put himself in such a position between you and God?

It's easy for the many hundreds of people who have experienced divine union and/or divine communion. One Sufi saint gestured to his clothes and said, "There is no one in these garments but God". The Buddha gestured to himself and said, "Who sees me sees the Dharma". Jesus gestured to himself and said, "The Father and I are One". None of these are claims to be God, God defined as a supernatural creator "out there". Quite the contrary, they are humble statements of ego-emptiness - of the empty vessel that God fills with Himself to the extent that the original ego now only has at most a tenuous existence, fully dependent on the divine Presence within.

So Jesus was not being a megalomaniac if he made some seemingly exclusive claim to be "the only Path to God", first because other divine union mystics made similar claims, and second because "Jesus never met the Buddha" - that is, Jesus had no one else against whose experience he could compare and contrast his own.

In terms of his own culture and experience, Jesus quite correctly thought that his divine union experience was a "one and only" kind of perception. Had he been able to study comparative religion, his view would probably have significantly widened (unless, of course, he actually was just a megalomaniac from the get-go).

Because Jesus was unaware of the Buddha and other enlightened sages, naturally and obviously, he could only make his divine union claims of himself.

I don't see you addressing his whole quote.

[steveb1]

Just for reference:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-27.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm

Matthew 11:27 New International Version (NIV)
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

How can just a man put himself in such a position between you and God?

It's easy for the many hundreds of people who have experienced divine union and/or divine communion. One Sufi saint gestured to his clothes and said, "There is no one in these garments but God". The Buddha gestured to himself and said, "Who sees me sees the Dharma". Jesus gestured to himself and said, "The Father and I are One". None of these are claims to be God, God defined as a supernatural creator "out there". Quite the contrary, they are humble statements of ego-emptiness - of the empty vessel that God fills with Himself to the extent that the original ego now only has at most a tenuous existence, fully dependent on the divine Presence within.

So Jesus was not being a megalomaniac if he made some seemingly exclusive claim to be "the only Path to God", first because other divine union mystics made similar claims, and second because "Jesus never met the Buddha" - that is, Jesus had no one else against whose experience he could compare and contrast his own.

In terms of his own culture and experience, Jesus quite correctly thought that his divine union experience was a "one and only" kind of perception. Had he been able to study comparative religion, his view would probably have significantly widened (unless, of course, he actually was just a megalomaniac from the get-go).

Because Jesus was unaware of the Buddha and other enlightened sages, naturally and obviously, he could only make his divine union claims of himself.

I don't see you addressing his whole quote.

How so? I already addressed the "exclusivist" tone of the scripture text, by pointing out that while Jesus believed that his divine union experience was "the only" path to the Father, he was making a universal statement without ever having met, or read about, other divine union mystics who make similar claims. Jesus never met the Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma, or any "God-realized" people of Persia, India, China or Japan. He had no examples by which to accurately measure and categorize his mystical experience.

[Overcomer]

Well, let's see. Buddha -- he's dead. Mohammed -- he's dead. The Sufi saint -- he's dead. Jesus -- he's alive and, being eternal, has always been alive and always will be alive.

Buddha -- a mere man. Mohammed -- a mere man. The Sufi saint -- a mere man. Jesus --both man AND God. Therefore, he and he alone, as a perfect sacrifice, could atone for the sins of humankind, something Buddha, Mohammed, etc. couldn't do.

It isn't the similarities, which are superficial and inconsequential, that are important here. It's the differences, which are monumental and life-changing -- indeed LIFE-SAVING -- that are important.

[ttruscott]

How so? I already addressed the "exclusivist" tone of the scripture text, by pointing out that while Jesus believed that his divine union experience was "the only" path to the Father, he was making a universal statement without ever having met, or read about, other divine union mystics who make similar claims. Jesus never met the Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma, or any "God-realized" people of Persia, India, China or Japan. He had no examples by which to accurately measure and categorize his mystical experience.

IF Jesus was speaking of His divine unity with YHWH, then of course He knew who all the pretenders to divinity were before His incarnation. He was not a gnostic emmanation of a GODly spirit as were many others, but the only incarnation of GOD as man: 1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God...15 If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

[Elijah John]

Just for reference:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-27.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm

Matthew 11:27 New International Version (NIV)
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

How can just a man put himself in such a position between you and God?

It's easy for the many hundreds of people who have experienced divine union and/or divine communion. One Sufi saint gestured to his clothes and said, "There is no one in these garments but God". The Buddha gestured to himself and said, "Who sees me sees the Dharma". Jesus gestured to himself and said, "The Father and I are One". None of these are claims to be God, God defined as a supernatural creator "out there". Quite the contrary, they are humble statements of ego-emptiness - of the empty vessel that God fills with Himself to the extent that the original ego now only has at most a tenuous existence, fully dependent on the divine Presence within.

So Jesus was not being a megalomaniac if he made some seemingly exclusive claim to be "the only Path to God", first because other divine union mystics made similar claims, and second because "Jesus never met the Buddha" - that is, Jesus had no one else against whose experience he could compare and contrast his own.

In terms of his own culture and experience, Jesus quite correctly thought that his divine union experience was a "one and only" kind of perception. Had he been able to study comparative religion, his view would probably have significantly widened (unless, of course, he actually was just a megalomaniac from the get-go).

Because Jesus was unaware of the Buddha and other enlightened sages, naturally and obviously, he could only make his divine union claims of himself.

I don't see you addressing his whole quote.

How so? I already addressed the "exclusivist" tone of the scripture text, by pointing out that while Jesus believed that his divine union experience was "the only" path to the Father, he was making a universal statement without ever having met, or read about, other divine union mystics who make similar claims. Jesus never met the Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma, or any "God-realized" people of Persia, India, China or Japan. He had no examples by which to accurately measure and categorize his mystical experience.

Upon reflection and second consideration, Jesus did have the examples of the Prophets before him. They apparently had "Divine union" experiences of direct relationship with God. And in ways that had nothing to do with Temple blood mediation, or even mediation by the Son of God, the Messiah himself.

Prophets are, by definition mystics. But mystics are not always prophets. It is the speaking, the proclaimation of messages received while in mystical frames of mind that make a prophet. By contrast, a silent mystic is not really a prophet.

And then there's John the Baptist, who found and taught union with God outside of Temple mediation.

So perhaps when Jesus said in that mystical fashion, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me", he was including them, the Prophets and their teachings, in that claim to exclusivity.

I see Jesus very much in that Prophetic tradition. Prophetic as opposed to blood-based Priestly tradition. After all, there is evidence that Jesus was a disciple of John for a time, and he sure seems to have taken positions against blood-sacrifice, (I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, etc) and the Temple in general. And Jesus taught the alternative of simple repentance, in contrast to blood sacrifice. (The Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, the Parables)

But it is easy to see how the literalist could read the clam to mean that "Jesus himself is the only way.

Whether or not the Evangelist John had actually intended for his Jesus to make a literal claim or a mystical one?

Not so sure. Perhaps a bit of both.

In many ways it seems that Jesus was indeed, a misunderstood mystic.

[DPMartin]

Just for reference:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-27.htm

http://biblehub.com/luke/10-22.htm

Matthew 11:27 New International Version (NIV)
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

How can just a man put himself in such a position between you and God?

Jesus isn't "just a man"

read on the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father.

what in the case of "born again" means is to be born into the same Life Jesus Christ has which is Son of God giving the power to those born again to become sons of God.

according to John Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and by and through the Word of God did God make all things. (see Gen chapter 1 God says then its fulfilled or made) so all that is made knows God only through His Word.