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]

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.

Well now, let's see.

Jesus died. He continues to live a spiritual non-material life in heaven.

The Buddha died. He continues to live in the Mahaparinirvana state.

Your point, therefore, was...?

"The Sufi saint -- a mere man. Jesus --both man AND God."

Jesus explicitly excluded himself from the Godhead in John 17:3 where he says that "You [Father] are the only true God".

Elsewhere in John and in the Synoptics, Jesus claims that he has a God. Only a mortal creature can have a God. God cannot and does not have a God.

Jesus prays to the Father. God does not pray to God.

"Jesus - both man AND God" is a logical impossibility and is supported neither by scripture nor history.

"he alone, as a perfect sacrifice, could atone for the sins of humankind"

That never occurred. Which is proved by Acts 21:20ff, which shows that the Jerusalem disciples had no idea of Paul's wacky notion that Jesus's death atoned for sins. On the contrary, they rebuke Paul for teaching that Torah and "the customs" have been invalidated by Jesus's death. In fact, they point to their fellow Jesus movement peers and tell Paul, "Behold the many thousands who are zealous for the Law".

Thus Jesus's own, earliest disciples rejected Paul's - and your - atoning death theory. No "perfect human sacrifice of a God-Man" was imagined or required in any prophecy in the entire Jewish Bible. Which makes "Crossianity" doubly wrong.

"It's the differences, which are monumental and life-changing -- indeed LIFE-SAVING -- that are important."

The saving power of the Buddhas is second to none, which requires that Jesus share the stage with other enlightened masters. He is not allowed any "only-begotten" special status because he is a brother among peers. Not "God" or "the perfect man".

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

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

Or a misunderstood Saviour, God Incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity.

A lot of people got Jesus wrong as we see in Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?�

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.�

15 “But what about you?� he asked. “Who do you say I am?�

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.�

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.� 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

[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.

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.

Yes, indeed, the prophets were mystics - and I agree that the prophets walked the same mystical Path or Way that Jesus himself preached. Especially, as you point out, in the "mercy, not sacrifice" tradition, which is probably why Jesus interrupted the temple trade and dispersed the sacrificial animals. Not just "the first example of animal liberation", but a complete slap in the face of blood sacrifice and the priesthood that supported it. And I do think that, as you said, John has his Jesus make a literal claim (as an "incarnation" of the Logos, and as a God-filled Jewish carpenter.

[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?

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.

"Jesus isn't "just a man"

I never said he was. I just said he wasn't "God". John and Paul think he was pre-existent, but that does not mean they thought he was ontological God.

"read on the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father"

I don't need to read on. I already explained the whole text in relation to Jesus's divine union and communion with the Father. Of course, every divine union mystic thinks of himself or herself as a "son" or a "daughter" who knows the Father. It's elementary.

Not that not even John's Jesus claims to be God. He explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead in John 17:3 where he says that "you [Father] are the only true God". Not Zeus, not Apollo, not Jesus. Only the Father.

"according to John Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and by and through the Word of God did God make all things"

Jesus "made all things" not as God, but rather as God's agent and instrument who carried out God's mandate to create. In this capacity, Jesus still remains a faithful servant, still utterly reliant upon, and obedient to, the Father. He is not "God".

[Elijah John]

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.

That's one way to look at it. Simlarities are "superficial and inconseqential". But consider this. All great religious and mystical traditions preach variations of the Golden Rule. That similarity is what unites them all in essence. Jesus himself characterized the Golden Rule as the "Law and the Prophets".

That characterization indicates essential importance, hardly "superficial and inconsequential".

And besides, even if Jesus has been raisied from the dead, that in no way proves he is "true God and true man" anymore than Lazarus resurrection proves that Lazarus is "true God and ture man".

As for atonemment? Jesus taught simple repentance, in the Lord's Prayer, the Beattitudes and the Parables. Repentance, return to the merciful Father.

The great religions and mystical traditions also teach humility, and a return to the Divine.

That is something else that links all great faith and practice. Not "inconsequential", but essential.

[Overcomer]

steveb1 wrote:

Jesus died. He continues to live a spiritual non-material life in heaven.

The Buddha died. He continues to live in the Mahaparinirvana state.

Your point, therefore, was...?

My point is that Jesus died and rose again -- in a body that was glorified flesh, NOT as a spiritual, non-material being. He told Thomas to touch him to prove he was really there. And he ate breakfast with the disciples by the lakeshore. Mere spirit beings don't have physical substance that can be felt. Nor do mere spirit beings eat.

steveb1 wrote:

"The Sufi saint -- a mere man. Jesus --both man AND God."

Jesus explicitly excluded himself from the Godhead in John 17:3 where he says that "You [Father] are the only true God".

Elsewhere in John and in the Synoptics, Jesus claims that he has a God. Only a mortal creature can have a God. God cannot and does not have a God.

Jesus prays to the Father. God does not pray to God.

"Jesus - both man AND God" is a logical impossibility and is supported neither by scripture nor history.

You misunderstand the Trinity. The Triune Godhead is one God who exists in three persons, each person having its own consciousness. Therefore, the second person of the Godhead, God the Son, prayed to the first person of the Godhead, God the Father. You see, while the three persons of the Trinity are identical in essence, they each have different roles. In his role as God Incarnate, here on earth, Jesus took a lesser position, but he was no less God. See the hymn to Christ in Philippians 2 which points out how Jesus humbled himself and gave up his rights and privileges as God while on earth -- but he didn't stop being God.

As for Jesus being both man and God, it may not seem logical to you, but then, why would the infinite, totally other God be so small that everything about him is understood by the finite human mind? Here are a couple of articles that explain the hypostatic union:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/wh ... atic-union

https://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

steveb1 wrote:

"he alone, as a perfect sacrifice, could atone for the sins of humankind"

That never occurred. Which is proved by Acts 21:20ff, which shows that the Jerusalem disciples had no idea of Paul's wacky notion that Jesus's death atoned for sins. On the contrary, they rebuke Paul for teaching that Torah and "the customs" have been invalidated by Jesus's death. In fact, they point to their fellow Jesus movement peers and tell Paul, "Behold the many thousands who are zealous for the Law".

Thus Jesus's own, earliest disciples rejected Paul's - and your - atoning death theory. No "perfect human sacrifice of a God-Man" was imagined or required in any prophecy in the entire Jewish Bible. Which makes "Crossianity" doubly wrong.

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand that passage in Acts 21. It's important to read verses in context, both within the chapter and book of the Bible in which it's found, but also in the context of the entire Bible.

There is nothing in that passage from Acts 21 that suggests the Jews he met with believed that following the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation. In fact, quite the opposite. They praised him for the work he was doing by spreading the gospel amongst the Gentiles (v. 20). But they were afraid that Jewish followers of Christ would turn from the Lord because of the lies being told about Paul, that is, that he, himself, didn't act like a real Jew. And they were concerned that Paul's ministry would be harmed by these lies.. See here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/29-tempest ... -2117-2229

Here's what Paul said elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 9:20: To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

I wrote this in another thread just yesterday, that it's important to meet people where they are to witness to them and not alienate them. That's what Paul was doing when he took the ritual bath in Acts 21.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Jesus' disciples rejected Paul's "idea of atoning death". Peter wrote the following about it:

1 Peter 1:18, 19: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

2 Peter 2:24: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

And John believed it. He recorded John the Baptist's statement about Christ's sacrificial death in the first chapter of his gospel, verse 29:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

And he wrote this in his first letter:

1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

And he recorded the angels singing of it in Revelation:

Rev. 5:9: And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

And Matthew recorded Jesus saying that he had come to give his life as a ransom in Matt. 20:28. And Mark reiterated it in Mark 10:45.

Read Hebrews. The entire book is about the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world. And Hebrews wasn't written by Paul.

steveb wrote:

The saving power of the Buddhas is second to none, which requires that Jesus share the stage with other enlightened masters. He is not allowed any "only-begotten" special status because he is a brother among peers. Not "God" or "the perfect man".

How does Buddha save? Does he remove the sins of humankind? Does he give people right-standing with God? Does he fill them with the Holy Spirit that brings their dead spirits alive in him, making them born-again? Does he give them eternal life with God? Does he fill people with the Holy Spirit that teaches, comforts, guides, advises, helps, etc. them? Can people overcome sin in Buddha's power? See here for what the Holy Spirit does:

https://www.gotquestions.org/what-does- ... it-do.html

Buddha is a dead man. Christ is the living God and, because of that, nobody has to spend eternity separated from God if they don't want to.

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

And besides, even if Jesus has been raisied from the dead, that in no way proves he is "true God and true man" anymore than Lazarus resurrection proves that Lazarus is "true God and ture man".

I didn't say that the resurrection proves that Jesus was both God and man. It doesn't. Followers of Christ will be raised from the dead and that won't make any of us God. It's all the verses which speak to Christ's attributes as God, such as his eternality (as the Alpha and the Omega, for example) and the statements he made about himself (as I AM, for example) that prove he's God.

Elijah John wrote:

As for atonemment? Jesus taught simple repentance, in the Lord's Prayer, the Beattitudes and the Parables. Repentance, return to the merciful Father.

He taught more than that. He stated clearly that he came to atone for the sins of the world as a ransom for the many (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6). See here:

https://www.compellingtruth.org/ransom.html

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/th ... m-for-many

When Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life, and that nobody came to the Father except through him, he wasn't kidding.

Elijah John wrote:

All great religious and mystical traditions preach variations of the Golden Rule. That similarity is what unites them all in essence. Jesus himself characterized the Golden Rule as the "Law and the Prophets".

But do those religions offer a way to remove sin completely and thereby guarantee our eternity with God? Do they even offer the power by which one can actually live out the Golden Rule in our daily lives?

Jesus does the former. The Holy Spirit does the latter. What good are rules if they can't save us? What good are rules if we have no ability to follow them successfully in our daily lives?

[steveb1]

steveb1 wrote:

Jesus died. He continues to live a spiritual non-material life in heaven.

The Buddha died. He continues to live in the Mahaparinirvana state.

Your point, therefore, was...?

My point is that Jesus died and rose again -- in a body that was glorified flesh, NOT as a spiritual, non-material being. He told Thomas to touch him to prove he was really there. And he ate breakfast with the disciples by the lakeshore. Mere spirit beings don't have physical substance that can be felt. Nor do mere spirit beings eat.

steveb1 wrote:

"The Sufi saint -- a mere man. Jesus --both man AND God."

Jesus explicitly excluded himself from the Godhead in John 17:3 where he says that "You [Father] are the only true God".

Elsewhere in John and in the Synoptics, Jesus claims that he has a God. Only a mortal creature can have a God. God cannot and does not have a God.

Jesus prays to the Father. God does not pray to God.

"Jesus - both man AND God" is a logical impossibility and is supported neither by scripture nor history.

You misunderstand the Trinity. The Triune Godhead is one God who exists in three persons, each person having its own consciousness. Therefore, the second person of the Godhead, God the Son, prayed to the first person of the Godhead, God the Father. You see, while the three persons of the Trinity are identical in essence, they each have different roles. In his role as God Incarnate, here on earth, Jesus took a lesser position, but he was no less God. See the hymn to Christ in Philippians 2 which points out how Jesus humbled himself and gave up his rights and privileges as God while on earth -- but he didn't stop being God.

As for Jesus being both man and God, it may not seem logical to you, but then, why would the infinite, totally other God be so small that everything about him is understood by the finite human mind? Here are a couple of articles that explain the hypostatic union:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/wh ... atic-union

https://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

steveb1 wrote:

"he alone, as a perfect sacrifice, could atone for the sins of humankind"

That never occurred. Which is proved by Acts 21:20ff, which shows that the Jerusalem disciples had no idea of Paul's wacky notion that Jesus's death atoned for sins. On the contrary, they rebuke Paul for teaching that Torah and "the customs" have been invalidated by Jesus's death. In fact, they point to their fellow Jesus movement peers and tell Paul, "Behold the many thousands who are zealous for the Law".

Thus Jesus's own, earliest disciples rejected Paul's - and your - atoning death theory. No "perfect human sacrifice of a God-Man" was imagined or required in any prophecy in the entire Jewish Bible. Which makes "Crossianity" doubly wrong.

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand that passage in Acts 21. It's important to read verses in context, both within the chapter and book of the Bible in which it's found, but also in the context of the entire Bible.

There is nothing in that passage from Acts 21 that suggests the Jews he met with believed that following the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation. In fact, quite the opposite. They praised him for the work he was doing by spreading the gospel amongst the Gentiles (v. 20). But they were afraid that Jewish followers of Christ would turn from the Lord because of the lies being told about Paul, that is, that he, himself, didn't act like a real Jew. And they were concerned that Paul's ministry would be harmed by these lies.. See here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/29-tempest ... -2117-2229

Here's what Paul said elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 9:20: To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

I wrote this in another thread just yesterday, that it's important to meet people where they are to witness to them and not alienate them. That's what Paul was doing when he took the ritual bath in Acts 21.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Jesus' disciples rejected Paul's "idea of atoning death". Peter wrote the following about it:

1 Peter 1:18, 19: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

2 Peter 2:24: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

And John believed it. He recorded John the Baptist's statement about Christ's sacrificial death in the first chapter of his gospel, verse 29:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

And he wrote this in his first letter:

1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

And he recorded the angels singing of it in Revelation:

Rev. 5:9: And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

And Matthew recorded Jesus saying that he had come to give his life as a ransom in Matt. 20:28. And Mark reiterated it in Mark 10:45.

Read Hebrews. The entire book is about the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world. And Hebrews wasn't written by Paul.

steveb wrote:

The saving power of the Buddhas is second to none, which requires that Jesus share the stage with other enlightened masters. He is not allowed any "only-begotten" special status because he is a brother among peers. Not "God" or "the perfect man".

How does Buddha save? Does he remove the sins of humankind? Does he give people right-standing with God? Does he fill them with the Holy Spirit that brings their dead spirits alive in him, making them born-again? Does he give them eternal life with God? Does he fill people with the Holy Spirit that teaches, comforts, guides, advises, helps, etc. them? Can people overcome sin in Buddha's power? See here for what the Holy Spirit does:

https://www.gotquestions.org/what-does- ... it-do.html

Buddha is a dead man. Christ is the living God and, because of that, nobody has to spend eternity separated from God if they don't want to.

"My point is that Jesus died and rose again -- in a body that was glorified flesh, NOT as a spiritual, non-material being."

Those physical resurrection stories are only secondary accretions to an earlier non-material resurrection, of the kind Paul received.

Paul never saw a bodily Jesus. He heard a voice and saw a light, which is why he never described Jesus as a body, and on the contrary said "the Lord is a spirit" and that Jesus "became a vivifying spirit".
And even if the physical resurrection stories are historical, Jesus's "risen body" is not any kind of material flesh as it is known to anyone - because it passes through solid objects, appears and vanishes at will, and ascends to heaven on a cloud. Not really a body at all. Which fact perfectly illustrates and supports both Paul's and John's notion that "the flesh avails nothing".

"You misunderstand the Trinity." There is no Trinity, so the misunderstanding must be yours. Philippians does not say that Jesus was God, but merely that he was in "the form" of God, and then he took the "form" or "likeness" of a human, and then he took the "form" of a servant. "Form". Not the original reality, but a kind of copy.

Paul, like John, believed in a pre-existent heavenly Christ who was God's primordial agent and assisting angel, but who was not God. For all NT writers, only the Father is God, and that is why no NT prayer addresses Jesus as God. NT prayer always addresses God "through" Jesus, or "in" Jesus, or "in Jesus's name".

"There is nothing in that passage from Acts 21 that suggests the Jews he met with believed that following the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation."

Of course it does, just as does their keeping to the Torah, circumcision, kosher, and most importantly, the Temple, into which they sent Paul to perform a Nazirite Vow, which involved an animal sacrifice. If they thought Jesus's death had invalidated Judaism and the Temple/priesthood, they, like Paul, would have rejected it and preached against their native Judaism. But they didn't.

"I'm not sure where you got the idea that Jesus' disciples rejected Paul's "idea of atoning death". Peter wrote..."

As explained, I got it from Acts 21:20ff, which text rebukes and punishes Paul for preaching Torah-invalidation to his congregations, telling him of the many thousands of Christian Jews who, after Jesus's supposedly atoning death/i], were still zealous for the Law. Their zealousness for the Law would have been an impossibility if they thought that Jesus's sacrifice had replaced the Law, the Temple, and the customs.

Re: Your Peter citation. Peter did not write either of the "Petrine" Epistles, which are late documents written by anonymous writers "in Peter's name", but not by Peter himself. That Peter wrote those Epistles or that John was an eyewitness who wrote the Fourth Gospel is an antiquated fundamentalist view.

"Matthew recorded Jesus saying that he had come to give his life as a ransom in Matt. 20:28. And Mark reiterated it in Mark 10:45"

And that is because those two Gospel authors heavily borrowed from Pauline soteriology. They adopted and adapted Paul's Crossianity and inserted it into their purported "biographies" of Jesus. They did the same with Paul's Eucharist/Lord's Supper.

But even then, theirs is not a consistent view throughout the New Testament. For example, Luke's Gospel, and especially its Passion Narrative, makes no reference whatsoever to Paul's notion that Jesus's death was an atoning sacrifice. Luke knows nothing about Paul's Crossianity. So the Pauline atoning death theory is not even consistent throughout the NT.

"How does Buddha save? Does he remove the sins of humankind? Does he give people right-standing with God?"

Well, of course, you could have simply Googled basic Buddhist themes and you would have already known how the Buddhas save. Just a suggestion - if you're going to proselytize for Jesus, it's a good idea to know the religions that you are at the same time proselytizing against.

But since you asked:

1 In Buddhism, there is no God to worship, and no sin from which we must be saved. Buddha does not forgive non-existent sin; nor does he put people in right standing before a non-existent deity. Instead, the Buddha leads us not from sin, but from avidya, which means ignorance of our own Buddha Nature. The Buddha does not place us before God, but escorts us into the Dharma and into Enlightenment/Bodhi.

2 Buddha saves through his enlightening activity in the world, and by his Dharma teaching, which leads to the eternal life of Enlightenment, Bodhi, Samadhi, and Nirvana. None of which requires a God, a Son, a Holy Spirit, a sacred inspired book, miracles, or an "atoning" death.

"Buddha is a dead man."

As explained, Buddha is a living, transcendent being.

"Christ is the living God"

Christ is a heavenly being who has no body, and is God's "son", not God Himself.

"and, because of that,"

Sorry, but there is no "that".

"nobody has to spend eternity separated from God if they don't want to."

That was never an exigency to begin with. Just as there is no creator deity, no sin and no hell, an eternity spent in perdition is an impossibility. If people really want eternal life free of a bloody crucifixion, a punishing deity, and a fleshly resurrection, they can access the Buddha and his Dharma - as well as any number of spiritually transformative alternatives and "Paths".

[marco]

It's all the verses which speak to Christ's attributes as God, such as his eternality (as the Alpha and the Omega, for example) and the statements he made about himself (as I AM, for example) that prove he's God.

Revelation is no revelation but a series of conundrums and puzzles, open to interpretation. If Christ saw himself as THE favoured prophet, he is indeed the start and the finish of what is to be said of God's good news. That would make sense. It doesn't make a God, of course.


The I AM parallel with Yahweh's declaration is NOT a declaration of deity but again a claim that the news Christ brings is the eternal word of God, given him by his Father. The carrier is not a God. Jesus is figuratively the WORD. Before Abraham was, the WORD was... and Jesus is the vector of God's word. Jesus delighted in paradoxical statements that puzzled his listeners: a man has to be reborn. Quite.


But let us not call the conveyor of clever paradoxes and apt parables God. He would never have said so himself. If he was God, we would have that statement very clearly written. I AM GOD. Curiously, it is absent, so people have to dig into puzzling phrases to derive a claim Christ never made.

[Wootah]

It's all the verses which speak to Christ's attributes as God, such as his eternality (as the Alpha and the Omega, for example) and the statements he made about himself (as I AM, for example) that prove he's God.

Revelation is no revelation but a series of conundrums and puzzles, open to interpretation. If Christ saw himself as THE favoured prophet, he is indeed the start and the finish of what is to be said of God's good news. That would make sense. It doesn't make a God, of course.


The I AM parallel with Yahweh's declaration is NOT a declaration of deity but again a claim that the news Christ brings is the eternal word of God, given him by his Father. The carrier is not a God. Jesus is figuratively the WORD. Before Abraham was, the WORD was... and Jesus is the vector of God's word. Jesus delighted in paradoxical statements that puzzled his listeners: a man has to be reborn. Quite.


But let us not call the conveyor of clever paradoxes and apt parables God. He would never have said so himself. If he was God, we would have that statement very clearly written. I AM GOD. Curiously, it is absent, so people have to dig into puzzling phrases to derive a claim Christ never made.

If you can't understand revelation why would we listen to your conclusions? Seriously, given your above quote, why not pause on what you think you know?