Being a Christian means..

[Elijah John]

Evangelical Christians often claim that true Christianity is not a religion, but a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior". Or a "personal relationship with God though Jesus Christ".

But is this what Jesus actually taught? Did Jesus ever teach anything about having a personal relationship with himself?

Instead, wasn't Jesus' focus about teaching direct access to God as Our Father? Does it really get any more "personal" than relating to God (through prayer) as Father?

Does one need to have a "personal relationship" with the teacher in order to benefit by his teaching? Or is it only necessary to have that personal relationship with the Supreme Being whom the teacher taught about?

[Divine Insight]

Instead, wasn't Jesus' focus about teaching direct access to God as Our Father?

Absolutely not. In fact, when I was a Christian I was taught that to try to go directly to the Father and by-pass Jesus was an extreme no-no.

The Christians I know have always gone by John 14:6

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In the Christianity I was raised in John 14:6 was considered to be as important as John 3:16.

No one comes to the Father but by Christ.

That was the heart and core of the Christianity I was taught. And as far as I can see John 14:6 certainly demands this as well.

Any attempt to by-pass Jesus is a huge no-no in the Christianity I was taught.

This goes against what Jesus is said to have taught according to John 14:6.

[marco]

Does one need to have a "personal relationship" with the teacher in order to benefit by his teaching? Or is it only necessary to have that personal relationship with the Supreme Being whom the teacher taught about?

One would suppose that direct access to God is best. However Jesus made many statements that suggest he's the conduit for our prayers, that no one gets to the Father except through him. "I am the way….I am the good shepherd … I am the vine." And lest we think he has gone leaving no access, Matthew tells us that he is with us at all times, even to the end of the world.

Whether or not one needs this personal service, it was certainly offered.

[Elijah John]

Does one need to have a "personal relationship" with the teacher in order to benefit by his teaching? Or is it only necessary to have that personal relationship with the Supreme Being whom the teacher taught about?

One would suppose that direct access to God is best. However Jesus made many statements that suggest he's the conduit for our prayers, that no one gets to the Father except through him. "I am the way….I am the good shepherd … I am the vine." And lest we think he has gone leaving no access, Matthew tells us that he is with us at all times, even to the end of the world.

Whether or not one needs this personal service, it was certainly offered.

The Jesus you speak of is John's Jesus. The Synoptic Jesus, by contrast, preached the Father and the Kingdom, and not so much himself as mediator.

After all, where in the Lord's Prayer does Jesus offer the notion of having a personal relationship with himself? He does, by contrast, offer God as Father to those who wanted to learn to pray. And doesn't addressing God as "Father" convey the idea of a personal relationship with God?

[Divine Insight]

The Jesus you speak of is John's Jesus.

John's Jesus?

Exactly how many Jesuses are there?

Are we free to create our own vision of Jesus?

If so then the concept of Jesus is meaningless since our own personal visions of Jesus will all be different.

The Jesus I speak of won't be the same Jesus as the Jesus you have envisioned.

It's hardly a meaningful approach to theology to allow for individuals to all have their own idea of what they think a supposed theology means.

If I can toss out the book of John and all the writings attributed to Paul I can create a Jesus that is clearly different from the Jesus that John and Paul wrote about.

But what have I done at that point by create my own Jesus by selectively rejecting arbitrary stories about Jesus.

I could have just as easily chose to reject the stories told by Mark and later embellished by Matthew and Luke. It would be extremely easy to reject Matthew and Luke as obvious exaggerations appended onto the original story written by Mark.

This would then leave me with only Paul and John to go by.

The problem with this kind of pick-and-choose theology is that it becomes meaningless. It has no more meaning than the arbitrary choices of the individuals who are doing the picking and choosing.

This is also extremely problematic with respect to the so-called "Father God".

We can't forget that the Father God in the Biblical theology orchestrated this entire scenario including the crucifixion of Jesus.

The question then becomes, "Why would our creator have permitted this theology to become so confused and meaningless if it was so important to our ultimate salvation?"

And when we ask a question like that a far more important question become evident:

Why should we even think that this theology has anything to do with any creator God in the first place?

Maybe there is a God, and maybe there isn't. But even if there is, why should we think that any actual God would be affiliated with such an obviously flawed and troubled theology?

I mean, if we want to turn to a God why not just look up to a totally empty sky and say, "Hey creator. I'm totally interested in doing only good and being involved with only good people. Can you help me out with that?"

And just leave it at that. If there is a creator who can hear our requests that request should be more than sufficient. And if there is no creator then all we've done was speak to the sky.

But turning to confused self-contradicting theologies isn't going to help. Especially when we start to recognize that to make them even remotely meaningful we need to toss most of it out and twist the remaining pieces up like pretzels just to make what's left appear to make some sort of sense.

If a real creator had anything to do with theology we shouldn't need to be remodeling it and twisting it around like a pretzel to try to make it work.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

What if Jesus himself taught direct access? Would that still be "bypassing Jesus"?

Remember, Jesus taught us to call God "Father". And that term implies relationship. Did Jesus ever teach anyone to call Jesus "Father"?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

What if Jesus himself taught direct access? Would that still be "bypassing Jesus"?

Remember, Jesus taught us to call God "Father". And that term implies relationship. Did Jesus ever teach anyone to call Jesus "Father"?

How could we ever hope to know what Jesus might have taught? All that exists are hearsay rumors about him.

According to John, we have the following account:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This tells us that it's important to believe in Jesus, not in the father.

We also have,

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

This seems to imply that if we care about being judged we better seek out Jesus because the Father is no longer in that business.

Finally we have,

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

According to this it would be futile to try to go directly to the father.

Of course you could toss John out as being either grossly mistaken on an outright liar.

But then you've just punched a major hole in Christianity.

We also have the following:

John 14:13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Here Jesus is specifically stating that if you ask in his name he will do anything you ask. The father God has never made any such promise.

So if you believe in Jesus why would you take a chance on by-passing Jesus when Jesus has already promised to do as you ask. If you by-pass Jesus and go directly to the father the father might see that as being an act of arrogance and simply refuse to have anything to do with you.

I mean, this is what Christian theology holds to be true. If you have a problem with going through Jesus then maybe Christianity isn't for you?

If you're going to go straight to the father God then what do you need Jesus for?

By the way, thanks for bringing this up. These same verses will work well in another current thread.

[brianbbs67]

I believe John 14 that Christ is speaking directly to the 12. Not everyone who was or will be. God is who we should still seek. Even though, As He said we have forgotten His name.

I don't think we have to pick and choose with the NT. It does harmonize quite well with a Hebraic belief. Which is against most we are taught today.

What was Christ calling for and teaching? Repentance and turning to God and following His law as it applies. All Christ really did, other than following/fullfilling the law perfectly, was to let us know we can be forgiven. Reminded us to turn back to the Father and ask and be forgiven. Why would we not want to respect God(who has forgiven us) by living as He wishes us to live?(now that the penalty for missteps is removed)

[Atlastitsdone]

Evangelical Christians often claim that true Christianity is not a religion, but a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior". Or a "personal relationship with God though Jesus Christ".

But is this what Jesus actually taught? Did Jesus ever teach anything about having a personal relationship with himself?

Instead, wasn't Jesus' focus about teaching direct access to God as Our Father? Does it really get any more "personal" than relating to God (through prayer) as Father?

Does one need to have a "personal relationship" with the teacher in order to benefit by his teaching? Or is it only necessary to have that personal relationship with the Supreme Being whom the teacher taught about?

IMO core of Christianity is the complete opposite. It is never about oneself but the other (neighbor) or/and Higher power, God.

[quality]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Christianity is a word that is commonly used by many. Many believe that you just have to believe in God to go to Heaven. In James it states that even demons believed in God and "shuttered." I believe one of the many questions asked was do you really have to have a personal relationship with Jesus to be called a Christian? I would say yes you do. Lets break it down. The best and most informed way to establish that would be to go directly to the Holy Scripture of the Bible, just as Jesus did when he was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. IE: "It is written."

Personal relationship: Jesus said 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." I would say at face value without the distraction of alleged deep Theology, that it is quite apparent that you have to have a relationship with Him in order to reach Heaven when you die. If you want to take a personal relationship with Jesus, as he taught on a deeper level, read these verses: John 1:53-56. Jesus of course was speaking in a metaphorical fashion, or personified, but it clearly illustrates the deep need for Christ on a personal relationship basis. This teaching was so hard to hear (John 1:60) that many of his disciples left him, except the 12.

The great Pharisee Nicodemus didn't even understand the personal relationship he needed with Jesus. He looked at things on a religious works based level, which was characteristic of the Mosaic Law. In John 3: Jesus told him he had to be "born again" in order to reach the Kingdom. If you are having a hard time understanding what I have written then I would refer you to 1 Corinthians 2:14. There is much more that could be orated on the subject, but I believe this is a good start. Thank You