Is Jesus the only way to God?

Many are taught that accepting Jesus Christ and accepting him into your life, you will be saved from hell. But, did Brother make this claim? The closest we can come to this is:

John 14:6

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

Could Jesus have meant, imitate me, be like me, and you can enter heaven? Do you really think people who lived their lives like Brother, but don't accept him as Savior will be sent to eternal damnation?

You have other scriptures that talk about accepting Christ, but did Brother specifically say to do this or perish? Is it possible with having a direct relationship with God, or choosing your own way to God, but being good?

You should already know the answer to this, since you have personal contact with above.
At the very least, you should be able to find the answer in your books.

reply to post by jhill76


Not to stir the pot and draw out the usual anti-Islam suspects (though I have a feeling it will happen), but to answer your question from an Islamic standpoint: Most Muslims believe that if Jesus really did make this statement (we question the authenticity of the Bible) then it should be taken in the historical context. He was speaking to the Jews and he specifically said many times "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

So it seems he was sent to preach to the children of Israel, not the whole world. He was sent to reform the way that Jews were worshipping the One God, to correct their corruptions. Muhammad was sent to spread the message to the whole world.

Originally posted by stupid girl
You should already know the answer to this, since you have personal contact with above.
At the very least, you should be able to find the answer in your books.

You are assuming this is my intent in posting this, it is surely not. I see we have nothing useful to add, as usual.

reply to post by jhill76


I think when Jesus was on earth, he was trying to get people to follow his teachings and worship his Father. I don't think his intent was to be worshiped at all. Followed, yes.

Besides, God is love, love is unconditional, so Love God, live a good life, be kind to others seems to be the general message everyone can agree on. Why does it have to be anything else?

edit to add:
And for a Muslim replace God with Allah. (same guy)

reply to post by network dude

edit to add: And for a Muslim replace God with Allah. (same guy)

Many will disagree, but above, Father accepts all that call upon his name, whichever name that they may use.

reply to post by jhill76


Jesus wanted to liberate people from the dependency on an institutionalized spirituality. He never said "worship me" or even spoke of things like the trinity....never.

He was an example. He was a teacher. He said himself though that God is greater than he.

Worship God, the true God. Don't buy into Marian worship, Christ worship to a degree, or any other form of quasi-pagan practices. They all ended the societies they were taught in.

The true God head is at the center of your inner self. Find it.

Originally posted by jhill76

Is Jesus the only way to God?

There are usually many routes to your destination.

The reality is you will have to pick one and stay on it to get there. If you change paths, it will still be one route at the end of your trip.

I think if you boil it down, the message is that you can be mediocre at everything or great at one thing that you pour your entire self into it.

But what do I know?

(Thanks for the invite!)

Could Jesus have meant, imitate me, be like me, and you can enter heaven? Do you really think people who lived their lives like Brother, but don't accept him as Savior will be sent to eternal damnation?

You have other scriptures that talk about accepting Christ, but did Brother specifically say to do this or perish? Is it possible with having a direct relationship with God, or choosing your own way to God, but being good?

I believe exactly that, jhill! What has been translated into "believe in me," I think is a subtle tweak. I believe with all my heart and soul that he said "believe me", which is entirely different than believing "in" him being the "only way." I know he meant believe that if you live like I do, you are doing the will of the Divine.

Love one another. That is the whole thing. And revere the Divine of which we are ALL PART. It has been so misconstrued and mistranslated that there are billions of people now who just don't get what was meant.

So, there ya go. What I believe he meant, and that what he was literally saying, was "how to comport oneself" -- not commanding that people worship HIM.

@ coolerabdullah: Well said. And for the record, I'm not anti-muslim, and I share some of their ideas, but I will never "sign on". There are too many radical extremists, same as with "Christians." And I'm no good at "rule following", so, yeah, lists of rules, to me (depending on my mood), are like triple-dog-dares, or 'says who?' targets. I have an "unruly disposition" as Christina Rosetti once said....I would fail. I always do, when it comes to rules.

So, I go my own way, and keep my own counsel...but am certainly willing to admit what I don't know, and ask for help when I need it (spiritual help, that is... I'm also no good at asking for physical or financial help)...

reply to post by wildtimes

What has been translated into "believe in me," I think is a subtle tweak. I believe with all my heart and soul that he said "believe me", which is entirely different than believing "in" him being the "only way." I know he meant believe that if you live like I do, you are doing the will of the Divine.

This is interesting, that one word could mean the difference for many people out there, that is following the texts.

reply to post by jhill76

that one word could mean the difference for many people out there

Yes, and adding that one little word gives the statement an entirely different meaning. Two small letters. Scares me. Because he never wrote anything of what is called "scripture" himself, and how I wish he had. Just think how much better things would be without people being free to "interpret" it the way they want to.

Originally posted by jhill76
Many are taught that accepting Jesus Christ and accepting him into your life, you will be saved from hell. But, did Brother make this claim? The closest we can come to this is:

John 14:6

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

Could Jesus have meant, imitate me, be like me, and you can enter heaven? Do you really think people who lived their lives like Brother, but don't accept him as Savior will be sent to eternal damnation?

You have other scriptures that talk about accepting Christ, but did Brother specifically say to do this or perish? Is it possible with having a direct relationship with God, or choosing your own way to God, but being good?

edit on 19-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)

It would be more accurate to refer to Jesus as Teacher rather than Brother.

Matthew 23:8
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Yes, we are all brothers in Christ, but Christ is our Kinsman redeemer from slavery. He is the Father of mankind in the sense that he is the first image of man created by the Most High. Christ is the high priest as intermediary to the Father for us. As Christ is, so shall we be. There is a difference between eternal life and salvation. Jesus came to Earth as a Kinsman according to the Jubilee laws. Only a kinsman can redeem a slave from a master. Our master was sin and death, which can represent eternal rebirth in the water. To find salvation to the Spirit, a Kinsman must redeem his own relatives. If you do a study on the Jubilee laws, you'll see the secret to salvation is in becoming a bond-servant to Christ. He redeems you into service. This is symbolic of repentance and bearing fruit for salvation. As compared to baptisms, this is putting out the fire of the trials of eternal life with the salvation of the water. Water puts out fire. Baptism in the water cleanses the temple. Once the sacrifice is made and the temple is cleansed, the fire is put out and salvation to the Father comes by love. The Spirit and the Soul must become one. This can only happen if God sees Christ in us instead of sin and death.

It's not about what we do, but what has been done for us. Taking the name of Christ requires taking the character (Name). Taking the name in vain is taking the name, but not the character. Identifying with the character is the same as identifying with Christ in our own lives. His character takes us to the Father. Anything else is our own works. Our works cannot get us to God. Only the work of Christ on the Cross can bridge the gap.

It's all mathematics. See the article on the Mathematics of Forgiveness in my signature link.

Your answer is not wrong. Who did Christ come for? The sick and dying. That implies that some are not sick.

Originally posted by jhill76
Is it possible with having a direct relationship with God, or choosing your own way to God, but being good?

edit on 19-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)

God can only be known with a humble heart.
Doing it your own way is not humbleness, it is stubborn and prideful.

And no one is good. All human beings have done and will continue to do something wrong at one time or another.
Even people who may be considered "good", are considered such by the standards of mankind. The standards of which can be radically different from one culture, race, creed, etc., to another.

I think I'm "good" because I try to do right every day, but a radical Islamist believes that I and my children are infidels, worthy only of slaughter.

Orthodox Jews believe that I'm a polytheistic heretic.

Wiccans believe that I'm a judgmental, sanctimonious hypocrite.

Atheists believe that I'm a shallow, brainwashed product of my environment.

These are all general observations of my experience as a whole.
And just like in all actuality, I am nothing like the person they stereotype me as, there are also a select few among those beliefs that are not like their stereotype either.

Therefore, "good" is entirely and completely subjective and there is no universal standard of measurement for "good."
Even if there was, circumstance would be the next obstacle to overcome. Everyone's circumstances are perpetually adapting to every second of their existence and environment every single day of their lives.

That would mean that the hypothetical measurement of "goodness" would also have to be measured in identical circumstances and environment. And that is impossible.

So, being "good" is just something that makes us feel better about ourselves until we make the inevitable not "good" decision. Then the cycle will repeat itself....try to be good....do something mean, selfish or stupid and not good.....try to be good....do something mean, selfish or stupid and not good...... until we die.

For people who don't believe in God, pondering a deeper meaning and possible solution to that cycle doesn't matter because they don't care one way or the other. If it doesn't exist, then there's nothing to ponder. However, for some bizarre reason many of them amuse themselves by haunting the religion forums and harassing those that do...which seems utterly idiotic to me, but hey, whatever.

For all other religions and beliefs, they are left with justifying their particular standard of measurement of "good" and trying to come to some sort of agreement with all the others.
What is good for a Muslim would have to agree with what is good for a Jew.
What is good for a Hindu would have to agree with what is good with a Buddhist.
Then what the Muslim and Jew agreed upon (not...likely...ever...) would have to be agreed upon by the Hindu and Buddhist (good luck on getting a Brahmin Hindu to commiserate with an Untouchable caste-level Buddhist).

So, at the end of the day....or millennia....you are still left with the impassable task of reconciling the inherent nature of mankind's proclivity to "not good" with God's inherent and ineffable "good".

A reconciliation that, to be truly fair and truly just, would have to be equally available to all regardless of time, circumstance, age, culture, race, etc.

reply to post by jhill76

Personally, I do not think the New Testament can be trusted as a genuine record of events, to little evidence that is is genuine, and too much evidence that it is not. A great many people, myself inclusive, believe a Roman Family named Piso actually authored the Testament.

The somewhat esteemed Catholic Encyclopedia supports the theory that the Gospels of Christianity were written no earlier than the 4th Century, saying: ”the earliest of the extant manuscripts of the New Testament, it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD”
Friends, that is 400 years after the so called Jesus supposedly died. Most Historians began the practice of dating all religious manuscripts with a 2nd. Century date, no matter that real date.

The practice of Christian forgery certainly has a long history, but the evidence of the practice of Christian forgery appeared in the 4th century, with the creation of the New Testament and the man known as Jesus.
But is any of it true? The writers of the New Testament used the words "true" and "truth" 170 times, but that in itself does not mean it was truth.

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD

PAPYRUS FRAGMENT P52

I think what the Piso's did was take what was available from the papyrus, and other Ancient stories, and wove a novelistic story around it, creating a loving man who came to Earth to save everyone from Hell. A man that even defeated Death itself, now anyone could get around a story like that! Why, then, there are no records of Jesus Christ? The "Gospels" and "Acts" were not written by eyewitnesses. It was, however, was written by frauds who misrepresented themselves as eyewitnesses.

What is the origin of the word heaven?

Before 12th century: Old English heofon, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hemel and German Himmel.

2. The Greek word is "ouranos" (the root of the word "Uranus")
and it simply means the sky, the heavens. ... "ouranos"

source

Edward Wright addresses the biblical conception of what happens to the dead:

Two verses from the Book of Psalms summarize the biblical conceptions of the afterlife and of humans’ place in the heavenly realm: “Heaven is Yahweh’s heaven, but the earth he has given to humans. The dead do not praise Yahweh, nor all those who go down to silence” (Psalm 115:16–17). These verses pointedly indicate what the biblical tradents thought about humanity’s place in the heavenly realm—they have no place there! [4]

Wright goes on to point out that both Judaism and Christianity adopted ideas of the afterlife from the culture surrounding them:

In the fifth century BCE, belief in a heavenly afterlife developed and spread across the Mediterranean world and the ancient Near East [Emphasis added]. Segments in Judaism and Christianity eventually adopted the belief that humans could have a place in the heavenly realm…The emerging Jewish conceptions of the universe and the ideas about what happens to a person after death were not the natural outgrowth of biblical religiosity but were the product of the fruitful interaction of the ancient biblical traditions with new trends in religion and science during the Greco-Roman period. Early Christianity…inherited aspects of both the biblical traditions and the newer Hellenistic expressions of Judaism

source
I would have to say, being a student of History, that the people in those ancient Times were in so much distress, any idea at all that promised a better life was accepted as a reality, and the Holy Roman Church only chucked as the money continued to flow.

So, is Jesus the only way to the Christian Heaven?

I got it pretty clear from an ET contact a long time ago that Human Beings are in fact the Creators, and by thinking, and believing, they create Thought-Forms on the Etheric Plane, a place between the Worlds, or Dimensions. So I would say that the Jesus being and the Heaven Christians believe in it probably there, after all, they did create it, didn't they? Trouble is, things created in the Etheric Plane are not really tangible, they are fleeting, and are only held in place by constant concious thought streams. Hell fits the same description, it is there too, for people have created it so.

That is my own take on it.

reply to post by stupid girl

Therefore, "good" is entirely and completely subjective and there is no universal standard of measurement for "good."

I see, but the good I am referring to, is the blueprint that Brother left behind for all. Could this not be the universal standard to abide by?

Well, I'm probably going to hell because I pray to God instead of Jesus. It's not that I don't believe Jesus didn't exist, it's just that I never have liked dealing with middlemen. I'll take a chance at letting my actions speak to god instead. I thank god every day and I also thank Mother Earth for making this experience possible and for supplying the food and water I eat. I think of Jesus as more of a friend or teacher than as God. Like I said, I expect to go to a nice warm place when I die.

reply to post by autowrench

o I would say that the Jesus being and the Heaven Christians believe in it probably there, after all, they did create it, didn't they? Trouble is, things created in the Etheric Plane are not really tangible, they are fleeting, and are only held in place by constant concious thought streams.

So, if others stopped believing it via their thoughts, it would cease to exist? I have to look at your other items, but wanted to ask about this.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, I'm probably going to hell because I pray to God instead of Jesus. It's not that I don't believe Jesus didn't exist, it's just that I never have liked dealing with middlemen. I'll take a chance at letting my actions speak to god instead. I thank god every day and I also thank Mother Earth for making this experience possible and for supplying the food and water I eat. I think of Jesus as more of a friend or teacher than as God. Like I said, I expect to go to a nice warm place when I die.

But, do you expect to go to a warm place, only because others have stated this, or a strong conviction?

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by stupid girl
You should already know the answer to this, since you have personal contact with above.
At the very least, you should be able to find the answer in your books.

You are assuming this is my intent in posting this, it is surely not. I see we have nothing useful to add, as usual.

edit on 19-7-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)

If by "nothing useful to add" you mean "asking questions based on comments from your previous posts on ATS", then yes, I suppose you are correct.

I have never been ugly or critical of you Mr. J-from-above-the-Hill.
I have only engaged you in honest inquiry based on my interpretation of your comments having the perpetual tendency to contradict themself.

I am sorry if my honesty makes you uncomfortable.
But I find your posts irresistibly nonsensical at times, based simply on the fact that one day, you seem to be going in one direction, then the next day, it seems like you have no recollection of the day before.

I'm still just trying to figure you out Mr. J-from-above-the-Hill, so until I feel comfortable that I've done so, you will most likely continue to see me around.
If you are legit, then I see no reason why that should bother you.

reply to post by autowrench


The truth is locked in symbol. The symbol and relevance of the biblical narrative in the NT is the same narrative that is woven into all stories and threads of truth. Verification of the outer court of words is not needed. The inner temple of the symbol verifies the whole. Being a Mason, you should identify with this. The symbol is greater than the shell it resides in. Truth is hermetically sealed in this way. History is the record of the symbol as a reflection of the Word that brought it from the seed to the fully mature plant bearing fruit. The symbol of what is expressed is in the fruit it bears.

Our verification is not found by looking at the blemishes in the fruit, but in the inner meaning of the fruit itself. We can verify the story and implications of what Jesus came to accomplish by seeing that there is no other fruit like the one we see produced by the root. Symbols can be reduced and then seen by context and relationship. This is why the NT stands grounded in the same truth from it's parent root of the OT. They are one in the same story.

The Bible clearly teaches to see by faith and not by sight.