↪ThinkOfOne

So when Jesus says in John:

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

Are they words attributed to Jesus or the mythology? — Fooloso4

Those would be words attributed to Jesus.

Those would be words attributed to Jesus. — ThinkOfOne

Right, but are part of John's mythology wrapped around the words attributed to him.

Those would be words attributed to Jesus.
— ThinkOfOne

Right, but are part of John's mythology wrapped around the words attributed to him. — Fooloso4

Let's see if you can make a cogent case.

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. If you argue that Jesus is not just a man, then you accept the myth.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ. — Dermot Griffin

Lewis did not give us much choice. Lunatic, Demon from Hell, Liar, or Lord. God was not one of the options (Lord means feudal superior in my books.) Well, he was not a feudal lord, that's for sure. He was not demon, that's for sure. He was not a Lunatic, and he was not a Liar.

What's wrong with this: He was a carpenter, a rabbi and a preacher. He was a rebel who thought outside the box. He was an optimist and a bleeding-heart Liberal. He was a reformer, and therefore a heretic. He was a criminal.

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. — Fooloso4

Since Jesus insisted that the myths he pushed are real, he MAY have been a lunatic or a liar. I dunno.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ
— Dermot Griffin
It's a terrible argument, because it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. Anyone who doesn't accept them will reject the premises that Jesus made the statements. — Relativist

:100: :up: :cheer:

Since Jesus insisted that the myths he pushed are real, he MAY have been a lunatic or a liar. — god must be atheist

I don't know if Jesus thought he was the or a messiah. Perhaps the role was pushed on him by those who wished it were true. Perhaps he came to believe it. Perhaps he saw it as an expedient.

One thing is clear, although John's Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels have a common thread, the Messiah, they are not the same Jesus.

You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z. This is the point you seem to fail to grasp. — ThinkOfOne

i get you.

That said, what did Jesus say?

Please, no cherry picking now saying "this is truly said by Jesus, that is not likely said by Jesus". I go by all he is claimed to have said, he actually said, or very close to it, so the semantic sense would not be altered by the potential paraphrasing by the scribes of the Gospels.

- he promised to return within a hundred years.
- he promised a bunch of things unverifiable by the living as they pertained to the afterlife.

He sounds like a politician. Maybe he was a liar, then.

One thing is clear, although John's Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels have a common thread, the Messiah, they are not the same Jesus. — Fooloso4

So there were at least three Jesuses.

I buy that.

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. If you argue that Jesus is not just a man, then you accept the myth. — Fooloso4

Jesus is speaking figuratively. Once again you take it literally. A theme that runs throughout the four gospels is that Jesus speaks figuratively and some take it literally no matter how absurd it is for them to do so. Why do you insist on doing so?

I don't know if Jesus thought he was the or a messiah. — Fooloso4

I go by the directive that what the Gospels say are not necessarily falsification of what Jesus said, and by your statement, that Jesus declarations as follow are myths.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. — Fooloso4

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. — Fooloso4

What my point is, is that it is irrelevant for my argument whether Jesus thought he was the Messiah. My point is that he pushed a myth, nevertheless, with or else without insisting that he was the Messiah; and pushing myths that are obviously not true is done through liying, deceiving, stupidity, or insanity.

Jesus is speaking figuratively. — ThinkOfOne

Woo, hoo!!!

You can't judge a man's utterances two thousand years later as to the intent behind the words. I reject this notion you made.

If you accept what you say, then every impossible thing Jesus said is "figurative", and only those that we accept today are literal.

I call bullshit.

If you accept what you say, then every impossible thing Jesus said is "figurative", and only those that we accept today are literal. — god must be atheist

The bullshit I described here above is the backbone and the only and last refuge for the faithful to believe the Gospels.

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. If you argue that Jesus is not just a man, then you accept the myth.
— Fooloso4

Jesus is speaking figuratively. — ThinkOfOne

Okay, even if we were to accept your rather weak argument, that it is figurative, it is still a myth. You can't go around that. Whether it's figurative or literal, it is a myth.

Jesus is speaking figuratively. — ThinkOfOne

So what does he mean by these figures of speech? What is he actually claiming?

Jesus is speaking figuratively.
— ThinkOfOne

So what does he mean by these figures of speech? What is he actually claiming? — Fooloso4

There's much more to it than this, but at it's most basic it can be thought of as a simple word puzzle.

John 14
6Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.

"I" = "Me" = Jesus
Jesus = "the way, the truth and the life".

Putting it together it, the point Jesus is making is that:
“no one comes to the Father except through [the way, the truth and the life]".

It's a simple substitution puzzle.

What my point is, is that it is irrelevant for my argument whether Jesus thought he was the Messiah. My point is that he pushed a myth ... — god must be atheist

If by "he" you mean the character in the gospels, then yes, he pushed a myth. What I am speculating about is the man behind the myths. How much of what is said are things he actually said and how much is a myth pushed on him. I don't think we can answer this question, but I think to a greater or lesser extent he became the ventriloquist's dummy.

Putting it together it, the point Jesus is making is that:
“no one comes to the Father except through [the way, the truth and the life]". — ThinkOfOne

And, as you say, the way, the truth, the life = Jesus. You have not said anything that is not evident in the statement from John. You have not identified what is figurative in the statement. It is a straightforward claim. Calling it figurative is a smokescreen.

Putting it together it, the point Jesus is making is that:
“no one comes to the Father except through [the way, the truth and the life]".
— ThinkOfOne

And, as you say, the way, the truth, the life = Jesus. You have not said anything that is not evident in the statement from John. You have not identified what is figurative in the statement. It is a straightforward claim. Calling it figurative is a smokescreen. — Fooloso4

Do you really not understand the difference between "literal" and "figurative"?

You took Jesus to be saying that He is literally "the way". He isn't literally "the way", He is figuratively "the way".

He is figuratively "the way". — ThinkOfOne

And what does this mean?

A figure of speech is not without meaning.

sorry, guys, I just stated the obvious, in the same words, too, that had been just said, so I deleted this post of mine.

He is figuratively "the way".
— ThinkOfOne

And what does this mean?

A figure of speech is not without meaning. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but you still don't seem to understand. There are many types of figurative language.

For example:
"Time is money" is figurative language.
Time is not literally money.
Time is figuratively money.

In the same way:
When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" it was to supply an equivalency the be employed in what immediately follows.

Jesus is not literally "the way, the truth and the life", but you took it that way.
Jesus is only figuratively "the way, the truth and the life".
The meaning of "I" is NOT the physical person.
The meaning of "I" is "the way, the truth and the life".

"the way" isn't figurative any more than "money" is figurative.

That equivalency is then employed in "no one comes to the father except for me" which is also figurative.
The meaning of "me" is NOT the physical person.
The meaning of "me" is "the way, the truth and the life".

It's basically a figurative language two-fer.

There are many types of figurative language. — ThinkOfOne

Here's a pertinent example:

Strawman -

A strawman is not literally a man made of straw.
It is a device used as an attempt to avoid addressing the argument by setting up another in order to knock it down.

The meaning of "I" is "the way, the truth and the life". — ThinkOfOne

So, the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life?

Another pertinent example:

Begging the question -

It does not mean literally to supplicate the question.
It means to answer a question in a way that leaves the question unanswered.

The question remains: what is the way, the truth and the life? A tautology does not provide an answer.

I've been reading the NT lately and I agree with Lewis's point. It's a shame that so many in this thread have tried to bypass it by saying insubstantial excuses along the lines of "oh well we don't really know whether JC existed" or "well how do we know those are the real quotes?" We're philosophers here, give the document a bit of a charity. It wouldn't even matter if the person of Immanuel Kant never existed if we have his work. We'd just deal with the ideas. That's how we should treat the ideas in the NT.

JC has many ideas but when I read him as someone who grew up w/ a Jewish background what strikes me first is how he puts love center stage in a tradition with many values. Jews love to debate and it's a hard to reach anything firm -- or rather Judaism will only be firm over a few limited issues; JC is firm and he speaks with an insane degree of certainty on matters no human should know.

Also what I love about JC is how he says in Mark "I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners." The sinful Jews are on the bottom of the totem pole so why not jump ship?

he puts love center stage. — Moses

Right, and he cites the Hebrew Bible as his authority:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. (Deuteronomy 6:5)

... love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)

Jews love to debate — Moses

As do philosophers. Talmud is similar to dialect. Both are methods of inquiry based on weighing one claim against another. Jesus proved to be a skillful practitioner.

It often goes unnoticed how polemical the gospels are in response to each other. In addition, there were the debates over canonical NT texts and Council at Nicaea, which debated the ontological status of Jesus.

JC is firm and he speaks with an insane degree of certainty — Moses

As the insane often do. It is easy to make someone speak with certainty when the writer controls the narrative.

So, the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life?
— Fooloso4

I did not say that "the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life" or anything of the kind.
You've reached an illogical conclusion. You've once again failed to understand.

Once again,
"I am the way, the truth and the life" is an equivalency just as "Time is money" is an equivalency.

Jesus is figuratively 'the way'" in the same way that time is figuratively "money".

They both employ figurative language. What part of that don't you understand?

The question remains: what is the way, the truth and the life? A tautology does not provide an answer. — Fooloso4

That's not the question you asked. You asked for the meaning of "He is figuratively 'the way'" which is what I provided. If you would have asked me that question, I would have answered it.

To top it off, you make false accusations about a "straw man" and "begging the question". You're really something.

Right, and he cites the Hebrew Bible as his authority: — Fooloso4

Sure, but what's different about Jesus is how he prioritizes. Love is the most important commandment. Normal Jews don't speak with such certainty but Jesus is no normal Jew. Personally, I believe that on our death beds it is love that ultimately matters. Love is ultimately what matters in the universe.

which debated the ontological status of Jesus. — Fooloso4

I don't delve too deep into Christology I don't think we're ever going to understand it.

As the insane often do. — Fooloso4

The first time I read the NT I read JC as a disgusting false messiah. Then I read him again and he just got too many issues right: I love how he places love center stage, I love how he calls the sinner (what is a badly sinning Jew like myself to do?), I believe he's correct in that the Sabbath was made for man (and not man for the Sabbath). Also huge is his vision of a society where the servant is the master. He is a stunning visionary. The Torah says "an eye for an eye" (which is justified) but Jesus says "turn the other cheek" which is the next step -- that is ideal behavior, but *certainly* not always advisable. It takes a higher level of being. If the Law is the cake, JC is the frosting.

I don't delve too deep into Christology I don't think we're ever going to understand it. — Moses

It is really quite simple: truth by decree.

"I am the way, the truth and the life" is an equivalency just as "Time is money" is an equivalency. — ThinkOfOne

Looks more like an equivocation.

If someone asks what "time is money" means, it can easily be explained. You have yet to explain what "“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." means. You say only that it is meant figuratively. To say that "time is money" is a figure of speech tells us nothing. As an equivalence, to say "I am the way, the truth and the life" is a figure of speech tells us nothing.

Here is another pertinent example of figurative language:

Smokescreen -

An obfuscation.

Once again, a figure of speech has a meaning. That meaning is not that it is a figure of speech or an equivalency. What is the meaning of Jesus saying: "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."?