"I am the way the truth and the life"?

Question

Is this the most misinterpreted statement in the Bible? The Gospel of John is philosophically orientated; the Logos or Christ-principle is paramount, as taught in the first chapter. Thus, when these words are attributed to Jesus, he is explaining that only the Christlike have true life, as a gift from God. However, there is nothing to suggest that Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can not also be Christlike. This is actually a universalistic passage, but people twist it to make it exclusive because of pride.
Could this be the most misunderstood Biblical passage of all time?

busy-lit; i disagree. When Jesus said 'No man comes to the father but by me,' this is again referring to the Christ-principle or Logos. i.e. living a christlike life.

And we all know that people of other faiths can be christlike! Is it another case of literalism perhaps?

Most people have not actually read my question properly. To reiterate: Why is living a christlike life not considered to be reaching God through Jesus? Why should you need anything else? Living a Christlike life is possible for anyone who is committed to God, you don't have to believe in the Trinity or any other man made doctrine.

Delsydeb has given the best answer by far. But I would suggest, perhaps prophet, priest and king could be seen as potentially universal symbols? Everyone is called speak for God, worship God and rule over creation; even though Jesus did this perfectly, we are called to aspire to these goals as imperfect humans.

I see, Homeland Security. Clearly I am a 'sinner.' Where is your authority to say this?

I am not claiming to be perfect, but if I am a 'sinner,' I am no more one than you according to the Bible.

Please also explain how I am in 'direct contradiction' to the Word of God?' Can you be more specific?

No one has yet explained how people of other faiths are 'without Christ.' This is crucial to the point you are trying to make. If they are without Christ, then they are not in God's presence; but exactly HOW are they without Christ, I respectfully ask?

Delsydeb is the only person who has given a good answer so far. You make a legitimate point about how St John and his disciples understood the faith; I agree that they taught an exclusivity; but perhaps the early church's opinions were to an extent influenced by their circumstances. After all, the Vatican II reforms recognised that other faiths may have a chance of salvation, which differs from what the apostles originally taught. I am not Catholic, but if the conservative Catholic Church can recognise that the Apostles were teaching according to the best of their knowledge at the time, perhaps the rest of us can also see that for the apostles, it natural to disbelieve other religions; after all, they were only familiar with corrupt greek polytheism.

I Speak Truth has made a good point; and i realise now it is my fault I was not clear about what I meant earlier about a christlike life. What I mean is; people of other religions relying entirely on God and not on any goodness they believe to be inherent in their own character; loving, forgiving, rebuking in season. Being restrained in temper and in passions. Many people from many religions do all these things; I would suggest that these people appear to be following in Jesus' footsteps?

Grotty certainly appears more Christ-like than some people I have encountered on this forum, at least judging by their responses!

I think seekfind's point is that the early christians were exhorted in the epistles to believe; but in my opinion, these letters were addressed to those who BELIEVED in Christ; because those were the only Christlike people that St. Paul knew. He could not have know about other devout God-worshippers as he was not granted the gift of omniscience.

Answer 1

Careful friend, your one step away from becoming a Christian mystic, and we are less tolerated than the atheists by the Church. And in a way, you are completely correct, that it is not belief but the alignment of our hearts, which is the issue here.

Christ as the Way. There is only one door to my office, and my windows are barred the shelves I have in front of them. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that anyone who is in my office has entered through the door. In the same way, we can apply that ‘Christ as Way’ to mean, that Christ is the door way to God. So, this only implies that one must pass through Christ, without indication so far that one has to know, or even care that it is Christ in order to ‘find/be found’ by God.

No other name except for Christ, in which to be saved: At first glance this seems to entirely destroy your argument. However, as soon as we stop trying to understand the bible through the lens of our own culture, and release that a name to the writers/readers was just not a name, but a representation of the very essence of the person (hence the name changing of people), it bolsters your argument. That is, such statements with ‘in my name’ meant in the character of Christ, not simply saying the word. Which, ironically, is what Christian means, a little image of the character of Christ.

As we are talking about the bible, especially John’s account, which is considered the mystical one of the twelve. This ‘Christ-concept’ of which you speak cannot be achieved by being good or any other act of self-will. As any mystic will tell you, regardless of their ‘religion’, comes from the communion with God, and is not achievable by self will. The opposite in fact, it requires an abandonment of this will, or at least a focus only on God.

However, I should point out that the problem you are having your argument, is that you are using the mystic’s reality, and trying to apply it to the religious. That is, The Way is an object reality to the mystics, while, to be blunt, it is just an abstract theory to the ‘religious’. Then again that is how i see my role as a Christian, is to point to that Way, to Christ and say follow.

(Who am I? I am nothing, and my words are nothing...)

Answer 2

Hi 'the dude'

Looking through the question and answers you have received, it appears that most of the respondents think that the only people who have the right to be called 'Christ-like' are christians.

I am an atheist.
I live a peaceful life, I hurt no-one, I give to charity, I look after people and animals. I do everything I am capable of to lead a good life.

I was brought up as a catholic, and, although I no longer believe in god, I do believe that I behave in a way that could be described as 'christian', meaning that I treat people with respect, kindness and love.

Do I fit your description of 'a Christ-like manner', even without the religious belief?

An atheist

----------------

EDIT: Thank you for your response.

Answer 3

St. John was very much of an exclusivist, religiously speaking; just read 2nd John. Even from a strictly historical point of view, it is amazingly unlikely that he was trying to teach that we can become the way, truth, and life ourselves.

Second, even the phrase, "Christlike" which you use referenced the Greek word "Christos", or Anointed. This is "anointed" in the Jewish sense, seeing as Christianity is a development of Judaism. In Hebrew culture, three kinds of people were anointed: Kings, Prophets, and Priests. In calling Jesus, "Christ", the Apostles expressed their faith that Jesus in His person consummated the offices of King, Prophet, and Priest. A King rules, a Prophet speaks the oracles of God, and a Priest acts as a mediator between man and God.

*edit*

Once again, we have to take the text in its historical context. The writer is the same as the author of the Epistles of John, as can be plainly seen by the style and vocabulary used.

If we are to understand his theology, we must consult not only the body of his work, but also the testimony of his students, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. These were converts of St. John's, and they too declare the exclusivist nature to the Christian faith, going as far as to say that salvation cannot be found outside of Christ's body, the Church. Ignatius especially described the hiearchal nature of this organism, with Bishopric, Presbytery, and Diaconate.

This is further buttressed by the witness of other Christians who knew the Apostles, such as St. Clement--the 4th Pope--who wrote his letter to the Corinthians while St. John was still alive, as well as the fragments we have of the writings of Papais.

One can agree or disagree with them, but they were expressing the faith they received from the Apostles whom they knew personally, and one of whom (St. John) wrote the Gospel you're quoting. In other words, you're attempting to interpret a passage contrary to the understanding of the organism that produced it.

*edit*

Vatican II did not change previous Church teaching; rather, it explained fully, for the first time, how a person who is ignorant of the Gospel through no fault of their own can be saved through the grace of Christ. Catholics, as a rule, believed this before (as can be seen in Dante's Divine Comedy, the 14th century poem which portrayed a few innocently ignorant souls in Purgatory and Heaven), but we didn't know exactly how. The normative means to attain to salvation seemed to be unavailable to the ignorant Protestants and other religions, and so the Church sought to explain how this worked.

However, the language used by the Church suggests that this is a rare occurrence (albeit that only God can judge individual cases). In the exceptional cases, the person is saved by the grace of Christ, in spite of false beliefs.

Answer 4

No! What does it mean to be Christlike? Is it not to be like him, in the way we live? the Bible says that Christ was an example for us to follow closely his steps(1Peter2:21)To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. So, then, how can Budhists, Muslims etc. be Christlike, they do not follow Jesus example.

Answer 5

It isn't living like Christ. It is accepting him as the only absolute way to God and heaven. Jesus was the only biological child of God and was God himself. He lived a sinless life, untarnished. So, when he gave himself as a sacrifice for the evil deeds of mankind, we were redeemed but, only if we accept it as the truth. Believe it or not, it is what it is, and that will never change!

Answer 6

We wax philosophical tonight don't we? Trouble is that you stand in direct contradiction to the Word of God.

Hmmm, NOW who do I believe - some sinner on YA or the Word of God???

Thy Word is Truth, Father!

2Cr 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Answer 7

NOT. No one comes to the father except through Jesus Christ. That means no to all others. You shall have no other gods before me. Jesus, God's only begotten son is the only way to God.

Answer 8

To be in Christ you must believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and be sanctified by the Holy Spirit:

1 John 5: 11-13 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in the Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have
eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Ephesians 1:13,14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Answer 9

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me."
John 3:16-17
For God so loved the world that He gave His One and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

Answer 10

Call me old fashioned but I believe the bible is neans what it says on the tin. When Jesus says "I", He is refering to exclusively to Himself. Sadly, the english language use the word "you" for both plural and singular but when Jesus uses the word "you(plural)" he is refering to us. When I say us, at the time He spoke exclusively to Jewish people but when He talks about Kingdom issues he is refering to born-again, i.e. Christians after His death when the Kingdom began. It's really no too hard to follow.