If Christianity is a way, then it is the way. Either Christ is risen and it's all true or He's not and the Bible is a bunch of hogwash. This is what you, in your postmodern mindset, cannot come to terms with: Christ is an absolute--either absolutely true or absolutely false. He's one of four things: a liar, a lunatic, a legend (in which case we know nothing about him whatsoever), or the Lord.

Well said, TBG. Didn't C. S. Lewis make a similar list in Mere Christianity? Today I read a blog on John 14:6 called "Sticking up for Jesus," written by Joe Stowell, former president of Moody Bible Institute. He said,

Recently, I read a disturbing quote from a pastor of a large church in California. He said, “I used to believe that we should ask Muslims to accept Christ as their Savior. But I don’t believe that any more. I’ve sensed the presence of God with Muslims, and I’ve come to believe that it’s wrong to try to talk them into becoming Christians.”

I don’t know why he changed his mind, but caving in on what Jesus has clearly said, is a betrayal of Jesus Himself. Jesus came to make a way to God by removing the one barrier that blocks everyone’s path to God—the barrier of sin. This meant that He had to die in our place to pay the price of sin. Without His sacrifice, there is no other way. Let’s face it; if there were other ways to God, then He didn’t need to die. It’s ludicrous to believe that His Father would send Him through the agony of the cross if it were only another religious option. To deny that He is the way is to deny Jesus.

First, TBG and 220CT, I want to say that I totally respect your position in the Absoluteness of Christ . I have no quarrel with anyone holding that position. It's your Religion...Fair Enough. I'm just saying that it's Fair Game for people with differing views to have their own interpretations of the Bible, or any Religious Texts for that matter.

Hindus and Buddhists have many sects and differing interpretations of their texts too, as do Muslims. And people with more universalist (many paths) leanings (such as myself) have their own interpretation of all the various texts. I'm just happy that despite all that, there is still a lot of room to find common ground . As TBG says, we are all Human, and Humans are fallible.

Some of the examples you quoted 220CT, remind me of one of the reasons that I have such views. In my view, the admonition of God against Idol Worship, is an admonition against mistaking the Representational Image for the Reality of God "Him"self. And I tend to see all Religions as attempts to define God, in essence creating a Representation of God. Which is the point of my signature quote. Maybe I'm the one being a "literalist" with such an interpretation , but there you have it , my basic reason for trying not to be "Absolute" in my definition of God. I don't want to miss the Reality of the Universal Spirit for the Scripture.

And I think this is what the Gnostics were on about. They weren't trying to be "elitists". Quite the opposite. But they recognized that most people preferred strong definitions of Reality rather than directly attempting to experience the Ineffable through Gnosis. But this attitude of the Gnostics was, mistakenly I think, attributed to arrogance by other Christians.

Peace and Long Life
Gandalf's Beard

I

And I think this is what the Gnostics were on about. They weren't trying to be "elitists". Quite the opposite. But they recognized that most people preferred strong definitions of Reality rather than directly attempting to experience the Ineffable through Gnosis. But this attitude of the Gnostics was, mistakenly I think, attributed to arrogance by other Christians.

Just where are you getting this? The doctrine of the gnostics, following the neo-Platonists, centered around the fact that they had knowledge that no one else had and that you couldn't know unless you joined and entered into the secrets. Gnosticism was more elitist than the freemasons and the Ivy League combined.

As for the rest of it, just what part of "No one comes to the Father except through me" is ambiguous? Fact is, Jesus didn't leave the option of "Great moral Socrates-esque teacher" open to us. You can play with semantics and deconstruct the text all day long, but then you destroy all the moral force. Playing the postmodernist doesn't get you any closer to the truth: at some point, you have to get off the fence.

TBG

Allow me to illustrate why Jesus has to be the only way. It's not a matter of what we believe or what our interpretation is. It's a matter of the order of the facts.

Fact 1: Jesus was a real person. He lived as an adult during the reign of Tiberius, Emperor of Rome, during the reign of King Herod, and during the governship of Pontius Pilate. There are more historical documentation of the historical fact of Jesus than there are of any other person beyond perhaps the modern day with the internet and such. Jesus was documented significantly more than Homer, the Roman Emperor's themselves, Henry VIII, and even Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Fact 2: Jesus was executed on a cross via crucifixion during the Jewish Passover in the year 30 AD. This event is the most documented even in history as well.

Fact 3: Jesus was buried. Romans usually tossed the body of prisoners to the dogs. If this happened, all they needed to do was pull it out when claims of the ressurection occured. He was not only buried in a tomb, it was sealed and guarded. Roman soldiers never left their post, nor fell asleep on fear of death. The guards report is among the official secular documents. And to put away any doubts of his death, the burial clothes were so air tight, he couldn't breathe, and even if he could, the 50-60 pounds of burial perfumes would have suffocated him for certain.

Fact 4: Jesus rose from the dead. Reasons for this. Roman crucifixion is fatal. Blood and water poured from his body, clear indication of death for some time. Also, the tomb is empty. No body has ever been found. Jesus also appeared to over 500 people after he rose. Hard to squelsh a false claim by 500 people. Finally the Testimonies. How to 3rd-world, uneducated simpletons have the courage to stand boldly in front of kings and emperors, when days earlier, they fled in terror when their master was arrested? Think about that.

Fact 5: Jesus not only claimed to be the "Way, Truth, and Life" he also begged three times to go a different path (I believe recorded in Mark).

If you put these Facts together, we can logically come to the conclusion that Paul did. If there was another way, then Jesus died for nothing. Now I still partly agree with GB in that there are multiple ways to God. Using the mountain analogy, there are multiple paths to the top. However, all the paths with converge into one single path that takes you to the top. There are no paths that lead off cliffs, dead end caves, and the like that will take you to the top. There are multiple ways to reach Jesus (he will takes us as we are and not in a mold-form), but the only way to get to God is through Jesus. We can get to Jesus from any walk of life, financial situation, nationallity, race, etc. But only Jesus can get us to heaven.

We have absolute facts about Jesus. We have no absolute facts about Bhudda, Muhammad, or Krishna. We know they lived, but what proof do we have that Gabriel visited Muhammad? We have Muhammad's word, that's it. We have Bhudda's teachings, but what is there to support it? I haven't seen it yet. Same with Krishna, astrology, and every other religion out there. We have proof that people believe and believed it. Christianity is different. It is the only beleif out there that has hard core secular and historical proof that it is the truth. The others can't dream of coming close.

Some of the examples you quoted 220CT, remind me of one of the reasons that I have such views. In my view, the admonition of God against Idol Worship, is an admonition against mistaking the Representational Image for the Reality of God "Him"self. And I tend to see all Religions as attempts to define God, in essence creating a Representation of God. Which is the point of my signature quote. Maybe I'm the one being a "literalist" with such an interpretation , but there you have it , my basic reason for trying not to be "Absolute" in my definition of God. I don't want to miss the Reality of the Universal Spirit for the Scripture.

God is represented in ONE divine-human Person: Jesus Christ.

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

As for the rest of it, just what part of "No one comes to the Father except through me" is ambiguous? Fact is, Jesus didn't leave the option of "Great moral Socrates-esque teacher" open to us.

Exactly.

There are multiple ways to reach Jesus (he will takes us as we are and not in a mold-form), but the only way to get to God is through Jesus. We can get to Jesus from any walk of life, financial situation, nationallity, race, etc. But only Jesus can get us to heaven.

Amen!

As long as we are going to talk about heresy, I thought it would be a good idea to properly define it. (yes, you will all get mortally tired of me defining words. But honestly--words MEAN things. ) So here are two definitions, with references should you desire to double check.

Heresy — from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).

M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897).

HERESY. The Gk. word hairesis properly denotes ‘choice’, and this is the meaning which it always bears in the lxx; in classical authors, however, it can refer to a philosophical school which the individual chooses to follow. Similarly, the NT uses the word to denote a ‘party’, with the suggestion of self-will or sectarian spirit; but it must be noted that none of the parties thus described is in a state of schism from its parent body. The Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and the Pharisees (Acts 15:5; 26:5) form sects within the fold of Judaism; and the same word is used to describe Christianity as seen from outside (Acts 24:5, 14; 28:22). Josephus, however, uses the same term to describe the Essenes as well, who were in schism (Ant. 13.171; 18.18-22). When parties appear within the church they are called ‘heresies’ (1 Cor. 11:19, where Paul seems to imply that, though bad, they have the good result of making it clear who are the true Christians). Such divisions are regarded as a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), and primarily as a breach of mutual charity, so that the heretic, i.e. the man who stubbornly chooses to form or follow his own group, is to be rejected after two admonitions (Tit. 3:10).
The only NT use of ‘heresy’ in the sense of opinion or doctrinal error occurs in 2 Pet. 2:1, where it includes a denial of the Redeemer. Among incipient heresies mentioned in the NT, the most prominent are: Gnosticism of a Jewish type (Col. 2:8-23) and Docetism (1 Jn. 4:2-3; 2 Jn. 7).

D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., 467 (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996).

I find the bolded text amusingly apropos to our beloved Gandalf's Beard . God grant you to have the eyes of your heart opened.

Meanwhile, on with the fray!

mm

Excellent, I love it when people define their terms. Thanks Mother Music . The only issue then is why Heresy has such a negative connotation that it seems to equal Blasphemy to most people. People were often (but not always) killed by Church authorities for their Heresies. The Reformation was then a vast Heresy by the original definition of the word, so we can now clearly see that a lot of Warfare and Bloodshed can be attributed to competing Heresies. I think this makes my point for me . Which is that charging people with Heresy as if it were a crime is counterproductive.

TBG, the Gnostics believed that by setting themselves up as a Priestly Class, it was in fact Church Authorities who were being "Elitist" and coming between the Laity and God. They believed that everyone had a spark of the Divine, and that anyone who truly sought for it could become aware of that Divinity through Gnosis, and thus directly experience God. At Gnostic "masses" they would draw lots to determine who would temporarily take the role of the priest (or priestess ), and the role was open to everyone. It was considered the choice of the individual whether or not to be a "seeker", not the determination of an Earthly Authority. None of these things can be remotely considered "Elitist".

As to the principle that "None may come to the Father except through Me"; that was interpreted by Gnostics (and some others) as Jesus referring to the Divinity within the Self, not exclusively Himself.

220CT, I think my responses cover your points too. Just keep in mind, I am not saying that you are Wrong in your convictions. Rather, that Texts are subject to interpretation from many different perspectives.

Peace and Long Life
Gandalf's Beard

I've been sort of skimming the debate here, and I just have some questions that maybe someone can enlighten me on...

I don't know much about the Gnostics or their supposed "elitism", but it seems to my uneducated standpoint to be similar to the Christian view that Christianity is the only answer. Is it not just as "elitist" to go around saying "ours is the only way" as it is to say "we have a secret but can't tell you unless you join our club"? I just see a weird parallel between the two concepts.

We have absolute facts about Jesus. We have no absolute facts about Bhudda, Muhammad, or Krishna.

We, as humans, will never agree on an absolute fact in a religious context. Our claims of facts being absolute only apply to our own perspectives. Whatever the Ultimate Truth might be doesn't matter, the fact is you can tell someone your absolute facts until the cows come home, but if those facts don't fit into the other person's own set of absolutes, then nothing will come of it. We are very small...we can only decide what we think the absolutes are.

That being said, though, Fencer's process is very scientific in nature, and comes to a logical conclusion based on the facts presented.

God is represented in ONE divine-human Person: Jesus Christ.

I think what GB was trying to get at is the problem between the idea of a God with no image and worshipping a God with an image, as GB says:

the admonition of God against Idol Worship, is an admonition against mistaking the Representational Image for the Reality of God "Him"self

This doesn't mean confusing God with other gods. It means worshiping the image itself instead of God and what the image is meant to represent. This would be like worshiping the huge wooden cross at the front of the church instead of worshiping God, and that is not what we're supposed to do. The object then becomes the God instead of being just the symbol.

Draugrin, I have my own issues with some of the smaller Gnostic sects who were indeed like a "secret club" and had there own version of Literalism and Absolutism. But the largest sects (such as the Valentinians) were accepting of all who sought "Truth". They reveled in multiple interpretations of Scripture, and had a very metaphorical view of Scripture, and were very "democratic" (small d) and non-heirarchal. In other words, they were neither Elitist nor Exclusive.

There are some other issues I have too with Gnosticism, but they don't really factor in to this debate, and have more to do with me being an Agnostic than it does with them.

But you hit the nail on the head with this one:

We, as humans, will never agree on an absolute fact in a religious context. Our claims of facts being absolute only apply to our own perspectives. Whatever the Ultimate Truth might be doesn't matter, the fact is you can tell someone your absolute facts until the cows come home, but if those facts don't fit into the other person's own set of absolutes, then nothing will come of it. We are very small...we can only decide what we think the absolutes are.

I think what GB was trying to get at is the problem between the idea of a God with no image and worshipping a God with an image, as GB says:

the admonition of God against Idol Worship, is an admonition against mistaking the Representational Image for the Reality of God "Him"self

This doesn't mean confusing God with other gods. It means worshiping the image itself instead of God and what the image is meant to represent. This would be like worshiping the huge wooden cross at the front of the church instead of worshiping God, and that is not what we're supposed to do. The object then becomes the God instead of being just the symbol.

That is indeed part of what I was getting at. As an Agnostic, I see all Religions as attempts to define and represent Reality. I don't have a problem with that at all. My issue is that many people then become attached to their doctrines and scriptures at the expense of Experience.

Having had some experiences with the Numinous myself, I think that Religion and Myth are pointing at something Real , but I think that Something is ultimately Indefinable (see my signature quote). So I finish with with my refrain...Hence my Agnosticism .

Live Long and Prosper
Gandalf's Beard

Allow me to illustrate why Jesus has to be the only way.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment:

It's not a matter of what we believe or what our interpretation is. It's a matter of the order of the facts.

Fact 1: Jesus was a real person. He lived as an adult during the reign of Tiberius, Emperor of Rome, during the reign of King Herod, and during the governship of Pontius Pilate. There are more historical documentation of the historical fact of Jesus than there are of any other person beyond perhaps the modern day with the internet and such. Jesus was documented significantly more than Homer, the Roman Emperor's themselves, Henry VIII, and even Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

I doubt Jesus was documented nearly so much as any of the above, but okay. Most secular scholars agree there.

Fact 2: Jesus was executed on a cross via crucifixion during the Jewish Passover in the year 30 AD. This event is the most documented even in history as well.

Again, no it's not. It might be the most written about but I doubt it is the most documented. Even if you meant 'it is the most written about' I'd like to know what studies went into this claim.

Fact 3: Jesus was buried. Romans usually tossed the body of prisoners to the dogs. If this happened, all they needed to do was pull it out when claims of the ressurection occured. He was not only buried in a tomb, it was sealed and guarded. Roman soldiers never left their post, nor fell asleep on fear of death. The guards report is among the official secular documents. And to put away any doubts of his death, the burial clothes were so air tight, he couldn't breathe, and even if he could, the 50-60 pounds of burial perfumes would have suffocated him for certain.

Where?

Fact 4: Jesus rose from the dead. Reasons for this. Roman crucifixion is fatal. Blood and water poured from his body, clear indication of death for some time. Also, the tomb is empty. No body has ever been found. Jesus also appeared to over 500 people after he rose. Hard to squelsh a false claim by 500 people. Finally the Testimonies. How to 3rd-world, uneducated simpletons have the courage to stand boldly in front of kings and emperors, when days earlier, they fled in terror when their master was arrested? Think about that.

Did 500 people make that claim? When? To whom? How do you know?

If you put these Facts together, we can logically come to the conclusion that Paul did. If there was another way, then Jesus died for nothing. Now I still partly agree with GB in that there are multiple ways to God. Using the mountain analogy, there are multiple paths to the top. However, all the paths with converge into one single path that takes you to the top. There are no paths that lead off cliffs, dead end caves, and the like that will take you to the top. There are multiple ways to reach Jesus (he will takes us as we are and not in a mold-form), but the only way to get to God is through Jesus. We can get to Jesus from any walk of life, financial situation, nationallity, race, etc. But only Jesus can get us to heaven.

We have absolute facts about Jesus. We have no absolute facts about Bhudda, Muhammad, or Krishna.

We have no absolute facts about Muhammad? Are you kidding?

We know they lived, but what proof do we have that Gabriel visited Muhammad?

We have the writer's claims, I suppose.

What proof do we have of Jesus' divinity? What proof do we have that the Gospels are reliable? Only some writers' claims.

I don't think there's a preponderance of historical evidence. If you don't constantly appeal to the Bible, you're gonna go into a tailspin. Several documents supposedly referring to Jesus have been shown to be later fabrications, and most don't tell us anything decisive. The only document that supports all your presuppositions is the Bible. Someone who doesn't believe that the Bible is absolutely true will probably not accept the rest of the evidence, such as it is, and someone who does believe the Bible is absolutely true probably won't care much one way or another.

That is indeed part of what I was getting at. As an Agnostic, I see all Religions as attempts to define and represent Reality. I don't have a problem with that at all. My issue is that many people then become attached to their doctrines and scriptures at the expense of Experience.

The trouble with this, as I'm sure other people have pointed out to you ad nauseum, is that you are essentially rejecting all absolute claims on the basis of the absolute claim that Reality (or, if you prefer, God) is not objectively knowable.

You advocate trusting Experience at the expense of revealed truth. If you really think your own experience is a better barometer for truth than the Bible, then I can't possibly imagine how you could much value in what the Bible has to say at all.

It is impossible to value religion in the abstract and still avoid seeing it as a waste to some extent. Religion is nothing in particular when viewed generally. Its value only manifests itself when viewed particularly. That's why universalist "religions" are such a muddle; the beauty of a religion is not the essential qualities it shares with other religions but rather its specific rites, its specific beliefs, its specific prescriptions for the problems of humanity. If I was a Muslim I could not appreciate the beauty of Christianity, because I would see Christianity's foundations as built on air. But if I was agnostic I could not see the beauty of any religion, because I would have to admit, if only to myself, that they are all built on foundations of air - as would be my own subjective view.

Indeed, I would likely be repelled by the religiosity of religion. The truth claims would rankle. The absolutism would seem a sort of attempted imposition of theocracy on reality. I would seek something more universal, something I could relate to. In the end, all I could admire of religion would be the presence of humanity within it. All I could admire of religion would be our commonalities. All I could admire of religion would be that which is not explicitly religious.

TBG, the Gnostics believed that by setting themselves up as a Priestly Class, it was in fact Church Authorities who were being "Elitist" and coming between the Laity and God. They believed that everyone had a spark of the Divine, and that anyone who truly sought for it could become aware of that Divinity through Gnosis, and thus directly experience God.

We have an immortal soul, which will spend eternity in heaven or in hell. And we have a spirit, which can directly experience God through the Word, prayer, and worship [if we've been redeemed by Christ]. But we do not have a spark of the divine. It's not the same thing. Where does this idea come from?

Psalm 82 "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High." -- The Hebrew word here elohim means "gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative." In the KJV it's translated as "angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty." Source: Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

In Psalm 82, God rebukes Israel's magistrates or judges for "judg[ing] unjustly and accept[ing] the persons of the wicked" [v. 2] while also not doing what is right [vs. 3-4]. The psalmist then asks God, the true and righteous Judge of all the earth, to "judge the earth" [v. 8]. 2 Chronicles 19 King Jehoshaphat tells Israel's judges, "Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment." These men stood in God's place to administer justice to Israel, which is why they're called "gods." But it has nothing to do with having a spark of the divinity. I am not divine. I am not God and never will be. Jesus Christ alone is divine.

As to the principle that "None may come to the Father except through Me"; that was interpreted by Gnostics (and some others) as Jesus referring to the Divinity within the Self, not exclusively Himself.

What?!

220CT, I think my responses cover your points too. Just keep in mind, I am not saying that you are Wrong in your convictions. Rather, that Texts are subject to interpretation from many different perspectives.

There is ONE Holy Spirit. Just like "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" [2 Cor 3], so also where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is unity! "There is one body and one Spirit" [Ephesians 4]. [See also 1 Corinthians 12:11-13, Ephesians 2:18, and Philippians 4:27.] If we're all in sync spiritually with that ONE Holy Spirit, we should all generally interpret the Bible the same. And by this I mean basic Christian doctrine. But spiritual unity isn't forced either, and it shouldn't be.
[quote="A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy":3lzxpse2]Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshippers meeting together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become "unity" conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship. Social religion is perfected when private religion is purified.

I don't know much about the Gnostics or their supposed "elitism", but it seems to my uneducated standpoint to be similar to the Christian view that Christianity is the only answer. Is it not just as "elitist" to go around saying "ours is the only way" as it is to say "we have a secret but can't tell you unless you join our club"? I just see a weird parallel between the two concepts.

1. "Saying 'ours is the only way' is not elitism. It's the truth. Jesus Christ is the only way and He says so [John 14]. Does that make him elitist? Maybe. Oh, well! I'm pefectly fine with the fact that it's God's way or the highway! 2. The main difference between Gnosticism and Christianity is that the latter isn't secret knowledge. The gospel, and refrain of the New Testament, is that if you repent and believe on Christ you shall be saved. And this gospel is for all people, not just the Jews. What's so secret about that? There are many references to mysteries and secrets in the Bible. Some have been revealed in Christ, but not all. But one that has been revealed for all to see is that Christ is the world's only Redeemer.

I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Luke 11:33 is the same: "No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light." Isn't this what gnostics do? Put their so-called light under a bushel?

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

(Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

I think what GB was trying to get at is the problem between the idea of a God with no image and worshipping a God with an image, as GB says:

the admonition of God against Idol Worship, is an admonition against mistaking the Representational Image for the Reality of God "Him"self

This doesn't mean confusing God with other gods. It means worshiping the image itself instead of God and what the image is meant to represent. This would be like worshiping the huge wooden cross at the front of the church instead of worshiping God, and that is not what we're supposed to do. The object then becomes the God instead of being just the symbol.

You have a point. But when we worship Christ we're not worshipping an idol or "mistaking the Representational Image for the Reality of God." I'm wondering if GB considers Jesus like Allah, Buddha, Krishna, and whatever other gods are out there. As if all "divine" persons in all religions are just representations of God. I've heard this theory before. Guess what? Wrong! Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, God now visible to us. And this is what many religious Jews couldn't understand: the mystery of the Incarnation.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

FYI: It timed me out! If I hadn't copied the whole thing before I hit the preview button, aargh!

EDIT #1: I posted the following in a different Narnia site last week...
I don't think Christianity and Paganism share a worldview. I don't think "Christ redeemed Pagan Desires and fulfilled Pagan Prophecies" either. I think the desires and prophecies [i.e. sacrifice, death and resurrection] of mankind, whether Jewish or pagan [only two choices before Jesus arrived], were given to them by God. It's in the collective unconscious. It's also in nature. You can call it archetypal or whatever. But why did God put that there? Because from the beginning He intended to send His Son Jesus Christ into the world to redeem us from sin. Christ is the eternal Lamb of God "slain from the foundation of the world" [Revelation 13]. He was "foreordained" as the perfect sacrifice for sin "before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for [us]" [1 Peter 1]. Christ alone is the Lamb of God and perfect sacrifice. He alone is the firstfruits of the resurrection [1 Corinthians 15:20, 23]. This is historical fact, recorded in the Bible. It's not myth. There's one story: Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected for us. All other religions and myths have twisted shadows of this story, but they're not real or true.

EDIT #2

The trouble with this, as I'm sure other people have pointed out to you ad nauseum, is that you are essentially rejecting all absolute claims on the basis of the absolute claim that Reality (or, if you prefer, God) is not objectively knowable. You advocate trusting Experience at the expense of revealed truth. If you really think your own experience is a better barometer for truth than the Bible, then I can't possibly imagine how you could much value in what the Bible has to say at all.

I think you hit the nail on the head. GB, how can you make "the absolute claim that Reality ... is not objectively knowable," especially if you reject absolutes? How do you know? Are you putting yourself in the place of God? Do you know more than He does? Here's what God says about man's knowledge.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

And here's what God says about Himself.

Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

And here's what God says about His Word.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Persp, your reasoning made my eyes water -- and I mean that in a very good way. This is one of the best reminders of the limits of apologetics that I've seen in a long time.

I don't think there's a preponderance of historical evidence. If you don't constantly appeal to the Bible, you're gonna go into a tailspin. [. . .] The only document that supports all your presuppositions is the Bible. Someone who doesn't believe that the Bible is absolutely true will probably not accept the rest of the evidence, such as it is, and someone who does believe the Bible is absolutely true probably won't care much one way or another.

Absolutely -- which is why all our arguments should not be based, or even rely overmuch, on "facts of history" or archaeology or all of that, but upon the revealed Word. If someone does not accept that, then I doubt all the other extra-Biblical points will be very effective.

Now, mind you, I love apologetics. I believe Christianity holds up logically and be supported by what we know from history. I believe that if it were possible to evaluate evidence objectively, it would lead to the conclusion that Christianity is true. However, for people lost in sin and for whom total inability to please God is a given, the possibility does not exist for someone to evaluate the evidence objectively.

This would put a lot of evangelical-apologetics kinds of folks out of business, unfortunately. They would be in despair that all their arguments and silver-bullet "evidences" won't work! But I would urge them to keep at it, only while also remembering that it is God, not arguments, not evidence, that reaches anyone with the truth that without faith in Christ, it is impossible to please God, and that without the atoning death of Christ on the cross all would be Hell-bound fairly and rightfully.

1 Corinthians 2:14 reminds me that the natural man cannot comprehend or accept things of the Spirit of God. This could sound very "elitist" in return, but no, it gives the credit to God for enabling anyone to understand His truths -- with no room to credit anyone for being a wise intellectual who studied all the historical record and figured it out.

Apologetics have a place. Arguments from history and archaeology can be very useful. But they shouldn't even incidentally in practice be given equal standing with the Spirit-inspired words of Scripture. Either one believes that or one doesn't.

Finally, I haven't seen anyone question my points about protecting the Church from heresy does not automatically lead to bad behavior by Christians who carry that charge-making into the world. Where cases do exist is where someone has ignored the Bible. Legitimate conversion at the point of the sword, or on the brush pile around a stake, is not any closer to existing than conversion that comes about simply by telling someone a point about Jesus' existence or archaeology that he hasn't heard before. God may use some of those on the way, but true conversion and salvation only comes from hearing the Word of God, leading to repentance and faith in the only true God. He alone can resurrect a sinner from death.

I'm not an expert at this whatsoever, but I seem to recall the Jewish historian Josephus mentioning Christ in one of his writings. It is, to my knowledge, the only place where a contemporary of Christ wrote anything down about Him in what we'd consider a traditional, secular "book" format. I'm told there's some debate over the text, but again, I'm not an expert by any means. I mention this because while there are plenty of writings about Christ, the only real "eye-witness" accounts we have are from the Gospels, and sceptics are going to toss those aside out of habit right off the bat.

220CT, as Persy pointed out, most of your points are valid only when people agree that the Bible is the Historical Truth and the Absolute Word of God. Though I do think the bible holds many important Spiritual Truths, I do not believe that the Bible is the Historical Truth and the Absolute Word of God. I do think it is worthwhile quoting Scripture when discussing hermeneutic issues (and I do indeed find that I sometimes agree with many Christians regarding some passages), but quoting Scripture does not, in and of itself, prove the Inerrant Truth of the Bible. In fact, I find it somewhat ironic that accepting the Bible as such, requires a kind of Gnosis , i.e. Revealed Knowledge that comes from "Above".

The concept of the Divine Spark is based on the principle that we are all made out of the same substance as God, i.e. Spirit. If nothing existed outside of God before "Creation", then it follows that he must have constructed the Universe and all it contains out of "Him"self. Thus, according to some, we all have some of the Divine within. This is similar to the Hindu notion that we are all part of Brahman's Dream, and therefore we are an aspect of the Godhead, just as characters in our own dreams are aspects of our own subconscious.

The term Elohim did not originate with the Hebrews, it has been found in pre-Hebraic Babylonian Shrines. And it's definition has been altered retroactively by some to buttress their own positions.

As to One Holy Spirit, I think we may find some area of concordance, though not entirely, as I subscribe to Monist principles (One in Many, and Many in One) which I think the Unity you describe is referring to, but it's not Monotheistic (only One Divine Being separate from "Creation"). I have discussed with TBG before, the point that The Holy Trinity is necessarily a Monist concept, as it posits Three Divine Beings in One (Many in One=Monism).

However, most Christians will never accept that and I am resigned to that. But that is the biggest source of contention between the three Abrahamic Religions. Judaism and Islam (excepting their own "Gnostic" sects) are Strictly Monotheist, and see the concept of the Trinity as Polytheist, and when they are attempting to be Rude, Pagan .

You mentioned Allah, Buddha, and Krishna, referring to them as different "Gods". That is incorrect. Muslims believe that Yahweh is the One God (Allah is the Arabic name or title), just as Jews and Christians do, they just don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Buddha never claimed to be God, and Buddhists don't "worship" him as such.

Krishna, is in fact an Indian derivative of the term Christ (the Anointed One, or Saviour, Messiah etc.) and many Hindus and Hare Krishnas believe him to be one and the same as Jesus, who they see as an Avatar (in a Nutshell, an Aspect Incarnate) of the Supreme Deity.

Live long and Prosper
Gandalf's Beard

EDIT:
Persy, I think you must have made an edit while I was posting. My very brief response to the edit is that I think there are certain Scientific Absolutes (i.e. Absolute Zero etc.), and I do think there is at least one level of Absolutism in Philosophy, which is that there is an Existential Foundation for Reality. As far as I'm concerned, everything else is up for grabs.

220CT, as Persy pointed out, most of your points are valid only when people agree that the Bible is the Historical Truth and the Absolute Word of God. Though I do think the bible holds many important Spiritual Truths, I do not believe that the Bible is the Historical Truth and the Absolute Word of God. I do think it is worthwhile quoting Scripture when discussing hermeneutic issues (and I do indeed find that I sometimes agree with many Christians regarding some passages), but quoting Scripture does not, in and of itself, prove the Inerrant Truth of the Bible. In fact, I find it somewhat ironic that accepting the Bible as such, requires a kind of Gnosis , i.e. Revealed Knowledge that comes from "Above".

You make a good point. Natural man doesn't understand spiritual things. He either takes the Bible as God's Word or he doesn't. As Dr Ransom pointed out,

2 Corinthians 2:14 reminds me that the natural man cannot comprehend or accept things of the Spirit of God. This could sound very "elitist" in return, but no, it gives the credit to God for enabling anyone to understand His truths -- with no room to credit anyone for being a wise intellectual who studied all the historical record and figured it out.

But I think Dr. Ransom already responded to your observations when he said

All our arguments should not be based, or even rely overmuch, on "facts of history" or archaeology or all of that, but upon the revealed Word. If someone does not accept that, then I doubt all the other extra-Biblical points will be very effective. . . .Apologetics has a place. Arguments from history and archaeology can be very useful. But they shouldn't even incidentally in practice be given equal standing with the Spirit-inspired words of Scripture. Either one believes that or one doesn't.

I believe we must base our "arguments" on God's Word. Why?

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The Bible is God's Word and Christ is the Living Word. But if you don't accept that, here's why.

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

God is responsible for what happens to the Word sown, not me.

Therefore hear the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

But He promises us,

So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

EDIT
I heard part of a powerful sermon [given the Sunday after 9/11/01] on Youtube today by Carter Conlon, pastor @ Times Square Church NYC. It's called "Run for your life!" And here's a video of Prayer in the Square 2009. Please listen to them!