WARREN: We both stand in a relationship of faith. You have faith that there is no God. In 1974, I spent the better part of a year living in Japan, and I studied all the world religions. All of the religions basically point toward truth. Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: "I'm still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Veda says, "Truth is elusive, it's like a butterfly, you've got to search for it." Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth." All of a sudden, that forces a decision.
HARRIS: Many, many other prophets and gurus have said that.
WARREN: Here's the difference. Jesus says, "I am the only way to God. I am the way to the Father." He is either lying or he's not.
It is certainly true that in the Gospel of John Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the father except by me." But even a modicum of knowledge about biblical scholarship teaches you that there is a vast difference between the Jesus of John and the Jesus of the synoptic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. In John, Jesus makes all kinds of "I am" statements: I am the bread of life, I am the true vine, I am the way... These pronouncements are unique to John and completely unlike the Jesus presented in the other gospels. Biblical scholarship has long recognized this difference, and mainstream biblical scholarship has long said the "I am" statements of John are likely the product of the community of John and do not likely go back the the historical Jesus. It is highly unlikely that Jesus himself ever said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
So it isn't accurate for Rick Warren to say that either Jesus is lying or he isn't. Unless he is ignorant of or chooses to ignore good biblical scholarship. My guess is that he knows the scholarship, but it doesn't fit with his faith perspective.
6 comments:
Nope, Jesus really did say..
"I am the way, the truth, and the life."
There is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest He didn't say it. (note:I don't count the Jesus Seminar as a credible source.)
And yes, it is completely exclusionary. And as a statement, it defies redefinition or retranslation. Many have tried.
This particular statement by Jesus is one of the greatest foundations of the Christian faith. It is part of what defines Christians as being Christian. If you don't accept Jesus as The way, then you might as well find yourself a new label.
Sounds a bit harsh, yes. But at some point there is a departure from what can resonably be called "Christian". I could call myself Hindu if I wanted. However, it would be completely obvious that I am lacking the beliefs that go with that title.
So, what is the point of departure for you? At what point does someone lose touch with what can be accepted as "Christian?" How many basic foundations of the Christian faith can be denied, changed, or ignored?
-dave-
Dave,
I never said Jesus wasn't my way, truth, and life. I am a Christian because I have chosen to try to live my life as Jesus lived his life; I am trying to follow in his way.
I just don't believe that his way is the only way.
And even if I were to agree with your assertion that this statement is one of the greatest foundations of the Christian faith - and that could be debated historically - it doesn't address the point I was making that all mainstream scholarship agrees that the Jesus of John is not the same as the Jesus of the synoptics, and if we want to know what Jesus actually said and did the place to begin is with the synoptics.
The New Testament is reliable, all of it. Both Polycarp and Papias were students of the Apostle John. Polycarp told Irenaeus, one of the early great theologians and bishop of Lyons, that John had said that he wrote the Book of John and that Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their respective gospels. Irenaeus quoted this statement from John to Polycarp in his writing "Adversus Haereses, III." Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, relayed the same message to Eusebius and he published the same quotation by John in his writing "Historia Ecclesiastica, III.39." The same quotation appearing in two distinctly different documents gives confirmatory evidence that the gospels were written by the traditionally accepted individuals. The book of Acts was written before 64 A.D. This is generally accepted because Luke did not relate the death of Paul, which probably occurred during the reign of terror against the Christians as conducted by Nero. No mention of the book of Acts is contained in the gospel of Luke and the gospel was evidently written before the book of Acts. The evidence also supports the conclusion that the gospel of Mark was written and available to Luke before he wrote his gospel. Mark was an associate of Peter and Peter, an apostle of Jesus. The chain of evidence then was Jesus-Peter-Mark-Luke-Acts and these documents and relationships were conducted within a 30-35 year period. We have in the above documents, gospels and writings of Papias, Polycarp, Eusebius and Irenaeus a consistent external evidence and eyewitness reports on the authorship of the gospels and the life of Jesus.
I didn't write the upper portion of this post. I am not a biblical scholar, though I do my own personal studies. Other people have centered their entire lives around the study of scripture. I believe the majority of them can be relied on to tell the truth.
How many biblical scholars disagree with the authenticity of the book of John?
Besides, it doesn't take a scholar to read the bible. It was written by common people for common people. The language is plain and unmistakable.
The only question in its use is this.
Do I bend my life to Christ's teachings?
Or do I bend Christ's words to fit my life or world view?
-dave-
Dave,
Would you care to share where you copied that quote from? I can tell you that there is not one Catholic or Protestant seminary in the country that is teaching this today. I am not talking about liberal seminaries; I am talking about any seminary that pays any attention to modern biblical scholarship. It is simply inaccurate information.
By the way, I am not disputing the fact that the early church fathers said what is quoted. I am disputing the accuracy of what they said. I am not a maverick or radical in this; all mainstream scholarship shares this view.
Here is the most detailed study I have found.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#III
Here are just a few scholars who have studied the origin of the Gospel of John.
William Barclay
Merrill Tenney
R. C. Sproul
Daniel Wallace
Ernest Scott
Charles Dodd
Every major bible translation has accepted the book of John as true. However, not all believe that it was directly written by John's hand. So, when it says that Jesus said "I am the way", I am compelled to believe it just as it is written. And I don't accept things lightly.
-dave-
Post a Comment