Abbaian

The Ambivalence, Assumption, Manipulation, & Truth of John 14:6

Jesus Answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 NIV

This is probably one of the most direct statements Jesus made and also one of the most misunderstood and abused statements ever quoted from the Lord. Many people and many Christians make many assumptions and add their own interpretations and “spin” to this verse. A popular - and I believe incorrect understanding – of this verse is the belief that claiming Jesus as one’s Lord and the Christ is the Way to “come to the Father”, or achieve salvation, and no other way will do. You must acknowledge Him by name. However, if this belief is true and accurate then the following verse most definitely needs to be explained:

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ and then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from ME, you who practice lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21-23

Jesus clearly states that calling Him and acknowledging Him as Lord, and calling on His name and doing various activities in His name will not necessarily do. But what He does clearly state is that “he who does the will of My Father” will enter heaven. Once again, it is not about Jesus Himself, but about the Father. So what does He mean in John 14:6?

Jews have the 7 Noahide Laws which apply to non-Jews and allow a non-Jew to be righteous and enter Heaven (or achieve salvation). Muslims recognize and acknowledge what they call Sabians, or “people of the book”, which include Christians and Jews, and as such must be treated with preference to all other non-Muslims. However, Christians are an extreme bunch. There is no quarter given to either Jew or Muslim. To the Christian, it is a “my way or the highway”. For a belief whose core is supposed to hinge on tolerance, love, and forgiveness, it sounds awful intolerant and vengeful, and I believe this has been based on the abuse of John 14:6.

Many Christians interpret John 14:6 as a “my way or the highway” kind of statement. “Like it or lump it”. But this belief is still reading more into the verse than is actually there. Jesus continues in the next verse saying,

If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. John 14:7 (NIV)

The implication is massive! In my opinion He is unequivocally saying that He is the Father. God the Father incarnate in flesh. If we revisit John 14:6 with this in mind it paints an entirely new and different picture. It would be like me saying, “No one speaks to me unless they speak to me!” It seems almost redundant. No one may get to the Father without Him, because He isthe Father. If one does not realize that fact the statement is not redundant but critically important.

Another important point with the statement of this verse is again what is actually being said and what many believe is being said. C.S. Lewis makes this point very nicely.

We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis

So we cannot honestly say we know if He saves those who do not know him. We are brought back to this question. What is the way of a truly catholic or universal Christianity? How do we discover and follow - not the God of a single people - but the God of all people? How do we know and follow the Most High God? As Jesus Christ is an absolute reflection of the Father?

But here is the important distinction: If we are to follow the will and the way of the Father, should we specifically and exclusively, by definition, be aligning ourselves with Jesus by calling ourselves Christians? Ultimately the answer is yes. But history shows us that this technicality has lost us and led us astray. I’ll make a statement that will have more shock value than anything else will. It is really more of a technicality, but with an important distinction. I don’t want necessarily to follow Jesus Christ. I want to follow the will of the Father.
 
Christ’s house did not have drywall divisions or partitions in it, yet here we exist with near countless denominations of Christianity. I hear people – no, not people, Christians – use the expression Christians, with a capital “C”, and christians with a small “c”. Generally these “Christians” are implying that they themselves – of course – are capital “C” Christian and that whatever they choose to define a small “c” christians as, is someone less, lower, or of some kind of derogatory status – generally not of their denomination, their exact beliefs, their peer group, their friends, their family, their nationality, their religion, their own race…their, their, their Be absolutely clear on this issue. This is the act and sin of Pride. You need to ask the question, How do you define “neighbour”, as in “love your neighbour as yourself”? Do these “Capital-C-Christians” truly believe they can pick and choose which definition of “neighbour” they prefer or fits their agenda best? In the name of Jesus Christ, they are breaking His second most important commandment. There is no gray area. There is no neutral. There is no impartial. There is no indifference. It is black and white. Either you are a part of this, or apart from this. It reminds me of the disciples arguing who is the greatest among themselves - which one was the greatest (Mark 9:33-35). Why they were so much better then the other. Why you’re only a small “c” christian. The message, the Word, the point of Christianity has been lost.

To be Christian does not mean being a member of the Jesus-fan-club (which many act out and do believe) but an adherent and follower of Jesus’ teachings and Jesus’ “way”. To be a member of the Jesus-fan-club is no different than being a drug addict or an alcoholic. Your substance of abuse is “Jesus-juice”. This is not to say there cannot be feelings of reverence and respect (and indeed, even worship) allowed, but it is not the primary goal. The primary goal is to follow “the way” and the way is that of the Father. That is why I made use of the word “Abbaian”. Now, let’s make this point clear: this is not an attempt to create a new religion, or even worse, yet another Christian denomination. “Abbaian” is to make a point. We are to be followers of the Father. I feel comfortable in saying that I believe even Jesus would make this distinction.

But what is “the way” of the “Abbaian”? We can accept that both Melchizedek and Jesus were priests, not of the Jewish Yahweh, but of the “Most High God” and therefore the God of all people. Mosaic Law was only for one people – the Israelites. Mosaic Law was not exclusively the Law of God, but was inundated by Man (Moses) for all too human reasons, and reflecting their incomplete and incorrect perception of the “Most High God”. The way of the “Abbaian” would most definitely be antinomian. Many Christian denominations, most especially Roman Catholicism and High Anglicanism, would appear to be a merger of what Jesus actually taught and of the near defunct Mosaic Law, rituals, traditions, and customs. Although Christ did say He had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, the Law is also referred to as the Ministry of Death (2 Corinthians 3:17), meaning it's purpose was to convince people of their condemnation. I would go so far as to suggest that many of the writings of the New Testament outside of the Gospels themselves also suffer from this merger of religions. Paul uses many of the Mosaic Laws in his writings and letters, which I don’t believe is necessarily correct, because ultimately this is not “Christianity” but some hybrid of Judeo-Christian “Laws”, which permeate the faith to this very day. We should question in detail exactly what Jesus meant by his analogy of the wineskins.

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins Mark 2:22

The most striking part of this verse is “…and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined”. In this analogy we must ask and define what or who is the wine and what are the wineskins? If Jesus is the wine and the “church” or the religion is the wineskin, then the implications are disastrous. What have we done? We, as modern Christians, have put new wine into old wineskins. This is not the way of the Father.
If “the way” is to follow the path of the Father then we need to explore possible paths or faiths that follow the Father, perhaps unknowningly so. 

For example, the Jews pray to and acknowledge God the Father (although not by that name or title, but by the name Yahweh). Although they do not acknowledge Jesus, if Jesus is the Father then salvation is still through Christ, but unknowingly so. Muslims also pray to and acknowledge God, but again, not by that title, but by the name Allah. On a superficial level the only difference between Jews, Muslims, and Christians – in regards to salvation – is the realization and acceptance of being spiritually bankrupt. We cannot earn our salvation. That is Christ's fulfillment of the Law's Ministry of Death. Where we can say that Jews and Muslims obey laws and attempt to be good enough to earn their way into heaven (a minimum-passing grade of 50% rather than a perfect score of 100%, which is unattainable) this may also be said of many Christians. This may sound like a shocking statement but it is the truth. A Christian’s realization of their personal spiritual bankruptcy is part of one’s journey. Now, I am not talking about understanding the theory or theology or saying or reciting the words. I’m talking about actually encountering it in oneself and realizing it. Many Christians have not gotten there and some may never get there in their lifetimes. And I am not trying to be pretentious and suggest that I have gotten there.

Is the realization of one’s own spiritual bankruptcy a prerequisite for salvation? No it isn’t because then we are returning to earning or achieving it ourselves. So if this is true to the Christian who has not acknowledged their own bankruptcy and who legitimately tries to carry out the will of the Father and be good, then why can’t this also be true to the Jew or the Muslim? Neither the Christian, the Jew, nor the Muslim will 100% successfully carry out the will of the Father. Not any of these faiths will claim to. The Jew and the Muslim will only accept a degree of spiritual bankruptcy - maybe “corruption” or “infection” are better words for them because there cannot be degrees of bankruptcy – because they try and hope to be good enough. So too do many Christians. Is this the correct path? No. But is it the path to damnation and destruction? No, not necessarily. Is it needlessly knocking your head against the wall? Most definitely. Is the way of Jesus and God the Father the “easiest” path? Definitely, but is it the only path?

Can this "philosophy" be taken to an extreme and applied to the New Age movement of cults and paganism in all its various forms? I don't' think so. show me a pagan religion that acknowledges the Father (and not their own contrived form or definition of the Father) and actively attempts to follow His will. I do not believe you'll find one. This begins to sound a lot like Unitarianism.

Unitarianism may seem to be synonymous with this concept of the Abbaian on the surface, but after the slightest analysis they are not one in the same. The Abbaian is not a Unitarian. A Unitarian believes (and accepts) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (amongst others). Ultimately it is about political correctness. “They’re all right!” the Unitarian says. Where as the Abbaian is the belief that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all legitimate attempts to discover and seek out God, but are all incorrect, or mistaken, or “off the path”.

Unitarians say all are right. Abbaians say all are wrong.

Ultimately it is all about paths to “the Way”. Often you’ll hear Christians say that if we are “right” with God (Jesus’ first greatest commandment) then we will naturally become “right” with our fellow-creatures or neighbours. (Jesus’ second greatest commandment). It stands to reason that this is also true in reverse. If we are not perfectly “right” with our fellow-creatures or neighbours, then we are also not perfectly “right” with God. I feel confident to say that most, if not all Christians would say that the Jews and Muslims are not perfectly “right” with God. But neither are Christians perfectly “right” with God. If we were we would also be perfectly “right” with our fellow-creatures and neighbours, which we are not, just like the Jews and Muslims.

But we all have one thing in common. We are all trying to follow the Fathers’ will. We are all attempting to follow the right path. Ultimately the “Way of the Father”, in my beliefs as a Rogue Christian an Abbaian, the Kingdom of God includes Jews and Muslims.

I do not miss the fact that even the Qur’an states

[Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one [and the same]; we are devoted to Him”M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s translation of the Qur’an, 29:46, bold added.

* * *

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:15-23, KJV

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them [false prophets]. Jesus gives direct instruction as to how to identify “false prophets”. Ultimately it is not by their words or teachings but by their actions and the results (fruits) of their actions. This forces us to carefully examine certain issues:

Islam has produced the Islamic extremist terrorists (who do not even follow the Quran 2:178 and 2:190. These verses clearly states that God does not love those who overstep the limits and that grievous suffering awaits those who do). So can we therefore say that Islam has produced “evil fruit” and condemn it to the realms of false prophets? There is some truth to this but it is somewhat of a blanket statement. The Islamic extremist terrorists are really not true Muslims, but nevertheless are still “evil fruit” of Islam. If we are to adhere to Jesus’ definition of “false prophets” and apply it to Islam, then by these same definitions we must begin looking at other religions.

Christianity has produced the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the overall eradication of the Central and South American Indians and the warfare and “conversion” of the North American Indians. The sexual abuse and pedophilia of the modern day Roman Catholic Church. The embezzlement and lying of certain Christian televangelists. There is no shortage of “evil fruit” in Christianity. And before we use the excuse that these were acts of individuals and not reflective of Christianity as a whole we need to revisit our thoughts and opinions of the previously mentioned Islam Extremists. I believe Christianity has produced “evil fruit” . I also believe that Jesus had no intention of beginning a new religion. If asked the question, Was Jesus Christ Christian, the answer would be, no.

Atheism (as a belief-system) has produced the Nietzsche-like belief or philosophy of the Nazi-party whose fruition was a World War and The Holocaust. I would very much like to meet an individual who would seriously state that this was not “evil fruit” .

Judaism becomes an interesting religion when viewed from this point of view. As mentioned in The Flawed Priesthood , it is not incorrect to say that Jesus was Jewish, neither is it completely true. Jesus was a Jewish heretic. Jesus systematically “disassembled” the Jewish priesthood and threatened its very foundation. It is obvious that Judaism was “off course” and in need or correction.

The genocide that the Israelites committed under the leadership of Moses (primarily in the book of Numbers) is most definitely questionable. The “commissioning” and building of idols (Nehushtan), the practice of animal sacrifice, the very existence of an elitist priesthood, and the aforementioned genocide should be highly suspicious and questioned as the product of “evil fruit” .

By Jesus’ own teachings and definition of “false prophets” Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Atheism have all produced “evil fruit” . For that matter, most if not all religion has.

I believe this supports the hypothesis of the Abbaian: Unlike the Unitarian belief that all are correct, the Abbaian believes all religion is in error.

If all have produced “evil fruit” then what exactly is Jesus teaching? If none of these are correct or the truth, then what is the truth? The only conclusion I can come to is that Religion itself is “evil fruit” and as such Jesus’ teaching was not to create another religion, but to end all religion.

“If the cross is the sign of anything, it’s the sign that God has gone out of the religion business and solved all of the world’s problems without requiring a single human being to do a single religious thing. What the cross is actually a sign of the fact that religion can’t do a thing about the world’s problems – that it never did work and it never will…” Robert Farrar Capon, “The Mystery of Christ…and Why We Don’t Get It”, pg. 62