A. Introduction
What would be your response if you turned on your TV at Easter time to a documentary and heard this[1]
1. The Jesus story is supposed to be exclusive to Christianity. That’s what we have been told for 2,000 years.
2. But it’s not unique. The ancient god, Krishna, was 800 years before Christ and he had a miraculous birth and was attended by angels.
3. Buddha performed miracles and fed 5,000 people;
4. Jesus didn’t die on a cross in Jerusalem, but is buried in India.
5. The Muslims expect Jesus to return to be in a tomb next to Muhammad’s.
6. The Christian’s christos (Christ) comes from the same root as Krishna.
7. The second line of the Lord’s prayer, “Hallowed be thy name,” has almost the same idea as Krishna’s.
8. In the Gospel of John, Jesus said: “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold” (John 10:16). When Jesus said this “he was speaking of other religions and their teachings.”
9. Buddha’s continuum of life and the perfecting of life are very similar to that proclaimed by Jesus.
10. The pagan religion of Mithras parallels the rise of Jesus. Mithras offered life after death. Did Christianity steal these ideas as Mithras lived before Christ?
11. Christianity borrowed some of its ideas from the Osiris, an ancient god of the Egyptians that went back as far as 2,500BC. That’s why Christianity spread so quickly in Egypt.
12. Why do Christians reject these parallels? That’s because Mithras and Osiris are too close to the Christian story.
I walked into this barrage of statements about the alleged parallels between Jesus and world religions when I turned on ABC TV’s Compass program, Sunday night, 5th April 2009. This was the first part of the program called, “The Hidden Story of Jesus,” and it was prepared and narrated by a liberal theologian [2] from the UK by the name of Robert Beckford, who teaches at Oxford Brookes University. Part 2 was on Easter Sunday, 12 April 2009 and I did not see it.
This program had been shown in the UK in December 2007 on Channel 4 – around Christmas time. I wonder why?
This Australian ABC TV attack on the fundamentals of the Christian faith was telecast to coincide with the Christian’s celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection at Easter 2009. Could this be a coincidence?
Could you imagine ABC TV attacking Islam like this during the holy month of Ramadan which is usually in September?[3]
I want to use this background to investigate how we as Christians are to assess attacks against Christ and Christianity. I will begin with some preliminary questions before I get to a broad outline of how we should be assessing any worldview – not just Christianity.
- What does this kind of TV attack do to a new Christian?
- Is it a human right not to attack Christianity or any other religion?
Let’s look at these 2 questions:
B. Firstly, what does this kind of TV attack do to a new Christian?
How do you think a new Christian or an immature Christian would respond to this information? He or she has learned that Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).[4] This makes Jesus very unique and the exclusive way to eternal life. But that’s not what the TV commentary said.
The new Christian may very well have been exposed to the teaching of Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Then along comes somebody from within the church, a theologian, Dr. Robert Beckford, who says that what he heard when he was being raised as a child in the Sunday School, is not what he believes now – based on his research. He says that Christ is not unique. You can find Christ’s teachings in many of the world’s religions.
- Where does that leave the Christians?
- Have we been lied to for the last 2,000 years?
- Can we Bible-believing Christians continue to believe what we were taught in Sunday School when the new information contradicts it?
- Or, do we have to agree with and follow the supposed latest research of Dr. Beckford that blows the exclusive claims of Jesus out of the water?
- If Jesus’ message can be found in any of the world’s religions, then surely it’s a fundamentalist farce to impose the exclusive claims of Jesus on unsuspecting people – that’s what Beckford said.
- Should we be suggesting that there are many ways to experience the ultimate in religious experience and to enter the Kingdom (whatever that means).
- In this TV program there was an interview with Egyptologist, Dr. Bonjana Mojsov[5], who would not accept that Christianity stole these ideas from Osiris but she was diplomatic in claiming that Christianity borrowed these ideas. She said that this could be one of the reasons why Christianity spread so quickly in the early days in Egypt.
What does this do to new-found Christian faith? It could have a very negative impact on new faith unless Christian discipleship includes this kind of Bible teaching from John 15.
Jesus said according to John 15:18-21:
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.”
From Jesus again: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (That’s Matt. 10:24-25).
Let’s turn to the apostle Paul in Rom. 12:14:”Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” This parallels what Jesus said: “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:44-45).
What did Paul say to the Corinthian church? “When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things” (I Cor. 4:12-13).
Paul to Timothy said: “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12).
Christians, this is Bible! Christians will be persecuted by the ungodly and it is essential in discipleship of new Christians that this dimension is included. People who come to Jesus for an easy, free ride, have missed the Saviour and what he taught.
When you come to Christ, your inner world is radically changed because you have been born again. You are now in a dynamic, correct relationship with God. But don’t expect the world to be excited about this.
What I viewed on that television program is typical of what to expect from secular TV or from a non-Christian with whom you may work. Antagonism is the order of the day from some people.
The first question I had was: What will this kind of program do to new Christians? I am of the view that it will hit them for a spiritual sixer unless you disciple them to follow Jesus in this way: “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”
So do we have to sit back and take persecution as the expected. No! No! Expect it, but the Bible’s teaching is also: “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light” (Eph. 5:11-14).
That is, expose the darkness and the “unfruitful works of darkness” as you continue to experience the shameful behaviour of unbelievers.
Firstly, what do statements of doubt in the mass media or from any other person, do to the new Christians? It could devastate them unless you prepare them to expect it.
C. Secondly, is it a human right not to attack Christianity or any other religion?
Or, to put it another way, should Australia be passing legislation to make it illegal to attack or expose any religion?
For those interested, I recommend an article in the University of Queensland Law Journal, December 2007 edition, where there is an excellent analysis by Rex Tauati Ahdar titled, “Religious vilification: Confused policy, unsound principle and unfortunate law.”[6] It’s available online.
Rex Ahdar shows how the UK and three states of Australia[7] (Queensland, Tasmania & Victoria) have “enacted laws banning incitement to religious hatred.”[8] He points out that
“the best argument against religious vilification is . . . the Catch the Fire case [in Victoria]. This decision, the first major litigation on the subject, bears out the concerns of many that religious vilification laws are conceptually unsound and produce results antithetical to the religious tolerance its promoters hope for. . . . The justifications for the introduction of religious vilification laws have never been persuasive.”[9]
There is another excellent article by a lawyer in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 April 2009,[10] in which he states:
This week we have heard about an increasing international trend to prosecute religious issues in the courts.
In Britain cases are being brought under laws such as the Religious Hatred Act, which makes it a crime to “stir up” “religious hatred”. British police have even warned that insulting Scientology would be treated as a crime.
Such legislation may soon be heading to a statute book near you.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is finalising a report almost certain to recommend legislation on religion – on freedom of religion or religious vilification – that would mean similar prosecutions being launched under national law.
Why do we need this? The last time Australians were asked whether they wanted freedom of religion embodied in the constitution was in 1988. Showing a robust common sense, they voted a resounding “no”. It lost in every state and territory, with up to 74 per cent against.
Citizens knew in their bones that Australia was one of the freest countries in the world and that we wouldn’t make ourselves freer by inventing new offences.
So why are we even having this debate? The commission says on its website it’s because of “an increased presence of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and other religious communities”.
This is an extraordinary statement; it undermines the need for any change in the law. If Australia were a nightmare realm of vilification and persecution, a dystopia of religious angst, I doubt that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews would settle here in growing numbers. The growth of these communities is proof positive Australia enjoys freedom of religion. . .
The Human Rights Commission hints it would only recommend civil penalties. This is bogus.
Those statements were made by a lawyer and former Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr.
There has been a further development in the vilification of religion stakes. A non-binding resolution, put forward by the Islamic states in March 2009, was adopted recently by the United Nations Human Rights Council. It “calls for the ‘defamation of religion’ to be considered a human rights violation – a crime.”[11], [12]
How should we respond to such an initiative? Let me suggest to you that since the time of Christ & the beginning of the church, the “offence of the cross” has been borne by Christians. Jesus was despised, rejected, ridiculed & scorned. This also happened to his immediate disciples. It has happened and will continue to happen to all who faithfully follow Christ.
It was the early church father, Tertullian, who made this pointed and true observation:
“We are not a new philosophy but a divine revelation. That’s why you can’t just exterminate us; the more you kill the more we are. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. You praise those who endured pain and death – so long as they aren’t Christians! Your cruelties merely prove our innocence of the crimes you charge against us.”[13]
In an antagonistic world, we are called upon to defend the Gospel. We are not called to defend our own honour. We should be confident of this: When we defend the Gospel, God will see to it that His name is vindicated. Christ will judge all nations and all people with absolute justice & righteousness.
Until that time at the consummation of the age, I do not believe that governments should set laws that prevent defamation of religion – as the “Catch the Fire” case demonstrated.
Instead, in this Australian democracy, I recommend that we ask governments to make laws that protect our right to preach & share the Gospel.
Such laws will bring with them the right for other religions to proclaim their beliefs. And the laws also will give Christians and other religions the right to critique each others’ beliefs & practices.
I believe that this is the greatest opportunity for this Australian democracy to remain open to the proclamation of the Gospel and the defence of the faith. [14]
We must teach all Christians and especially new believers, to expect persecution. Until Jesus comes, the offence of the cross means that your faith will be under attack from everyday human beings as well as by the mass media.
What the ABC Compass program broadcast should be expected from any who do not accept the authority of the Scriptures. Those attacks, as exemplified by this program, are also coming from within the church by liberal theologians such as Robert Beckford.
That gets to some core principles for assessing any teaching from whatever the source, ABC TV or any other antagonist to the faith. How do you know what is true and what is false?
D. How do believers tackle any resistance to Christ and Christians?
The New Living Translation puts it simply and beautifully: “Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ” (I Peter 3:15-16). “Be ready to explain it.” “To explain” is the Greek apologia, which means to give an apologetic, a defense of the faith.
This applies to the ABC Compass program AND to every other assault on the faith. How do we assess any worldview?
What is a worldview? James Sire says that “a world view is a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of our world.”[15]
It is like looking at the world through a pair of coloured belief glasses. Those glasses represent meaning and value in life. They cover everything that we believe, but they also include what we say and do. What you believe always leads to your actions in word and deed.
All of us have presuppositions. Are they fixed and where do they come from? What do you consider to be the presuppositions or assumptions that a person brings to a TV program or to listen to me today? Presuppositions are very often firmly held by the person.
I want to suggest seven categories of assessing any world and life view. They can be used to assess, what I will call, “The Religious Copycat Theory”[16] that was promoted by the Compass TV program. This is the view that Christianity is a copy of some fundamentals of other religions. We’ll check out this theory briefly.
What categories can we use to assess any worldview? These are some of the fundamentals of assessment. I’m going to use the outline of Norman Geisler and William Watkins in their book, Perspectives.[17] This outline includes seven questions:
1. What’s your view of God or ultimate reality?[18]
2. What’s the nature of the world?
3. Does God intervene in the world? Or, are miracles possible?
4. What’s the nature of human beings?
5. Evil is real. Where did it come from?
6. Ethics. Are there right and wrong thoughts and actions in our universe?
7. What’s the nature of history? Where is history going?
I’ll only have time to investigate the first three of these as applied to this TV program:
- What’s the view of God or ultimate reality?
- What’s the nature of the world? and
- Does God intervene in the world? That is, are miracles possible?
Let’s examine the content of Dr. Beckford’s documentary under these headings. Remember, I have only seen the first episode. I will not have the time to examine each of these points in depth.
Beckford says that Jesus, Krishna & Buddha have remarkable similarities and they have parallels with the religions of ancient Egypt & Persia.
He says that Jesus is supposed to be exclusive to Christianity and this story has been promoted for 2,000 years, but that’s not the case.
He claimed that for the Hare Krishna, Christos [Christ] and Krishna came from the same root word. Krishna is one of the prominent gods of Hinduism.
He spoke of a follower of Krishna who said that Jesus was an incarnation of god. I ask: What’s the difference between a Hindu incarnation of a god and Jesus Christ’s incarnation?
He claims that the words from the Lord’s prayer, “Hallowed be thy name” are “almost the same” for Krishna. But the exact quote was not given to prove that this parallel exists.
Beckford interviewed a Hindu Brahmin priest who said: “Talking to God — whoever God is.” He was a Hindu priest but he did not know who God is. He sounded like an agnostic.
This is Beckford’s understanding of the nature of God. When Jesus said, according to the Gospel of John, “I have other sheep that are not in this fold” (John 10:16), he was speaking of other religions and acceptance of their teachings. Beckford spoke of Hindus celebrating the inner light and it bothers him that Christians have big problems with Hindus because Hindus experience the kingdom of God by whatever means are best to them.
Also, Beckford said that when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” it was parallel to Buddha’s understanding of enlightenment.
(1) Was Jesus an incarnation of a god or was he God Himself?
A Hindu website provided this explanation of what the Hindus mean by somebody or something being an incarnation of god:
Avatar means to appear, to descend, to take birth or manifest. In Hinduism, an avatar means the form of a deity and usually refers to an incarnation of God or His aspects such as Vishnu on planet earth, either as a man or an animal or some mythical creature. An avatar is not mere materialization or appearance of God in physical form for the sake of his devotees. It is neither a disguise nor a trick played upon our senses. God has been appearing to people from time to time either to pass on some message or accomplishing some task through the beholder. His voice has been heard by countless people upon earth either internally through the subtle channels or externally through actual hearing.[20]
So, in Hinduism, an incarnation is “the form of a deity” as an “appearing to people from time to time” to give a message that can come through people hearing a voice internally or externally.
How does this compare with the incarnation of Jesus Christ?
Philippians 2:5-8 says this of Jesus Christ when he came to earth as a human being.
The KJV puts it:
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
The English Standard Version reads:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
When Jesus Christ became a man on earth he was God. The language, “form of God” means “equality with God.” Also he was taking the form of a servant in the likeness of human beings. We know that Jesus did not give up his divine attributes. We know that “he knew all people” and “he knew himself what was in man” (John 2:24-25 ESV). That is, he had divine foreknowledge on earth.
John 18:4 speaks of Jesus, that he “knowing all that would happen to him” (ESV).
He had omnipotent power to rebuke the wind, miraculously feed the hungry, heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead. Christ performed miracles because of his own inherent power as God on earth.
Surely the miraculous works of Elijah and Elisha didn’t indicate that they were God incarnate because they performed them in the power of the Spirit. However, of Jesus it is stated: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31). Jesus miracles point to his being the Son of God, God on earth.
Theologian Charles Hodge put it this way:
“Christ, however, wrought miracles by His own inherent power . . . Christ never referred this miraculous power to any source outside of Himself; He claimed it as His own prerogative; and He conferred the power upon others. . . He was God in fashion as a man. He therefore appealed directly to His works.”[21]
Therefore,
(2) The NT identifies Jesus as God.
The TV program was short on exact quotes. When Beckford makes momentous claims about Jesus, Krishna and Buddha having such remarkable similarities, it is incumbent on him to present the exact quotes to confirm this. Otherwise, I will treat his remarkable similarities as remarkable presuppositions.
What about this idea that Jesus is not exclusive to Christianity?
(3) Jesus said, according to John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (NIV).
Beckford says that this is the equivalent of Buddha’s “enlightenment.” What was Buddha’s enlightenment?
One Buddhist website[22] described Buddha’s Enlightenment like this: “One happy Vesak night, as he was seated under the famous Pippala tree at Buddha Gaya, with mind tranquilized and purified, in the first watch he developed that supernormal knowledge which enable[d] him to remember his past lives.[23] In the middle watch he developed vision dealing with the death and rebirth of beings.”[24]
Buddha had an experience of personal transformation where he came to consider others as himself.
For the Buddhist, this comes through experiencing the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.[25]
The Four Noble Truths are:
1. First Noble Truth: The existence of suffering;
2. Second Noble Truth: The cause of suffering is the “craving desire for the pleasures of the senses. . .”;
3. Third Noble Truth: The ending of suffering happens by giving up, getting rid of, extinguishing this very craving, so that no passion and no desire remain.[26]
4. Fourth Noble Truth: The ending of all pain through the Eightfold Path.
The Eightfold Path is:
1. First step: Right views (accept the four noble truths);
2. Second step: Right resolve (renounce the pleasures of the senses);
3. Third step: Right speech (”do not lie, do not slander or abuse anyone. Do not indulge in idle talk”[27]);
4. Fourth step: Right behaviour (”do not destroy any living creature; take only what is given to you; do not commit any unlawful sexual act.”[28]
5. Fifth step: Right occupation, which is to earn your living in a way that will harm no-one.
6. Sixth step: Right effort: “You must resolve and strive heroically to prevent any evil qualities from arising . . .”[29]
7. Seventh step: Right contemplation, “Be observant, strenuous, alert, contemplative, free of desire and of sorrow.”[30]
8. Eighth step: Right meditation, “When you have abandoned all sensuous pleasures, all evil qualities, both joy and sorrow, you must then enter the four degrees of meditation, which are produced by concentration.”[31]
One Buddhist priest on this TV program said that there were a “lot of similarities” with Christianity. A Tibetan Buddhist leader was asked how he would explain Jesus as a Buddhist. He said that Jesus is a “holy being” and his thoughts and motivations were similar to Buddha.
From what I have already expounded on the truth of Jesus Christ, Jesus is more than a holy being who helps people with rebirth. Jesus is God Himself as the Bible declares. Jesus’ words are: “I and the father are one” (John 10:30).
If Jesus is only a “holy being”, is this similar to what Jesus meant when he said that he was the way, the truth and the life in John 14:6 and that he was the only way to God the Father? You need an imagination to say that these are parallels.
Jesus was not describing anything to do with past lives and rebirth as Buddha was. He was not talking about human effort to achieve entrance into the Kingdom of God and thus eternal life.
Jesus was the way to God according to the Gospel of John because of these facts:[32]
- Jesus is the truth of God, “full of grace and truth” (1:14);
- Jesus is the life of God (1:4; 3:15; 11:25);
- Jesus “has made God known” or he narrates God (1:18);
- Jesus is the way to God because He does exactly what the Father gives him to say and so (5:19ff; 8:29);
- Jesus is called God because he is God (1:1, 18; 20:28); These verses say that “the Word was God” (1:1). Of Jesus Christ it states that “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (1:18). Of Jesus, “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God’” (20:28).
- Also, Jesus “is God’s gracious self-disclosure, his ‘Word’, made flesh (1:14)”[33];
- Jesus is the life (also 1:4) as he is the one who has “life in himself” (5:26);
- He is “the resurrection and the life” (11:25);
- 1 John 5:20 says that Jesus is (get this): “the true God and eternal life.”
D. A. Carson provides this beautiful summary of Jesus’ exclusive claims:
“Only because he is the truth and the life can Jesus be the way for others to come to God, the way for his disciples to attain the many dwelling-places in the Father’s house (14:2-3), and therefore the answer to Thomas’s question (14:5). In this context Jesus does not simply blaze a trail, commanding others to take the way that he himself takes; rather, he is the way. . . He is himself the Saviour (4:42), the Lamb of God (1:20, 34), the one who so speaks that those who are in the graves hear his voice and come forth (5:28-20). He so mediates God’s truth and God’s life that he is the very way to God . . , the one who alone can say, No-one comes to the Father except through me.”[34]
These claims are exclusive to the claims of Christ and Christianity. They are contrary to the claims of Robert Beckford that Jesus is not unique. Beckford on “Compass” said that “as a Christian I am not just following Jesus but also following Buddha.” No other religious leader comes close to the uniqueness of the claims of Jesus Christ.
It was Thomas a Kempis in his book, Of the Imitation of Christ, who gave this meditation on what Jesus said in John 14:6. A Kempis says that this is what Jesus emphasised:
“Follow thou me: I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. Without the Way there is no going; without the Truth there is no knowing; without the Life there is no living. I AM the Way which thou oughtest follow; the Truth, which thou oughtest to trust; the life which though oughtest to hope for. I am the inviolable way; the infallible truth, the never-ending life. I AM the straightest Way, the infallible Truth, the endless Life. I AM the straightest Way, the supreme Truth, the blessed, the uncreated Life.”[35]
When we examine any worldview, we ask: What’s your view of God or ultimate reality?
Secondly we ask:
I didn’t see anything in the first episode of this program that gave me a clear picture of what Beckford was saying about the nature of the universe. But when you listen to others expounding on this theme, watch for themes such as:
- Is there evidence that the universe is changing and is caused?
- Are there order and design in the universe?
- Who caused this order and design?
- From where did evil and violence come?
In checking out any belief system, including those on TV, how do they answer the question about the nature of the universe?
There’s a third question to ask of every worldview:
- Beckford says that the ancient Hindu god, Krishna, had a miraculous birth including an immaculate conception, and this birth was attended by angels. Krishna was placed in a swing at his birth.
- Beckford said that Buddha performed miracles, including feeding 5,000. Thus Beckford believed in supernatural intervention by Buddha. But he provided no quotes from Buddha’s writings to confirm that these miracles happened. This kind of information was provided to try to show that Jesus was not unique.
- Beckford spoke of Lord Krishna and his many miracles but quotes from Krishna confirming that these miracles had happened in space and time were absent. I’m speaking about the lack of exact quotes.
- Beckford raised the issue of Buddha’s miraculous birth and the miracles he performed that were similar to those of Jesus, like walking on the water.
Again, Beckford was short on quotes from Krishna and Buddha so I was not able to check out the miracles to which he might be referring. Time does not permit us to look in detail at all of these statements, so I’ll respond to his statements about the so-called miraculous birth of the Buddha.
One Buddhist website said: “As legend would have it, Siddhartha Guatama (the Buddha), was born in 623 BC, “a blatantly precocious prince,” to his mother Queen Mahamaya in Lumbini, now modern Rumindei in Nepal (about 250km south-west of Katmandu), where he “was reportedly born out of her right side while she remained standing.”[36]
Others say that “the time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians date his lifetime from c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE; more recently, however, at a specialist symposium on this question,[37] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha’s death, with others supporting earlier or later dates.”[38]
Alexandra David-Neel wrote this of Buddha: “Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.”[39]
This is very different to the virgin conception and birth of Jesus Christ, which have clear documentation in the New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers. The Scriptures state that
“26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:26-32 NIV).
We know what happened. The Virgin Mary conceived miraculously by God’s intervention without a man’s involvement and Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Jesus other miracles recorded in the NT were seen and recorded by eyewitnesses or by interviewing those who “could speak from firsthand knowledge and whom they could interview.”[40]
I recommend to you Richard Bauckham’s new book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, which provides an outstanding exposition of this fact that “the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who personally knew Jesus.”[41]
What do those who know other religions well, say about the Hindu religion? For example, Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, writes: “I came [to Christ] amid the thunderous cries of a culture that has three hundred and thirty million deities. I remain with Him knowing that truth cannot be all-inclusive. Truth by definition excludes.”[42] Ravi was a Hindu living in India before he came to Christ in his teens.
If you are testing any worldview, as James Sire states, it needs to have:
- Firstly, Inner coherence.
Professor Keith Yandell of the University of Wisconsin put it concisely: “If a conceptual system contains as an essential element (one or more membered) set of propositions which is logically inconsistent, it is false.”[43]
- Secondly, it needs to understand all of the data of reality of all types that we gain from our conscious experience of daily lives.
- Thirdly, it “should explain what it claims to explain.” E.g. If it says something is right or wrong, on what basis is that judgment made? If it says that Krishna, Buddha & Jesus were miraculously conceived or born, is this explained in exactly the same way for each religion? Are we dealing with the same kinds of facts for Krishna, Buddha and Jesus?
- Finally, it needs to be personally, subjectively satisfactory in human experience. It needs to meet our sense of personal need. As James Sire puts it: “Truth is ultimately the only thing that will satisfy. But to determine the truth of a world view, we are cast back on the first three characteristics . . . internal consistency, adequate handling of data and ability to explain what is claimed to be explained.”[44]
Ravi Zacharias had a book published in 2008 that is titled, New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna.[45] In it, he has created a narrative discussion because Jesus and Krishna, based on these two different belief systems – Christianity and Hinduism. Jesus & Krishna never actually had an historical conversation. In an interview about that book, Ravi Zacharias said:
The one notion to which all religions subscribe (either explicitly or implicitly) is the notion of exclusive truth. Populists like to deny that premise, but all religions either make this claim or try to covertly smuggle it in. My premise is that the popular aphorism that “all religions are fundamentally the same and only superficially different” simply is not true. It is more correct to say that all religions are, at best, superficially similar but fundamentally different.[46]
In an earlier book, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, Ravi Zacharias wrote:
All religions are not the same. All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all religions are the same. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life’s purpose.
Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.[47]
The Compass TV program was a populist example. It wanted to make Jesus look as though he did not make exclusive claims about himself but that His claims were in other religions. The claim of Jesus not being unique and that his teachings can be found in any of the world’s religions needed to be tested. I have attempted to do that on a limited scale today.
Jesus is absolutely unique. His claim is very specific: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Of Jesus Christ, the Bible states: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
“All religions are, at best, superficially similar but fundamentally different.” [48]
Of Jesus, the Scriptures state in Philippians 2:9-10:”Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (NIV).
Of the Gentile unbelievers who lived in “debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry” (as unbelievers live today), of these I Peter 4:5 states: “But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead” (NIV).
Until Jesus comes again, we need governments to do away with religious vilification legislation so that we can have true freedom of religion to proclaim the gospel and defend the Christian faith against all contenders.
Even if there is vilification legislation, as we have here in Qld., we need to continue to proclaim the Gospel and defend the faith because we know this: At the name of Jesus, at the end of the age, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father (Phil. 2:9-10).
Appendix A
Religion laws don’t have a prayer in a country with robust common sense[49]
- Bob Carr
- April 18, 2009, Sydney Morning Herald
This week we have heard about an increasing international trend to prosecute religious issues in the courts.
In Britain cases are being brought under laws such as the Religious Hatred Act, which makes it a crime to “stir up” “religious hatred”. British police have even warned that insulting Scientology would be treated as a crime.
Such legislation may soon be heading to a statute book near you.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is finalising a report almost certain to recommend legislation on religion – on freedom of religion or religious vilification – that would mean similar prosecutions being launched under national law.
Why do we need this? The last time Australians were asked whether they wanted freedom of religion embodied in the constitution was in 1988. Showing a robust common sense, they voted a resounding “no”. It lost in every state and territory, with up to 74 per cent against.
Citizens knew in their bones that Australia was one of the freest countries in the world and that we wouldn’t make ourselves freer by inventing new offences.
So why are we even having this debate? The commission says on its website it’s because of “an increased presence of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and other religious communities”.
This is an extraordinary statement; it undermines the need for any change in the law. If Australia were a nightmare realm of vilification and persecution, a dystopia of religious angst, I doubt that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews would settle here in growing numbers. The growth of these communities is proof positive Australia enjoys freedom of religion.
Another reason nominated by the commission for its inquiry is “the shift away from mainstream Christianity, and the rise of Pentacostalism”. To which I say, “So what?” Or, as the former US president Thomas Jefferson said when petitioned by a group of Methodists to stem the rising number of Baptists in newly minted America, “What business is it of government?” Why should this matter be even brought under the purview of a government-funded inquiry?
If you suspect someone’s on a mission to agitate non-existent problems to find a bigger role for himself, contemplate another reason the commission gives for having this inquiry. It says it wants to assess the effect of Commonwealth and state laws on the “war on terror”.
Leave aside the fact that the Howard government opted not to use the expression and the Rudd Government never has, anti-terrorism laws are neutral on religion. Planning to blow up a building or hijack a plane is guarded against, but the law is silent on the religion of those who might attempt it.
But Tom Calma, one of the commissioners, writes that the terrorism attacks of 9/11 have brought religion squarely back into public debate and it’s important people not be “vilified or alienated because of these beliefs”.
In fact, the Australian responses to September 11 and Bali were restrained, given the scale of the losses and the provocative hatred behind the attacks. Straight after September 11, I visited an Islamic school in western Sydney to make a plea for tolerance. Kerry Chikarovski, the then Opposition leader, rang me urging protection for Islamic women wearing the hijab. Peter Beattie attended a Brisbane mosque. John Howard met Islamic clerics. The same spirit prevailed after Bali.
Calma might ask himself whether a temporarily strained climate would have been improved by a raft of prosecutions for vilification.
Victoria has a religious vilification statute and in 2004 two evangelical pastors were prosecuted for remarks they made in a seminar about Islam. I don’t respect the views of these pastors. The seminar was a fringe event for a fringe sect. Best to ignore it. Instead, the costly and drawn-out legal rigmarole gave Pastor Danny Nalliah the chance to spout in the courts about “Sharia by stealth”. It cost more than $1 million in legal fees.
In 2004 I distributed reports of this outlandish case round the NSW cabinet table, saying to colleagues, “One day we’ll hear an argument for this state having religious vilification … well, that legislation implies prosecution. And that could go anywhere.”
Anticipating this objection, the Human Rights Commission hints it would only recommend civil penalties. This is bogus.
Say that under new laws an Islamic group opted to bring proceedings against a prominent evangelical Christian for comments about Islam. And suppose a court imposed a fine. What would happen if that person said he wouldn’t pay the fine? Put him in jail? The result would be a wave of sympathy for the martyr and hostility against his persecutors – melodrama that did not exist while Nalliah’s opinions were simply treated with benign neglect.
Retaliation would likely follow: militant Christians turning up at mosques with tape recorders to catch an imam “inciting hatred” against their faith, and an action by them in a tribunal or court.
Australia’s treaty obligations oblige us to sign up for this brave new world of religious lawsuits, the commission is arguing. On these pages this week, Jonathan Turley noted that Saudi Arabia was a leading supporter of a new international ban on religious defamation. Well, if a failure to have domestic religious vilification laws means Australians being lectured on religious freedom by Saudi Arabia, I guess we’ll have to bear it with equanimity.
Meanwhile, I stick with Jefferson, who said, “it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” After all, “Truth is great and will prevail if left to itself”.
Bob Carr is a former premier of NSW.
Notes:
[1]Dr. Robert Beckford, “The Hidden Story of Jesus, ” Channel 4 (UK), Faith & Belief, Debates & Controversies, available from: http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/hidden.html [12 April 2009]. This program was telecast on ABC TV Qld, “Compass,” Part 1 on 5 April 2009, Part 2 on 12 April 2009.
[2] He was black.
[3] “Ramadan in 2009 will start on Friday, the 21st of August and will continue for 30 days until Tuesday, the 19th of September” [From Guided Ways, available from: http://www.guidedways.com/kb/article-125.html (cited 13 April 2009)].
[4] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version.
[5] Dr. Mojsov has written the book, Bonjana Mojsov 2005, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
[6] Rex Tauati Ahdar, available from BNET Australia at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6606/is_2_26/ai_n25360048/?tag=content;col1 [18 April 2009].
[7]
The three states are Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. See respectively, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 124A, s 131A (the religious vilification provisions were added in 2001, titled ” Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2001); the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) s 19, and; the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) s 8. See generally Garth Blake, ‘Promoting Religious Tolerance in a Multifaith Society: Religious Vilification Legislation in Australia and the UK’ (2007) 81 Australian Law Journal 386, 393-6, cited as endnote 2 in the Rex Tauati Ahdar article in ibid.
[8]
Ibid., p. 1. The Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2001 (Qld) s124A, s 126A states: ” A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race or religion of the person or members of the group. . . .
[9] Ibid.
[10] Bob Carr, a lawyer & former Premier of New South Wales, “Religion laws don’t have a prayer in a country with robust common sense,” available from: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/religion-laws-dont-have-a-prayer-in-a-country-with-robust-common-sense-20090417-aa4w.html?page=-1 [cited 24 April 2009]. See the full article in Appendix A.
[11] Albert Mohler Jr., 17 April 2009, Albert Mohler Blog, “Should the United Nations protect religions from defamation?” available from: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php [18 April 2009].
[12] UN Watch Briefing – UN Watch, 11 March 2009, “Proposal at U.N. to criminalize defamation of Islam,” available from: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&content_id={AF491436-ED3D-46F5-8CC4-E14577482787}¬oc=1 [18 April 2009].
[13] Apologeticum, ch. 50, available from: http://www.tertullian.org/works/apologeticum.htm [25 April 2009].
[14] Some of the above ideas on democracy and freedom of religion are based on Mohler Jr., loc. cit.
[15] James W. Sire 1988 (rev.), The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 17.
[16] Another Christian website calls it the “Pagan Copycat Theory.” See: The Divine Evidence, 31 October 2007, available from: http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html [12 April 2009].
[17] Norman L. Geisler and William Watkins 1984, Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today’s World Views. San Bernadino, California: Here’s Life Publishers Inc., p. 21ff.
[18] Ultimate reality is not based on Geisler & Watkins (1984) but from James Sire (1988), p. 25.
[19] Ultimate reality is not from Geisler & Watkins (1984) but from James Sire (1988), p. 25.
[20] Hindu website, “The concepts of Hinduism – Avatar,” available from: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/concepts/avatar.asp [18 April 2009].
[21] Charles Hodge 1979, Systematic Theology Vol. I, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 503-504.
[22] A Manual of Buddhism, “The Buddha’s Enlightenment,” available from: http://www.geocities.com/mkoay.rm/buddha_enlightenment.html [19 April 2009].
[23] Pubbenivasanussati Nana – Reminiscence of Past Births.
[24] Cutupapata Nana – Perception of the Disappearing and Reappearing of Beings.
[25] Based on Josh McDowell & Don Stewart 1983, Handbook of Today’s Religions, Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino, California, p. 307.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] With help from D. A. Carson 1991, The Gospel According to John, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England and William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 491.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Thomas A Kempis 1973, Of the Imitation of Christ, Keats Publishing Inc., New Canaan, Connecticut, pp. 175-176.
[36] Lumbini, available from: http://members.porchlight.ca/blackdog/lumbini.htm [21 April 2009].
[37] The endnote given by Wikipedia was, L. S. Cousins 1996, “The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article,”(Originally published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 6.1 (1996): 57-63.), available from: http://indology.info:8107/papers/cousins/ [21 April 2009].
[38] Gautama Buddha, Wikipedia, available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha#cite_note-1 [21 April 2009].
[39] Alexandra David-Neel 1977, Buddhism: Its Doctrines and Its Methods, New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 15, in Josh McDowell & Don Stewart 1983, Handbook of Today’s Religions, Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino, California, p. 304.
[40] Richard Bauckham 2006, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K., p. 479.
[41] Ibid., inside flap.
[42] Ravi Zacharias 2000, Jesus Among Other Gods, Nashville: Word Publishing, p. 6.
[43] In James W. Sire, loc. cit., p. 214. Keith E. Yandell 1980, The Epistemology of Religious Experience, NY, p. 185. A 1994 revised edition is available from Cambridge University Press.
[44] Ibid., p. 216
[45] Multnomah Press.
[46] An interview with Ravi Zacharias concerning his book, New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna (Multnomah 2008), “Ravi Zacharias: Jesus talks with Krishna,” Christian Broadcasting Network, available from: http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/books/RaviZ-QA.aspx [18 April 2009].
[47] Ravi Zacharias 2000, Jesus Among Other Gods, Nashville: Word Publishing, p. 7.
[48] An interview with Ravi Zacharias as in footnote no. 45.
[49] Bob Carr, a lawyer & former Premier of New South Wales, “Religion laws don’t have a prayer in a country with robust common sense,” available from: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/religion-laws-dont-have-a-prayer-in-a-country-with-robust-common-sense-20090417-aa4w.html?page=-1 [cited 24 April 2009].